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

On Monday, 31 December 2018 11:28:31 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 08:38:10 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 10:03:55 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 08:11:41 -0800 (PST), RichA

wrote:

On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 11:05:00 AM UTC-5, Chris L
Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 06:51:31 -0800 (PST), RichA

wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-univer...dimension.html

Interesting, but I still think nk string theory prevails. If
they could find a way to measure gravity bleed into the dimension, it
would be a great first step.

If you don't mind the math, the pre-print is available.

They are looking at a 5th dimensional de Sitter sphere. The
expanding
bubble we're in is 4-dimensional.

Are we in it, or on it?

We're on the 3D spatial surface of a 4D sphere. Time is the radial
axis.

But we must be inside the 4D sphere or else we would have no future.

No, we are on the surface. The surface is "now". The center is t=0
(actually, it is (0,0,0,0), the location of the Big Bang). The past is
inside the sphere, where it is not accessible to us.

If we are to take this literally, then the universe isn't flat, it has no end-point (for us) and building bigger telescopes means little.

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 8:17:44 AM UTC, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:28:28 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
But we must be inside the 4D sphere or else we would have no
future.

No, we are on the surface. The surface is "now". The center is t=0
(actually, it is (0,0,0,0), the location of the Big Bang). The past
is
inside the sphere, where it is not accessible to us.

Which means that in one second we will be almost one lunar distance
outside this sphere? Since outside the sphere is where the future is.

To be fair to him, this is what the late 'Androcles' drew attention to but in a world without attribution, at least he tried.

What a waste of mental energy but then again, theorists and their followers don't seem to mind chasing each other around in circles.

On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 09:17:39 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:28:28 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
But we must be inside the 4D sphere or else we would have no
future.

No, we are on the surface. The surface is "now". The center is t=0
(actually, it is (0,0,0,0), the location of the Big Bang). The past
is
inside the sphere, where it is not accessible to us.

Which means that in one second we will be almost one lunar distance
outside this sphere? Since outside the sphere is where the future is.

In one second the surface of the sphere will have moved outward by one
second, placing everything in the Universe one second later.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 00:19:24 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

No, we are on the surface. The surface is "now". The center is t=0
(actually, it is (0,0,0,0), the location of the Big Bang). The past is
inside the sphere, where it is not accessible to us.

If we are to take this literally, then the universe isn't flat, it has no end-point (for us) and building bigger telescopes means little.

I don't follow. Why is there no value in building instruments that
extend how far we can see, in both space and time?

On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 07:52:37 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 09:17:39 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:28:28 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
But we must be inside the 4D sphere or else we would have no
future.

No, we are on the surface. The surface is "now". The center is
t=0
(actually, it is (0,0,0,0), the location of the Big Bang). The
past
is
inside the sphere, where it is not accessible to us.

Which means that in one second we will be almost one lunar
distance
outside this sphere? Since outside the sphere is where the future
is.

In one second the surface of the sphere will have moved outward by
one
second, placing everything in the Universe one second later.

As you probably know from relativity time isn't an absolute quantity.
If we regard time as just a coordinate (with light speed as the scale
factor to the space coordinates) then this "surface of the sphere"
will fill up the interior as well as the exterior of the sphe go
anywhere anytime and the "surface of the sphere" will be there!

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 8:46:30 AM UTC, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 07:52:37 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 09:17:39 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:28:28 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
But we must be inside the 4D sphere or else we would have no
future.

No, we are on the surface. The surface is "now". The center is
t=0
(actually, it is (0,0,0,0), the location of the Big Bang). The
past
is
inside the sphere, where it is not accessible to us.

Which means that in one second we will be almost one lunar
distance
outside this sphere? Since outside the sphere is where the future
is.

In one second the surface of the sphere will have moved outward by
one
second, placing everything in the Universe one second later.

As you probably know from relativity time isn't an absolute quantity.

The evolution of timekeeping to represent 'time', at least among mathematicians, is one of those stories which is hard to beat.

The 24 hour system with its equable hours, minutes and seconds is an outrigger of the calendar framework and the system of references and planetary cycles which make that system possible.

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

It happens that people who themselves are so convinced by a story they inherited that Sir Isaac's description just bounces off them in order to support the exotic late 19th century science fiction 'The Time Machine' novel and its formal academic version in the early 20th century.

The Equation of Time represents two surface rotations to the Sun, the constant daily rotation responsible for the 24 hour cycle and the uneven surface rotation as a function of orbital motion responsible for the Polar day/night cycle and where these rotations combine we get the seasons.

No point in throwing good information after bad and especially among those who can't recognise the botched description of the Equation of Time(keeping) as absolute/relative time.

On Tuesday, 1 January 2019 09:54:16 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 00:19:24 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

No, we are on the surface. The surface is "now". The center is t=0
(actually, it is (0,0,0,0), the location of the Big Bang). The past is
inside the sphere, where it is not accessible to us.

If we are to take this literally, then the universe isn't flat, it has no end-point (for us) and building bigger telescopes means little.

I don't follow. Why is there no value in building instruments that
extend how far we can see, in both space and time?

Stupidly, I was actually hoping that they could build scopes large enough to see the brightest objects at the edge of the known universe. Unfortunately, if we are on a sphere, there is no edge, we'll see to a certain distance and that'll be it. Building larger scopes now will enhance what we can see however. However, I'm not even sure I buy the sphere idea anyway.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 05:48:37 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
Stupidly, I was actually hoping that they could build scopes large
enough
to see the brightest objects at the edge of the known universe.

We've already done that. The largest telescope at any time will see
the brightest objects at the edge of the known universe, because
anything beyond that will also be beyond the known universe...

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 05:48:37 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 1 January 2019 09:54:16 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 00:19:24 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

No, we are on the surface. The surface is "now". The center is t=0
(actually, it is (0,0,0,0), the location of the Big Bang). The past is
inside the sphere, where it is not accessible to us.

If we are to take this literally, then the universe isn't flat, it has no end-point (for us) and building bigger telescopes means little.

I don't follow. Why is there no value in building instruments that
extend how far we can see, in both space and time?

Stupidly, I was actually hoping that they could build scopes large enough to see the brightest objects at the edge of the known universe. Unfortunately, if we are on a sphere, there is no edge, we'll see to a certain distance and that'll be it. Building larger scopes now will enhance what we can see however. However, I'm not even sure I buy the sphere idea anyway.

We are on the 3D surface of a sphere (really, a hypersphere, although
it may not by hyperspherical, but have some other 4D shape). The
entire 3D volume of space that is causally connected to us is
accessible to our observation. That volume is called the observable
universe, and we are constantly improving instruments which let us see
closer to its edge.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 09:46:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 07:52:37 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 09:17:39 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:28:28 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
But we must be inside the 4D sphere or else we would have no
future.

No, we are on the surface. The surface is "now". The center is
t=0
(actually, it is (0,0,0,0), the location of the Big Bang). The
past
is
inside the sphere, where it is not accessible to us.

Which means that in one second we will be almost one lunar
distance
outside this sphere? Since outside the sphere is where the future
is.

In one second the surface of the sphere will have moved outward by
one
second, placing everything in the Universe one second later.

As you probably know from relativity time isn't an absolute quantity.
If we regard time as just a coordinate (with light speed as the scale
factor to the space coordinates) then this "surface of the sphere"
will fill up the interior as well as the exterior of the sphe go
anywhere anytime and the "surface of the sphere" will be there!

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.