michel123456

This is not a theory. It is just the way I feel things must be, by simply combining the informations I can get from here and there. There is nothing new, but maybe the combination I made is wrong somewhere. That's the reason I post that kind of stuff, and wait. If i am completely stupid, I expect my thread will be sent to the waiste basket, or at least I'll get a bump on my head from some smarter guy here (and there are plenty of them). When I get no answer, I feel well, but there is a restriction, maybe no-one was interested to even read it. I expect that's what happens most of the time, because all of my threads are sooooo basic that a decent scientist will not spend much time upon them. But they should. I make systematically some tricky input that should raise some comments. Now, back to the point. The basics: _we suppose that Space exists as a 3D environnement. _we suppose that Time exists as a 1D dimension. In order to represent all of these upon a piece of paper (or display screen), we make a geometrical projection of 3D space upon a surface. The observable sphere around us is represented as a circle. Better say, as a disk, because the observable sphere is full of things, the circle also is full of things. A disk. Then we look at this disk from the side, like looking at the sheet of paper from its width. We see a line. That is what is represented. This line represents space around us, full of "things", and we are in the center of it: the red dot "You Are Here". After that, we put the Time dimension, and suppose that Space is somewhere upon the time-line, no matter where. The important thing is that for the observator, no matter where he is, no matter when he is, he will always be at the center of his observable universe and always at present time, in his own Frame Of Reference to speak more technically. So far, so good. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThat was the first diagram. Here the story begins. We consider ourselves as an observer at the red spot. We look at the Universe all around us. The word "look", or "observe" means that we are gathering information sended by the elements of the Universe. We barely can act upon the elements, planets, stars & galaxies. The main thing we can do is gather the Electromagnetic radiation from these objects, and calculate. And we know that this radiation travels through space at specific speed=Speed Of Light. So, the first thing we have to do upon our diagram is to draw the Speed Of Light, and we can do that easily, because we have both Space & Time, and we know that SOL (& any speed) is a combination of Space & Time. Here, the problem is that our first diagram has no measures. How to put the graph of a speed if I don't put specific distances & specific times. Here we have to go back and get help from eminent Minkowski (in fact all the above is a pathetic plagiat of his work), who made a sort of "trick". He simply said that because the axiom of Theory is that SOL is absolute, we can switch the time coordonates with spatial ones. As explained in Wiki "For convenience, the (vertical) time axis represents, not t, but the corresponding quantity ct, where c =299,792,458 m/s is the speed of light. In this way, one second on the ordinate corresponds to a distance of 299,792,458 m on the abscissa. Due to x=ct for a photon passing through the origin to the right, its world line is a straight line with a slope of 45°, if the scales on both axes are chosen to be identical. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram#Basics So we can draw SOL as being a line at slope 45°. Where to put this line ? Well, in fact, the whole sheet of paper is full of those lines. But the only ones that are interesting in the first place are those that can be catched by the observer. All the other lines are passing by "somewhere else", not observable by us. And so we draw the "interesting" line at slope 45° passing through the observer. Actually, there are 2 of those lines, one at 45° and another symetrical. So far so good. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNow you can play by yourself. Take any random point upon the diagram, and check if this point is observable. In order to do that, draw a line at 45° from your chosen point, and see if it joins to the red spot. It is little bit trivial: the only points that can be observed are upon the diagonals. All the others intersect somwhere else, either in the future or the past. Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention, the low part of the diagram is the Past, the upper portion is the Future. We see that: 1. the entire observable Universe belongs to the past.(it is an input) 2. the entire observable Universe at present time belongs to the diagonals and only to the diagonals. Even the internal part of the past triangle is not observable at present time. 3. the future is not observable (that is not a conclusion, it is an input due to the fact that time goes only from past to future and never backwards) 4. Space at present time is not observable, because the entire line of Space (the great horizontal one) is out of the diagonals. The only observable event from space in present time is the observer himself. That is the meaning of the second diagram (fig.02). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNow things are getting weird. We can see on the diagram where is the observable universe. The entire Observable Universe is upon the SOL diagonals. Here some other Forum member should have responded that, no, the O.U. is in the whole past triangle, as mentionned in all physics books. But since nobody seems interested, let's pass over it. At the right beginning, we posed that the whole 3D Space is represented by the horizontal line. And now we see that the Observable Universe is out of Space. What happened? See fig.03. It happened that the horizontal line represents 3D Space AT PRESENT TIME. So that in fact there are 2 entities here: _the first is the Universe (the "real one"), which of course relies entirely into Space at present time. I putted a pencil upon the diagram to make it clearer. That is fig. 04 (labelled fig.03 by error, aargh). Ladies and gentlemen: The Pencil Universe. It is the "Real Universe", the one that slides smoothly through time (in other words, during). The projection of the Pencil Universe upon the diagonals SOL lines is the Observable Universe. It is the deformed image of the passage of the P.U. through Time. What we observe as Reality, all that we measure, all that we see and interpret is based upon the deformed image of the Pencil Universe. What is this Pencil Universe? How can we investigate its structure since it is not observable? Well, nothing difficult. We just have to wait. As Time passes, we are sliding through Time, and little by little, the Pencil Universe demasks itself. The other way we can act is simply decide observing the Pencil Universe the way it was some long time ago, let's say one billions years ago. We should see a P.U. one billion LY wide, not so bad. It could be done by mapping the position of all stars & Galaxies at a fixed time of one billion LY ago(1). Of course, astronomers will have to take count of Relativity, expansion of space, and surely a bunch of other parameters. But that could maybe help understanding what is this Pencil Universe like. The second weird thing is that the P.U. is just like a piece of wood: dead. Just like a picture. A snapshot of the Universe. Nothing happens in the P.U. The third weird thing is that the O.U. has a breaking point at the observator. Which I represented with a broken pencil. After some profound thinking, I came to the conclusion that it is due to the graphic representation, in other words, an error. Reality has no broken point at the observator. Although I liked the idea very much. The fourth weird thing is that I putted a plus minus sign in the last diagram and nobody came to say Michel what have you done! Here a comment is urgently needed. Please shoot. (1)Oops, that is impossible I'm afraid. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHmmm, no comment. I have to write enormities if I want a debate, it seems. O.K. Here is another one : fig.06 Kind of summation of the precedents. The Observable Universe is in the past. It represents all that we meaure, all that we see, everything. It is positive. Positive time (negative time doesn't exist), positive space, positive distance, positive mass, a.s.o. On the upper side, there is the negative part, the future. It is the unknown place, where we must encounter all negatives we do not encounter in our positive world: like negative time, negative space, negative distance, negative mass, a.s.o. Pause.

Exactly. If I recall well that was Ernst Mach who's quest was a universe without a metric. There are a few marginal followers, like J.Barbour but they encounter very serious problems with their unconventional search. see for info http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/117

I suppose the original question is about air vacuum only. Not physical vacuum. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Vacuum storage food bags are usually made of multi-layered membranes, like (from outside to inside, paper, aluminium foil, pvc membrane. need check). Impermeability is achieved through the layered addition of the different materials. But it is only air vacuum under controlled hygienic atmosphere. If it were true vacuum,he recipient would crush down as mentionned by Swanson. They hold only because there is something inside, like coffee bags. I suppose they have to stand quite longer than the expiration date of the product.

For me the important thing in geometry is the absence of scale factor. In think a thread about scale factor would be interesting. When Galileo discovered the importance of the scale factor in applicated euclidian geometry, he tooched a bit of devil's tail (or God's, if God has a tail). But this is not mathematics. Out of the subject, sorry.

Not sure what you mean by distinguished. I may look old fashioned, but as an architect working with euclidian geometry all the time, I consider geometry as a relationship of shapes independently of any measurement. Always, in order to transform a geometric shape into an object (a building in my case), you have to input dimensionning artificially (the human scale as we say in my job). Pure geometry has no scale, no dimensionning, no absolute, no big, no small. Only relations. Pure relativity (not Relativity). That's the reason why when I see theories or manifolds that take a specific value as a basic input I am highly suspicious.

I will try to continue pointing the elements of the article that raise immediate confusion for a not educated but not simple minded reader. Not intended to make a debate, but in order to make clear that such presentation most often conduct into misunderstandings instead of clarifying the subject. For example, from your link http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~aes/AST105/Readings/misconceptionsBigBang.pdf "Like Darwinian evolution, cosmic expansion provides the context within which simple structures form and develop over time into complex structures." Totally unnecessary. Totally confusing at first sight, rebutting. How can structure raise from an explosion (sorry for the word, it has been said, too late to erase),when an expansion intuitively raises disorder. You need tons of books to explain that, there is no need to present that difficult point right in the beginning. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWorse analogy: "A good analogy is to imagine that you are an ant living on the surface of an infl ating balloon. Your world is two-dimensional; the only directions you know are left, right, forward and backward. You have no idea what “up” and “down” mean. One day you realize that your walk to milk your aphids is taking longer than it used to: fi ve minutes one day, six minutes the next day, seven minutes the next. The time it takes to walk to other familiar places is also increasing. You are sure that you are not walking more slowly and that the aphids are milling around randomly in groups, not systematically crawling away from you." Here the reader imagines himself (the ant) upon Earth (the baloon). But Earth is not growing! And the distance to get home from work does not increase. It should be better without analogy. And continuing with "Noticing these facts, you conclude that the ground beneath your feet is expanding." The reader is on Earth, the ground is there. Very confusing. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedContinuing: "The term “at rest” can be defined rigorously." Here the reader is surprised. The few elements he knew about Relativity crumble down. Worse, the reader is so sure of what he has learned, he barely reads the next sentence and closes the link. Why presenting such a difficult point? IMO unnecessary. You can explain expansion without opening such a debate. And a few words later : "But in Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the foundation of modern cosmology, space is dynamic." which contradicts the precedent sentence in the poor reader's mind. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedContinuing playing devil's advocate: "In this sense, the universe is self-contained. It needs neither a center to expand away from nor empty space on the outside (wherever that is) to expand into. When it expands, it does not claim previously unoccupied space from its surroundings." So there is are surroundings! Did you hear that Mr President? I heard that. ...... How difficult to negate something without creating it. The sentence should be entirely rebuild. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAgain; "in our universe, as on the surface of the balloon, everything recedes from everything else." Same mistake. Only large intercluster space is expanding. Not everything. Error. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd here; "If one imagines running the clock backward in time, any given region of the universe shrinks and all galaxies in it get closer and closer until they smash together in a cosmic traffi c jam—the big bang." A classic in confusion. The reader is supposed just having accepted that small distances, inside a galaxy cluster, never change. And just a few words later you insist in explaining that reversing time, galaxies crush together. If the reader is not a total imbecile, he must wonder what is that for a clarification. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd here BTW a passage I personnaly do not understand: "It was like having the surface of Earth and all its highways shrink while cars remained the same size." Talking about the backward analogy, that is certainly not the image I got from the BBT, I thought matter was created in another stage and that only radiation existed in the first period of expansion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWow "This ubiquity of the big bang" Dangerous words. Ubiquity is reserved to God. Never use such vocabulary into a scientific article. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYou don't want me to continue. IMO very bad article. The drawings are fine.

The blowing baloon is a very bad analogy (first page of Princeton article). In the blowing baloon, everything grows, not only space between elements, but elements themselves. Totally confusing. That cancels the explanation of the "Do objects inside the universe expand, too?". Not saying it provoques the question in the first place. A much better analogy is that of the raisin cake, in which the raisin do not change size. But even there, the distance between all the raisins increase, not only between the far away raisins. Damned analogies.

Good good, Spy. Now, a step further. Trying to explain for the last time. Take a plank of wood, as proposed by Sisyphus, and put it in between your eye and the cup of coffee. This piece of wood is solid matter, i.e. molecules, atoms of matter that are sticked together by forces (electromagnetical, strong nuclear, weak, gravity, wathever), and none of these interactions can travel faster than C. So the existence of this piece of wood is subjected to the same restrictions as the beam of light. Some physicists could maybe assume that inside matter, the restrictions are even stronger. In any circumstances, we know that nothing can travel faster than C. IMO that means that the "information" that makes your piece of wood look like solid cannot travel faster than C.(if it was not a solid, but a liquid, or a gas, you may understand it more clearly. As if solid substances were like chewing gum in regard of SOL) So that your piece of solid wood extending from your eyes to your cup of coffee stands also in a mixture of space & time. All the Reality we observe around us is a mixture of time & space. And when we are measuring this reality, we are measuring diagonals. Always. That is my way of understanding.

O.K. with your post. Just forget the stars for a while. Look at your cup of coffee: the distance you measure between you and your cup, is that the AB distance (pure space) or the A B1 diagonal (a mix of time & space)?

I suppose you mean here that points A, A1, A2 are the one and same object. I will disagree on that, explaining below. I suppose also your ruler analogy (plank of wood) is meant to say that there is a continuation in time, or that any object continues to exist at any time. So that if I could travel into the past, I would encounter myself there, because in some sort, I am still "existing" there in the past. If that is what you are saying, I would disagree but that was not the meaning of this thread, and I think we can skip the question for a moment. (maybe in a new thread). Explaining why A,A1,A2 are not the same object. A, A1 & A2 are positions, coordinates, they are not "an object". I should have stated that, at point A, an object called M* is standing at rest. After some time (duration), M is at point A1, and after some more time (duration) M is at point A2. When presenting it that way, you may see that the object M is not "extending", the object M is not both at points A & A1, and A2. Our friend Jajrussel introduced into the conversation the concept of energy. Well, if the same object where at point A, A1, A2, wouldn't that mean that his energy has increased 3 times? Which is quite amazing IMO. I don't think things go like that. As I see how all the scenery must work, the object M is one and only entity, traveling (enduring) through points A, A1, A2. The whole idea here is that Time & Space are somehow comparable instances (phenomenas, properties, wathever). They are not the same, but they are made of the same "stuff", if any. But if you don't like this presentation, and believe that point M is extending, or that all points A's are the one and same object, we can discuss it separately. Upon the diagram, the question remains: where is the distance? (the measured one). Or, if you prefer, where is Reality? upon the AB plane, or upon the A B1 diagonal? * M for Myself, or Michel;)

I got your point. Property. Action of a ruler? Hm. Don't want to answer before thinking of it.

There is a good presentation you can watch on Youtube from Allan Guth himself, at In part four (Inflationary Cosmology Guth FOUR), someone of the assistance asks if the inflationary theory puts a center for the BB, and Guth's answer is positive. PS. Pywakit will enjoy, especially part THREE, I am sure.

Duration is good. Point A is durating, due to duration.

agree for "chronotion". Quite bad. It is taken from chronos, the Greek word for time (chronometer a.s.o.). Extension again reminds distance, spatial measurement. Any other suggestion?

I didn't figured that it was so complicated to explain my thoughts when I began this thread. I began with an idea of translation in time. Time act upon us and make us slide smoothly through time. Some sort of motion, but in Time. Let's call it chronotion. So, A is standing at rest. That means, A is not moving, but A is chronoting. Another way to say that "time elapses". A can stand at rest for many years. That means he will only chronoting for many years. Like a Pharaoh's mummy in the great pyramid. Oh that guy was chronating for a long long time. He was at rest. Is that clear? I hope so. Now, we put that chronotion in a diagram. Only chronotion. No displacement, no motion. Just time. Elapsing. Flowing. Everything is at rest. Inside the same FOR. Let's say upon the Earth. Inside the great pyramid. At rest. Dead. And here we are. We want to measure the length of the pharoh's body. At rest. Not moving. Dead. It's easy, we take a folding meter from our pocket and we take the measurement. But here the question is a little bit different. The pharaoh's body is too long. It is 300.000 km long. How can we measure that? Easy, we send our Egyptian guide to put a mirror at the pharaoh's feet, while installing an up to date laser ZHR7010 model at the top of his head, pointing to his feet. Wait a few years, standing at rest, untill the Egyptian guide reaches the pharoh's feet. Then, turn the laser on, and measure the time needed for the beam to come back. That's the last diagram. No motion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, no, no. Standing at rest means "travel through time" i.e. chronation.

No no no. Pause. I am stubborn. In my diagram, A do not move. A is at rest. B do not move. B is at rest. The only thing that happens is that time elapses. The "positions" of A & B are positions in Time, not in Space. How to explain otherwise?

Hm. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged hum Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYou have never asked yourself why do you need time to travel. Leave it for tonight (for me it is 10.21 p.m.).

No, that is not what the diagram represents. What you are saying is another configuration where the laser is at A, goes to B (where we putted a mirror), and bounces back to A. My diagram is simpler than that, because the laser is at B, and pointed to A. You are right that my configuration implies simultaneity between A & B in order to know when the laser lights on, and that is a problem. Your configuration is better, but the result must be the same. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSomething like this:

Are those calculations saying anything to you? They have been posted from a guy I cannot reach anymore from another forum. http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkfQmC4TTWCQdGpUcXlYR0U2ckowal9aZW96TTRDVWc&hl=en

I am not playing a game. I am not a priest either. Show me where is B, and I'll stop. Apologizing if you wish.

For me geometry means proportion without the need of any absolute. Pure relativity. (not Relativity)

YES. Good point. I can understand that. i suppose you meant isosceles, not equilateral. But even in this case, light traveled the diagonal. No?

Agree. THAT is the question. If i don't know what I measured, I will make a mistake. .......... I know I look stubborn. And i know the possible influence of my question (and your answer) on other fields of physics. I know also that there is 99,99% of chance being wrong, but I'd like to put it clearly into my head. Till now, I still think we are measuring the diagonal.

Sorry i can't get it. If I replace 2 seconds with 2*10^8m, the "physical wedge of a known angle" is 45 degrees, as in a Minkowski diagram. And surely I want to get the AB distance, and I know how to get it geometrically. My question is why am I so sure that the measurement I made IS the AB distance, and not the hypotenuse. I repeat myself, if we were not talking about time, SOL, and all that stuff, it would be a very simple triangle as we learn at school. So, step by step. At the beginning, we are at point A. At the end of the measurement, we are at point A' (as if we moved a distance of 600.000 km). What are we measuring? My answer is: the hypotenuse. Is that so wrong?

Look: if you replace time and put distance instead, you obtain a simple spatial diagram, a regular euclidian triangle. If I asked you what have you measured, surely you would agree it is the hypothenuse. The trouble comes when time is inserted. And if I asked you: can we replace time with distance?, you surely would have answered yes. It is what we do on a Minkowski diagram. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI can replace the 2 seconds with 6*10^8m.