They use the same excuse for inflation being FTL, but that hasn't stopped some people from looking into other avenues because it is a never ending debate to weather or not space can actually be considered a thing.
Where do you get that idea from?
Then most people with this view are considered cranks by the internet community, even though a lot of the more well known scientist tend to enjoy writing about it as though it is, although in the past they wouldn't have gone as far as the waterfall analogy (that is more recent).
Cranks come in different flavors, but this one, Farsight , is just hinging all of his opinions on a very common mistake. He simply misunderstands what coordinate speed means. I won't say that's all that evades him, but he has no sense of physics. He has no interest at all in what evidence there is and what it tells us.
It would have to assume that space is an actual thing.
Do you have a cite to give us some idea what you're referring to here?
No one has seemed to prove this to everyone, so then they cannot prove the waterfall analogy either.
Explain what you mean. How do you get from that premise to the conclusion?
This has what lead me to believe that the mechanism for inflation is SR itself.
Try and diagram a case for length dilation of space. It can't be done. You need reference frames.
If there was no mass then the frame of reference of everything would be contracted to zero.
If there was no mass you would be in the primordial conditions after the Big Bang. How does that apply to the inflation that occurred since matter condensed?
With the appearance of mass space-time would expand instead of contracting because objects in it would slow down to less than the speed of light.
There is no contraction without GR and there's no GR without two different reference frames. In any case, it can't operate on space itself. It has to operate on observed length and/or time, and only in the presence of two or more frames.
The rate of expansion would then be FTL, and the objects in it would travel FTL away from each other, since there is no limit to the rate of dilation in SR.
There can be no objects without mass, unless you meant to say massless particles. In relativity the space that's observed to be warped it is not actually warped. Distortions do not exist at all until data from one frame is compared to data from another. That's basically what relativity means.
There is nothing in the equation that says that space-time cannot dilate FTL, it is immune to the speed of light constant because it is a result of keeping the speed of light a constant.
What equation? If you mean the Lorentz transformation then it doesn't apply to space itself. Space and time can't be observed. Only lengths and clock ticks can . For that you need real objects, and to induce relativity you need actual frames of reference. None of that applies to space by itself.
In other words, v/t can change at any rate so that "c" stays the same value when they are equal to each other.
That representation of the Lorentz transformation is incorrect.
Then the rapid inflationary period would be a direct result of objects with mass having to measure light to travel at the same speed,
What does that mean? How do objects measure anything, much less light?
but in order for that to take place time and distance would have to increase at any rate in order for the space-time to fill the void in order for those measurement to take place.
So there is a void that spacetime fills? What do you call that?
Then the problem with this idea is that most people don't believe that space-time dilation is even a real effect.
It's not a matter of belief, but of evidence. What evidence are you disputing?
You would have to assume that it is, and I am fairly certain it is.
Ok but what does the evidence tell you about your beliefs?
I just don't know how you could have an equation show that everything is zero and then get anything significant from it.
Equations only state what the evidence shows. What equations are you disputing? There are lots of ways that setting a result to zero could lead to an answer. There are many classes of problems that do that very thing.
When velocity is equal to the speed of light SR is a bit of an enigma and it doesn't produce rational answers.
The rotation hits a boundary condition because it produces a zero in the denominator, a condition we call a mathematical singularity. It's not at all an enigma. It's just a boundary condition.
It would take making a bunch of irrational garbage and making something rationally substantive out of it.
But that's not what happened. It began with searching for the mechanism of transporting light waves in a vacuum. Nothing was being fabricated. Just measured. The wall that Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein encountered--the one that in part gave birth to Modern Physics--was the question of what happens to electromagnetics when reference frames diverge. You would need to retrace the history of that work to realize that what you said is backwards.
A lot of versions of the Big Bang theory haven't been able to hold up in recent years.
How so? How different is the standard model today than it was from Hubble's time?
My idea of the Planck Scale and energy coming from the Big Bang has held up to this scrutiny and has caught on like wild fire.
What are you referring to?
I really don't see how given the people that post in these forums, but it seems to have happened.
Not sure what you mean by this.
My problem is I don't really know where to start on the mathematical end of it that predicts anything special, but I think it would be a good lead to follow.
Maxwell's equations plus the Lorentz transformation. That seems to cover the ground you're concerned about.
If d/t has to change to a d'/t' in order for them both to equal the same constant "c", then space-time dilation would be a very real thing.
One of the advantages of describing evidence mathematically is that is helps you visualize things like this. In this case you would discover it's a simple rotation--a projection.
It would be a direct consequence of how mathematics makes everything stay equal to each other on each side of the equal sign.
Well it's a transformation. You have to know what that means. Math isn't just equations. It's the correct assembly of facts stemming from the evidence.
Two observers distances and times always have to stay equal to the same value in two similar equations.
Length. If you say distance it implies the amount of space separating them. In any case what you're trying to do here is to say "transformation". I think once you learn what that means, you can get past this particular hurdle.
That is why I kind of find it hard to tolerate the stigma that comes with SR being just an illusion or counterbalance to invalid measurement.
Again you're thinking backwards. Start with the evidence and move forward, and the riddle will be solved.
The explanations may imply that but the mathematics doesn't.
The math tells you what the evidence tells you. That's why you need Maxwell's equations. And that's why you need the Lorentz transformation. You need the evidence that led to the discovery of those laws, and the steps required to derive each law from scratch. Or at least read the history, and accept at face value that the derivations were done correctly. Otherwise you are stuck in an endless circle of speculation, lacking the necessary facts to pull yourself out of the quagmire.
Then the mathematics of the explanation hasn't even been accepted to be accurate.
There is no issue with accuracy in either Maxwell's equations or the Lorentz transformation. You just need to understand what they mean, where they come from, what evidence they rely on and how to derive them.
