Expanding time?

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

Yes, again, we have the unbelievable arrogance of an uneducated armchair muser claiming that the world-body of cosmologists and astrophysicists are all wrong, and only the one true V-bird has cracked it and all without an ounce of mathematics and a ton of semantics and word salad. Astounding...

What you negate in your reasoning is Hubble's constant derived from his discovery of red shifted galaxies. Further expounded, galaxies exponentially increase with speed the further away they are from each other (which is just an illusion because it really is space that is stretching the distances apart).If we reverse this expansion, it takes us back to a singularity of infinite density and infinite gravity (actually this depends if the universe is infinite or not, if it is finite than the density resides at or below the immensely dense but not infinite Planck density, if the universe is infinite than this density would be infinite). Thus, how could this singularity be of "average cosmological density" of the present universe? If this where the case there would be no singularity, no Big Bang no crunch; and we would live in a static non-expanding, non-contracting universe (which Einstein himself originally proposed and later called his biggest blunder). However, this does not jive with what Hubble's constant & red shift evidence and the cosmic background radiation evidence from COBE, WMAP and other scientific studies. The infinitely aged static universe would be on an infinitely sharp pinnacle between the forces of gravity on one side pulling everything inward and vacuum energy/dark energy pulling everything apart which is nowhere substantiated by scientific evidence. In addition, an infinite age of a static universe would indicate that the universe would be in a deep freeze in which stars, galaxies and all matter would have disintegrated by now and the universe would be a void of nothingness.I take it by "average cosmologically density you are including matter, dark matter, energy, and dark energy into your equation are you not? By law of conservation of energy, all matter & energy (dark or otherwise) is wrapped into closed spacetime and condensed to the infinite density and gravity of singularity would it not at some point in time?So why do scientists think that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light during the universes earlier inflationary period?What we are observing as the expansion of the universe faster than light is the after effects of the universes' earlier inflationary period mere 10-30 or so after the Big Bang commenced the universe underwent an extraordinary rapid expansion of spacetime even faster than the speed of light. This super rapid inflation fits the cosmological models because it solves the problems of flatness and that of the density fluctuations that resulted in matter coming together to form galaxies, stars, etc. If the universe was not geometrically, flat so to speak (i.e. sphere) than the universe would most likely collapse back in itself (big crunch). If it was a hyperbola, than the universe would expand so fast into a "big freeze" in which matter would be flung apart and could not congeal into the large structures of galaxies, stars or even planets. However evidence shows that this not the case, the average density of the universe is slightly above its critical density and the universe is "flat" 3 dimensionally and the universe is expanding at a rate somewhere between the results of a "big crunch" and a "big freeze" which explains why it now appears that universe is accelerating in its expansion.I know CD will correct me on some of this, but this is my own understanding based on the evidence for this cosmological model that the majority of the scientific community has accepted based on decades of research and experimentation. V-Bird if you want to pick this apart go ahead but you better provided substantiated evidence and logic to back up your point of view, otherwise it is meeningless giberish.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

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.

despite it being the most successful branch of science known to mankindLook, a simple analogy is this. We have calculated pi to 1 trillion decimal places, but we're a little bit hazy how to go further. You come along, and say - aha, I know how to do this, but first you have to realise that it's not 3.14.... it's 3.24.... I mean, how do you communicate with someone like you? You're so obviously so unbelievably wrong, but you are also so obviously incapable of seeing just how unbelievably wrong you are.You are claiming to overturn 100 years of the most successful science ever conducted by whistling a few buzz words. You have 100 years of near perfect results to replicate with your theory, before you can even begin to talk about anything new. They are not reluctant to accept an "FTL cosmos" - there is no such thing. There is no such things as a "non-FTL" cosmos either. Just as there are no bullemic cars nor hypothermic pianos. You are plucking technical terms of which you have little knowledge and sticking them together to claim a new concept. It doesn't wash. FTL refers to a type of path through space-time. What is an FTL comsos? One where all paths are FTL, or just some of them, or none of them? And how does this differ from our Universe?

Oh, please, quite 'involved' would make everyone ecstatic, probably send them into shock, as long it means you'll be providing some actual evidence to support your claims. Give us at least some little shred of something so that your speculations can be revealed as more than just science fiction tales. Of course you can't, let alone provide actual reasons for doubting modern cosmology. There's nothing wrong with skepticism when it's based upon real-world evidence, but yours seems supported by no more than your personal preferences.Good storytellers have the ability to take their ideas and paint realistic imaginary worlds. Good scientists have the ability to draw correspondences between their ideas and real-world data. So far you've given us nothing to indicate that you don't belong in the storyteller category.I'm not trying to be harsh, but you've posted many unsupported claims while seemingly unaware that you're supposed to be telling us something true about the real world. If there's some connection between your speculative scenarios and the real world, then I suggest you talk about that.--Percy

What is moderate density? Can you define this "moderate density"? This term is so vague, it means absolutely nothing. Can you speak proper english please, what does "countenance" have to do with anything, this sentance makes no sense. How is gravity an effect of FTL interaction, whatever that means? Your sentances are pure pseudoscientific gobbly gook.You claim you are still tinkering around with your totally unsubstantiated proposal for the last 20+ years and are not ready to publish it. Then you have the audacity to say the entire cosmological community else has it wrong and you are the only one in the "know". A real scientist would be humble enough to wait until he has tested and proven his hypothesis to see if what he or she proposes matches reality before challenging other theories. Even then he or she would be humble enough to work with other scientists of his field to further test his theory to ensure it was correct (this is EXACTLY what Einstein did as well many other REAL scientists).What a joke. Go peddle this on the Creationist site or youtube where you probably will get droves of people ignorant of modern cosmology, astromomy or even the basic tenants of the scientific method applauding your attempt to topple modern cosmology and scientific theory.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

No, what the moderators have said is if you make assertions, you need to back them up with real evidence. I am saying that literally, the distances between galaxies and other cosmologically macroscopic objects is increasing. The relatively weak force of gravity (compared to the other intensely stronger nuclear and electromagnetic forces) is keeping matter at a more cosmologically microscopic level i.e. stars, planets and the galaxies themselves from themselves flying apart. Meaningless assertions. How is Hubble's constant fundamentally wrong? The ridiculous 'belief' of conservation of energy? Are you fucking kidding me? It is only the cornerstone of modern physics and cosmology. The universe is a closed system subject to this conservation of energy, void or no void. A void implies being subject to spacetime and thus part of this universe anyways. The justification for an early FTL inflation of spacetime has to do with the specific geometry of our universe, specifically whether the density of the universe (Omega) is greater or less than a certain critical density. It has nothing to do with a 'void'? Whatever that means. Can you provide any evidence for this? This seems to be a plagerism off modern cosmological models in which it is determined that negative-pressure vacuum energy is proposed to to cause the earlier super rapid inflation of the universe. Mass and energy cannot be created out of nothing in a closed system i.e. universe. They can only be converted back and forth i.e. from energy to mass and vice versa. EM is not sub-light. It proceeds at the speed of light. Mass and energy are two physical attributes of the same entity, matter. As matter approaches the speed of light its mass infinitely increases and the energy required to push it increases infitely as well. Pure energy proceeding at the speed of light has 0 rest mass. However, matter can never exceed this universal speed limit. Einstein's theory of special relativity breaks down in a supposed "FTL universe". If a FTL universe existed than matter and energy could not exist? What happens to matter in a FTL universe as its speed increases? How could energy exist at an infinite speed? It makes abosulutely no sense and goes against all the laws of physics. Have you considered you are going down the wrong path and that before proposing a FTL universe that you need to ensure it fits the laws of modern physics?

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Hi cavediver,I've been wondering about this for a while, ever since i had a discussion with onifre where i told him i believed nothing has changed since the Big Bang. I have since then posted this on another forum where professianal cosmologists and astophysicists couldn't give me a definite answer, so maybe you want to have a knack at it. Here it is.One of the postulates of the Big Bang theory taken from GR says that the universe is not expanding into anything, but that it's the metric that's expanding. The idea of metric expansion says that two points in space remain at the same spots but the distance between them grows(while these two points remain at their same locations).Extrapolating this back to the Big Bang we have a universe that did not change in size since the Singularity if we were able to view it from the "outside". If such an "outside of the universe" viewpoint were possible, the universe would still be a zero-dimensional "point"(aka Singularity), that only when viewed from the inside would show internal metric expansion and size that appears to be different than zero.The point is these 3 dots/symbols did not move. My uncertainty is whether we can extrapolate this metric expansion all the way back to the singularity because if we could, the size of the universe, when viewed from the "outside"(if it were possible) would still be zero, as it is assumed to have been 13.7 billion years ago.I am not interested in the philosophical implications of this, I just want to hear your opinion.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This is sort of correct, but it implies that there is some way of defining a 'fixed spot' - there is not. There is simply the concept of pairs of points having a distance defined between them. Without the metric defining the distances, the points may as well be marbles loose in a bag (ignoring global topological considerations) I would say that the term 'size' is undefined in this context. Size only makes sense internally when using the metric. From this 'outside' perspective, the size of the Universe is not 'zero' at the Big Bang, it is simply an invalid concept. And at our time, it remains an invalid concept. Size is only a meaningful concept inside the Universe.

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.

I sort of expected this answer since i've never been able to have you speculate on anything. I knew this outside viewpoint was impossible, that's why i said "if it were possible".But your answer brings up a good point - the answer to the earth old question - "what's the universe expanding into?". It means the universe is not expanding into anything but that it's expanding into itself(whatever this "itself" we choose to believe is, whether it's solipsism/idealism or realism).

You mis-understand. If something is ill-defined, it is not a case that we do not know and it is open to speculation. We do know, it is ill-defined, and it is not open for speculation. There are many unknowns that are not necessarily ill-defined, and I am happy to speculate on these if I have the time.

Obviously, as the gravitational interactions are exceptionally weak at the scale of our accelerators you must forgive us physicists for not having 25th century engineering at our disposal. And what has the Higgs to do with gravity??? You are exposing more of the obvious: your physics knowledge is merely based on highly erroneous and misleading popular science articles.Meanwhile the rest of your post is pure pseudo-science gobbledigook and simply confirms your delusion. Your words portray you as a obfuscating court mystic, not a scientist interested in truth. It is harmless and if you gain enjoyment from it, more power to you. But when you start trying to interrupt genuine discussion, you becomes a nuisance and a barrier to others' knowledge. For that I will slam you hard...