michel123456

Sure you can. I guess these are new mathematics.

This was not intended to dicuss the Big Bang. It is only a diagram showing what we are looking at. I had previously some arguments when trying to explain that a light cone is empty. I suppose my wording is to blame. When I say a light cone is empty, I mean that each disk of the light cone is hollow, as explained above. Now, the weird things begin. Let's go back to the second diagram to be continued. After some thinking, I think it is better not to continue. For sake of clarity.

I began a new thread to explain my point and forget the NASA diagram for a while. I don't want to interfere with your interesting question: "What would be the difference if the Universe is fixed and we are shrinking inside it compared to if we are fixed and the Universe are expanding around us?" I wonder what is your answer.

There are 2 kinds of negatives. There are the mirrored ones, and there are the continuous ones. The mirrored one go like this <-------zero-------> The continuous one go like this >-------zero-------> If you think about it, you will realize that the mathematical negative is continuous. You can change the place of zero on the line of numbers, and decide arbitrarily of a new beginning, nothing will really change. This negative is about eaten apples, and borrowed money. There is nothing weird here. It is only a matter of convention to where to put the zero. The mirrored negative is the most bizarre. The negative apple becomes an "elppa" with the skin inside and the seeds outside, or something like that. Both negatives are human concepts. There may be even a 3rd kind of negative I can't figure right now.

Yes. Of course, I have not finished. Not exactly. Lets summarize: "the distances you have not chosen could make other rings" Yes. At each distance corresponds another ring. Each of this ring must be placed on the corresponding instant upon the red arrow of Time. And, what is important, each of this ring is hollow. Something like fig.3 fig.3 I hope there will be no misunderstanding: In this diagram, because space has been reduced to 2 dimensions, a common 3D sphere is represented as a 2D disk. The first disk is a graphic representation of a real sphere around us at a distance of 1 billion Light years. Forgetting for a moment this kind of graphic, if we had, in real 3D space, to plot the stars and galaxies that are 1 billion Light Years from us, and only those, we would obtain a sphere. And this sphere would be hollow. That is because we have deliberately chosen to "erase" all other stars & galaxies that are not at this specific distance. So the "hollow" thing is nothing weird, it is only a choice. But what happen in real 3D space is that the distance to stars & galaxies represent space, of course, but also time. So, if we want to represent both time & space, we have to "unfold" time from space and represent things differently. Returning to the diagram. Each "hollow sphere" is represented as a "hollow disk". And there is nothing weird to that. It is just another way of representing things.

Let's consider a system of 3 axis, X,Y,Z, determining a 3D graphic. let's put X,Y as the representation of reduced regular space in 2D. let's put Z as the axis of Time. Intentionaly, the Z axis will be represented horizontal. It becomes something like fig.1 fig.1 the ellipse represents a circle as viewed from an angle. Let's plot on this diagram all stars and galaxies that we observe at a certain distance from us, let's say a distance of 1 billion Light Years. In order to do this, we first have to put ourselves. Let's put ourself upon Earth at present time, on the right side of the arrow of time. It becomes something like fig.2 fig.2 Not considering expansion of space, for sake of clarity, we have: The radius of the circle represents distance 1 billion Light Years.The red arrow of time represents a duration of 1 billion Year. The dots on the circle represent the stars & galaxies that are 1 billion Light Year from us, as observed from Earth, 1 billion years ago. There are no dots on the inner surface of the circle. The disk is hollow.

Correct. It doesn't matter. But there is need for a base point. You can choose any random point, but you need this point in order to execute the scale factor. And you cannot use multiple base points. Scaling works only with one. Maybe I need a sketch for that.

Truly, I engaged on a slippery road. What I was thinking is that, if you take for example the well known 2slit experiment, where there is interference of light, and if you put your eye in place of the screen*, not on the direct path, but on one of the side stripes, would you observe the source? And if yes, would it be blurred or clear and sharp? *don't do that.

In space Yes. In time, no. Yes we can look the left, but we cannot see everything from the left. The visible left part is a cone. And I support the idea that only the surface of the cone is visible. The inside part of the cone is invisible: for example we can't see in the sky our own world line. Ooh I see what you mean. Both arrows of time would be pointing to us. Interesting, but surely nothing to do with the intentions of this diagram.

Lost. Begin with : it reaches us. Then I mean the visible position of source is different from the actual position (image from here)

Exactly. And that helps. Because taking the photon as a particle must give the same result as taking the photon as a particle. I don't know. What I know is that when light interacts when light, it behaves like a wave. I don't think so. It means the image will be seen elsewhere (like refraction) and probably that the image will be blurred.

What is this paper, referenced in the wiki article, from D.L.Mamas talking about? "A new theoretical model is presented which accounts for the cosmological redshift in a static universe. In this model the photon is viewed as an electromagnetic wave whose electric field component causes oscillations in deep space free electrons which then reradiate energy from the photon, causing a redshift. The predicted redshift coincides with the data of the Hubble diagram. The predicted redshift expression allows for the first time distance measurements to the furthest observable objects, without having to rely on their apparent magnitudes which may be subject to cosmic dust. This new theoretical model is not the same as, and is fundamentally different from, Compton scattering, and therefore avoids any problems associated with Compton scattering such as the blurring of images."

I have some ideas. I put no copyright. 1.The speed of light. It is a constant. It means at a distance d corresponds exactly a time t. It also means distanced objects are in the past. Shake together time and distance and you obtain... something. 2.The arrow of time: time runs always in the same direction. Search for other phenomenas that also run in one direction. There is gravity, which is always attractive. And there is distance, which is always positive. Shake together time, gravity and distance, and you'll obtain ...something. 3.Time. Forget it. Time alone has no meaning. Only Spacetime has a meaning. And spacetime curves under gravitation. Here, shake time with space and gravity and you will obtain... something you already obtained in point 2. 4.Random. Why do you mix randomnes with time? Time is already complicated. All outcomes are equally likely but once an outcome becomes reality it excludes all other outcomes. Reality is exclusive. In the meanwhile, we call reality what we observe: "Reality" is not absolute, but ruled by observation. It means that in certain circumstances one may have the impression that observation rules the reality of the outcome.

Science says that everything is energy, and that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. In my understanding, it means that energy existed forever.

If you take the photon as particle, you are right. But if you take the photon as a wave, would he change direction?

Not even with other photons?

I partialy agree. My position is that time, distance and gravitation are different expressions of the same thing. So maybe I agree completely. But agreement from an insignificant forum member is not enough. We need proof.

Interesting link. Especially about the massless universe. "If all particles in the universe were massless, then, the universe would look to them to be infinitely small. And an infinitely small universe is one that would undergo a Big Bang.' from your link. Thought provocative.

It is provable that for any δt (positive or negative difference between right and wrong hour) of 5 clocks, they will in a finite amount of time T, all chime together. From this time T and after, the system still responds to the demand that "each hour (according to an accurate clock) at least two clocks chime". The rest is in post #7. (edition 1)

It is sometimes assumed that left handed may represent up to 30%. But since left handed are (or were) considered handicaped, all efforts are (were) made to change or at least hide it. I know no scientific reason why people are left handed. I know no scientific reason why people are right handed either. There are some clues in the wiki article. If it came from a random source, it should be a 50/50 situation. If it is, it must be very deep. I am left handed. My mother noticed the "problem" because as a 2 or 4 year boy, when using a spoon in my bowl, I complained that I couldn't turn my soup, my bowl is square. Instead, I believe being left handed turns you into unconformity. Imagine yourself in a world where everything is reversed. Without backup, what I was told: In antiquity, and later, the sword was in your right hand and the shield in your left hand. In battle, when the shield didn't protect correctly, death was coming from the left side. In Latin, "sinister" means "left" (sinistra in modern Italian). The left side has been associated to the bad side, the side of death. Left handed warriors had the advantage of surprising by hitting from the unexpected side.

Censure

(completely edited) thinking (not so) quickly. Take a clock that runs slow. When the right clock will show 1h, this clock will show 45min. It will chime roughly each 1h15 min. With this clock it will happen that you won't get any chime in some 1 real hour. A clock that runs fast will chime lets say each real 5 min. With this clock you will always get a chime in every 1 real hour. You will get 12 chimes from the same clock in each hour. So a clock that runs fast will satisfy your demand. IMO you have to prove that at least 2 of your 5 clocks are running fast in order to satisfy that: .

The WMAP is part of the present and is correctly shown in the right part. If instead we put the Earth in place of WMAP, of course Earth has a world line in this diagram.I don't understand what you mean by "the discs would be like a distant wall". We are currently observing the CMBR 13,7 billion years in the past, so all discs in this diagram must be transparent. O.K. IMHO it is incorrect to draw a circle or a sphere in this kind of diagram. Good point. I cannot put myself in place of the Nasa scientist who draw this picture. As i see it, each disk represents the situation of space at each interval of time, independently if it is observable or not. The right part should be bigger: maybe the units of space are intentionaly reduced compaired to units of time in order to make more evident the s shape of expansion. Correct We can't do that. Time is going from left to right, and CMBR is entirely in the past. If you extent CMBR along a circle, you will find CMBR in the present and in the future, which is incorrect. I agree it was ment to show a simplified view of the evolution of the universe. I insist it is misleading. And it is a spacetime diagram.

I am not sure it is specific to Euclidian space. If you try to execute scaling from let's say 2 origin points, you will get conflict. And I know no way to execute scaling without any base point at all.

If we believe in Harry Potter, nothing is strange. I don't believe in HP. So to me it is strange right from the beginning. I cannot swallow that the Universe puffed into existence: it looks too medieval. Well, maybe it is putting this thread out of track, but: the programmers of Autocad (which is an extremely evolved vectorized mathematical program) were not able to conceive the analog command ("Scale") without the input of a base point. Commands go like that: Command: scale _select objects _specify base point _specify scale factor [enter] And indeed, without the base point, how could the program execute the scale factor? Scaling cannot be done with multiple base points.