Can you describe “a point in time”?

[quantum_wave]

I said this half out of friendly banter and half out of frustration. In posts 49 & 53 you gave a link to a Wiki article and a brief description that was a copy and paste from the article itself. What you copied and pasted was William Keel as quoted by Wiki. I had never heard of the man before you quoted him so when you asked me who he was, ... It made me wonder if you paid any attention to the article that you were linking to/quoting in the first place.

You caught me :shy:.

We may be just having a passing discussion or we may become friends and discuss issues openly, but either way I will learn as we go. William Keel is a good example. I have known what the Cosmological Principle was for a long time, every since I found out there was a standard cosmology, the cosmological consensus, Big Bang Theory. I characterize BBT as the General Theory of Relativity, Inflationary Theory, and the Cosmological Principle. When I discuss the cosmological principle with someone new I like to link to a description of it. I Google it, go to one of the top links, look for the words that describe the principle as I like it described, and use that link in my post. I didn’t bother to actually read the Wiki page except to the extent that I saw they had what I call the right description of it already set off in quotes so I cut and pasted those quote. I didn’t even see who they were quoting so you and I both got introduced to Keel at the same time. I did find his Url interesting and will probably look into his galaxy formation ideas and compare them to what I have gleaned from my studies.

As far as I know there is only one reality that matters and that is the one that we are participating in. Could there be more than one reality? I guess so, but if there is then I am led to believe that they all originated from the same point as our reality. In all honesty, I don't know enough about these concepts to either support them or refute them.

Yes, the reality that we are part of is the most important to me too. Part of the reason for my stream of threads is to find people willing to discuss topics that I’m interested in and pick their brains and get their view of cosmology. You are just the kind of brain I like to pick because you have thought through your views and have them connected and consistent. The fact that you may not be fully aware of different views means that you have been at this for maybe a couple of years to get as good as you are on your personal view but haven’t had years and years to explore other cosmologies. But your particular view is very current.

Space is being stretched, not created. A point in space is an abstract concept (they exist where you say they exist). Even though you can place more points on an inflated balloon than a deflated balloon does not mean that you created more latex.

Space being able to stretch is an abstract concept (it stretches where you say it stretches). Even though you can stretch it as far as you want as if space could be compared to the surface of a balloon, then the existence of one balloon does not eliminate the existence of two balloons (or a potentially infinite number of balloons).

So we are on the same rubbery latex so to speak .

Are you familiar with how spacetime geometry and a relativistic coordinate system correspond to reality (maybe better than I am)? This is just my layman’s view but gravity in spacetime is accomplished by geodesics and Einstein’s Field Equations take into consideration the influence that the presence of mass and energy has on the curvature of spacetime. There is no physical connection and every motion is determined mathematically. There is no physical observation that confirms that spacetime actually exists and can be curved by mass, only mathematical equations thought they are very accurate (but not perfect of course).

The reason there are no observations to confirm or falsify curved spacetime is that we cannot examine the curvature, only the predictions that General Relativity makes via the equations of how mass/energy would curve spacetime and affect the motion of objects through curved spacetime. We also cannot confirm that there is a graviton or gravity waves by direct observation but the standard particle model and particle theory predict them.

If spacetime doesn’t actually exist then there would have to be other explanations for what we observe and that is where my interest lies at the moment. I have a personal distrust of spacetime because it requires spacetime to originate with the Big Bang and requires space to originate from a point and stretch as you put it. My pea brain must have some explanation for how space is not just everywhere and what logic or fact is there that it has not always been everywhere. You don't have an answer that you are holding back do you?

The nature of energy, energy density, energy density limits and thresholds, and speculation about the causes of the Big Bang and the initial expansion of our observable universe are my interests. Having and understanding alternative explanations for many of the "proofs" of BBT is another interest and I have a few alternatives.

Feel free to follow my threads and jump in anywhere you like to give me your view. I am trying to imagine the nature of the universe from the perspective of other coordinate systems and other cosmologies. You have done a good job of conveying your cosmology and I will refer to it myself in the way you describe it when I am in the Spacetime mode.

 

[quantum_wave]

Time is just a measurement of motion no? I mean if there was absolutely no movement at all there would be no time and there would be no energy, so could there even be mass?

One allows the other to exist but none solely by themselves.

Movement allows mass to exist (atoms)
The movement of mass in space allows time to exist

And If I understand the basics correctly at all, there would be no energy or time if the movement of mass were not present.

How could anything be perceived as past, present, future when there is no movement to differentiate between the three? Past, present, future might as well all be the same with no movement or changes.

I’m thinking movement universally as if everything in the known universe stopped moving even the atoms that made up the mass.

Which leads me to another question are our perceptions a good indicator of reality? We can perceive an object as motionless or still, like the picture on your wall, but reality or physics says that the picture, you, and the planet you are on are all moving at the exact same speed through space, which is moving through the solar system which itself is moving through the galaxy which itself is moving etc.

I could go on all day wondering about all this stuff lol

Excellent perspective in my book. Since I already like the idea that energy is all there is, then laterally a freeze frame at a point in time would be no different actually than real time motion; everything is just the change in energy density at any given point in space (along with a hell of a lot of physics ).

My view is that matter is composed of energy. Energy gets quantized in the natural process of arenas forming and expanding. Once energy is quantized in the early expansion, then matter forms, clumps due to gravity, structure forms, galaxies form, all within the expanding energy ball that constitutes the energy density differential that separates our expanding arena from the surrounding lower energy density space of the greater universe.

Thanks for your post and feel free to elaborate on your view. I find it comforting to hear you describe it.

(How is your spreadsheet coming?)

 

[sly1]

Excellent perspective in my book. Since I already like the idea that energy is all there is, then laterally a freeze frame at a point in time would be no different actually than real time motion; everything is just the change in energy density at any given point in space (along with a hell of a lot of physics ).

My view is that matter is composed of energy. Energy gets quantized in the natural process of arenas forming and expanding. Once energy is quantized in the early expansion, then matter forms, clumps due to gravity, structure forms, galaxies form, all within the expanding energy ball that constitutes the energy density differential that separates our expanding arena from the surrounding lower energy density space of the greater universe.

Thanks for your post and feel free to elaborate on your view. I find it comforting to hear you describe it.

(How is your spreadsheet coming?)

The spreadsheet is coming along great its changed quite a bit since first conception but going very well!!

I actually have several questions regarding the time, space, energy and their relations.

Say the universe is completely empty except for one single solitary electron. Could/would this electron even exist? Would it have movement even though there are no other objects in the universe to express that movement? Would it have energy?

If you were the only thing in space and you were traveling the speed of light how would you know? With no other mass in space to contrast your condition you would have no perceived speed even though in reality you would still be going the speed of light.

I guess what I’m curious about is; IS the existence of multiple perspectives what allows movement, time, energy to exist? Are movement, time and energy an optical illusion?
Gravity seems to consolidate the speed/velocity of mass and bring perceived speed/velocity to a balance, which is why the movement of spilled jellybeans in space is different than that on earth. The jellybeans in space are not being consolidated to the same speed/velocity/direction as they would be if under the effects of gravity.

Why does gravity consolidate mass in some areas and not others?

edit: redundant sentence

 

[quantum_wave]

I actually have several questions regarding the time, space, energy and their relations.

Say the universe is completely empty except for one single solitary electron. Could/would this electron even exist? Would it have movement even though there are no other objects in the universe to express that movement? Would it have energy?

First of all I remind you that these answers are speculation and all you need to speculate is a keyboard and an Internet connection . But that said, OK, let’s just say it is possible for a single electron to be all alone out there. Motion is relative to other objects so it would not have motion just because it is there. It certainly would have energy to the extent that electrons are composed of energy. Electrons are “fundamental” particles and as such are said to have no internal composition, and their energy from the standpoint of particle physics would be rest energy as it sits out there all alone.

If you were the only thing in space and you were traveling the speed of light how would you know? With no other mass in space to contrast your condition you would have no perceived speed even though in reality you would still be going the speed of light.

If you were the only object in space and you had somehow been accelerated by some force that is now gone, you would technically be in motion. But since motion is relative and you have no other objects to be relative too, you wouldn’t know. You could be going any speed relative to some previous start point where the force was applied to accelerate you but with the force gone and no reference points you could be standing still.

Now there is a difference between being in motion and being accelerated. You would physically be able to tell that you were being accelerated or decelerated by the queasy stomach .

I suspect it isn’t necessary to say this but it is impossible to accelerate something physical to the speed of light according to the current consensus. The reason for that is that as you accelerate the object you must keep increasing the force applied to the object. If you stop adding force the object will have velocity but not acceleration. To accelerate an object to the speed of light becomes an impossibility because according to the math, it would take an infinite amount of energy to do that. For that reason, relativistic speeds are said to approach the speed of light but except for light itself, nothing goes that fast (there are theoretical exceptions I suppose).

I guess what I’m curious about is; IS the existence of multiple perspectives what allows movement, time, energy to exist? Are movement, time and energy an optical illusion?
Gravity seems to consolidate the speed/velocity of mass and bring perceived speed/velocity to a balance, which is why the movement of spilled jellybeans in space is different than that on earth. The jellybeans in space are not being consolidated to the same speed/velocity/direction as they would be if under the effects of gravity.

Why does gravity consolidate mass in some areas and not others?

edit: redundant sentence

Motion is not an optical illusion under any gravitational theory. If you see it move it moved. Philosophically it could be an illusion depending on the particular philosopher that you ask.

If you have followed this thread you have read that the motion of objects can be taking place in different theoretical models, and in different coordinate systems.

I just gave Acitnoid my layman’s description of gravity from the Spacetime perspective: “This is just my layman’s view but gravity in spacetime is accomplished by geodesics and Einstein’s Field Equations take into consideration the influence that the presence of mass and energy is said to have on the curvature of spacetime. There is no physical connection between objects except this curvature of spacetime and every motion is determined mathematically. There is no physical observation that confirms that spacetime actually exists and can be curved by mass, only mathematical equations thought they are very accurate (but not perfect of course).”

Another view for how gravity might work is that there is a physical connection that reaches across space to make an inertial connection between all mass in the universe. The motion of each and every mass is dependent on the motion of every other object. This connection is said to be established and maintained in different ways depending on the theory. One theory says that there is an aether (not a luminiferous aether which has become superseded theory) that carries energy waves that emanate from mass. Another theory predicts the existence of a graviton, a theoretical particle that carries the gravitational force.

My idea is that mass and gravity occur as the result of energy quantization that has phases. One phase establishes the presence of mass and the next phase establishes the gravitational wave. These phases are occurring all the time in the quantum realm below the level that we can observe and faster than anything that we currently can measure. I view any particle with mass to be composed of a huge number of these energy quanta going through this quantum action. The action results in a net negative energy density emanation from mass. The low energy density emanation is directly proportional to the mass. As an object moves through space it follows the path of lowest net energy density that has been emanated by all objects over time. Every point in space has energy density that is the sum of all gravity waves that have traversed that point. That means that there is a different path for every point in space and the motion of an object is guided by the lowest energy density path. The object trends toward the lowest energy density path ahead. I know that is more than you wanted to know about my personal view ; sorry to overwhelm you with speculation upon speculation.

The jelly beans in space are surrounded by a much weaker gravitation forces. The further objects are from the major mass in the vicinity, the less influence that particular major mass has relative to the history of gravity associated with all other more distance mass. The inverse square law applies to all theoretical models when motion is below relativistic speeds. It seems reasonable that there are other factors besides the inverse square law as objects approach relativistic speeds; the gravitation field should be skewed by the motion adding another factor that gets more and more evident at relativistic speeds.

Sorry that my answers can’t be more scientific but I speculate when science doesn’t have a consensus on the topic.

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Part of the reason for my stream of threads is to find people willing to discuss topics that I'm interested in and pick their brains and get their view of cosmology

This is the first cosmological discussion I've had in over four years. My friends are a bunch of pizza eating, beer drinking, sports watching, girl chasing manly men. Don't get me wrong, I love my friends and enjoy a good stout or IPA like the rest of them but, they honestly thought that cosmology had to do with applying cosmetics.

Space being able to stretch is an abstract concept (it stretches where you say it stretches).

This is completely untrue. Gravitational lensing is an observation of warped space. We can not just point our telescopes in any random direction and expect to use a gravitational lens to peer even deeper into space than the telescope was made for. This type if lensing can only happen under very precise conditions (not anywhere you choose) and our observations match perfectly with GR.

..., then the existence of one balloon does not eliminate the existence of two balloons (or a potentially infinite number of balloons).

How do you see this working. A "balloon" within a "balloon" within a "balloon" or a "balloon" next to a "balloon" next to a "balloon"?

There is no physical observation that confirms that spacetime actually exists and can be curved by mass, ...

Do a google image search on gravitational lensing. All of those smeared galaxies are a direct observation of distant photons following a curved space as predicted by GR. There is no other description that can illustrate this with such consistency.

I have a personl distrust of spacetime ...

There is nothing wrong with that. What would be wrong is if you let this personal distrust prevent you from acknowledging known facts just for the sake of describing an alternative explanation.

 

[quantum_wave]

This is the first cosmological discussion I've had in over four years. My friends are a bunch of pizza eating, beer drinking, sports watching, girl chasing manly men. Don't get me wrong, I love my friends and enjoy a good stout or IPA like the rest of them but, they honestly thought that cosmology had to do with applying cosmetics.

I know it. You just don’t meet people at a bar and start talking cosmology. And beyond that, there are people who learn cosmology and there are people who contemplate cosmology. I fall into the contemplative group because I have to have answers to a few basic questions. The very first question I have is what caused the Big Bang.

You can tell me everything you know and if it doesn’t include an answer to where the energy came from, what the circumstances were at the instant of the Big Bang, and what lead up to the event, you don’t have a complete cosmology, you have an incomplete cosmology. Filling in the missing elements requires speculation. If you take the position that speculation is a waste of time you won't like chatting with me :shrug:.

Don't take that the wrong way because there is good cause to learn the details and apply the concepts of relativistic geometrical coordinate systems in spacetime. But what would be wrong is to think that science will ever be satisfied with that as an end result. General Relativity must be reconciled with quantum mechanics and a quantum theory of gravity will have to be worked out. Perhaps even new discoveries will change the playing field when the LHC data starts to flow in a few years.

This is completely untrue. Gravitational lensing is an observation of warped space. We can not just point our telescopes in any random direction and expect to use a gravitational lens to peer even deeper into space than the telescope was made for. This type if lensing can only happen under very precise conditions (not anywhere you choose) and our observations match perfectly with GR.

This link addresses the issue nicely: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/01/light-deflection-at-sun.html

The issue is the difference between the cause of curved spacetime and the nature of gravitational fields. Einstein’s equations use tensor calculus that connects the three dimensions of space to the dimension of time as you understand quite clearly. It is beautiful, accurate, can predict motion all day long and every prediction will be within a very narrow margin of error. What more could we ask?

How about an explanation of the mechanics of how mass curves spacetime? No one disputes that the motion is predictable, but what physically drives the motion of objects through space?

How do you see this working. A "balloon" within a "balloon" within a "balloon" or a "balloon" next to a "balloon" next to a "balloon"?

The balloon analogy is a way to explain the impossible concept of four dimensional spacetime. It is easy to call the universe the surface of balloon but that is not the same thing as spacetime in four dimensions. I am told that the human mind is attuned to 3 dimensions and simply cannot visualize 4-D spacetime.

So when you ask how I see it working I am talking strictly 3-D space where motion takes place over time. Time and space have a clear relationship when motion over time is the operative event, but it can be visualized where 4-D spacetime cannot.

Since I am talking about space being infinite and objects existing in 3-D space, in the context of your choice between balloons within balloons or balloon next to balloon next to balloon, my answer is the latter. But then I would have to say that you can drop the side by side balloons analogy because the human mind has no difficulty envisioning multiple expanding and collapsing universe-like arenas across the landscape of a greater universe. Refer to my two graphics in post #50 that show the arrows with the label "You are Here" in 3-D space .

Do a Google image search on gravitational lensing. All of those smeared galaxies are a direct observation of distant photons following a curved space as predicted by GR. There is no other description that can illustrate this with such consistency.

I have Googled gravitational lensing, light deflection around massive objects, the Einstein predictions, the Eddington observations of the 1919 eclipse, the confirming and refinement of the observations from the 1920s right on through the improved current technology like the Hipparcos satellite. Deflection of light, gravitation lensing is observed and it agrees with General Relativity, no question.


That proves that we can predict the effect of mass on mass and mass on light. But suppose that gravitational fields have energy and photons are electromagnetic energy. Think of the gravitational field around the sun in terms of energy density that diminishes as the distance from the sun increases. Light propagating through the energy of a gravitation field will be deflected like light through a fish bowl.

There is nothing wrong with that. What would be wrong is if you let this personal distrust prevent you from acknowledging known facts just for the sake of describing an alternative explanation.

In the above post I have avoided the pitfall of letting my distrust of spacetime prevent me from acknowledging observations that are consistent with predictions made by Spacetime calculations, i.e. Einstein’s tensor equations. I hope you agree that I have acknowledged the fact the light is deflected by massive objects as predicted by Einstein’s tensor equations.

I also hope you do not forget what I said about the energy density of a gravitational field and the electromagnetic energy of propagated light being deflected by the dense gravitational energy close to massive objects.

The problem with the calculation of the energy density of gravitational fields is that there is no testable or workable gravitational theory. That does not mean that the energy density of a gravitational field does not exist, it means that there is still much work to be done on the topic. So far, gravitational energy has proven difficult to detect even though its effects are all around us.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0607/0607112.pdf
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/possible_scalar_terms.htm

That also does not mean that Einstein’s tensor equations are incorrect, it only means that they are not based on any theory of gravity, only on math that very accurately predicts the motion of objects relative to each other.

No one disputes that gravity works in predictable ways and the General Relativity accurately accomplishes those predictions, but the questions remains what causes the inertial connection between each and every mass in the universe that is so accurately described mathematically.

Given that you are at a point where you can describe relativistic effects without a cause, i.e. spacetime without gravity, is your mind open to the concept of the existence of gravity as a natural force associated with mass? It is my position that any preconditions to the Big Bang require space to have pre-existed the Big Bang. Space being infinite is inconsistent with General Relativity or at least that is my impression. How do you respond to that line of reasoning?

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by quantum_wave
If you take the position that speculation is a waste of time you won't like chatting with me. Don't take that the wrong way ...

.
No worries. I'm not British so I wasn't born with a stick up my ass (I kid).

... if it doen't include an answer to where the energy came from, what the circumstances were at the instant of the Big Bang, and what lead up to the event, you don't have a complete cosmology, ...

I can live with that. We may never know what brought about the first organisms on Earth but that knowledge is not needed to accept the theory of evolution. There is a very good chance that we may never know what led up to the Big Bang. That should not stop us from expanding on what we do know.

... I have avoided the pitfall if letting my distrust of spacetime prevent me from acknowledging observations that are consistent with predictions made by Spacetime calculations, ...

From my own personal observation, you have come a long way sense I first became a member here at SciForums. You now acknowledge the difference between speculation and having a working model.

Given that you are at a point where you can describe relativistic effects without cause, ...

Let me be as clear as I can. I am not a physicist. I am a Tool & Die man. I got paid to find the most efficient way to remove stock from specific types of steel. This requires a general knowledge of geometry, trigonometry, algebra and general physics. The hardness (density) of the steel tells me what type of tooling to use, how fast my tooling should spin (speeds), how fast my tooling should move across the workpiece (feeds) and the maximum amount of steel I can remove with each pass (depth of cut). All of this dictates the amount of heat that will be generated via friction. It is from this general knowledge that I have constructed my own model of the universe, gravity included.

 

[quantum_wave]

.
No worries. I'm not British so I wasn't born with a stick up my ass (I kid).

You may be kidding but you just pissed off everyone who was born with a stick up their ass .

I can live with that. We may never know what brought about the first organisms on Earth but that knowledge is not needed to accept the theory of evolution. There is a very good chance that we may never know what led up to the Big Bang. That should not stop us from expanding on what we do know.

So given that we will never know for sure, what DID cause the Big Bang from your contemplation of the possibilities?

From my own personal observation, you have come a long way sense I first became a member here at SciForums. You now acknowledge the difference between speculation and having a working model.

Let me be as clear as I can. I am not a physicist. I am a Tool & Die man. I got paid to find the most efficient way to remove stock from specific types of steel. This requires a general knowledge of geometry, trigonometry, algebra and general physics. The hardness (density) of the steel tells me what type of tooling to use, how fast my tooling should spin (speeds), how fast my tooling should move across the workpiece (feeds) and the maximum amount of steel I can remove with each pass (depth of cut). All of this dictates the amount of heat that will be generated via friction. It is from this general knowledge that I have constructed my own model of the universe, gravity included.

That is a bit ironic. You say I have gone from declaring I have a working model to simply discussing speculations, and you now declare a working model with gravity.

Actually, here is a post from my first QWC thread showing how I described it when I started posting on SciForums:

"It's like, which came first, the mass or the gravity. I say that mass and gravity have both always existed. Of course that puts my Quantum Wave Cosmology at odds with BBT cosmology which tracks back to a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago.

But I say energy is all there is and mass is composed of energy, and gravity and mass are characteristics of the same phenomenon that I call the quantum action of energy.

And I go on to say that energy is eternal, and not in a religious context; eternal in that it cannot be destroyed and it cannot appear out of nothingness.

And I might add that just because in Quantum Wave Cosmology the universe is infinite and has always existed, it does not say that there is no God; it says that there is no irrefutable proof one way or the other.

That seems like ages ago and QWC has "evolved" but the basics are still the same. So are you going to describe your cosmology and reveal the cause of gravity or do I have to wait to buy the book? oke:

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by quantum_wave
, ... what DID cause the Big Bang from your contemplation of the possibilities?

I have no idea what could have caused the Big Bang. The best I can say right now is that the two halves of the universe (Macro and Micro) join together at the earliest stages of existence.

You say I have gone from declaring I have a working model to simply discussing speculations, ... here is a post from my first QWC thread showing how I described it ...

It may have always been your intention to present your alternative explanations as speculative musings but that is not how I interpreted it at first. I ment no insult.

That is a bit ironic.

, ... and you now declare a working model with gravity.

Well, I can model things (including gravity). This does not necessarily mean that it is a working model.

So are you going to describe your cosmology and reveal the cause of gravity or do I have to wait to buy the book?

What makes you think I can reveal the cause of gravity? :shrug: Here, let me show you a comparison of frames between two points that are separated by 3.26 million light years (Mpc) as observed from one of the two points. Every number on the right side represents the A angle of a triangle. The a side of the triangle represents a length or time and the origin of A represents the Big Bang.
.
Observer:
13.8Gy = 180
1 sec = 4.136059815x10-16
1 meter = 1.37964105x10-24
Other Point:
13.79674Gy = 180
1 sec = 4.137037124x10-16
1 meter = 1.379967045x10-24
.
You can use these two frames to find Hubble's law and the cosmological red-shift of any photonic wavelength. So now by measuring Hubble's law we can deduce the observers value for 180 degrees.

 

[quantum_wave]

I have no idea what could have caused the Big Bang. The best I can say right now is that the two halves of the universe (Macro and Micro) join together at the earliest stages of existence.

Well contemplate on it once in awhile because there are really only a few scenarios that have become popular as candidates for alternative views. And if you read about them and consider what we know and don't know about mass and gravity, you have to figure that the best alternative will address what causes the presence of mass, what causes gravity and how mass and gravity are connected. Some alternatives just do more math with the same known physics. My view is that there is physics we don't know yet. What would that physics have to be like to cause a Big Bang type event? And the standard view of making the relativistic coordinate system and spacetime geometry work with any viable alternative is restrictive.

Well, I can model things (including gravity). This does not necessarily mean that it is a working model.

What makes you think I can reveal the cause of gravity? :shrug:

Well, maybe it was what you said, "It is from this general knowledge that I have constructed my own model of the universe, gravity included."

Here, let me show you a comparison of frames between two points that are separated by 3.26 million light years (Mpc) as observed from one of the two points. Every number on the right side represents the A angle of a triangle. The a side of the triangle represents a length or time and the origin of A represents the Big Bang.
.
Observer:
13.8Gy = 180
1 sec = 4.136059815x10-16
1 meter = 1.37964105x10-24
Other Point:
13.79674Gy = 180
1 sec = 4.137037124x10-16
1 meter = 1.379967045x10-24
.
You can use these two frames to find Hubble's law and the cosmological red-shift of any photonic wavelength. So now by measuring Hubble's law we can deduce the observers value for 180 degrees.

OK, I am getting a beginning of an idea. Here is an appropriate link that helps me begin to visualize where you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec

"The parsec (parallax of one arcsecond; symbol: pc) is a unit of length, equal to just under 31 trillion kilometres (about 19 trillion miles), or about 3.26 light-years. The parsec measurement unit is used in astronomy. It is defined as the length of the adjacent side of an imaginary right triangle in space. The two dimensions that specify this triangle are the parallax angle (defined as 1 arcsecond) and the opposite side (which is defined as 1 astronomical unit (AU), the distance from the Earth to the Sun). Given these two measurements, along with the rules of trigonometry, the length of the adjacent side (the parsec) can be found.

One of the oldest methods for astronomers to calculate the distance to a star was to record the difference in angle between two measurements of the position of the star in the sky. The first measurement was taken from the Earth on one side of the Sun, and the second was taken half a year later when the Earth was on the opposite side of the Sun. Thus, the distance between the two measurements was known to be twice the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The distance to the star could be calculated using trigonometry. Since the parsec is based on an angle and the distance between the Earth and the Sun, it is fundamentally derived from the degree and the astronomical unit. The length of a parsec is about 30.857 petametres, 3.26156 light-years or 1.9174×1013 miles. The first documented use of the term parsec was in 1913,[1] and is attributed to Herbert Hall Turner.[2]"

So you are referring to a million parsecs between your two points and you are drawing a line and measuring the length of a line and showing different measures. The "sec", is that an arcsecond or a second of time? If it is a second of time, what does the figure to the right represent? And the figure to the right of "meter", what is being measured. I see the differences but what do they compare?

You have to explain it a little more. What is Gy a measure of distance or time? Why do you refer to a 180 degree angle (sum of angles in a triangle) and is that just your notation of a straight line? What causes the difference in time and distance measures?

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Here is an appropiate link that helps me begin to visualize where you are:

I'm sorry for the confusion but the only reason I chose a Megaparsec is because that is the standard distance used to describe the Hubble constant (I incorrectly used the term Hubble's law instead of the Hubble constant in my last post, sorry). WMAP gives a measured value for the Hubble constant as being 70.5 (+/- 1.3) km/sec/Mpc. This puts the age of the universe between 13.61 and 14.12 billion years old (Gy).

If it is a second of time, what does the figure to the right represent?

These are my numbers and they hold the same unit value as the left side numbers in that single frame. The numbers on the left represent the 'a side' of a triangle as depicted in a single frame. The numbers on the right represent the 'A angle' of the same triangle. The three points of any triangle are represented as; point B is the observer, point C is a distance or time from point B and point A is the Big Bang. As you go back in time, the 'a side' of the triangle gets closer to point A. This mimics the natural expansion of the universe. Let me use the observers frame to show you how the 'A angle' works.
.
180 / 4.13605915x10-16 = 4.351968009x10+17 sec = 13.8Gy
180 / 1.37964105x10-24 = 1.304687187x10+26 meters = 13.8Gly
4.136059815x10-16 / 1.37964105x10-24 = 299,792,458 m/s
1.37964105x10-24 * 299,792,458 (m) = 4.136059815x10-16 = 1 sec
1.37964105x10-24 * 3.082087122x10+22 (m) = 4.252173913x10-2 = 1 Mpc
.
The math always holds true for each individual frame. We can compare the difference of the same unit between frames to find the expansion rate of the universe at that distance.

Why do you refur to a 180 degree angle ...

A single angle of 180 degrees equals a strait line between two points. I assumed that the universe is flat over large scales (0=180, +1<180, -1>180).

 

[Acitnoids]

If I guessed that the universe was 13.8 billion years old and then make an observation of a second point that is 3.26 million light years away then, according to my guess, I would be observing a point in space that appears to be 13.79674 billion years old from my point. I can compare my calculated expansion to the measured expansion (WMAP) and see if I guessed the correct age for my point in space.

 

[quantum_wave]

If I guessed that the universe was 13.8 billion years old and then make an observation of a second point that is 3.26 million light years away then, according to my guess, I would be observing a point in space that appears to be 13.79674 billion years old from my point. I can compare my calculated expansion to the measured expansion (WMAP) and see if I guessed the correct age for my point in space.

You can do all that? I would be impressed but I guess that is already being done by astronomers.

I think you are tying all that together with your relativistic perspective on the relationship between time and points in space. If that is the case I would commend you on your efforts and encourage you to put it in writing at least as a scenario. That way you can add to it and update it without having to rewrite from scratch each time you improve on it.

 

[Acitnoids]

Um, I'm either being snubbed or you didn't read my post just prior to the one you quoted.

 

[quantum_wave]

No, I read it. I liked it. Sorry for not including it in the quote. I have accepted the current view of expansion, the Hubble constant, the parallax techniques, red shift, distance indicators, etc, and have loved WMAP and other sources of data. It is just that my approach has been to accept Astronomy and leave the discovery and math of it to people like you .

You'll notice that my speculations are based on the foundation of known and accepted science including Astronomy, but my interest is in the imponderables and I find those in Cosmology. Don't think for an instant that I'm not trying to keep up with you on the Astronomy but I am taking your lead on that.

 

[Acitnoids]

I have always held the belief that is a new model can only discribe what was unknown then it is incomplete. Any new model has to include what is already known. This makes for a good starting point. Thanks for giving me a chance to share some of it.

 

[quantum_wave]

I have always held the belief that if a new model can only describe what was unknown then it is incomplete. Any new model has to include what is already known. This makes for a good starting point. Thanks for giving me a chance to share some of it.

Oh, your chance isn't over until you say so .

How about if you take your detailed parallax data post and create a new post that takes each line and then has a few sentences of "word salad" to describe what is going on line by line. I think I have a few questions but would like your descriptions first. Feel free to describe the math even though it is simple (so far).

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by quantum_wave
How about if you take your detailed parallax data post and create a new post that takes each line and then has a few sentences of "word salad" to describe what is going on line by line.

I think you're getting hung-up on the distance I chose (1Mpc). Parallax measurements are something different. Here, let me show you how I would find the cosmological red-shift (Z) of an object located 9Gly away from our point. We know the approximate age of our point in space (13.8Gy) and we want to find the value for Z at a distance of 9Gly. This means that we would be observing a point that appears to be 4.8Gy old from our vantage point. Seeing that Hydrogen absorbs a single wavelength of 9.11267050(3)x10-8 meters, lets use that as our "test wavelength" between points.
.
Other Point:
4.8Gy = 180
1 sec = 1.189117199x10-15
1 meter = 3.966468027x10-24
"test wave" = 3.614511619x10-31
Observer:
"test wave" = 1.25722143x10-31
.
You can visibly see the difference between the "test waves" (the younger angles are larger). The ratio between the two frames is called a dimensionless ratio because it holds true for every unit between the two frames (age included). We have to manipulate this ratio to find Z. The photons start over there and arrive over here. This is the equation for Z.
.
2 * sq root of (3.614...x10-31 / 1.257...x10-31) - 2 = 1.3911
.
The farthest galaxy cluster that we have observed is called XMMU J2235. It has a measured Z of 1.4 and is said to be located about 9Gly away. The equation matches the observation. This holds true until a distance of about 13Gly. In the real world we would be measuring Z before knowing its distance from us. We can use this same ratio to find that distance (r).
.
((Z+2)/2)^2 = ratio
1-(1/ratio)*13.8Gy = r
.
Or we can find the recession velocity (H) of that point.
.
1-(1/ratio) * 299,792,458 m/s = H

 

[quantum_wave]

I think you're getting hung-up on the distance I chose (1Mpc). Parallax measurements are something different. Here, let me show you how I would find the cosmological red-shift (Z) of an object located 9Gly away from our point. We know the approximate age of our point in space (13.8Gy) and we want to find the value for Z at a distance of 9Gly. This means that we would be observing a point that appears to be 4.8Gy old from our vantage point. Seeing that Hydrogen absorbs a single wavelength of 9.11267050(3)x10-8 meters, lets use that as our "test wavelength" between points.
.
Other Point:
4.8Gy = 180
1 sec = 1.189117199x10-15
1 meter = 3.966468027x10-24
"test wave" = 3.614511619x10-31
Observer:
"test wave" = 1.25722143x10-31
.
You can visibly see the difference between the "test waves" (the younger angles are larger). The ratio between the two frames is called a dimensionless ratio because it holds true for every unit between the two frames (age included). We have to manipulate this ratio to find Z. The photons start over there and arrive over here. This is the equation for Z.
.
2 * sq root of (3.614...x10-31 / 1.257...x10-31) - 2 = 1.3911
.
The farthest galaxy cluster that we have observed is called XMMU J2235. It has a measured Z of 1.4 and is said to be located about 9Gly away. The equation matches the observation. This holds true until a distance of about 13Gly. In the real world we would be measuring Z before knowing its distance from us. We can use this same ratio to find that distance (r).
.
((Z+2)/2)^2 = ratio
1-(1/ratio)*13.8Gy = r
.
Or we can find the recession velocity (H) of that point.
.
1-(1/ratio) * 299,792,458 m/s = H

I see what you are saying, that we are 13.7 Gy into expansion at our location and each point in the universe appears closer to the origin of the Big Bang than our own location because the light that we observe from them is time delayed due to both the invariant finite speed of light and the curvature of spacetime?

Do you factor in Inflationary Theory which would mean that the universe expanded exponentially at some superluminal speed in the first instant, and if so what does that say about the size of the universe when galaxies first formed?

Are you describing universe from the perspective of spacetime geometry?

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I see what you are saying, that we are 13.7 Gy into expansion at our location and each point in the universe appears closer to the origin of the Big Bang than our location ...

The operative word here is appears to be. This doesn't mean that it is closer to the Big Bang.

... because the light that we observe from them is time delayed due to both the invariant finite speed of light and the curvature of spacetime?

Yes. The farther something is from us, the younger it will apear to us.

Do you factor in Inflation Theory which would mean that the universe expanded exponentially at some superluminal speed in the first instant, ...

If you look at the equations in my last post you should see that, as you look farther away from our point, the recession velocity gets closer to the speed of light. I said that my calculations match the observation up until about 13Gly. The only reason I can think of for this discrepancy is the idea that space can expand faster than the speed of light. As for Inflationary Theory, ... I already answered that in post #33.

Are you describing universe from the perspective of spacetime geometry?

When I started this I was fairly ignorant towards known physics. I have always had a natural distrust of orthodoxy. I started fresh with two axioms and through the years I came to realize that what I was discribing paralleled the concepts of spacetime geometry. The two main axioms are:
.
1) Every point in the universe is the origin of the Big Bang.
2) The differences between two points is equal to an angle off of the origin.
.
From this I deduced all of the Macro angles and then added the Micro angles to them via SI density (kg/m^3). I assume that I have some misconceptions and was hopping to find someone more knowledgable than I to help point them out.