0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

As a bonus, it is expected that this device could get a measure of the expansion of the universe (the Hubble constant) which is independent of the two current (conflicting) answers based on various methods.

As our universe is infinite - we get a perfect isotropic radiation from all directions.So, there is no meaning for our location in this infinite universe, as long as the distance to any "edge" of the universe is still infinite!

QuoteHowever, do you agree that if the space is represented as a "surface of a balloon" - somehow, we must monitor a curvature in space?Not if the curvature is below the sensitivity of the instruments to measure it.

However, do you agree that if the space is represented as a "surface of a balloon" - somehow, we must monitor a curvature in space?

If the surface of Earth was 2D space, how could the 2D creatures on it measure the curvature? Not by using altitude. If space went in that direction, it wouldn't be 2D space. Likewise, there is no direction in the hypersphere that is 'above' the surface that represents a specific moment in comoving time. You can't see along the surface anyway. You can only see light that comes from the past.

There is an experiment proposed for the 2030s that would search for gravitational waves using lasers bounced of satellites, perhaps 2.5 million km apart....

Our scientists must find a way how to verify the curvature in our Universe! This is a mandatory request, otherwise, the whole idea of the curvature is problematic.

Quote from: Halc on 01/06/2019 21:13:03QuoteHowever, do you agree that if the space is represented as a "surface of a balloon" - somehow, we must monitor a curvature in space?Not if the curvature is below the sensitivity of the instruments to measure it.So, you agree that based on our instruments we do not see any curvature in our Universe (as far as we can see and monitor - At least 13 Bly for any direction)

How can we claim in one hand that based on our mathematical theory the Universe should have a curvature,

In other words - as we see no curvature up to a minimal radius of 13 Billion light year, we must find what is the minimal circumference of "surface of a balloon" that is needed to support that none curvature at that radius.

Let's use the circumference of the Earth as an example-At the early time, our scientists didn't really measure the circumference of the Earth.

Sort of a challenge: How to measure the size of the planet without moving.

QuoteHow can we claim in one hand that based on our mathematical theory the Universe should have a curvature,Who said that?Maybe it's finite but not curved. Read my other post. Maybe the finite/infinite distinction depends on how the size is measured.

QuoteTherefore, at the meeting point of that hypersphere, we might have one galaxy from the left which is moving at a velocity of n * c, while from the other side (right) another galaxy is coming at a velocity of n * c.They're the same galaxy, and receding in all directions. Nothing that distant is coming at us. The universe is expanding, remember?

Therefore, at the meeting point of that hypersphere, we might have one galaxy from the left which is moving at a velocity of n * c, while from the other side (right) another galaxy is coming at a velocity of n * c.

This discusses how a 3D creatures would measure the curvature of a 3D ball, not the analogous 2D creatures measuring the curvature of the 2D surface of Earth.

Lack of mass creation is not a BBT thing. It is a law of thermodynamics, which is not based at all on BBT.

WowAfter all of our discussion, do you agree that there is a possibility that there is no curvature in our Universe and maybe it is also infinite?

I see a severe contradiction between the idea of expansion and the 4D module.

In order to get the 4D module Minkowski had placed the time as orthogonal to the 3D of space.So, if we set an expansion in 4D module, we must set an expansion in each dimension of this module.If we only set an expansion in the 3D space dimensions and ignore the time dimension, than we set a severe violation in Minkowski formula.

So, in order to validate Minkowski concept under the idea of space expansion, we also must set an expansion in the time.But, if I understand it correctly, there is no way to set an expansion in time.

Therefore, do you agree that Minkowski and expansion can't work together?

Quote from: HalcThis discusses how a 3D creatures would measure the curvature of a 3D ball, not the analogous 2D creatures measuring the curvature of the 2D surface of Earth.I also do not agree to that analogy.We are living in a 3D space.

1. In our space there is only 3D, so we are not living in a 4D Universe.

2. Hence, Minkowski concept for 4D Universe is just unrealistic mathematical concept of Space-time.

4. If the 4D concept of space-time is unrealistic, than its outcome as a curvature in space is also unrealistic.

5. If our universe is infinite (or might be infinite - based on your answer), we must find a theory that gives a clear explanation for infinite Universe!

6. I can't see how the BBT gives explanation for an infinite Universe in a very limited time frame of 13.8 Billion years

Any real theory must show the source for all the matter in our Universe.

If our universe is infinite, than the total matter in the universe is also infinite.

If I understand it correctly - in order to bypass the thermodynamic obstacle, our scientists doesn't give an explanation for the source of particles before the BBT.

They just show the transformation process from particles to Atoms after the Big bang: From Particles to Atoms, From Atoms to stars, and from stars to galaxies.

However, we know that particles are not stable over time. So, if there were particles before the big bang - their life time was quite short (few seconds?). Therefore, I can't see any option to accumulate infinite quantity of particles, just in order to wait for the mighty Big bang to come and start the process of converting all of them into real atoms.

By that converting process, our scientists believe that they have overcome the thermodynamics obstacle.

How can we hold a particle for so long time? What is the expected life time of a average particle?

What is the source of the energy of the Big bang? Why it had suddenly happened?

Quote2. Hence, Minkowski concept for 4D Universe is just unrealistic mathematical concept of Space-time.It works, predicting exactly what we see.

Quote4. If the 4D concept of space-time is unrealistic, than its outcome as a curvature in space is also unrealistic.True. Curvature of space makes no sense in 3D, yet it has very much been measured, so it must be curvature in space-time. You just demonstrated the 4D concept by a valid indirect argument.

Quote6. I can't see how the BBT gives explanation for an infinite Universe in a very limited time frame of 13.8 Billion yearsGood argument. You're using a coordinate system (like Minkowski's) with a finite light speed. Yes, under that system, the size is finite. See my other thread. See the standard picture in post 464 which clearly shows faster than light speed of objects, not possible in the coordinates that Minkowski and special relativity uses. It is a different coordinate system (I know not the name of it), but the one used when discussing very distant things.

QuoteAfter all of our discussion, do you agree that there is a possibility that there is no curvature in our Universe and maybe it is also infinite?Since I never said it cannot be infinite, I don't know where 'all this discussion' about it comes from. My actual personal stance is that the size of the universe is dependent on how you measure it.

After all of our discussion, do you agree that there is a possibility that there is no curvature in our Universe and maybe it is also infinite?

QuoteWe are living in a 3D space.So use the hypersphere model then, which is for 3D creatures. I was trying to simplify it for somebody obviously incapable of envisioning a hypersphere.

We are living in a 3D space.

QuoteI see a severe contradiction between the idea of expansion and the 4D module.It's no different than a 2D model (one of space, the other time, so an expanding circle), which is easier to envision if you find 4D too much for you. The balloon analogy is 2D of space, but even that seems beyond your ability to envision.

Sorry - If there was a curvature in our Universe we should see it!

I have full confidence that even if we could install our measurements tools at 13 Billion years from each other we won't find even one centimeter of curvature in our Universe.

Therefore, I still wonder why our scientists do whatever it takes to keep the BBT in life?

Why do you claim that it is predicting exactly what we see?

Do we see any special verification/evidence for that confirms space - time concept? Do we really see a curvature in our universe?

Did we really measure that Curvature of space?

It was stated before that so far we couldn't find any curvature in our universe.Please explain this answer.

So do you agree that the BBT can't support an infinite Universe (without curvature)? Only a finite curvature Universe?

Once you accept the idea that the universe is/could be infinite (without curvature),

than do you accept the idea that for this infinite Universe the BBT is useless and therefore we must look for more updated theory?

The main problem with "hypersphere" is that it doesn't represent our real 3-sphere Universe.

Do you agree that we are still living in a 3D space?

If there was a curvature in our Universe - why don't we see it?I have full confidence that even if we could install our measurements tools at 13 Billion years from each other we won't find even one centimeter of curvature in our Universe.

Therefore, it seems to me that the main success of the Curvature idea is just an extra living time for the BBT.

QuoteSorry - If there was a curvature in our Universe we should see it!Not if it's too subtle for us to measure with current technology.

There is an experiment proposed for the 2030s that would search for gravitational waves using lasers bounced of satellites, perhaps 2.5 million km apart.The goal was to look for tiny variations in the phase of a laser beam over this distance - looking for variations of around 20 picometers with periods ranging from 1 second to 10 hours.It is outside the mission goals, but the same equipment could be used in the same way as a surveyor's laser to measure the distance between the satellites with an accuracy of perhaps 1nm over a period of a year. That may reveal some deviation from flat space due to the nearby Sun (superimposed on orbital disturbances from Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, Venus and Mars - and the Milky Way itself). As a bonus, it is expected that this device could get a measure of the expansion of the universe (the Hubble constant) which is independent of the two current (conflicting) answers based on various methods.However, measuring deviation of intergalactic space from perfectly flat space of the universe would be beyond such a device.See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna

Who said the hypersphere model was a particularly successful one? It's just a possibility that hasn't been falsified.

My Minkowski model is another finite one that is not curved. It has an edge like the hypersphere doesn't.I drew a picture of it yesterday here:https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76976.msg577095#msg577095The purple line is the edge of the universe, growing further away from 'here' as time progresses. There's another one on the other side not depicted.

The light blue line intersects the purple line. Thus the univserse is finite in size when measured that way. The dark blue line never hits the purple line, and thus the universe is infinite when measured that way.Same (standard) model, but different ways of measuring things.

QuoteThe main problem with "hypersphere" is that it doesn't represent our real 3-sphere Universe. How do you know that?

QuoteTherefore, I still wonder why our scientists do whatever it takes to keep the BBT in life?Because it matches the evidence.

Which evidence?

Do we see any curvature in our Universe?

Can we prove that our Universe is Hypersphere?

Can we prove that in our real universe the time is orthogonal to the 3D space?

If we can't prove the above and our universe is infinite, how the BBT could fit in this Universe?

Therefore, why can't we say that based on the current accuracy there is no curvature in space?

Just an example -If I will tell you that an elephant is hiding behind the tree, would you believe that there is an elephant there?

Our scientists want to believe that there is a curvature in our Universe but it is hiding and therefore we can see it with the current technology. That is perfectly clear to me.

3. With regards to Minkowski model:Quote from: HalcMy Minkowski model is another finite one that is not curved. It has an edge like the hypersphere doesn't.I drew a picture of it yesterday here:https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76976.msg577095#msg577095The purple line is the edge of the universe, growing further away from 'here' as time progresses. There's another one on the other side not depicted.I have looked at your modeling but I'm not sure that I fully understand how it really works.

In one hand you claim that: "Minkowski model is another finite one that is not curved"On the other hand you claim that: "The purple line is the edge of the universe, growing further away from 'here' as time progresses"So, if the purple line is the edge of the universe, then how could it be that there is no curvature in the Universe?

How could it be that in a finite Universe with an edge there is no curvature?

Don't you agree that a finite space/universe must have a curvature?

In any case, please advice if I understand it correctly as follow:The main idea with the 4D space-time of Minkowski is that even if we see that the Universe is completely flat (without any sort of evidence for curvature) the Universe/space must be a finite universe.

However, what is the size of that finite Universe?

As you claim that Minkowski model has an edge like the hypersphere doesn't, then would you kindly calculate the size/edge of our current space/universe based on this model?

If the 4D space-time of Minkowski model is correct, than why based on the flat Universe that we see (and measured), and the Picture that you drew, we can't extract the total size of our real finite Universe?Why don't we try to calculate the minimum size of the finite Universe as a direct outcome of Minkowski 4D space-time model?

How can we claim that: The edge of the universe is growing further away from 'here' as time progresses, while we have no clue about the where is 'here' and what is the edge/size of the Universe?

The light blue line intersects the purple line. Thus the universe is finite in size when measured that way. The dark blue line never hits the purple line, and thus the universe is infinite when measured that way.Same (standard) model, but different ways of measuring things.

Therefore, do you agree that theoretically if we move along the opposite direction of the lines, than we might find that the Universe is shrinking?

However, I still don't see any prove for the idea that the time is orthogonal for those 3 Dimension in space.

It might be a great mathematical concept. But if in our real life, the time isn't orthogonal to the space, than the outcome of Minkowski space-time model is an imaginary mathematical Universe.

In this imaginary Universe, there might be a curvature/edge in the space or even in the time.Therefore, we get that magneficent image as you have drawn.

QuoteCan we prove that in our real universe the time is orthogonal to the 3D space?I don't think that's necessary.

QuoteHowever, I still don't see any prove for the idea that the time is orthogonal for those 3 Dimension in space.Newton assumed that, and worked out a speed of light that was measurably different depending on your speed.

QuoteIt might be a great mathematical concept. But if in our real life, the time isn't orthogonal to the space, than the outcome of Minkowski space-time model is an imaginary mathematical Universe.It isn't a universe at all. It's a model, and one that corresponds exactly to what we see.

QuoteCan we prove that in our real universe the time is orthogonal to the 3D space?I don't think that's necessary. Einstein showed it.

Actually, Newton sees it quite differently:https://astarmathsandphysics.com/a-level-physics-notes/special-and-general-relativity/3013-newton-s-views-on-space-and-time.html"Newton's Views on Space and Time""Newton founded classical mechanics on the view that space is something distinct from matter and that time passes uniformly at every point in space, without regard to whatever happens in the world. For this reason he spoke of absolute space and absolute time, so as to distinguish these entities from the various ways by which we measure them.It is stated clearly:"Space had three dimensions – the normal directions of three dimensional space, and time threaded the whole of space and moved uniformly at the same rate throughout space."

So, where do you see Newton approval for the idea that the time should be orthogonal to space?

Quote from: HalcIt isn't a universe at all. It's a model, and one that corresponds exactly to what we see. On the contrary.Based on the 4D module, the math shows that the Universe has a curvature.

It isn't a universe at all. It's a model, and one that corresponds exactly to what we see.

So, why do you claim that the model corresponds exactly to what we see?Where is the curvature?

Please see the following info about: Einstein's Spacetimehttps://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.htmlBy 1905 he had shown that FitzGerald and Lorentz's results followed from one simple but radical assumption: the laws of physics and the speed of light must be the same for all uniformly moving observers, regardless of their state of relative motion. For this to be true, space and time can no longer be independent. Rather, they are "converted" into each other in such a way as to keep the speed of light constant for all observers. (This is why moving objects appear to shrink, as suspected by FitzGerald and Lorentz, and why moving observers may measure time differently, as speculated by Poincaré.) Space and time are relative (i.e., they depend on the motion of the observer who measures them) — and light is more fundamental than either. This is the basis of Einstein's theory of special relativity ("special" refers to the restriction to uniform motion)It is also stated:"Einstein did not quite finish the job, however. Contrary to popular belief, he did not draw the conclusion that space and time could be seen as components of a single four-dimensional spacetime fabric." So, Einstein proved that "Space and time are relative" but he didn't claim that they are orthogonal to each other.

The Fourth Dimension is Minkowski idea:

If I understand it correctly - He actually disagree with the idea of BBT.https://guardianlv.com/2014/03/albert-einstein-debunked-the-big-bang-theory/"Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity walked hand in hand with the Big Bang theory, but recently resurfaced manuscripts show that the physicist debunked this idea and believed that the universe expanded steadily and eternally."

He also disagree with his personal idea about the cosmological constant:https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html"In 1917, Albert Einstein inserted a term called the cosmological constant into his theory of general relativity to force the equations to predict a stationary universe in keeping with physicists' thinking at the time. When it became clear that the universe wasn't actually static, but was expanding instead, Einstein abandoned the constant, calling it the '"biggest blunder" of his life"

So, how our scientists could use "Einstein" name in order to prove the BBT which he didn't agree with?

That was him accepting the BBT as a better explanation of things than his cosmological constant.

It seems to me that you have missed the key point about Einstein formula.So the question is as follow:In order to prove the BBT, is it correct that our scientists have used Einstein formula?

Which formula is this?And I don't think any cosmological theory has ever been claimed as proved.

Do we need to use the cosmological constant in Einstein formula in order to find an explanation for "the discovery in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is accelerating"?Can we get an explanation for that discovery without the cosmological constant?