AbstractDreamer

Forgive my ignorance, I haven't looked into super symmetry yet. I was blurting out thoughts. Can i ask how super symmetry includes time, but that time is not symmetric? I'm sure the answer probably cant be explained in English.

Admittedly tenuous at best in #52:

Is mass directly proportional to luminosity? What if energy can be dissipated via mechanisms other than intensity of EM radiation, such as charge or angular momentum or other weird stuff? Could this result in a lower luminosity, and subsequently a false distance calculation? Is isotropism not a superset of homogeneity? Can anyone give me an example of something that is isotropic but not homogenous? If the cosmos is described as isotropic, does that mean the properties and direction of the "4D spacetime" is uniform everywhere in the universe? I think i mean, the spatial axes and time are always in the same "direction" (though time arguably has no direction)? How is this possible within blackholes? Or do we just describe black holes as not within our universe? Doesn't that contradiction invalidate the description? Consider the following: Imagine a block of glass that contains imperfections due to contamination. Glass is isotropic. The entire block (of glass and contaminants) is not isotropic. The glass within the block (but not including the contaminations) is isotropic. Imagine a universe of spacetime that contains imperfections due to blackholes. Spacetime is isotropic. The entire universe (of spacetime and blackholes) is not isotropic. The spacetime within the universe (but not including blackholes) is isotropic. Is it fair to say that spacetime is isotropic, and the universe is NOT isotropic? Following that potentially false premise above then, does expansion operate uniformly only within spacetime, and operate chaotically or not at all within black holes? Imagine a perfectly spherical volume of space containing multiple blackholes of significant volume, would the blackholes not affect expansion such that that over time, the volume is no longer perfectly spherical? Or is there an approximation to isotropism within limits, such as the tiny deviations found in the CMB? Could this variance be caused by black holes? But upon receiving a photon of red-shifted wavelength, there's no way of knowing if it initially had a long wavelength that has since red-shifted a lot because its far away, or a short wavelength that red-shifted a little because its near. Unless the original full spectrum is known, and compared. So how do we know the original full spectrum? Do all supernovae have the same spectrum? Or are the spectrums the same within the same types? Does this not beak causality? Sorry, sneaky baseless theory coming up!: Could outside of the universe be blackholeness of infinite density, "sucking" the universe outwards (via gravitation), affecting the universe to expand into its infinite density, at the same time receding due to the constance of dark energy density within the universe, pushing the blackholeness backwards, providing the cause to the effect of volume expansion? Can someone shatter this illusion for me?

baseless assertion: anti length? I thought by definition, symmetry means the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis. If time is super symmetric, and time has an axis, am i wrong in concluding that there is negative (anti) time? What is the other part that is facing time, in the symmetry of time?

Makes a big difference to the answer!

But if super symmetry includes time, what is it's opposite?

No idea sorry baseless assertion. But if anti matter exists, and this stuff changes, how do you measure the rate of this change?

Around my head is sphere of space, but the surface of Earth is locally flat. Magnetic "North" lies on plane in this sphere around my head perpendicular to my latitudinal line. Magnetic "North" lies on a longitudinal line on the surface of the Earth. A direction on a plane should have two values, you cant just assume zero for a value if one is not provided. OP did not specify he was looking horizontally North, or any angle along the vertical axis. As North does not exist if you look straight up or straight down, therefore the velocities of the quasars are only relatively parallel IF the vertical angle is 0 (zero) Your calculations are based on the assumption he is looking horizontally North and horizontally South, which were not stated in your solution. Without specific values or assumptions, calculations and answers are meaningless though not necessarily wrong.

Does super-symmetry include time? Does anti-time flow "backwards"? How can time not have direction in this regard?

My stance is neutral, therefore has no head nor tail. I do not have enough knowledge to feel i can make a decision. I have no beliefs on whether field lines exist in reality or even in mathematics. (forgive my editing): I have only tried to argue why there could be a legitimate objection to the claim, and even tried to show when that objection might be illegitimised.

Small ambiguity. They both start out <by standing> on the left foot. OR They both start <by stepping> out on the left foot.

Disambiguate: ~(LL)>~L OR (~L)L>~L ~(L*L)=0 OR (~L)*L=0

Classic false choice dilemma. Jack need not be either servant or supper. If success (answer of least tries) leads to servanthood, and failure (answer of not least tries) leads to supper, then Jack need only to not provide an answer, and lead a long fulfilled life. EDIT: actually, the "else" puts a finality on the choice, and "supper" closes the time variable. So I'm wrong.

My holidays are over. I'd have to admit I wasn't prepared for my curiosity to lead me down this rabbit hole. I have more than enough outstanding issues at the moment to get my head around. Plenty of ideas to fuel my dreams. Too much fuel might lead to singular collapse!

Thank you. Need to process this information.

It's the end bracket that is dropped from the hyperlink. Sorry I had a lot of tabs opened and just saw a null wiki link. There two papers are really fabulous.

But my question on this board that concerns reality, was to ask if there was anything that WAS real. Is this really so difficult for you to grasp?

My claim was about consistency. Obscurity is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. I did not initially raise the conceptual nature of field lines. My argument was that they are NOT real.

EoS link is gone. Can you link the other thread of yours?

Depends on where you're standing when you decide to look. If you are on Earth at the North Pole, you can't look North. Also depends on your angle of gaze . Relative to you, North and South might not lie on a straight line through you. So the direction of velocities of the quasars might not be parallel to each other.

The meaning of my question has been consistent throughout. The only thing that has changed perhaps is that you now understand.

If it did exist one moment ago, and if one moment ago doesn't exist right now, what does forever mean right now?

How can expansion have been going on forever, if it never existed even 1 moment ago? If its always been right now, what makes things change?

Why quote me when your response doesn't answer my question?

Apparently a white dwarf type 1a supernova the standard candle can tell us how far it is, by measuring its luminosity. Is this independant of the size of the star? Is space expansion uniform across the entire universe, or are some volumes expanding faster than others? If we measure the red-shifted wavelength of a photon, and we know the expansion history of the space through which it has travelled, how do we calculate the distance of the source if we don't know the original wavelength of the photon? Or is there a shift in the whole spectrum of radiation, that we can use to infer distance, and if so how do we know what the original spectrum look liked at the time when the radiation was emitted from the source? If space expansion causes a lengthening of a photon's wavelength, does that means space expansion operates in a volume with at least one axis that is shorter than the wavelength of the photon? What is the smallest volume of space that can be subject to expansion? Apparently the density of dark energy needs to remain constant. Which of the following statements is true: As space expands, dark energy must be created to maintain density. As dark energy is created, space must expand to maintain density. If space and time are related, and dark energy and space are related, how is dark energy and time related? If space is expanding and the rate is variable, could time be similarly contracting or expanding at different rates?