0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
No, you would not make a sudden U-turn at any point and there is no edge of space where you could even make such a U-turn. The curvature is not sudden like that. You are traveling through curved space at all times along the journey, just like you are walking over the curved surface of the Earth at all times if you tried to walk around the globe. At no point do you turn around in 3-dimensional space just like at no point do you turn around when you walk around the Earth. Nor do you encounter any edge of space anymore than you encounter an edge to the Earth.
just like you are walking over the curved surface of the Earth at all times if you tried to walk around the globe.
Somehow you insist to explain the CMB only by the idea of hypersphere, while when we discuss on the Expansion and Observable Universe we normally discuss on the normal three dimensions.
So, in the nature there is no real object as hypersphere.
It is only exist as a mathematical concept/idea.
Therefore, we can't explain the behavior of the CMB based on that Unreal mathematical model.We have to explain the CMB on real Universe.
As our real Universe has only three dimensions, then only this real model should be used for our explanation.
However, as the Fourth dimension is not part of the expansion, it is quite clear to me that there is no way to expand the hypersphere.
So, if we wish to use this unreal mathematical model for our universe in order to prove the CMB, we actually can't use it for the expansion. Therefore, our scientists do not even try to set any connection between the hypersphere to the expansion.
So, if the Universe is like the surface of the earth, the expansion is like the tectonic plates. Those plates can move or expand, but they can't increase the size of the surface of the earth.
In the same token, the expansion which works perfectly at the real three dimension universe, can't work at that mathematical concept that we call hypersphere (as the expansion has no impact on the fourth dimension)Do you agree with all of that?
Therefore, we can't explain the behavior of the CMB based on that Unreal mathematical model.
"Stereographic projection of the hypersphere's parallels (red), meridians (blue) and hypermeridians (green)."All curves are circles"They also show that there is a possibility for a curves with infinite radius:"the curves that intersect ⟨0,0,0,1⟩ have infinite radius (= straight line).
So, they show that the radius is a function of the fourth dimension in that mathematical concept.
However, as the Fourth dimension is not part of the expansion
Let me use the earth example:Quote from: Kryptidjust like you are walking over the curved surface of the Earth at all times if you tried to walk around the globe.So, if the Universe is like the surface of the earth, the expansion is like the tectonic plates.
Those plates can move or expand, but they can't increase the size of the surface of the earth.
QuoteSo, they show that the radius is a function of the fourth dimension in that mathematical concept.Yes, that would be the time dimension.
The hypersphere model isn't one of the CMB. It is a model of finite space.
Are you suggesting the universe is a Stereographic projection? That would render meaningless the classic definition of length. Two stationary meter sticks would have different lengths depending on their location.
The universe is not an object, and a hypersphere can very much exist in 4 dimensional spacetime.
The CMB isotropy is consistent with it due to complete symmetry at any point.
The CMB is consistent with unrealistic hypersphere/Universe.
It is clear to me that our Universe is a real sphere with only three dimensions!
We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.
Quote from: HalcQuoteSo, they show that the radius is a function of the fourth dimension in that mathematical concept.Yes, that would be the time dimension.Sorry this is a fatal error.
Where do you see that the fourth dimension can be a time.Actually it is a severe violation of the whole idea of the n-sphere:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere
Hence, it is clear that all dimensions must be based on the same unites.
If you chose three dimensions of length and one of time - you set a violation in the formula. How can we add time to length?
If we take two dimensions of length and one dimension of time, shall we get a sphere?
Quote from: HalcThe hypersphere model isn't one of the CMB. It is a model of finite space.SorryThis is also incorrect.
Hypersphere can also be infiniteIt is stated clearly:"the curves that intersect ⟨0,0,0,1⟩ have infinite radius (= straight line)".
So, how an you use the hypersphere as an example for finite radius while it is stated clearly that it can also be infinite?
SorryThe Universe is an object as the galaxy is an object and as the the star is an object.
The hypersphere can't exist in 4 dimensional spacetime.
Not four dimensions, not five dimensions and not any sort of 3+n dimensions.
Spacetime modeled as a 4-ball is a simplified model of finite Minkowski spacetime.The model is far more accurate locally, where space looks exactly like a local portion of a 3-sphere and time the dimension orthogonal to that.
A 3D infinite universe is a valid philosophical interpretation of the universe, but not the only valid one.
A 3D sphere is a finite thing. Arbitrarily large, sure, but if it is infinite, it is no longer a sphere. So this contradicts one of the other things that is clear to you.
Let's try to compare the Newtonian mechanics with Minkowski spacetime:http://einsteinrelativelyeasy.com/index.php/special-relativity/11-introduction-to-spacetime-diagramsNewtonian mechanics - "In Newtonian mechanics, events are described using a three-dimensional Euclidean space time plus an independant scale of absolute time."
it is described by the spacetime interval ds2 = c2Δt2 - Δx2 - Δy2 - Δz2It also seems to me that the formula looks different from the four dimensions sphere (but I'm not sure about it.)
However, as it is stated - the Minkowski spacetime is a mathematical structure which set the time as one more dimension in space,
therefore - it is unreal universe structure.
Our real universe is represented correctly only by Newtonian mechanics.
Do you agree with that?
Quote from: Halc on 07/05/2019 14:06:04A 3D infinite universe is a valid philosophical interpretation of the universe, but not the only valid one.I think that A 3D infinite/finite Universe which is based on Newtonian mechanics is the ONLY valid universe.
Quote from: Halc on 07/05/2019 14:06:04A 3D sphere is a finite thing. Arbitrarily large, sure, but if it is infinite, it is no longer a sphere. So this contradicts one of the other things that is clear to you.Do you mean that if you take X,Y,Z to the infinity - then we get an infinite 3D universe, (but it isn't a sphere).
If so, I agree with you.I claim the following:1. The Universe is infinite 3D2. There is no curvature in our real universe.3. The CMB is a direct product of our infinite 3D Universe.4. Its age is also infinite
So, how can I prove it:
Based on black body radiation. This is the ultimate prove that our universe is infinite. I claim that if we set our galaxy under insulated enclosure - we should get the following:All the radiation from the galaxy will stay under this insulated enclosure.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body"Suppose the cavity is held at a fixed temperature T and the radiation trapped inside the enclosure is at thermal equilibrium with the enclosure. The hole in the enclosure will allow some radiation to escape. If the hole is small, radiation passing in and out of the hole has negligible effect upon the equilibrium of the radiation inside the cavity. This escaping radiation will approximate black-body radiation that exhibits a distribution in energy characteristic of the temperature T and does not depend upon the properties of the cavity or the hole, at least for wavelengths smaller than the size of the hole"So, if we will measure the radiation under this insulated enclosure, do you agree that we should get a perfect black body radiation?
Now, let's set 10Mpc of our universe under this kind of insulated enclosure.If we do so, I'm quite sure that the energy radiation should be in the range of 2.7K and it should also carry a black body radiation. So, we should get almost the same CMB that we measure (with one exception - redshift)
So, if we look at X dimension - there will be infinite 10Mpc insulated enclosure cube which are connected to each other.That will be the case also for Y and z dimensions.Now, what would be the impact if we eliminate the insulated enclosure between two nearby cubes?
As each one of them has a temp of 2.7K with black body radiation - it is quite clear that the two will keep the same temp and the same black body radiation.
However - now as the radiation comes from far locations - we should see the some redshift in the CMB.
Never the less, even if the value of a galaxy which is located at a distance of 13 BLY is 10 (for example), it doesn't mean that we should get all of this redshift in the radiation. It should represent the impact of all the galaxies/matter in that sphere.So, I can just assume that we might get all range of redshift up to 10, but the average should be much lower.
With regards to the redshift -As it comes from a galaxies which are located at the infinity - we should get wide mix of redshift up to the infinity.
However, the average should be exactly 1100.
Our real universe is represented correctly only by Newtonian mechanics. In Newtonian mechanics there is no curvature in the sphere. Therefore, in our real Universe there is no curvature.
If we do so, I'm quite sure that the energy radiation should be in the range of 2.7K
QuoteHowever, as it is stated - the Minkowski spacetime is a mathematical structure which set the time as one more dimension in space,In addition to the 3 spatial dimensions. It doesn't put time in space, but rather orthogonal to it.
Newtonian mechanics gives an incorrect prediction for the amount of gravitational lensing of light around the Sun. Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time around the Sun, does give the correct prediction for gravitational lensing.
There are no black holes under Newtonian mechanics. That requires curvature of space.
QuoteNow, let's set 10Mpc of our universe under this kind of insulated enclosure.If we do so, I'm quite sure that the energy radiation should be in the range of 2.7K and it should also carry a black body radiation. So, we should get almost the same CMB that we measure (with one exception - redshift)The temperature would be more uniform, but still hotter where galaxies are near.
You've not computed the temperature at all, but rather asserted it, which is hardly proof of anything.
QuoteI claim the following:1. The Universe is infinite 3D2. There is no curvature in our real universe.3. The CMB is a direct product of our infinite 3D Universe.4. Its age is also infiniteThe last one is on shaky ground since it seems to contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but there are those who hold such a view and attempt ways to get around that.
I claim the following:1. The Universe is infinite 3D2. There is no curvature in our real universe.3. The CMB is a direct product of our infinite 3D Universe.4. Its age is also infinite
However, the average should be exactly 1100.In an infinite universe, the vast majority of galaxies would have a redshift higher than that since only the ones within 45 BLY would exhibit that shift, and that's less than 1% of the universe.
Shell theorem should make radiation look isotropic even if your model of a finite, spherical universe is used. Shell theorem is normally used to describe gravity, but it should work here too because radiation intensity falls off at the exact same rate as gravitational strength does (the inverse square law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theoremhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/sphshell2.html
QuoteAs each one of them has a temp of 2.7K with black body radiation - it is quite clear that the two will keep the same temp and the same black body radiation.I see what you're describing and there would be a background radiation something like that if everything stood essentially still relative to us, but that's not what we see. Your model does not account for the observed recession of all objects.
Quote from: HalcIt doesn't put time in space, but rather orthogonal to it.The idea of spacetime is brilliant with regards to the mathematical concept/structure. However, Minkowski have never ever claimed that in our real universe the time is orthogonal to the other 3 spatial dimensions.
It doesn't put time in space, but rather orthogonal to it.
So, Minkowski spacetime is a brilliant idea to set a calculation with regards to time/space for special cases.
We can't just take it to the extreme. As we do so, we get unrealistic results which set our universe as unreal universe based on that spacetime.
Quote from: HalcThere are no black holes under Newtonian mechanics. That requires curvature of space.Yes, I fully agree with that.
Therefore, there is no curvature in our real Universe
Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time, is a perfect solution for the gravitational lensing of light around the Sun and black holes, but it gives an incorrect prediction if we try to set it at the extreme and verify with it the whole infinite universe.
Why don't we use Einsteinian relativity to calculate the gravity forces between stars and planets? Why do we prefer Newton law?
Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time is the ultimate tool for a special cases
and it gives the best perfect prediction for those cases. However, if we use that curved space-time as a module for our whole universe we get unrealistic results as it gets to the extreme and therefore, the predictions are incorrect.
Newtonian mechanics is the only ultimate tool for the prediction of our whole universe!
As in our real universe the time isn't orthogonal to the other 3 spatial dimensions
Any radiation that had been emitted from point A should move to the infinity and never ever come back!!!
but it gives an incorrect prediction if we try to set it at the extreme and verify with it the whole infinite universe.
However, if we use that curved space-time as a module for our whole universe we get unrealistic results as it gets to the extreme and therefore, the predictions are incorrect.
there is no curved space-time in our real universe.
If we set the Shell_theorem on the infinite universe it is clear to me that the average impact of the radiation should be exactly at a redshift of 1100 (although this redshift represents a distance of only 45 BLY).
Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec)
Quote3. Acceleration of far end galaxies...Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec) Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity. Newton would do it that way, but without relativity, you have no black holes, and you seem to require them for your beliefs.
3. Acceleration of far end galaxies...Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec)
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:31:09Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec)Galaxies can't move at the speed of light, so your model breaks yet another law of physics.
Not 2.7K, but sure, there would be one.
The temperature of the heating elements is thousands of degrees. Why are you proposing that the 10 Mpc enclosure only gets to 2.7 then? To get that, energy would need to leave the box at a greater rate than it comes in from the outside. Your assertion describes a universe of infinite age, which is a steady-state model of sorts. In a steady-state model, the box argument works, but it predicts the wrong temperature. Are you asserting that stars burn at about 2.7K? If not, where is the heat going?
The shell theorem concerns being off-center in a shell of a uniform field or continuous radiation.It does not concern anything about more distant things being equally redshifted, something empirically shown to be otherwise. That difference is how they measure large distances.
A universe with infinite age predicts no redshift at all.
Quote from: HalcQuoteTherefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec) Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.I fully agree. We need the relatively in order to measure the speed between galaxies.
QuoteTherefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec) Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.
I have used Newton in order to prove that based on "galaxies generations idea" we would get the real view that we see from our galaxy
We can't see galaxies at further locations, as they are moving away from us at a speed which is higher than the speed of light.
No, my model doesn't break any law.
Yes, based on Newton - they can move further away from each other at higher speed than light, if the distance is long enough.
In my explanation I have used 1370 generations of galaxies which are all moving in only one direction.
till the last one which moves away at 301,400 Km/s. (based on Newton)
Quote from: HalcSpeeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.I fully agree.
Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.
If for example we will stay at galaxy at the middle - (galaxy no 685), the furthest galaxy in one direction is moving at 150,700km/s
while on the other side, the furthest galaxy also should move away at the same speed of 15,700 km/s.
However - I fully agree that we need to measure the velocities between the far end galaxies based on relativity.
At some point of distance, the relative velocity is almost the speed of light.
If we monitor the speed between two galaxies with a separation of 100,000 generations, we should find that based on Newton they are moving away from each other at 220,000,000 Km/s.
I'm quite sure that if we will set this modeling in a computer
It is clear to me that all the nearby galaxies around the Milky way had been created by the Milky way.
So we agree that infinite Universe with the same density (as we see) should get a CMB.
I hope that we also agree about the black body radiation in the CMB.
Quote from: HalcIn a steady-state model, the box argument works, but it predicts the wrong temperature. Are you asserting that stars burn at about 2.7K? If not, where is the heat going?The heat of the stars and galaxies are going to the infinity,
In a steady-state model, the box argument works, but it predicts the wrong temperature. Are you asserting that stars burn at about 2.7K? If not, where is the heat going?
while the heat of the CMB is coming from the infinity of all directions.
Therefore, the balance should set the CMB temp at 2.7K.
I agree with Fred Hoyle concept: Fred Hoyle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949.""Hoyle, unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe"
Hence, Fred Hoyle had estimated that galaxies have the ability to produce new matter
http://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html"The new findings show definitively that most of the matter in the gas cloud surrounding the black hole is ejected out into space, which explains why it doesn't release light on its way in to be eaten."This is an indication that new matter is ejected from the Milky Way supper massive black hole.
it is clear that the supper massive rotatable black hole is the ultimate natural accelerator which can produce infinite quantity of new matter.
In any case, I agree with you that 10Mpc might be too small for the calculation.
So, how can we calculate the CMB in our infinite universe with infinite galaxies which are moving away from each other, while new born galaxies/new matter pop up everywhere in order to compensate (and therefore, the density is kept forever).
Quote from: HalcA universe with infinite age predicts no redshift at all.Can you please explain why you don't see a possibility for redshift in the CMB for infinite Universe with infinite age
with far away galaxies that are moving away from each other at a speed which is much faster than a speed of light (based on Newton)?
thanks for this information.
According to Einstein, they can't. It takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass up to the speed of light. How do you propose to give a galaxy more than infinite energy so that it can go faster than light?
Based on my theory, any baby galaxy is ejected from its mother galaxy at only 220Km/s.
So, I assume that Einstein has no problem with that.
Let me use the following example-Let's assume that we can create a rocket with 1370 stages.So, the main rocket carries 1369 rockets. The second rocket carries 1368 rockets,.... the last one doesn't carry any more rockets. It works as follow:We launch the main rocket from a fixed point in space. As it gain a speed of 220Km/s, it launches the second rocket. As the second rocket gain a speed of 220Km/s with regards to the main rocket, it launches the third rocket.So, let me ask you the following: Do you agree that the speed of the second rocket (at the moment of launching the third rocket) is 440 Km/s with regards to the fixed starting point?
What is the relative velocity between the fixed point in space to the last rocket?
What Einstein might say about it?
Why can't we add all the velocities?
I really don't see any violation in law.