New theory of the universe. A bubble floating in a high (4th?) dimension

Wickety, wackety, woo !.

With space flight back on the agenda but not a word from the Americans here on the successful landing of a Chinese vehicle on the moon, people don't have much tolerance from theorists as the celestial arena starts to open up for daily business, at least more than it once did. Great to see it after the engineering achievements of NASA faded to the pseudo-scientific concerns of astrophysicists as they like to call themselves.

Watching these dummies today talk about 'tidal locking' when it was only a single person in history who ever proposed the moon spins as it orbits the Earth.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 06:57:40 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 09:47:51 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Every point in spacetime is defined by a single coordinate,
(x,y,z,t).
Relativity doesn't change that. There is only one surface; the
interior (that is, space in the past) isn't a surface.

There must be one surface for every t. Unless one claims that
every t
except the present "does not exist".

Every t except for the present is in the interior of the
hypersphere,
not on its surface.

That ought to re-introduce t as an absolute quantity like in the
Newtonian universe. For each pair of t1 and t2 one must then be able
to conclude if they are the same or, if they are different, which one
preceded and which one followed.

Could any two time surfaces t1 and t2 ever intersect one another?

On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:08:06 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 06:57:40 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 09:47:51 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Every point in spacetime is defined by a single coordinate,
(x,y,z,t).
Relativity doesn't change that. There is only one surface; the
interior (that is, space in the past) isn't a surface.

There must be one surface for every t. Unless one claims that
every t
except the present "does not exist".

Every t except for the present is in the interior of the
hypersphere,
not on its surface.

That ought to re-introduce t as an absolute quantity like in the
Newtonian universe. For each pair of t1 and t2 one must then be able
to conclude if they are the same or, if they are different, which one
preceded and which one followed.

Could any two time surfaces t1 and t2 ever intersect one another?

t is an absolute quantity in the past. There is only one surface (it
isn't a "t surface", so I don't know what you mean.

Have to laugh at these guys try to invoke Isaac's absolute/relative definitions including his attempt to define time using a timekeeping facility known as the Equation of Time.

Unlike the ham-fisted bumbling of his followers, Sir Isaac is trying to follow Huygen's description of the Equation of Time and include a geocentric/heliocentric equivalency in the process -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passes the 12. Signs,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptic in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or thereabout, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lengths; as is known to all that are versed in
Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equal to that revolution: And
this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches
are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches,
though they be perfectly just and equal, must needs differ almost
continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd
according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is
otherwise call'd the Equation of Time.." Huygens

Dear, oh dear - the Equation of Time is an outrigger of the 365/366 day calendar framework so doesn't fit into the fractional setup of Huygens, after all, February 29th needs an EoT adjustment too.

I think you guys are better off dealing with the arguments of flat Earth people who also have mathematics degrees -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWZGky6Rc0

Of course you people believe the moon also rotates so talk about hapless !.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
[…] Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 15:16:41 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
The diameter of the 4D sphere whose surface we're on is 13.8 billion
years. The diameter of the 3D sphere that defines the observable
universe (a section of the surface of the 4D sphere) is about 93
billion light years, which reflects its increase in size over 13.8
billion light travel years.

Then it has expanded at (90-13.8)/13.8 times the light speed.

Nothing constrains the speed of expansion of the Universe.

Correct, because the expansion is described by *general* relativity, which
loosens the speed limit to be the *local* speed of light (from which the
*coordinate* speed is independent). In the words of Lawrence M. Krauss,
“Space can do whatever the hell it wants.�

Indeed, the edge of the observable universe is simply defined by the distance
beyond which the expansion relative to our position is greater than c.

No, that is a (common?) misconception. You can already see that this cannot
be true if you apply Hubble’s Law and compare the result with your previous
statement:

Regions of space that are receding faster from us (i.e., an arbitrary
observer inside our universe, assuming isotropic expansion) than c are
outside the (observer’s) *Hubble sphere* instead, whose radius R is only
approximately

v_rec = H₀ D Hubble’s Law

v_rec = c
→ D = R = c/H₀ ≈ 1.397 × 10¹� ly,

assuming a Hubble constant Hâ‚€ = H(tâ‚€) = 70 (km/s)/Mpc. (Whereas you stated
implicitly and correctly that the radius of the observable universe would be
about 4.65 × 10¹� ly.)

However, as the Hubble parameter H(t) = ̇a(t)∕a(t), with a(t) the scale
factor [a(tâ‚€) = 1], is *NOT* constant as the expansion is *accelerating*,
the Hubble sphere is expanding as well (see above), and it is physically
possible that light emitted beyond the *current* Hubble sphere enters it in
the future; so the Hubble sphere is NOT an event horizon either.

That is why the observable universe is much larger than the Hubble sphere.
The actual event horizon is the particle horizon instead. (cf. Davis &
Lineweaver 2003; URI in the other subthread.)

Every point in the Universe has its own observable universe.

Yes. Also note that there are estimates that our entire universe is up
to (10¹��)¹�� times larger than the observable one.

I would strongly suggest discussing cosmology outside of a newsgroup
dedicated to *amateur* astronomy, and in a newsgroup where experts are
reading, like sci.astro or sci.physics.relativity, as I cannot see how
that pertains (in its details) to the topic of *amateur* astronomy.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:08:06 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:
Could any two time surfaces t1 and t2 ever intersect one another?

t is an absolute quantity in the past.

No, in this model it is the universal time coordinate, bereft of any
particular’s observer’s notion of past, present and future. It just is;
or – if you will – it was, is, and will be

There is only one surface

In the words of Albert Einstein: That is just “a stubborn illusion”

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57402/size-of-the-observable-universe/57538#57538

(it isn't a "t surface", so I don't know what you mean.

Add me.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

The 2 funniest chapters in what is the pseudo-science of astrophysics which finished me in the relativity forum nearly 20 years ago, so funny that it is impossible to take the adherents seriously -

https://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

https://www.bartleby.com/173/31.html

I have to laugh at the rejection of stellar islands we now know as galaxies but then again, what could be expected of views 100 years ago.

This newsgroup is a safe haven from theorists where astronomy is practiced as a visual pursuit like it once was.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 00:10:06 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:

Indeed, the edge of the observable universe is simply defined by the distance
beyond which the expansion relative to our position is greater than c.

No, that is a (common?) misconception. You can already see that this cannot
be true if you apply Hubble’s Law and compare the result with your previous
statement:

You should probably not speak about that which you know nothing.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 00:10:06 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
Indeed, the edge of the observable universe is simply defined by the distance
beyond which the expansion relative to our position is greater than c.

No, that is a (common?) misconception. You can already see that this cannot
be true if you apply Hubble’s Law and compare the result with your previous
statement:

You should probably not speak about that which you know nothing.

[sic!]

It is evident that you do not know either cosmology or me.

Have you even read the parts of my posting that you trimmed here?

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.