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

Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.


But anything you see us already in the past so you are always seeing the
interior. The photons you see are in the present but the object from which
they originated is in the past.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 16:31:45 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
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.


But anything you see us already in the past so you are always seeing the
interior. The photons you see are in the present but the object from which
they originated is in the past.

Right. We see nothing in the past. We see the _effects_ of events in
the past. The observation represents an event on the surface of the
Universe (i.e. now) that was caused by an event below the surface
(i.e. in the past).

For those who care about astronomy and their normal use of perspectives, nothing more current than watching Mercury run an actual loop of the central Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VVCiPp67vI&t=195s

https://www.theplanetstoday.com/solar_system_video_1996

Theorists don't do interpretation and whether it is a mathematician thing or not, they have been wrecking havoc for centuries -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Unlike the illusory loops of the slower moving planets, we see the faster moving Venus and Mercury in their smaller circuits run around the Sun with their direct/retrograde motions representing the back and forth motion in front and behind the central Sun.

If people want to waste their time and ignore what is in front of them then so be it but genuine astronomical interpretation is within reach of any adult who knows what they are looking at.

On Wednesday, 2 January 2019 10:33:51 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

Are they still sticking the idea that the sphere is 90 billion or so light-years in diameter? That's the last measurement I read about for the universe's size.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 13:15:08 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Wednesday, 2 January 2019 10:33:51 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

Are they still sticking the idea that the sphere is 90 billion or so light-years in diameter? That's the last measurement I read about for the universe's size.

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.

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.

IBTD.

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.

This has never been possible because we can only see (into) the past.
Therefore, the farthest thing that we can actually *see*
(electromagnetically) is the last scattering surface (LSS), before our
universe became transparent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Gravitational waves provide a new way of seeing, but they can only
take us further back in time, to the Big Bang event (and maybe beyond).

Unfortunately, if we are on a sphere, there is no edge, we'll see to a
certain distance and that'll be it.

Even worse, we simply cannot see our universe at this distance as it is now.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Building larger scopes now will enhance what we can see however.

Yes.

However, I'm not even sure I buy the sphere idea anyway.

This is not a new idea. The idea that is rather new is that dark energy
makes it possible for the surface of our universe to be a sphere without
its eventually collapsing.

However, the current standard model suggests that our universe should be
flat, and observations confirm that; so I wonder how the Upsala researchers
reconcile their model with the observations of e.g., the Planck Collaboration’s.

This has nothing to do with *amateur* astronomy. F’up2 sci.astro.

--
PointedEars

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

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.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 08:35:26 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
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.

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

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.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2019 09:43:14 +0100, 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. 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.
Every point in the Universe has its own observable universe.