Spacetime, Inflation, Multiverse and Spiritual Integrity

[engellstein]

I'm trying to expand but my metabolism is too fast.

[engellstein]

@r6

You lost me there. lol. I kinda get it but you're hitting things that are over my head.

I see dark energy just as the need for space to fill the vacuum, not as a property of space. I suppose if that were true then the space furthest from center would stretch first and the stretching would continue inwards. I'm sure that can be proved or disproved by observation.

And an idea I'm playing with is that mass doesn't warp space, space warps because mass is space knotted up. The more space you knot together and put in the same place, the more stretching will occur and it looks like curvature. It's kinda like string theory but the strings aren't loose floating around inside space, they are made of space.

I've been wanting to use a physics simulator to test that out but I'm on Win10 and none of the programs will work on it. Maybe some day.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by engellstein

I recently read somewhere that said it is impossible for space to be flat because of mass warping it, so it would always be curved no matter what. And they said that there would be an overall curvature of space much like the curvature of the earth, where it looks flat because the curve is so slight.

And this curvature would be at least one dimension higher than a planet's curvature, so while the universe may wrap back on itself, it wouldn't be like we imagine it in 3d.

And light red shifts as objects recede from each other as they move in space, and on top of that they know that space expands, which adds to the red shift because light loses energy as space expands. IDK how they figure out the difference but I think there's other variables involved. But then they take it a step further and say that space isn't just expanding at a constant rate, it's accelerating in its expansion, which adds even more to the red shift. If the acceleration isn't factored in then measurements are totally off at great distances.

All this makes me want to be an astronomer but it's too late for me, I'm too old. Save yourselves, guys!

Yep. Hubble Space telescope was used to observe the red shift, which suggests the expansion of the universe is acceleration. That's to do with the wave length becoming redder (lower frequency light wave) because galaxies are receding faster and faster. Like a car coming toward makes a higher pitch, and vrroooooom, to a lower pitch as it speeds past you and away (the vehicle itself doesn't change pitch).

Indeed, the galaxies are not 'moving apart', but rather, the space itself, which they are in, is expanding.

Cosmologists muck about with different space/time geometries, which is kinda complicated and a bit over my head. The flat universe was theorised because it requires 0 net energy. Apparently, the numbers all add up, so they're running with that for now.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4UpvpHNGpM

[r6r6]

engellstein--@r6You lost me there. lol. I kinda get it but you're hitting things that are over my head. I see dark energy just as the need for space to fill the vacuum, not as a property of space.

Alan Guth first propose inflation of spacetime. He does not define what spacetime is exact. Not does anyone else.

You idea of space or spacetime being repulsive dark energy-- eternally existent ---attempting eternally, to fill a macro-infinite non-occupied space is imho a spot-on-the-nail-head assessment by you.

1) does not address why it space or spactime would be temporarily in inflationare speeds,

2) what space or spacetime is more specifically.

What I listed is some of what I'm addressing specifically what space or spacetime is-- gravity and dark energy --and how they function, and why.

And an idea I'm playing with is that mass doesn't warp space, space warps because mass is space knotted up.
The more space you knot together and put in the same place, the more stretching will occur and it looks like curvature. It's kinda like string theory but the strings aren't loose floating around inside space, they are made of space.

Knot theory has been around at least since 90's. Does it specifically define what space or spacetime is?

I've been wanting to use a physics simulator to test that out but I'm on Win10 and none of the programs will work on it. Maybe some day.

Simulator would be nice along with skills to create our desire outcomes to give the clearest details of my scenarios and how various particles would interact.

Meanwhile I can use already existent;

1) words,

2) relatively simple graphics of tube as a torus that are abundant on internet,

3) relatively simple 4 level/line numerical graph that exists on internet,
....... and easy for me to create with keyboard....

Space or spacetime as i explain it. It is relatively simple, and it is intrinsic part of every fermonic and bosonic particle of UniVerse ergo more likened to holistic scenarios. imho

What is difficult for most who approach it is there inability to drop their learned preconceptions of cosmos, and allow in perceptions their not familiar with to bubble forth and, not allow there mind to run rampant with projections that I'm actually presenting from the get-go.

4 level/lines is basis of space-time-space as gravity, time and dark energy.


....1............5....7.............11....13..............17.......................

.0..................6...................12...........................................
...........3.................9.......................15..............................

........2.....4..........8.....10..............14....16............................

Again, not saying I have it all figured out, but giving simple specifics as them mechanism for basics of spacetime is what Ive presented.

If you can find me some info on internet that gives us a basic schematic for mechanism of actually what and how space or spacetime functions or is designed. What is it coodinate structure.

I believe my above goes further along those paths of explanation than anything you will find on the internet. Ive not actually done a search for specific structure of spacetime, so would interesting to find out what is out there in those regards.

Ive only barely begun to explore the surface-- and inside ---of what exact is spacetime. (space->time<-space)


Here is simple texticonic representation of bisection of a single space-time-space torus from side-wise or vertical view of torus;

(><) (><) = (space-time-space)

(gravity-time-dark energy)

Here is simple birds-eye-view horizontal cross-section of single torus as space-time-space;

( Z ( ) Z ) = space-time-space

....(gravity-time-dark energy).....


This is simple stuff. No algebra, no equations, no trigonometry, no calculus, Penrose twistors or any of the many much more complex presentations of this or that. imho

r6

[engellstein]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yep. Hubble Space telescope was used to observe the red shift, which suggests the expansion of the universe is acceleration. That's to do with the wave length becoming redder (lower frequency light wave) because galaxies are receding faster and faster. Like a car coming toward makes a higher pitch, and vrroooooom, to a lower pitch as it speeds past you and away (the vehicle itself doesn't change pitch).

Indeed, the galaxies are not 'moving apart', but rather, the space itself, which they are in, is expanding.

Cosmologists muck about with different space/time geometries, which is kinda complicated and a bit over my head. The flat universe was theorised because it requires 0 net energy. Apparently, the numbers all add up, so they're running with that for now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4UpvpHNGpM

Thanks for the link. Tyson is pretty cool. I really liked the Cosmos videos he was in. I tread lightly on what he says though because he's an infamous atheist that likes to attack spirituality of any kind. I don't like it when scientists deal in absolutes and dismiss evidence that is contrary to their liking. It's not that what he says is wrong but the ever so slight way he spins his words to show how the idea of a Source is rubbish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA

Here's another video on the flat universe from a more attractive presentator lol. The way I understand it, they're not saying the universe is physically flat, they're saying it's mathematically flat because the amount of matter and expansion rate are balanced. So gravity won't suck everything back in and collapse the universe and expansion won't expand everything into a cold, lifeless universe.

And doppler effect doesn't indicate acceleration necessarily, it is a consequence of an object moving closer or further away from you. It can be doing that and slowing down or at a constant speed or moving faster. Scientists arrive at the acceleration idea because it's the only thing that explains how far-out galaxies are further than they should be according to their maths.

Just for kicks, here's a couple other videos that were neat. The second one is a lecture at the royal intitute and the first one is the following q&a with the audience. It focuses mostly on dark matter and something cool called chaos theory. One of the things he says several times is that theories such as inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc, are just a few theories among many and that none of it can be proven or verified yet until we gather a lot more info.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNyL...ion_1462874927

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFxPMMkhHuA

So the race is on for everyone to find the real answer to all these perplexing questions! Perhaps the most notable and inspiring thing I got out of the q&a vid was all the kids in the audience that knew so much about what the guy was talking about. I think he was a university professor or something and they were right there in step with him. The future is really bright for kids like that!

[engellstein]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

1) does not address why it space or spactime would be temporarily in inflationare speeds,

2) what space or spacetime is more specifically.

I don't think space will ever be something anyone can identify the substance of until we can access higher dimensions and look back on our own, but I see it as a 3D web that stretches out.

I see it as as a series of lines intersecting. If it can stretch, then it has flexibility and can be simply mapped out in a 2D physics simulator like any other line.

I see light as waves that travel along those lines, not between them. In fact, nothing baryonic would exists outside of the lines. Things, perhaps, like dark matter/energy could exist there and influence the lines, hence influence matter and energy.

And in this sandbox I could assume that inflation speed was caused by the initial looseness of the space lines as they were all compact when they got put in the vacuum. At some point inflation stopped because the tension on the lines didn't allow it to continue, but it continued a bit of acceleration until it reached "free fall" terminal velocity speed (whatever that is for it).

[r6r6]

engellstein--One of the things he says several times is that theories such as inflation,

True, but inflation theory did fixed some critical bugs with Big Bang theories and what was actually observed. Again, some of the CMB of the data corroborates what inflation requires.

dark energy,etc, are just a few theories

Not a theory, is a label to identify.connect with the observed data from some celestrial objects moving away from each other at accelerating speeds.

r6

[Clover]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yep. Hubble Space telescope was used to observe the red shift, which suggests the expansion of the universe is acceleration. That's to do with the wave length becoming redder (lower frequency light wave) because galaxies are receding faster and faster. Like a car coming toward makes a higher pitch, and vrroooooom, to a lower pitch as it speeds past you and away (the vehicle itself doesn't change pitch).

Indeed, the galaxies are not 'moving apart', but rather, the space itself, which they are in, is expanding.

Cosmologists muck about with different space/time geometries, which is kinda complicated and a bit over my head. The flat universe was theorised because it requires 0 net energy. Apparently, the numbers all add up, so they're running with that for now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4UpvpHNGpM

Yeah I am a big fan of Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He has a way of explaining scientific theory in a way that is understandable to the general masses, and I think that is very important, at least if you want to get people interested in discussion.


I like his panel discussions. This video in particular he has a group of distinguished physicists discussing string theory/dark matter. I believe this is what Engellstein tried posting, but his link isn't working ( I think).
Dr. Katherine Freese was one of the first to propose ways to discover dark matter- straight from University of Michigan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sMB...bayQVICXZUq1e-

[r6r6]

engellstein--I don't think space will ever be something anyone can identify the substance of

Part of the pathway to identifying the substance is to begin with a top-to-bottom heirarchal approach;

1) non-occupied space

2) occupied space, as fermions and bosons and any collection thereof.

These are the known and identifed aspects of occupied space.

I believe Ive already mapped in 2D and 3D the fundmemtals of occupied space as gravity and dark energy. You've seen it as have others.

They exist as complementary geodesic shapes of space with out neccessity of charge( + - ) associated with all fermions and bosons.


Most people see a tube and apply my given nodal events and trajectory lines of relationship to the tube, as I did at first. Then I realized it is the network of line/trajectories that define the toroidal tube.

() = geodesic line/trajectories of space

^ v or as >< or as Z = line trajectories of time that connect our observed time to gravity( ) and dark energy )(.

Conventional educational precepts precondition most peoples minds and prevents from seeing and accepting what is relatively simple concepts and patterns.

Again this goes back to so many who are always invoking non-existent supertsitious infinite somethingness. Often a simple-- if not obvious truths ---are overlooked for some complexity for that which is not understood.

Universe is complex. Biological woman and man are complex.

Fundamentals of space and time are much simpler and actually easy to access for a mind that can prejudice and preconditioning. imho

Ex after a few weeks of thinking about how these lines/trajectories of relationships interrelate, it occurred to me that since there not a solid tube, just this network of trajectories/lines, they can fit into each other like two combs just lightly offset from each other fitting into each others niche, valley, cleavage.

Here is texticonic simplistic version of two seperate networks. Since I'm using keyboard texticons I cannot actuall show them merging into each others nich/clefts. It is simple enough exercise for those who have the ability see what is obvious, rational, logical and just common sense.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

For those who have difficulty with visuals and imagination. Try this, take both hands with fingers extended. Now turn your hands so your fingers are pointing towards each other. Now slide your hands towards each other and have your fingers fill in the gaps between fingers in each hand.

Now you have merged two networks of time trajectories/lines.

Now we have merged a portion the networks of two seperate fermionic or bosonic particles, as defined by two sets of toroidal great tubular networks.

True Ive not included the geodesics in the above or with fingers. I'm still working on a simple example or visual to assist others, and myself in understand the fabric of spacetime networking.

r6

[engellstein]

Originally Posted by Clover

Yeah I am a big fan of Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He has a way of explaining scientific theory in a way that is understandable to the general masses, and I think that is very important, at least if you want to get people interested in discussion.


I like his panel discussions. This video in particular he has a group of distinguished physicists discussing string theory/dark matter. I believe this is what Engellstein tried posting, but his link isn't working ( I think).
Dr. Katherine Freese was one of the first to propose ways to discover dark matter- straight from University of Michigan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sMB...bayQVICXZUq1e-

Thanks for sharing that video. It's part of an interesting playlist, I see. I'm going to bookmark that to watch in my free time since there's probably several hours of content there lol.