[puppypower]

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 when it still exists is nonsene. Why not say we live in a world of apparition in the stars?

What I said is the observed faster than the speed of light expansion is a result of something more fundamental.

For example, say we could travel in a rocket  at the speed of light; hypothetically. This is not allowed by SR, but this is hypothetical.If we look out the window we will see the entire universe appeared to be contained on a point-instant.

We then put on the brakes and decelerate to earth speed in 1 second. If you looked out the window, during this deceleration, the universe would appear to expand faster than the speed of light. The universe is not doing anything, per se, but this is what we will see, because the rocket ship is decelerating. You could place a camera in the window and  record this visual, but it is not real in the sense of happening to the universe.

What I said is if this initial deceleration from C to inertial was preserved in the universe, secondary affects will appear.  You will see relative reference affects from time=0+ than have been preserved in space-time.

Relative to the rocket decelerating, we can see the universe expand only from its windows for a 1 second time interval. Beyond that we will not see anything. From the preserved traces of the original expansion in reference; analogous to a slow down from C, we can look out all the windows of the universe and see the same thing. The trace evidence is everywhere, preserved by time and energy.

[Colin2B]

How can the red-shift be measured without a source?

It can’t. Distant galaxies and cmbr are sources

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.

No, go back to the balloon, each dot has its own ‘local.
There are no “local "c" effects from here to the observed issue”

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"?

No point raising entanglement (which is irrelevant to this discussion) when we still haven’t resolved what you mean by spacetime and light creating a manifold, the definition you quote doesn’t clarify that. It’s important to get an understanding of why these terms are raised because at the moment your terminology tends to obscure rather than clarify.

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?

Zodiac was based on what could be seen with naked eye, so all the stars are within our galaxy ie local. It doesn’t appear stable over millennia based on our measurements which ancient people didn’t have access to.
Further out we are looking at galaxies, if moving away they get dimmer because the redshift has less energy and the longer wavelengths begin to move out of our visual field. We can still detect them as they go beyond visual range by means of IR, microwave and radio frequency detection. I think all this has been mentioned before somewhere.

[opportunity (OP)]

Ok. Good answers.

So we're saying the expansion happens everywhere and stars in the distance wont fade away because if they do we do? And the expansion is exactly happening to us right now compared to a distant reference? Wow, I'm not noticing any spatial expansion right now......am I dumb?

So we are, right now, expanding at a high rate, uniformly, outwards, to a reference elsewhere in the universe....far far away? And it's over light speed?....as a potential life form far far away would view us?

Sometimes I think science is a good way for a heads up, who's cheating us and why.

Colin, the knee bone has no idea about the shoulder bone, let alone the head bone. You're asking for Gray's Anatomy with some of your questions (and "answers")...try to see the "overall" idea...."the question", and not as you suppose "the statement" that is meant to in your view presuppose, it appears, everything else. I'm doing what I can to encourage debate, and yet you clarify statements (it seems to the contrary, despite my attempts to resolve your need to clarify specifics....and to what end exactly?), sure, but what about quantum-entanglement? Where's the manifold there? You avoid that, why? Not a forte? Avoiding an issue is obvious. I can't say you're the only one though, to your credit....

What's your idea, ideas, about QE?

To be frank, I'm not impressed by the answers so far. A lot of avoidance on topics key to the underlying subject of QE....."faster than light travel in a universal manifold".....all I get is "what's that"? Zero intuition. Are kids these days taught QE at school?

Is QE real: is it confined/"specific" to certain areas of space we can localise, or could it get more "general"?

[Colin2B]

With Puppypower’s answers marked as best answer, this topic has moved well into new theories territory as we can now see clearly what sort of pseudoscience answer you are looking for.
I’m not at all impressed with your inability to define what you mean by statements in your posts. Starting to look too much of pseudoscience than a real quest for understanding.
In this section you can explore what you like and invent whatever terminology you wish.

[opportunity (OP)]

With Puppypower’s answers marked as best answer, this topic has moved well into new theories territory as we can now see clearly what sort of pseudoscience answer you are looking for.
I’m not at all impressed with your inability to define what you mean by statements in your posts. Starting to look too much of pseudoscience than a real quest for understanding.
In this section you can explore what you like and invent whatever terminology you wish.

I'll promise not to post anything about quantum entanglement here ....Thanks.

[Colin2B]

You can post whatever you like here as long as it is legal and friendly.
However, there is no benefit in bringing entanglement into a discussion that clearly isn’t giving you the answers you are expecting, it will just create more confusion.

[opportunity (OP)]

Sorry if QE was illegal and unfriendly 

Really?

Faster than light....who could have thought quantum entanglement would poke it's illegal head?

Sorry, "unfriendly" and "illegal" head, right?

Yep...hope you people know what facing science is all about...one day.....

I'm gone, this is nuts......bye, and good luck with you're "stuff".......I sincerely say that........

For the time I've been in the forum, I have to say it has been the best way to get involved with science.....you know, despite misconceptions with questions. I think I asked too many questions......so, my advice to anyone else....."not too many questions"!!.....read this post for instance.....still, great forum....lots of potential....

[Kryptid]

Sorry if QE was illegal and unfriendly 

Really?

Faster than light....who could have thought quantum entanglement would poke it's illegal head?

Sorry, "unfriendly" and "illegal" head, right?

Yep...hope you people know what facing science is all about...one day.....

I'm gone, this is nuts......bye, and good luck with you're "stuff".......I sincerely say that........

For the time I've been in the forum, I have to say it has been the best way to get involved with science.....you know, despite misconceptions with questions. I think I asked too many questions......so, my advice to anyone else....."not too many questions"!!.....read this post for instance.....still, great forum....lots of potential....

I think you misunderstood what Colin2B was saying. Nowhere did he say (or even imply) that quantum entanglement is "illegal" or "unfriendly". However, problems with communication do appear to be a common thing on this board. Perhaps you could try to rephrase you statements so that it's easier for us to understand what exactly it is that you are asking.

By the way, quantum entanglement can't be used to transmit information faster than light.

[evan_au]

The zodiac appears relatively stable, through millennia.

Edmund Halley (famed for his eponymous comet) discovered that stars were moving through space when studying a star map from the ancient astronomer Hipparchus. Some prominent stars were drawn in the "wrong" positions - by the width of the Moon! No self-respecting astronomer would make that mistake! (These stars were bright because they are relatively close to us, and so display a greater "Proper Motion".)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion#History

In the 1990s, the Hipparcos satellite measured the motion of 100,000 nearby stars; now, with later missions, that catalogue is being expanded to measure the proper motion of a billion nearby stars.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparcos

stars in the distance wont fade away because if they do we do?

It is true that with an accelerating expansion of the universe, distant galaxies would gradually redshift into oblivion (or fade away, as you put it).

But we would still be just as visible (to us, not them).

...That is, unless the expansion accelerates so much that we end up with a "Big Rip", and even nearby stars and planets get torn away!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

Wow, I'm not noticing any spatial expansion right now......am I dumb?

No, not dumb. Just unoriginal - the Inquisition used the same argument when condemning Galileo for claiming that the Earth moves around the Sun.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

[opportunity (OP)]

Sorry if QE was illegal and unfriendly 

Really?

Faster than light....who could have thought quantum entanglement would poke it's illegal head?

Sorry, "unfriendly" and "illegal" head, right?

Yep...hope you people know what facing science is all about...one day.....

I'm gone, this is nuts......bye, and good luck with you're "stuff".......I sincerely say that........

For the time I've been in the forum, I have to say it has been the best way to get involved with science.....you know, despite misconceptions with questions. I think I asked too many questions......so, my advice to anyone else....."not too many questions"!!.....read this post for instance.....still, great forum....lots of potential....

By the way, quantum entanglement can't be used to transmit information faster than light.

As a parting gesture, I have to mention a number of people in Silicon valley would profoundly disagree. Yet again this post was sent to the light hearted new theories section because no one takes QE seriously. Haha, ok.I still think this is a good post if anyone wants to understand SR and GR and how scientists (? mmmm) can spit the dummy when things get a bit complex.

[Kryptid]

As a parting gesture, I have to mention a number of people in Silicon valley would profoundly disagree.

Then either they are wrong or you are mistaken about what they claim to believe. You can't transmit information with quantum entanglement because you can't force a particle to collapse into any particular state. Whether a particle in a superposition collapses into a spin-up or spin-down state is random. If you detect that the particle is in a spin-up state, you know that the other must be in a spin-down state, but that's it. How do you propose to send signals when the "message" you send is inevitably a random set of spin-ups and spin-downs?

[opportunity (OP)]

As a parting gesture, I have to mention a number of people in Silicon valley would profoundly disagree.

Then either they are wrong or you are mistaken about what they claim to believe. You can't transmit information with quantum entanglement because you can't force a particle to collapse into any particular state. Whether a particle in a superposition collapses into a spin-up or spin-down state is random. If you detect that the particle is in a spin-up state, you know that the other must be in a spin-down state, but that's it. How do you propose to send signals when the "message" you send is inevitably a random set of spin-ups and spin-downs?

Look, I wish I could talk about a subject like this, but baiting is one thing, being genuine with question and answer is another. There's been a lot of good answers in this post, and I''d say most of it has been disregarded in favour of knit picking. Its a bad look guys.

[Kryptid]

Look, I wish I could talk about a subject like this, but baiting is one thing, being genuine with question and answer is another. There's been a lot of good answers in this post, and I''d say most of it has been disregarded in favour of knit picking. Its a bad look guys.

I don't know why you think I'm "baiting" you. I have no ill-intentions.

[opportunity (OP)]

"Baiting" doesn't have to be nefarious, it could be to get a good answer, but the process oof being interrogated by trolls who ignore valid points begins to suck. Now, I'm not calling anyone a troll, I just mentioned knit-picking. Lots of good ideas in this post have been presented and deliberately diistorted. If that's not trolling, well, whatever.

I suggest you google silicon valley, quantum computing, and quantum entanglement, and those research endeavours, as an introduction to the idea. Besides, quantum computing appears to be a "new theory" in this forum, so I understand your uncertainty.

[Kryptid]

"Baiting" doesn't have to be nefarious, it could be to get a good answer, but the process oof being interrogated by trolls who ignore valid points begins to suck. Now, I'm not calling anyone a troll, I just mentioned knit-picking. Lots of good ideas in this post have been presented and deliberately diistorted. If that's not trolling, well, whatever.

I suggest you google silicon valley, quantum computing, and quantum entanglement, and those research endeavours, as an introduction to the idea. Besides, quantum computing appears to be a "new theory" in this forum, so I understand your uncertainty.

Quantum computing is a legitimate area of study, yes. It doesn't have anything to do with faster-than-light communication, however. That's not the reason it is being researched.

[opportunity (OP)]

I think this is another example of "stone-walling". Quantum entanglment appears to be a diirty word in this forum. Sad.

"Entanglement has many applications in quantum information theory".....gee, where did I get that quote from?

oh, wow, here's another one......"most researchers believe that entanglement is necessary to realise quantum computing"......

I'm like, "wo.....we're from a different planet", right?

[Kryptid]

I think this is another example of "stone-walling". Quantum entanglment appears to be a diirty word in this forum. Sad.

How you get that out of my post is beyond me.

"Entanglement has many applications in quantum information theory".....gee, where did I get that quote from?

oh, wow, here's another one......"most researchers believe that entanglement is necessary to realise quantum computing"......

I'm like, "wo.....we're from a different planet", right?

None of that has anything to do with transmitting information faster than light.

[opportunity (OP)]

Dude, read up on QE, the basics, and how that translates to the idea of varying sets of data transmission.

It's been good man. All the best best.

[Kryptid]

Dude, read up on QE, the basics, and how that translates to the idea of varying sets of data transmission.

This may be of use to you: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/2/#6d257b913ad0p

There is also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

[opportunity (OP)]

Dude, read up on QE, the basics, and how that translates to the idea of varying sets of data transmission.

This may be of use to you: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-reasons-quantum-entanglement-doesnt-allow-faster-than-light-communication/2/#6d257b913ad0p

There is also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

I'm sorry, but that link so so lame. The "blogger" was referring to a single quantum state, not a grouping. Of course data can't be sent along a standard QE link. Daaaa.. As I said, read up on the idea, it might even get to the physics section!!