Expanding time?

None of the dimensions are of themselves an energy, energy is a requirement for anything to exist within the dimensions and have what we call existence.This is probably the only precise definition of existence possible in this cosmos.

Einstein was entirely correct to say that 'space' really isn't a nothingness, there is only nothingness outside of our cosmos in the void that is beyond it [what I call the greater universe] The cosmos is expanding into the Greater Universe [the void] and as such 'space' expands, the power for this is not the initial explosion of the big bang but rather the 'drawing into effect of the true vacuum beyond our cosmos expanding it.The four forces are not exceptional to energy they are intrinsic to to it, energy has to have a behaviour or property of action, it is the four forces within all energy that dictate the behaviour of energy, and furthermore it is the four forces within one energy source that work on other energies.Spacetime is shorthand for all this activity, it is shorthand for the phenomena of trillions upon trillions of points/sources of energy acting continuously on each other the result of which we see as vast expanse of our cosmos, the gaps between objects that have mass and appears empty is not, it is teeming with energies conveying information about what happens around these masses.I believe that this is what Einstein was conveying to us all, it is the most remarkable insight which still to this day leaves me awestruck in its correctness.To Einstein 'space' meant what I have outlined above, any properties he spoke of were not of the emptiness but of the teeming interaction out there.Space cannot possess any energy except in the way I have outlined and Einstein tried to convey, energy can have attributes or properties and 'space is entirely filled with energy. Any attribute you have ever given to space should be more correctly attributed to energy either in the form of mass or EMR.I hope this explains my thinking on this, please test me on this, it makes me rake over my past and test what I think I know. Steel sharpens steel.Edited by V-Bird, : Speeling mustaks.

Your view is in my opinion the correct one, the cosmos does expand into a void, an endless nothing-ness.The presence of nothing-ness is essential, the cosmos does not expand into 'something' to expand into as 'something' would have some 'properties' or 'attributes' that would show themselves in some way but do not.The cosmos cannot create the void into which it expands as that is non-sensical.You cannot create a true void as a true void simply is the state of non-existence!So the cosmos is indeed expanding into the void of non-existence.Edited by V-Bird, : missed a word

I agree with your first sentence and have all the time, the universe gets bigger and encroaches on nothing.The difference is that you and the 99% see nothing in one way, as having no attributes whatsoever, whereas I see there being a negative attribute to it, an endless absolute vacuum.I even agree about the distance paragraph, I stated almost exactly the same in within a week of being on this site way back in 2004?Your third paragraph is the problem, you make an assumption of [possibly] the Cosmos as infinite 'universe' of you are right then what you say is correct, but it is a big 'if', we can assess the age of the 'universe' [cosmos, is my term] and it is all we have but it is not infinite, we know the rate of growth and we can extrapolate the distance to the true edge of your universe or my cosmos.Einstein was not certain at all that the universe [cosmos] was infinite, he was split over the matter and could and was swayed by argument and counter-argument.In reality CD little divides except the chasm of how we view the nothin-ness beyond existence.The small detail of negative attributions of the void on my side of the argument changes physics beyond measure, I don't believe there has been a true 'zero' [cosmoslogically] since existence came about, the void before existence was a null, a zero, but from the moment of existence it had a negative value.It is as hard to comprehend [it seems] as Einsteins relativity the concept of negative space and negative properties of the void, but it far from 'nonsense'.

Your three little @ would from any viewpoint not remain the same size if the gap increases.A more accurate representation [ignoring the difference in the icon shape] would be:-
@@ @** *.. .There is no position in space where the three galaxies would appear the same size!If that was the case the Crab Nebular and the largest clusters would be enormous in our night sky.So you are wrong to say that nothing has change except the distance, the diffusion of light sees to that alone.Edited by V-Bird, : failed attempted to rectify locations.

1/. The viewpoint may not exist but that is not the same as saying the shape does not exist! We are within the ball and forever confined to that position in a cosmos expanding as fast as our messenger [light] so we can never see that surface.2., The cosmos is expanding from a singular point and is drawn out from all directions at once, they may be huge turmoil at the 'edge' or cusp but the cosmos itself is unlikely to rotate, but it cannot be discounted entirely. Again we are within the cosmos and just as if you were under ground you would not perceive that the earth is rotating we are inside the cosmos and cannot know.

I don't think it is abusing an analogy, it is pointing out a potential fault in it.The plain fact is that at any scale, the there would be perceivable changes in them, size or brilliance, it makes no difference.With increasing distance there are changes in what we perceive and that applies from any point in the cosmos.Relativity cannot be suspended, it is omnipresent.To view those objects equally would mean we would have to magnify them progressively and that means either surrounding galaxies disappear off the lens or the lens has to get bigger, again this happens from any position within the cosmos.Edited by V-Bird, : late and tired

I should perhaps have said visible cosmos.Your assertion that the cosmos is expanding faster than light is based on the maths of the infinitely dense starting point, without this infnitely dense starting point there is no need for the cosmos to have ever expanded at FTL speeds, by having the starting point no denser than the average cosmologically density we see around us there is no FTL expansion.I have not dismissed rotation just feel it is as likely as it is unlikely.As to your warning to jaywill, I endorse the warning itself fully, but I do take issue with my misconstruing the present 'conclusions' of observed phenomena, I understand them fully, I just think them to be entirely wrong at times and have been corrupted by an incorrect starting point for the cosmos.I do not doubt that the observations are correct, just the mind making sense of them is set wrong.Edited by V-Bird, : added text

CD, in areas there are mistakes, we both know only bible bashers think anything is inerrant. Science has many times traveled a long pointless road based on 'good science'.I think particle physics is looking at almost everything wrongly, cosmologists are reluctant to accept a singularity of moderate density or an FTL cosmos, some physicists are reluctant to countenance that gravity/gravitation is an effect of FTL interaction.The rest is pretty much spot on!.. and that is quite a lot that is uneffected by an FTL cosmos.Soon enough the time will come when an FTL cosmos is accepted, until then I am subject to ridicule and insult, I'm happy enough to wait for the approbrium to subside.

DA, Hubbles constant is a 'fit', it works, but is not quite right. I keep getting told to stop posting so won't explain here as it is quite 'involved'.You say that 'space' is stretching the distances apart, what are you really saying?Space is a concept, it is a term that covers the actions of energy [EMR or Bound Mass] what you say then makes no sense does it, energy works in a singular fashion so we know the Hubble maths is a cobbled up thing that is basically right in its answers but fundamentally wrong.If we reverse the expansion with all of your 'universes' energy 'ever present' at no matter what time we select [due to the ridiculous 'belief' that the conservation of energy theories are inviolate even when there is a void on one side of the equation] then for the maths to work there has to be this FTL expansion of both energy and matter, this is also fundamentally wrong.The cosmos formed in an endless void with the tiniest amount of energy imagineable and due to the expansion which has an endless vacuum on one side more energy was produced as this tiny amount was torn apart, motion is energy and where there was once nothing energy invades and the amount of energy is almost beyond measurement, it is as if at the edge as it fingers into the void energy is produced, the edge is the source of all the energy out there except for that tiny start. This spontaneous production of energy has a residual after it has formed new Mass and EMR there is some warmth left over actually quite a bit at the edge but it leaves just the trace in the older cosmos [the bit we're in] and we've found it.Dark matter and dark mass are the names for what is in effect another residual of FTL interaction, not all the energy created at the edge forms mass and EMR, a lot of it forms the FTL cosmos and this is not an even process, I am still working on this so cannot be definitive but so far I 'think' the energy/matter we call dark has failed to drop to sub-light speeds and by a mechanism I can't grasp yet sits at 'c' plus another of those infinitely small amounts, the motion and energy and mass is present but it cant act as a 'radiater' of EMR that is at 'c'. So it is present but is an 'absorber' of some kind. I will admit to being unable with my new maths to explain this, the failure of this mass/energy to drop to sub-light is causing me to re-trace my steps but so far all is fine with it, so it is something 'else' that is not yet in my maths.All the mass/energy in the visible cosmos can interact with the FTL cosmos and return to the sub-light cosmos immediately, dark does not, it does not interact at all.I admit to not knowing enough.So I can't answer your last question at the moment, sorry.

CD, yes PP is successful in what it does, it defined endlessly intricate actions and interactions, but it has failed to provide any evidence of Gravity [higgs or otherwise] it has been gazing [very successfuly] at it navel. You can be successful at something and still be utterly wrong in the goal of the search, with particle physics we see man finding great accuracy in the greater and greater energies of particles as they are torn apart, yet the simple leap into, "Well, if these particles can produce this energy when smashed, if that happened at the cusp [edge] of the cosmos then perhaps that is the 'motor' for the energy we see out there, perhaps it didn't have to be all there at the beginning, perhaps it is produced at the cusp by the negative effect of the void" is missed entirely, instead the search goes inward, it's good research, carried out meticulously, but it the real answer is the huge one that stares them in the face every day, start with a photon, break it and more energy is found, now replace the accelerator with 'natures' own accelerator and BANG we have an entire cosmos that is uniform in expansion.That is what I mean is fundamentally wrong with PP, it has all the evidence there but the conclusion is wrong.The research is remarkable, it just misses the point!There is an entire cosmos that exists at FTL speeds, we know its there we witness its effects every day and continually in experiments.Percy.I tried to explain in another thread about how FTL maths works, it is not like our standard maths at all, the fundamental principal is that there is an infinite difference between '0' and '-0.00000....1' but even that simple starting point is seen as nonsense, if such a simple starting point for a new math is greeted with 'don't post rubbish here' type response then I cannot even embark on the journey let alone 'get involved'You say that I should draw on existing maths to prove a new math, it can't be done, there is a tiny bridge from one to the other and even that is repugnant to most.You tell a 2yo child [no matter if his IQ is 150+] that the fire will burn him if he touches it, you don't explain immediately the physics of what flames are, the child will with that IQ likely understand if time is taken to go through the science to get to that point, but otherwise it would be useless to do so.FTL maths is hard to grasp, even the concept is alien to most, but I am as certain of its presence as I am certain that the keyboard I am typing this on exists.I have made many posts trying to get some on here to consider even the idea of an FTL cosmos and what it would mean to science, but it is so abhorrent that even starting on an explanation is frowned upon.I don't mind being seen as a crank, nutter or being insulted, because in the end I will be proven right.My maths will be accepted then modified by others as it is far from perfect, I may have taken wrong turns here and there and parts will be fundamentally wrong.I have previously pointed out that FTL action is responsible for the 'electron cloud' and the 'instantaneous' leap that emits a photon, this is the FTL cosmos and our cosmos meeting you see HUP, I see an FTL cosmos making its presence known.Moderate density is no more than that of an atom. [hydrogen will do]I have spoken to some quite well known Theoretical Physicists and the reaction is the same, the idea means an entirely new math and every one hadn't a clue of where they would begin to start it, I was no different, the kernel of the idea of a an FTL cosmos was just that a 'mind game' a 'what if' flight of fantasy an admission that probably does me no good, but it is the truth and can't be denied, I was 'lucky' I hit upon the maths long after the hypotheticated actions of the FTL cosmos were visible to me.It won't topple cosmology, it does modify it a little and adds a huge amount of new cosmology, the present cosmology is superb at explaining 99% of the cosmos, the FTL cosmos will explain the remaining 1%, but sadly add a new, almost untouched cosmology, it doesn't devalue Einstein at all, it does knock a few holes in Planck, Heisenburg, Gell-mann and Feynman but it does not destroy their work just puts a part of it into context, it even reconciles Bohrs model of the atom which subject to FTL gravitational exchange at the electron was perfectly correct.You ask for evidence but I can't even start to do that, if I were to tear out a page of my maths and scan it onto here it would be no different to me starting to post in some exotic language that only one person could read, it would simply be impossible to comprehend.I've tried to explain EMR and 'bound' EMR as mass on here for four years, but even that met with horror, yet in that four years the 'idea' is beginning to be taken seriously, but that is a fundamental part of the FTL cosmos, over the next year or two, the 'bound' EMR as mass will come about from the DM/DE research going on at the moment.They will have arrived at the correct answer the wrong way, but at least the EMR/Bound EMR will be thought about, they will almost certainly claim the DE forms the DM in some intricate way, they won't make the jump [unless they really make a huge leap forward] to finding the powerhouse that binds EMR into mass because that would mean they would have to adopt my model of the cosmos within a universal void, that will come later.The conservation of energy is perfect WITHIN the cosmos, but at the edge the cosmos accounts for just one side of the meeting point, the other half has no such need to adhere to CoE, in fact if you think hard about it, such a contact point really is not dissimilar to a huge accelerator and we can get greater and greater energies from a finite amount as we shatter it, that is what is going on right now and every other 'now' as the cosmos fingers its way into the void.CoE works, it is inviolate within the cosmos except where it 'touches' the void and then it counts for nought.The FTL cosmos can't fit the laws of our cosmos, they are as different as it is possible to conceive, the FTL cosmos is harder to put into your minds eye than the picture of the cosmos itself fingering its way into an endless void.Within perhaps 20 years the FTL cosmos will be accepted as fact, I had high hopes of the CERN project just throwing the scientific world into confusion and then final acceptance but even that has been delayed, whatever they 'find' will [out of respect] be called a Higgs boson, even when it is found to be some strange FTL world, in which the Higgs boson is nothing more than a name, the 'Higgs' will be subtly transformed into the FTL interaction with the electron that causes the cloud and 'somehow' creates gravity, and that's nearly right.Meanwhile I'll take the contempt and wait.The FTL cosmos is as certain as your scorn.I'll but out now as I am probably [almost certainly] heading a for another 'please don't post in this thread anymore' missive.

CD, indeed the Gnal interactions are weak within this cosmos, they are a 'residual' energy.Higgs is 'hyped' as the particle of that somehow conveys mass and possibly gravity and gravitation.There is no Higgs particle, there is an interaction and this interaction leaves a 'residual' energy we call gravity and gravitation and that interaction will be found and given the Higgs nomenclature for continued funding reasons as much as respect.You are right to be skeptical and I am not fazed by it, but far from mysticism the FTL cosmos is there and will be accepted, mystics tend not to be definitive, I am quite definitive, No Higgs particle, just an interaction at FTL, an electron cloud re-defined as further evidence of this FTL interaction, EMR bound to form mass at ultra high energies that is stable and capable of continuous stable compounding moderated only by the available energy input.If there is found a Higgs boson that is a particle a real particle of substance then I will be wrong in everything, I fall, mortally wounded, no recovery possible and I will be here to apologise and take the flak, that is only right, will you be able to do something similar if I am found to be right?If the 'Higgs' is found not to be a particle but an interaction of something 'unknown' that happens at above light speed, will you then try to consider at least the possibility that what I have spent so much of my time on may be worth considering, you don't have to answer, if I know anything at all about you it is that you will want to know more.I don't want sudden conversions, I want merely the idea [dismissed or not] to be there, dormant until such time as you alone find something that displays to you what I see.That day will come.