[opportunity (OP)]

The question here relates to the expansion of the universe, far far away...a long red-shift, parsec upon parsec. Apparently the ideas of relativity don't need to work there.

Just wondering, clearly then if the laws of relativity don't work out there, then time-reversal is not an issue beyond light speed is not an issue?

Some material to consider:
https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

It seems the red-shift effect as we perceive it violates what we want to understand of relativity and it's fairly easy to then say, "well, clearly relativity doesn't work out there".....it's like the red-shift effect has more power of persuasion than the idea of the big bang.

[puppypower]

Say we were inside a space craft that was pure energy and are therefore able to move at the speed of light. We look outside out energy craft's window, and based on the speed of light reference and special relativity, the universe appears to be a contained in a point-instant; speed of light POV.

After traveling, we reach our destination and put on the brakes. We decelerate from the speed of light, to the finite speed of the earth for a rendezvous. During the deceleration we look out the window and notice that the point-instant universe, we had been seeing, now appears to expand in space-time. We are decelerating from the speed of light, yet our universe appears to be expanding faster than the speed of light. Which is cause and which is affect?

[Colin2B]

The question here relates to the expansion of the universe, far far away...a long red-shift, parsec upon parsec. Apparently the ideas of relativity don't need to work there.

Some material to consider:
https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

Who says ideas of relativity don’t work there?
Certainly not the article you quote.

Just wondering, clearly then if the laws of relativity don't work out there, then time-reversal is not an issue beyond light speed is not an issue?
...........
It seems the red-shift effect as we perceive it violates what we want to understand of relativity and it's fairly easy to then say, "well, clearly relativity doesn't work out there".....it's like the red-shift effect has more power of persuasion than the idea of the big bang.

Again why are you assuming the laws of relativity don't work out there?
Redshift does not violate what we understand of relativity.
Did you read the article?

Can you also explain what you mean by “work as a universal manifold?”

Say we were inside a space craft that was pure energy

Accepting that there is no such thing as pure energy.

Which is cause and which is affect?

Affect what?

[opportunity (OP)]

Well pointed out Colin.

I should have said why "special relativity" had to be amended to "general relativity"....as per:

It's true that in special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. But special relativity is a local law of physics. Or in other words, it's a law of local physics. That means that you will never, ever watch a rocket ship blast by your face faster than the speed of light. Local motion, local laws.
But a galaxy on the far side of the universe? That's the domain of general relativity, and general relativity says: who cares! That galaxy can have any speed it wants, as long as it stays way far away, and not up next to your face.

Yet should not local laws exist at the outer limits also? Regarding the universal manifold and the red-shift, it appears space as a substances "stretches" to accommodate for a red-shift that give rise to non-local laws allowing for the speed of light being exceeded?

[Colin2B]

Yet should not local laws exist at the outer limits also?

they do and they are the same as ours, but we are not there to take the local measurement.

Regarding the universal manifold and the red-shift, it appears space as a substances "stretches" to accommodate for a red-shift that give rise to non-local laws allowing for the speed of light being exceeded?

They are not really non-local laws. The problem is that velocity is only meaningful up close, what happens at these incredible distances can only be worked out using GR and that has always allowed light to travel faster than c even within our own solar sytem.

You still haven’t explained why you are introducing the term universal manifold into this question and what you mean by it.

[opportunity (OP)]

Well, I'm avoiding using the term "spacetime" while dissecting relativity. I should say spacetime, yet I'm concerned about the idea of objects appearing to travel at a speed faster than light while in those regions local laws still need to apply. Does that suggest that someone many many light years away would see our reference as travelling faster than light? If its possible, then "spacetime" in between our reference and that greater outer reference carries something that violates its own speed.....so I'm using the term manifold (and not spacetime) to get some clarity on what's going on there with "spacetime".

[Kryptid]

The metric expansion of space, regardless of how quickly it occurs, doesn't carry information faster than light. That's the important part.

[opportunity (OP)]

Yes, so technically space anywhere and everywhere in the universe from a frame of reference very very far away is expanding faster than light, including our own region of space.....and light doesnt contour to the metric of space.....yet it "is" considered to contour space regarding the red-shift effect mechanics.

[Colin2B]

Well, I'm avoiding using the term "spacetime" while dissecting relativity.

..so I'm using the term manifold (and not spacetime) to get some clarity on what's going on there with "spacetime".

Why avoid using spacetime?
How does using the term manifold give clarity in this situation??

I'm concerned about the idea of objects appearing to travel at a speed faster than light while in those regions local laws still need to apply.

Don’t be. Local laws apply locally ie when measured in that location, we are not local and not measuring locally.

Does that suggest that someone many many light years away would see our reference as travelling faster than light?

yes

If its possible, then "spacetime" in between our reference and that greater outer reference carries something that violates its own speed...

No

Yes, so technically space anywhere and everywhere in the universe from a frame of reference very very far away is expanding faster than light, including our own region of space...

Yes

..and light doesnt contour to the metric of space.

That sentence doesn’t make sense.

[opportunity (OP)]

Thanks for your reply Colin.

So, let me get this clear......space stretches at a rate faster than light, light stretches as the red shift effect in terms of wavelength only (as the rate of light stretching is still capped at the speed of liight), although the wavelength of the stretching is not capped.

And so why again is it called "spacetime" if spacetime can exceed light speed, and "time" operates differently with light despite the wavelength of light conforming with the expansion/stretching of space (as per the red shift effect)? I understand the idea of spacetime with relativity, space and time being a part of the same continuum, yet only the wavelength of light rolls out with spacetime as it expands faster than light, not "time". Light it seems represents a departure from spacetime, yet is fundamental to relativity theory.

(the "universal manifold" here I'm considering would be spacetime and "light"....light obeys spacetime as per the metric of space, yet not time though).

Light it thus seems is being stretched by the accelerating expansion of spacetime, yet as a speed is unaffected by the accelerating expansion of spacetime. I guess therefore the answer to my topic question is no. One thing seems to be clear though, space out runs light according to special and general relativity. "Faster than light" travel then seems to be owned by the idea of general relativity and associated red shift requirements for space. As a "universal manifold", a concept, a proposal, that involves light "upon" that faster-than-light spatial manifold, it doesn't seem possible, as light is cut back to "c" according to general relativity. That roughly addresses the question I asked.

[Colin2B]

So, let me get this clear......space stretches at a rate faster than light,

Doesn’t have to. Light travels through space at c so any stretching of space, even a minuscule amount, would result in an observed value >c.

And so why again is it called "spacetime" if spacetime can exceed light speed

Why would you change the name?
Stretch a rubber band and it is still a rubber band, tune a guitar string and its still a guitar string.

(the "universal manifold" here I'm considering would be spacetime and "light"....light obeys spacetime as per the metric of space, yet not time though).

Could you explain how spacetime + light creates a manifold, and what do you mean by a  ‘universal manifold’.
Also can you explain this “light obeys spacetime as per the metric of space”?
You keep making statements that don’t appear to make sense, please clarify. Or start a new theory.

Light .....as a speed is unaffected by the accelerating expansion of spacetime. I guess therefore the answer to my topic question is no.

Local speed is unaffected.

[opportunity (OP)]

The first question I'll address is light addressing the "metric" of space......in that I mean the "distance" of space, as space can only be......the governing feature of the red shift effect and how that effects light, namely wavelength extension with space. The "metric" of space is its distance, and light accommodates there as per the red shift effect, as theory suggests. Yet it doesn't accommodate for "time", as its locality requires "c", according to theory.

The question about a manifold:
In mathematics, a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. More precisely, each point of an n-dimensional manifold has a neighbourhood that is homeomorphic to the Euclidean space of dimension n. In this more precise terminology, a manifold is referred to as an n-manifold.

Essentially I was asking if light is able to ride spacetime and not readjust to perform a local "c".

The post is a question seeking an answer ideally aimed to confirm why current theory stands as it does. The post is not a "new theory", as I haven't presented any ideas for a new theory, merely a question about why "c" is local on space that expands faster than "c".

[Colin2B]

The first question I'll address is light addressing the "metric" of space......in that I mean the "distance" of space, as space can only be......the governing feature of the red shift effect and how that effects light, namely wavelength extension with space. The "metric" of space is its distance, and light accommodates there as per the red shift effect, as theory suggests. Yet it doesn't accommodate for "time", as its locality requires "c", according to theory.

It doesn’t have to ‘accomodate for time’ locally. Mark a series of dots on the surface of a balloon, place your finger on one of the dots and inflate the balloon, your finger will stay over the dot unmoving, but the distance between the dots increases.
As @Kryptid said, the important  part is that information is not transferred faster than light.

The question about a manifold:
In mathematics, a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. More precisely, each point of an n-dimensional manifold has a neighbourhood that is homeomorphic to the Euclidean space of dimension n. In this more precise terminology, a manifold is referred to as an n-manifold.

Essentially I was asking if light is able to ride spacetime and not readjust to perform a local "c".

I know what a manifold is.
Your response doesn’t answer my question “Could you explain how spacetime + light creates a manifold, and what do you mean by a  ‘universal manifold’.”

[opportunity (OP)]

Ok, so given the red-shift is real, a far far away observer will view us as a spatial manifold moving, dispersing, apart at a rate greater than "c". Is there evidence for that in our spatial district, even though "locally" "c" is not violated?

I'm not suggesting a universal manifold of light and spacetime as one, that was a question. It's a little difficult to explain what a question is though, right? C'mon, I don't think I need to explain the concept of a "question" with the aim to explore how general and special relativity works, right?

[Bored chemist]

Can [something that doesn't exist] work as [it doesn't really matter much]?

No, because it doesn't exist.
(OK, it could work as a metaphor or something like that but...)

[opportunity (OP)]

Thanks Einstein, but why......that was the whole point of the post......the aim for a nice description of special and general relativity with the red shift effect and c non-violations in mind. You know, I'm thinking one or two great physicists "back in the day" asked the same question I have. I'm thinking it was a question Einstein asked, a "differential diagnosis" of how to resolve local and distant effects with the red shift in mind.

Besides, BordedChemist, faster than light travel does work if you are "spacetime" as per contemporary theory. Space is travelling such, expanding such, on the outer limits as compared to any reference in reality far far away from it.

One thing that hasn't been uttered yet is "quantum entanglement", or as Einstein said, "spooky action at a distance". Ok, having done all the preliminary SR and GR, and given we know what a "manifold" is, how can two manifolds in space communicate faster than light in a universal, as it would seem, "context"?

[evan_au]

a far far away observer will view us as a spatial manifold moving, dispersing, apart at a rate greater than "c".

If an object is always traveling away from us at greater than c, then we would never see it.
If it expanded at less than c in the past, and is now expanding greater than c (due to the accelerating expansion of the universe), then we would still be able to see "old" light from the object, even if light emitted "now" will never reach us.

a far far away observer will view us as a spatial manifold moving, dispersing, apart at a rate greater than "c". Is there evidence for that in our spatial district?

The CMBR is thought to have been emitted around 300,000 years after the Big Bang.
Initially at a temperature around 3,000K, it has now been red-shifted to around 2.7K, or a red-shift of about 1000:1.
The CMBR is visible in our space.

[opportunity (OP)]

Sure, if any object is moving away from us greater than "c", number one, locally, that's impossible (for any object). Yet number two, space distantly is moving greater than "c" as per the red shift of light, that proposal of spatial expansion, and we do see it, do we not, that cluster of activity? That's why "c" isn't violated locally there, right? How can the red-shift be measured without a source? The CMBR? No. The CMBR is the proposed energy of the theorised big bang, that has been married to the red shift effect, to thus propose the big bang.

If I can re-iterate:
One thing that hasn't been uttered yet is "quantum entanglement", or as Einstein said, "spooky action at a distance". Ok, having done all the preliminary SR and GR, and given we know what a "manifold" is, how can two manifolds in space communicate faster than light in a universal, as it would seem, "context"?

Evan, your suggestion that something can pick up speed owing to the expansion of space greater than c and no longer been seen does appear to violate local "c" effects from here to the observed issue.

The zodiac appears relatively stable, through millennia. If there was faster than light space effecting the stars, the stars would be gradually getting dimmer and moving outwards away from us, sure, yet we spend lots of resources on finding the dimmest stars, only to find dimmer ones....and then dimmer ones still. When stars drop out then, because they're effected by the expansion of space and that effect on their relative velocity to us, such we can't see them anymore, yet they do still exist, do we suggest they just "black out"? They're still there though, right?

[puppypower]

Say we were inside a space craft that was pure energy and are therefore able to move at the speed of light. We look outside out energy craft's window, and based on the speed of light reference and special relativity, the universe appears to be a contained in a point-instant; speed of light POV.

After traveling, we reach our destination and put on the brakes. We decelerate from the speed of light, to the finite speed of the earth for a rendezvous. During the deceleration we look out the window and notice that the point-instant universe, we had been seeing, now appears to expand in space-time. We are decelerating from the speed of light, yet the universe appears to be expanding faster than the speed of light. Which is cause and which is affect?

The universe still contains traces from its past, which we can see today. The universe is huge and light has a finite speed. If you assume that our universe began as a singularity, and all the mass/energy of the universe was originally in that singularity, then the universe reference began very close to a speed of light reference.

For the universe to expand, the average observational reference of the infant universe would also have to expand in terms of the average space-time reference of the universe. Again, if the universe still has traces from his very early beginnings, what would happen if this leading change of reference was preserved? The analysis of my first post comes into play, such that what appears to be faster than light expansion, is an affect from a primary cause. The analogy is we see smoke; faster than speed of light, but this smoke came from an explosion, that has long past, which generated the smoke.

In terms of faster than the speed of light being a universal manifold, in the above analysis, this is an affect, and not the primary cause. It could be used, but it is one or two steps away from a simpler manifold.

Note: the term equivalent reference that will be used is an accounting trick for conceptual simplification. It translates any GR based reference, into the speed required in SR, to see the same space-time reference. The black hole generates a reference close to C via GR. This is equivalent to the space-time reference of any sized object with a velocity close to C-.

Let me go back to the primordial atom and an original speed of light reference; energy point. For inertial matter to form the universe cannot maintain a reference moving at the speed of light. Its reference equivalent needs to be slightly slower, to say C-. To decrease from C to C-; equivalent references, we need to put on the brakes, with the generation of brake heat.

This brake heat may be what we call dark energy. It is not your normal heat, since it is connected to a transitional change of space-time reference from C to C-. and not to inertial materials per se. It is transitional heat output from the condensation of energy into matter and anti-matter. In other words, this brake heat would have the properties of dark energy in the sense what this type of heat can be absorbed by space-time. It is not absorb by matter directly, however, it does impact matter, indirectly.

The observed faster than speed of light affect, could be explained by a simple extrapolation of special relativity. If we took matter and attempted to speed it up to the speed of light, this will take infinite energy. It follows then, if matter was to directly condense from a speed of light reference, the result will generate infinite matter/energy. Since we live in a finite universe, we need a way to conserve and express this infinite energy, while ending up with a finite result. The faster than speed of light observation may be a space-time energy sink, that allows near infinite energy to end up as finite matter. 

[opportunity (OP)]

Einstein based SR and GR on a finite universe.

Somewhere alone the line with calculations that was disproven.

You're suggesting the BB happened initially at light speed, and then "spacetime" didn't speed up and leave light behind?

SR and GR in its perfect form was not BB adjusted. The BB came through marrying the CMBR with the red shift effect.

Talking about matter being observed to condense into nothing, whatever the process, when it still exists according to BB theory and red shift faster than light expansion, is nonsene. Why not say we live in a world of apparition in the stars?

I get your point though.....yet if I was screen testing an idea that hid a greater truth, that's close.... maybe an Oscar....I'd look at singularities as an a-priori that leads to results, not results that point to a possible a-priori.