Photon?

[paddoboy]

Time doesn't pass. Things move.

That's just being silly. 13.83 billion years has passed since the BB...that's what time is, and that's what evolved from the BB, along with space.
Or are you now refuting the BB? Are you still claiming to have a TOE?
Or do you now retract that?

We agree about the rate that clocks tick. Not about the time passing. Can you see time passing? No. because it's just a figure of speech.

That is a typical kindergarten approach to cosmology. All clocks do is measure...No we don't see time...but it still exists and that is the opinion of most physicists. As a layman interested only in your own fairy tales, you could possibly be excused for such ignorance.

No. I can point to Einstein saying the speed of light varies, and to those NIST optical clocks. Mine is rock-solid physics.

No, I summed it up nicely thank you...rock solid woo is all you have preached, and is why you are stuck here in a rut.
Why if you had any validity would you not be knocking on the doors of academia.
We all know the answer to that one.

No. Relativity is one of the best-tested theories we've got, and Einstein said what he said. Anybody who contradicts that ought to be in Alternative theories.

Yep, agreed, SR/GR are near certain as far as scientific theories are concerned. It's your misrepresentation and misinterpreting that is causing concern here.

No, it's a declaration. People like paddoboy say "I'm mainstream" when he warbles on about time travel and the multiverse.

Wrong again...Time travel is not forbidden by the laws of physics and/or GR, and the equations of GR even show the way to achieve it.

I'm telling you what Einstein said. Pay attention to what Einstein said.

Kiddies, innocents, lay people. Farsight purports to support the greatest physicist of all. But he misinterprets all Einstein has said, and if what Farsight said was true, he would not be preaching here about it. He would be knocking on the doors of acedemia and mainstream cosmology.
Instead, he troubles other learned folk on the only outlet he has, and one that is open to any Tom, Dick, Harry.

Again Farsight, show evidence that my following claims are wrong please.

[1] Space, time, spacetime are basically all one and the same:
" The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".
Hermann Minkowski, 1908:

I do not remember Einstein ever rebuking this statement.

[2] The speed of light "c" in a vacuum is constant and always has been, and always will be. No one has ever shown "c" to vary within his own FoR.

[3] Light follows geodesics in curved spacetime:

[4] When we see any apparent variation to "c" in any other FoR, it is simply because light/photons following curved spacetime geodesics, has a longer distance to traverse.

[5] Light/Photons are never ever seen to be stopped.
From any remote FoR, light/photons near a BH's EH for example, will gradually be red shifted further and further until red shifted beyond the range of the optical equipment in use. Again, it is never seen to be stopped.

[6]From the photons/Light's own FoR, nothing extraordinary happens. From the local FoR, light/phots will cross the EH as per normal, to oblivion and whatever exists at the Singularity.

[7] The one exception to that is any photon/light that happens to be emitted directly radially away from the BH's EH. In such a scenario, the photon will be seen to apparently hover forever just above the EH, never quite secumbing, and never quite getting away.

 

[QuarkHead]

Farsight in response to paddaboy saying "space, time and spacetime are basically the same thing" (although I think he expressed his point poorly)

If they were, rulers would be the same as clocks. And they aren't

But they are, in Minkowski spacetime, in the following sense......

If you, I or anyone else wants to make spacetime a 4-mainfold we had better be sure that all 4 coordinates describe the same "sort of thing". An easy way to do this is to say that, just as the (say) x, y, z coordinates are spatial coordinates (i.e. describe space) then an easy way to include time in spacetime is to use ct as a spatial coordinate - recall (surely you haven't forgotten) that speed x time = distance

That is the whole point of Minkowski spacetime

So that's enough stupid nonsense from you . You're back on ignore.

Farsight, I would be honoured to join the pantheon of those on your ignore list - please sign me up

 

[Dr_Toad]

I think I'm on his ignore list, let's see: How freaking delusional can you be and still be allowed to post in any subfora except fringe and alt, again?

Do a Google search for "John Duffield farsight" for more of the pain he inflicts on thinking people with his utter bullshit.

 

[quantum_wave]

Time doesn't pass. Things move. Clocks feature some kind of regular cyclical motion. They effectively show you a cumulative display that you call the time. Even light clocks do this. It's important to understand this. This is where it all starts.

We agree about the rate that clocks tick. Not about the time passing. Can you see time passing? No. because it's just a figure of speech.

You didn't respond to my suggestion that we agree on the cause of clocks in relative motion ticking at different rates, i.e. the energy density of the local environment where the clocks are individually ticking away. Regardless of how we might define the local energy density, do you agree that the cause is a difference in energy density?

Having read this whole response, it is an opening to mention what I see wrong with your posts; not with the expectation that you care. I have been asking you questions to get a clearer picture of your views. On the surface we have some similar tenets in our models, but the consistency of your explanations does not do anything to fill in the as-yet unknown parts of cosmology. For example, what caused the Big Bang, what were the preconditions or did it come from nothing, is the universe infinite or finite, has it always existed and if not what is your explanation for the beginning, what is the cause of what is called "dark energy". These are cosmological questions pertaining to physics, and should be addressed by a model that purports to be complete.

Do you have an answer to the questions:
What caused the Big Bang?

Were there any preconditions?

Is the universe finite or infinite, and how do you know?

Was there a beginning or has the universe always existed? Did it come from nothing?

No I'm not, I'm talking about space and energy being the same thing. Look at that stress-energy-momentum tensor and think it through.

I know you say that, and I'm just not getting how you can differentiate between space with one level of energy density, and a different space with a different energy density. Your explanation of added space that increases the density of the local environment requires having some space in hand to add, and a mechanism to add it. Sounds improbable, not convincing, and without any explanation for "how", unless you agree that the increase in relative energy density is governed by relative motion. Does relative motion determine the relative energy density of the frame, or is it the proximity to mass, or both? Or what?

Go and look up permeability and permittivity. Do not be persuaded that "we don't know how it works". We do.

I have, and my call for understanding the medium of space is a call for more than another theory that says it is so. When I ask you for mechanics, you say you have them, but it turns out to be more theory, and not mechanistic explanations.

Spherically? I've never said light propagates spherically. I'm not some "my theory" guy making hypotheses. I tell you what Einstein said, I give you references. Follow them up.

This is part of the reason you aren't answering the call for missing physics. BBT is not a complete cosmology, and Einstein is not the only thing that BBT is about. BBT doesn't address the beginning, but it does essentially give us spherical expansion of energy. Can you equate the initial spherical expansion of the energy content of our Big Bang universe with a specifically expanding "pulse of energy", i.e. the light energy of a photon? And yes, photon energy is frequency times h, but how do you characterize the shape of the energy emission?

 

[Farsight]

Farsight in response to paddaboy saying "space, time and spacetime are basically the same thing" (although I think he expressed his point poorly)

But they are, in Minkowski spacetime, in the following sense......

If you, I or anyone else wants to make spacetime a 4-mainfold we had better be sure that all 4 coordinates describe the same "sort of thing". An easy way to do this is to say that, just as the (say) x, y, z coordinates are spatial coordinates (i.e. describe space) then an easy way to include time in spacetime is to use ct as a spatial coordinate - recall (surely you haven't forgotten) that speed x time = distance

That is the whole point of Minkowski spacetimeFarsight

Only you've forgotten that the time coordinate is clearly different to the space coordinates. See the minus sign on the spacetime interval expression:

$$s^2 = \Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2 + - c^2\Delta t^2 $$

I would be honoured to join the pantheon of those on your ignore list - please sign me up

Granted. Your physics knowledge is very poor anyway, and you never say anything useful.

 

[Farsight]

You didn't respond to my suggestion that we agree on the cause of clocks in relative motion ticking at different rates, i.e. the energy density of the local environment where the clocks are individually ticking away. Regardless of how we might define the local energy density, do you agree that the cause is a difference in energy density?

Not for clocks in relative motion. This only applies to gravitational time dilation.

Having read this whole response, it is an opening to mention what I see wrong with your posts; not with the expectation that you care. I have been asking you questions to get a clearer picture of your views. On the surface we have some similar tenets in our models, but the consistency of your explanations does not do anything to fill in the as-yet unknown parts of cosmology. For example, what caused the Big Bang, what were the preconditions or did it come from nothing, is the universe infinite or finite, has it always existed and if not what is your explanation for the beginning, what is the cause of what is called "dark energy". These are cosmological questions pertaining to physics, and should be addressed by a model that purports to be complete.

I can't explain what caused the big bang, but I feel I can say something about the other matters. IMHO Einstein should have been able to, but for some reason cosmology was where he made his "greatest blunder".

Do you have an answer to the questions:
What caused the Big Bang?

No.

Were there any preconditions?

The universe was like a frozen-star black hole.

Is the universe finite or infinite, and how do you know?

Finite. Because it's expanding.

Was there a beginning or has the universe always existed? Did it come from nothing?

The universe has always existed. No, it didn't come from nothing. Nothing doesn't exist.

I know you say that, and I'm just not getting how you can differentiate between space with one level of energy density, and a different space with a different energy density.

You just let go of your pencil. If it moves, it's moving towards the higher-density space.

Your explanation of added space that increases the density of the local environment requires having some space in hand to add, and a mechanism to add it. Sounds improbable, not convincing, and without any explanation for "how"

Just insert a photon.

unless you agree that the increase in relative energy density is governed by relative motion. Does relative motion determine the relative energy density of the frame, or is it the proximity to mass, or both? Or what?

Relative motion doesn't determine energy density, or rest mass. Instead energy does. Energy causes gravity. And when you try to define energy and space you hit the buffers. At the fundamental level they seem to be the same thing, and you can't define them in terms of something else.

I have, and my call for understanding the medium of space is a call for more than another theory that says it is so. When I ask you for mechanics, you say you have them, but it turns out to be more theory, and not mechanistic explanations.

You seem to have missed something I said. In mechanics a shear wave travels at a speed determined by the stiffness and density of the medium: v = √(G/ρ) where G here is the shear modulus of elasticity, and ρ is the density. The equation says a shear wave travels faster if the material gets stiffer, and slower if the density increases. In electrodynamics the equation is essentially the same: c = √(1/ε0μ0) where ε0 is permittivity and μ0 is permeability. Note that permittivity is a "how easy" measure rather than a "how hard" measure, so there's a reciprocal.

This is part of the reason you aren't answering the call for missing physics. BBT is not a complete cosmology, and Einstein is not the only thing that BBT is about. BBT doesn't address the beginning, but it does essentially give us spherical expansion of energy. Can you equate the initial spherical expansion of the energy content of our Big Bang universe with a specifically expanding "pulse of energy", i.e. the light energy of a photon?

No. The photon is a "soliton pulse". It doesn't expand spherically. It moves linearly and maintains its wavelength and amplitude and integrity.

And yes, photon energy is frequency times h, but how do you characterize the shape of the energy emission?

It's like a lemon. Like this:

 

[quantum_wave]

Not for clocks in relative motion. This only applies to gravitational time dilation.

How do you tell the difference if you are in a blind box?

I can't explain what caused the big bang, but I feel I can say something about the other matters. IMHO Einstein should have been able to, but for some reason cosmology was where he made his "greatest blunder".

I just posted on Paddoboy's, Dark Energy and Time Dilation thread about discussing the starting point in any given cosmology. The starting point is to acknowledge which of three major explanations for the existence of the universe applies to a particular cosmology and related theories. The three choices are: Something from nothing, Always existed, and the non-scientific "God did it" explanation. I see below that you are willing to say that the basis of your views is the "always existed" explanation?

No.

Do you realize that the nature of the physics of the universe could be entirely different from what you believe, if there were preconditions to the Big Bang; you theories might be falsified by the preconditions. Will you acknowledge that simple assertion?

The universe was like a frozen-star black hole.

Where did it come from?

Finite. Because it's expanding.

What if there were more than one "frozen-star black hole? If there were two, and they were both expanding, would they intersect and overlap. What would happen then?

The universe has always existed. No, it didn't come from nothing. Nothing doesn't exist.

And does that "always existed" mean that there is an infinite past history of frozen-star black holes expanding and intersecting, or was the single frozen-star black hole frozen for all of past time until some initial event caused the expansion we observe? What type of event, or how would you characterize such and event?

 

[PhysBang]

Finite. Because it's expanding.

The cosmologists who use actual equations claim that an infinite universe can be expanding. Can you show us the equations for your cosmology?

 

[quantum_wave]

The cosmologists who use actual equations claim that an infinite universe can be expanding. Can you show us the equations for your cosmology?

I've heard that. Does it make sense to you? Do you have any details about that explanation?

 

[Farsight]

How do you tell the difference if you are in a blind box?

In practice if it's a small box, you can't. But regardless of whether you can tell the difference, the two situations aren't the same. In one situation you're accelerating in homogeneous space, in the other you aren't accelerating in inhomogeneous space.

I just posted on Paddoboy's, Dark Energy and Time Dilation thread about discussing the starting point in any given cosmology. The starting point is to acknowledge which of three major explanations for the existence of the universe applies to a particular cosmology and related theories. The three choices are: Something from nothing, Always existed, and the non-scientific "God did it" explanation. I see below that you are willing to say that the basis of your views is the "always existed" explanation?

Yes. It's the only option that makes sense to me.

Do you realize that the nature of the physics of the universe could be entirely different from what you believe, if there were preconditions to the Big Bang; you theories might be falsified by the preconditions. Will you acknowledge that simple assertion?

I acknowledge that some of what I say might not be right. And when it comes to the big bang, I just don't know. But when it comes to gravity, I've read up on Einstein and lots more, I don't think there's much wrong with what I believe there.

Where did it come from?

I just don't know.

What if there were more than one "frozen-star black hole? If there were two, and they were both expanding, would they intersect and overlap. What would happen then?

Does not parse. The word universe comes from uni as in one and versa as in vice-versa. It means "turned into one". Which means "everything". What you're asking is like asking me if there's more than one everything. If you were to ask whether there's only some regions of the universe expanding rather than all of it, I'd say that's not such a big deal. That's what gravitational binding is all about. But without that, I couldn't explain why some regions of the universe don't expand.

And does that "always existed" mean that there is an infinite past history of frozen-star black holes expanding and intersecting, or was the single frozen-star black hole frozen for all of past time until some initial event caused the expansion we observe?

I just don't know. The simplest scenario is the single frozen-star black hole. That's like the big bang but without the point-singularity and without inflation.

What type of event, or how would you characterize such an event?

It's something like a phase-change. Like when a block of C4 explosive detonates and turns from a solid into a gas. You go from solid space where light can't move, to normal space where it can. There's this big bang then the whole of space is "ringing like a bell" and it's full of waves. Only it might have been a gradual process. But whatever the process was, I'll tell you this for nothing: space just has to expand . It can't not expand. Because whilst space is like some ghostly gin-clear elastic, it's like a compressed ghostly gin-clear elastic. Find a stress ball and squeeze it down in your fist. Then let go.

Note that when it comes to big bang cosmology, we don't have much to go on. It all gets very speculative very fast. This is very different to things like gravity. Gravity is simple and straightforward, and there's robust reference to Einstein and the evidence.

 

[Farsight]

The cosmologists who use actual equations claim that an infinite universe can be expanding.

They also claim the universe has always been infinite. When you press them on that you get flannel, then you find out that they don't understand the difference between curved spacetime and curved space, and have fallen for a non-sequitur wherein a flat universe is said to be an infinite universe.

Can you show us the equations for your cosmology?

No. But note that this isn't "my cosmology". I didn't come up with the frozen-star black hole, I didn't come up with the comparison between a black hole and the early universe, and I didn't come up with the expanding universe.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Yet you "come up with" the most incredible nonsense every time you deign to instruct us mere mortals.

Go see your shrink, take your meds, and pull the plug on your delusions. At the least, stop posting BS.

 

[PhysBang]

They also claim the universe has always been infinite. When you press them on that you get flannel, then you find out that they don't understand the difference between curved spacetime and curved space, and have fallen for a non-sequitur wherein a flat universe is said to be an infinite universe.

You have made a number of claims there that seem entirely untrue. SO can you please back up your slander of practicing cosmologists with some evidence from their publications?

And then perhaps you would show us the equations for your cosmology?

No. But note that this isn't "my cosmology".

Well, since Einstein developed a cosmology radically different from yours and nobody else seems to believe in your cosmology, either, this is entirely your cosmology.

Too bad that there seems to be no evidence for it and you are unable to produce any.

I didn't come up with the frozen-star black hole, I didn't come up with the comparison between a black hole and the early universe, and I didn't come up with the expanding universe.

Sure, you just mangle them all together, misrepresenting them, lie about cosmologists, then never back up your claims.

 

[PhysBang]

I've heard that. Does it make sense to you? Do you have any details about that explanation?

The simplest way to think about it is that geometry of the universe is such that distances always get bigger over time; that the natural state of things that are sitting motionless with respect to each other (that is, no force is acting relative to them) is that they get farther and farther apart.

Then gravity acts to pull things together. This effect wanes with distance, so gravity can keep galaxies and even clusters of galaxies together, but at larger distances, this natural tendency wins out.

This turn out to be a little more complicated than this, but that is the general picture.

We describe distances in such a universe using the following metric:
$$ds\sup{2} = -dt\sup{2} + a(t)dr\sup{2} + d\phi\sup{2} + d\theta\sup{2}$$

This is like a standard SR distance metric (-time + space distance) using spherical coordinates. However, the radial component (distance from the origin) is multiplied by a scale factor, a, that is a function of time. In contemporary cosmology (and according to GR), the exact function a(t) depends upon the various mass-energy densities in the universe.

ETA: OK, so I didn't get TeX to work right, there, but I'll just leave it.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

Yes. It's the only option that makes sense to me.

I acknowledge that some of what I say might not be right. And when it comes to the big bang, I just don't know. But when it comes to gravity, I've read up on Einstein and lots more, I don't think there's much wrong with what I believe there.

But gravity in GR equates the the motion of objects along geodesics in curved spacetime. What I meant was that if there were preconditions to the Big Bang that made that theory problematic, i.e. that potentially infinite space has always existed, i.e. infinite and eternal, then regardless of how you explain the concept of time, it must relate to eternity, and regardless of how you characterize space, it must also relate to infinite and eternal, not in the religious sense of an eternal deity or anything, just the eternity of a universe that has always existed. Wouldn't that be problematic to GR, and to your explanation of gravity?

I just don't know.

You said it wasn't your idea. You accept it though. Haven't you ever contemplated its feasibility, or origin? Do so now, lol.

Does not parse. The word universe comes from uni as in one and versa as in vice-versa. It means "turned into one". Which means "everything". What you're asking is like asking me if there's more than one everything. If you were to ask whether there's only some regions of the universe expanding rather than all of it, I'd say that's not such a big deal. That's what gravitational binding is all about. But without that, I couldn't explain why some regions of the universe don't expand.

It parses. Why couldn't one universe encompass more that one frozen-star black hole?

I just don't know. The simplest scenario is the single frozen-star black hole. That's like the big bang but without the point-singularity and without inflation.

Ok, it may seem simplest to you. It doesn't qualify as a basis for the vast and complex cosmology that you follow it with though.

It's something like a phase-change. Like when a block of C4 explosive detonates and turns from a solid into a gas. You go from solid space where light can't move, to normal space where it can. There's this big bang then the whole of space is "ringing like a bell" and it's full of waves. Only it might have been a gradual process. But whatever the process was, I'll tell you this for nothing: space just has to expand . It can't not expand.

Given your view of the sequence of events, and limiting the possibilities to one such frozen-star black hole, then with those preconditions, I agree, space would expand into the assumed void that contained it. The expansion would be driven by a fundament force, and if we didn't know the nature of the force we might call it dark energy. Dark energy might be the equalization of density between the energy content of your one and only frozen-star black hole, and the density of the void surrounding it?

Because whilst space is like some ghostly gin-clear elastic, it's like a compressed ghostly gin-clear elastic. Find a stress ball and squeeze it down in your fist. Then let go.

Again, given your scenario of preconditions, and your hypothetical description of what constitutes space, maybe so. But your explanation is quite detailed for having been orchestrated from what you call the simplest explanation for the origin of the universe. Observations are the same for us all, but our explanations for those observations is not the same thing as observational evidence. I question your explanation on the basis that they don't follow from the initial conditions, to my satisfaction, because they lack internally consistency since you have "I don't knows" preceding the explanations. Fill in the "I don't knows if you want to have something that backtracks to more that "you don't know".

Note that when it comes to big bang cosmology, we don't have much to go on. It all gets very speculative very fast. This is very different to things like gravity. Gravity is simple and straightforward, and there's robust reference to Einstein and the evidence.

That can be disputed, as to gravity being simple and straightforward, if the mechanics of it aren't included, or aren't linked and consistent with some set of preconditions to the Big Bang.

 

[quantum_wave]

The simplest way to think about it is that geometry of the universe is such that distances always get bigger over time; that the natural state of things that are sitting motionless with respect to each other (that is, no force is acting relative to them) is that they get farther and farther apart.

Then gravity acts to pull things together. This effect wanes with distance, so gravity can keep galaxies and even clusters of galaxies together, but at larger distances, this natural tendency wins out.

This turn out to be a little more complicated than this, but that is the general picture.

I have contemplated that for years. Are you following my discussion with Farsight, because some of the issues are related to that very scenario when referring to his frozen-star black hole. Is the universe made up of one Big Bang event that will expand forever, or could that one universe host more than one. Two Big Bang arenas might converge, and if so, what would the consequences be on the scenario we have both contemplated?

 

[PhysBang]

The frozen star black hole idea of Farsight's is his imagination. So too is its connection to the very early universe. Farsight refuses to believe that one can model the interior of a black hole, so he cannot then compare his lack of a model to actual models of the early universe. (But Farsight loves to have his cake and eat it too. That's the benefit of never doing any mathematics: you never have to confront your inconsistencies.)

The big difference between the black hole and the early universe is that a black hole sits in a region where its gravity can overcome the expansion rate of the scale factor. In the early universe, the scale factor is expanding so rapidly that the immense energy density of the universe cannot slow it enough to create something like a black hole.

I don't like talking about the big bang, since I don't know what that is, at least as an event. The expanding universe and the hot, dense beginning are entirely different and separate from that.

In the standard expanding universe scenario, we can't run into another universe because that is a different spacetime. Our spacetime isn't going anywhere, it's just that distances within it are changing.

 

[Farsight]

But gravity in GR equates the the motion of objects along geodesics in curved spacetime.

It doesn't. The motion is through space. Nothing moves in spacetime. Besides, gravity in GR relates to the spacetime "tilt" rather than curved spacetime.

What I meant was that if there were preconditions to the Big Bang that made that theory problematic, i.e. that potentially infinite space has always existed, i.e. infinite and eternal, then regardless of how you explain the concept of time, it must relate to eternity, and regardless of how you characterize space, it must also relate to infinite and eternal, not in the religious sense of an eternal deity or anything, just the eternity of a universe that has always existed. Wouldn't that be problematic to GR, and to your explanation of gravity?

Not at all. Einstein said the speed of light varied where a gravitational field is, and we know all about the "coordinate" speed of light being zero at the event horizon. So that's a place where time stops. Have a look at the gravastar. It isn't quite the same as the frozen-star black hole, but some aspects of it are. See this bit:

"This region is called a "gravitational vacuum", because it is a void in the fabric of space and time."

Try to imagine the early universe as something similar. The whole place is one big "void in the fabric of space and time". Time is stopped. There is no time.

You said it wasn't your idea. You accept it though.

Yes, because of how space is. Einstein's "greatest blunder" was to miss this. He knew that a gravitational field is an energy-pressure gradient in space. So he should have know that even if there was no overall gradient, there's still an overall pressure. He should have know that the universe just had to expand.

Haven't you ever contemplated its feasibility, or origin? Do so now, lol.

Sorry, the feasibility of what? The expanding universe? Even if nobody had told me about that, I would have been saying it.

It parses. Why couldn't one universe encompass more that one frozen-star black hole?

Because there isn't more than one everything.

Ok, it may seem simplest to you. It doesn't qualify as a basis for the vast and complex cosmology that you follow it with though.

Who said it was complex? I don't think it's complex.

Given your view of the sequence of events, and limiting the possibilities to one such frozen-star black hole, then with those preconditions, I agree, space would expand into the assumed void that contained it.

Noooooo! There is no void. Space isn't some sphere sitting in some void. Space is all there is.

The expansion would be driven by a fundamental force

It's just spatial pressure. Stress. The same old thing that's in the stress-energy-momentum tensor. An energy-pressurey gradient in space makes light curve. The energy-pressure of space makes space expand. Note that PhysBang alluded to gravity making space contract. It doesn't. It alters the motion of light and matter through space, but it doesn't suck space in. Hence the early universe didn't collapse under its own gravity.

and if we didn't know the nature of the force we might call it dark energy. Dark energy might be the equalization of density between the energy content of your one and only frozen-star black hole, and the density of the void surrounding it?

I said there is no surrounding void, but OK, you could say that dark energy is to do with the reduction of the energy-density as space expands. Note that dark energy is said to be responsible for the increasing expansion of space, not the expansion of space, but I think that's wrong myself. I said something about it here.

Again, given your scenario of preconditions, and your hypothetical description of what constitutes space, maybe so. But your explanation is quite detailed for having been orchestrated from what you call the simplest explanation for the origin of the universe. Observations are the same for us all, but our explanations for those observations is not the same thing as observational evidence. I question your explanation on the basis that they don't follow from the initial conditions, to my satisfaction, because they lack internally consistency since you have "I don't knows" preceding the explanations. Fill in the "I don't knows if you want to have something that backtracks to more that "you don't know".

It's all very simple, and it stems from what Einstein said about the speed of light varying where a gravitational field is. Then you ask yourself why light doesn't get out, and like Tom Moore said, it's because the light is stopped. Then you apply that to the existing cosmology wherein the early universe is likened to a black hole. It's all pretty solid.

That can be disputed, as to gravity being simple and straightforward, if the mechanics of it aren't included, or aren't linked and consistent with some set of preconditions to the Big Bang.

Gravity is simple. Once you understand that, you will know just how simple it is. Read the OP here. The Big Bang isn't cut and dried like gravity is. you can only get so far with it, and then there's no more evidence to go on. NB:

The frozen star black hole idea of Farsight's is his imagination...

This is yet more dishonesty. Google on Oppenheimer frozen star.

 

[quantum_wave]

The frozen star black hole idea of Farsight's is his imagination. So too is its connection to the very early universe. Farsight refuses to believe that one can model the interior of a black hole, so he cannot then compare his lack of a model to actual models of the early universe. (But Farsight loves to have his cake and eat it too. That's the benefit of never doing any mathematics: you never have to confront your inconsistencies.)

The big difference between the black hole and the early universe is that a black hole sits in a region where its gravity can overcome the expansion rate of the scale factor. In the early universe, the scale factor is expanding so rapidly that the immense energy density of the universe cannot slow it enough to create something like a black hole.

I don't like talking about the big bang, since I don't know what that is, at least as an event. The expanding universe and the hot, dense beginning are entirely different and separate from that.

In the standard expanding universe scenario, we can't run into another universe because that is a different spacetime. Our spacetime isn't going anywhere, it's just that distances within it are changing.

Thanks for all of that. It becomes AltTheory very quickly. My point was that your model has no explanation for the beginning or the preconditions. Any scenario of preconditions violates the model; so does that mean that there can be no explanation for the existence of the universe that doesn't falsify spacetime?

 

[krash661]

It doesn't. The motion is through space. Nothing moves in spacetime. Besides, gravity in GR relates to the spacetime "tilt" rather than curved spacetime.

Not at all. Einstein said the speed of light varied where a gravitational field is, and we know all about the "coordinate" speed of light being zero at the event horizon. So that's a place where time stops. Have a look at the gravastar. It isn't quite the same as the frozen-star black hole, but some aspects of it are. See this bit:

"This region is called a "gravitational vacuum", because it is a void in the fabric of space and time."

Try to imagine the early universe as something similar. The whole place is one big "void in the fabric of space and time". Time is stopped. There is no time.

Yes, because of how space is. Einstein's "greatest blunder" was to miss this. He knew that a gravitational field is an energy-pressure gradient in space. So he should have know that even if there was no overall gradient, there's still an overall pressure. He should have know that the universe just had to expand.

Sorry, the feasibility of what? The expanding universe? Even if nobody had told me about that, I would have been saying it.

Because there isn't more than one everything.

Who said it was complex? I don't think it's complex.

Noooooo! There is no void. Space isn't some sphere sitting in some void. Space is all there is.

It's just spatial pressure. Stress. The same old thing that's in the stress-energy-momentum tensor. An energy-pressurey gradient in space makes light curve. The energy-pressure of space makes space expand. Note that PhysBang alluded to gravity making space contract. It doesn't. It alters the motion of light and matter through space, but it doesn't suck space in. Hence the early universe didn't collapse under its own gravity.

I said there is no surrounding void, but OK, you could say that dark energy is to do with the reduction of the energy-density as space expands. Note that dark energy is said to be responsible for the increasing expansion of space, not the expansion of space, but I think that's wrong myself. I said something about it here.

It's all very simple, and it stems from what Einstein said about the speed of light varying where a gravitational field is. Then you ask yourself why light doesn't get out, and like Tom Moore said, it's because the light is stopped. Then you apply that to the existing cosmology wherein the early universe is likened to a black hole. It's all pretty solid.

Gravity is simple. Once you understand that, you will know just how simple it is. Read the OP here. The Big Bang isn't cut and dried like gravity is. you can only get so far with it, and then there's no more evidence to go on. NB:

This is yet more dishonesty. Google on Oppenheimer frozen star.

it's obvious that you do not even acknowledge that gravity and energy are fighting each other.