Maartenn100

I will explain my idea and where it's coming from, even when it is wrong, so you understand the reasoning behind it: If we throw a ball in the air, and it falls down further away, it follows a bell curve in the air. According to GRT, it's a straight line in curved space. (and time). According to the ball's perspective, it's a straight line. But we, observers of space and time, we have a particular idea of a straight line, even in curved spacetime here. To us, the path of the ball is a bell curve, and our idea of straight uncuved and unstretched ruler is different from this bell curve of the ball, following it's trajectory through curved space. Well, it's this particular ruler of ours, this particular idea of a straight uncurved and unexpanded path, within a curved spacetime environment like the vicinity of Earth, the Sun, the Milkyway and clusters of galaxies that we see 'expanded', when we observe the redshift of the light of galaxies moving away from us, far way, according to Hubble's Law. Our particular idea of a straight line, as observers, is observed as stretched or expanded in spaces that are less curved then our space(time). That's a matter of perception. Even if the metric of the universe in itself is expanding, our particular idea of a straight line is observed as being stretched in less curved spaces than ours, because we have a particular idea of a straight ruler, an idea of a straight uncurved and unstretched ruler in our curved spacetime environment(s). Compare it with a clock. To us, time flows 'normal'. But in reality, time is dilated by the curvature of spacetime due to the mass of Earth, the mass of the Sun and the mass of the Milkeyway, the mass of the clusters of galaxies etc. But we 'observe' time normal. And it is this particular idea of time and this particular idea of a straight line in our curved spacetime environment that makes us see expanded straight lines somewhere else, as observers. So, in my opinion, this expansion of space, we observe, is a matter of perception or perspective from the point of view of an observer in a curved spacetime environment, watching objects in a less curved spacetime environment following a straight line. Even if the universe is expanding in itself. Personally, I believe that the universe in itself, without observers has properties of time and space that you can deduce based on an object that is absolute, like a photon in vacuum. For every observer it has the same values. So it can tell us something about the absolute (non-relative) nature of the universe in itself.

Do you know who examined the concept of the relativity of 'expansion', the reasoning behind their ideas, and why they were ultimately disproven? I'd like to understand why these ideas were considered incorrect. Thanks. Additionally, out of curiosity, I'm interested in learning more about the individual who first explored this idea and their rationale.

ok, thanks. Finally someone who explains this with patience without offending people. Thank you.

ok, thank you very much. I appreciate your effort. I don't know enough about these formula to understand it properly. My idea is wrong then.

yes, I agree with the expansion. Only, I think, it's a relativistic observation of space, not an expansion of the universe in itself. I think we should take a foton as a standard observer. It has absolute properties: for every observer a foton travels the same speed. A foton in vacuum can tell us something about the propereties of the universe in itself, without observers. It can give us absolute values (= not relative) about the universe in itself without having to avarage it out.

I agree. And that's why, in my opinion, you can not make absolute statements about the state of the universe in itself. Different observers will disagree on the expansion. Like James Web Telescope and ESA Planck Satelite disagree on the speed of expansion, even if they are both very accurate observers.

I have the following question: Imagine you are in a spaceship that is approaching the speed of light very closely. Normally, according to the theory of special relativity, you would see the space between you and the next planet you are traveling to shrink (length contraction). And then see it expand again as you decelerate. Suppose you are traveling very close to the speed of light towards a galaxy that is moving away from us due to the so-called expansion of the universe. What happens then to the space in between? Does it shrink or does it actually expand? Is the observer in the spaceship correct in saying that the universe is contracting in one direction (lengthcontraction due to high speed near the speed of light)? Or are we right from Earth, claiming that the entire space in the entire universe is expanding as a whole? You too easily ignore that the absoluteness of space expansion according to the Big Bang theory was refuted by the very precise measurements of the James Webb Telescope and the very precise measurements of the ESA satellite, which differed from each other. The only explanation is that different observers perceive this space expansion differently. Relativity of space-observations.

So, why are scientists still talking as if we live in an absolute universe with an absolute age (time) and an absolute amount of expanded space at any moment? So, why is this topic under 'speculations'? Or it is speculation or it is nothing new. It can't be both true.

But isn't it logical that when there is no universal clock, (no universal reference frame for time) there is also no universal reference frame for space? There is no universal ruler. And from that principle of relativity of space, can we logically infer that everything concerning space, absolutely everything, is also relative? Any theory that contradicts this must be flawed somewhere. That everything we see happening with space is a relativistic observation? (like the expansion of space far away (redshift of emitted light of distant galaxies.) There are referenceframes where the age of the universe is zero. And there is no prefered referenceframe for time in the universe. So, there are referenceframes where 'space' = zero too. And there are no preferred referenceframes for space in the universe. So, why scientists keep talking about an absolute universe with an absolute age and an absolute amount of expanded space at every moment?

Curvature versus Expansion: Both Relativistic Observations of Space We observe the deflection of light around massive objects. Light bends due to the curvature of spacetime around those masses according to the General Theory of Relativity (Einstein's General Relativity); From its own perspective, this photon follows the straightest path from A to B. From our perspective, spacetime there is curved, and the Light follows a curved path. To itself, there are no curved paths in time and space for objects over there. Just as the photon thinks of itself. From its own perspective, the paths are straight through time and space for every object within that spacetime sphere of that massive object. We, external observers, however, have a relatively faster ticking clock than the clock within that spacetime curved by those heavier masses for us. The spacetime there is curved, relative to our spacetime within our weaker gravitational field. So, when we see a gravitational field heavier than ours from here, we see a more curved spacetime there, relative to our less curved and, according to us, 'uncurved spacetime', which we take as a reference frame for curved spacetime: objects there follow a curved path, relative to our path. What happens then when we see a gravitational field lighter than ours from within our gravitational field? Then straight paths should become straighter than ours, but 'straighter than straight' is not possible. What is the reverse equivalent of following a curved path in a more curved spacetime? One will see space expanding between objects in a less curved spacetime than that of the observer. The expansion of space in the cosmos is the reverse equivalent of curvature. The reverse of a curved spacetime is an expanding spacetime when we observe a gravitational field weaker than ours. Both are relativistic observations of space.

In my opinion, there was not first the Big Bang and then an expansion of the universe. Now, the following viewpoint allows for the unification of spacetime or 'the block universe' of Einstein with the measurement problem in quantum physics. I believe there was first a 4D block universe where everything is simultaneously 'accessible,' a metaphysical 4D spacetime. Why metaphysical? Because as living beings, we are only capable of perceiving a 3D universe through time. Einstein already said: "time is an illusion of our consciousness." We experience the unfolding of events through time, sequentially. But that is not how the larger reality itself is. All events from the past, present, and possibly future are accessible at the same time when we have access to the block universe. To 'observe' this reality, you need to be in a different state of consciousness. Having a unitive experience, as the mystics say, lets you consider this Ultimate Reality. And here, a role is designated for our consciousness. Through our consciousness, we have access to 'time' in a 3D world where we experience events sequentially, and closing our eyes, dreaming, and ultimately 'dying' then means gradually gaining access to the 4D reality, which mystics and psychonauts sometimes have access to. The Minkowski spacetime or the block universe. Where all information from the past, present, and future is accessible. The spacetime, or the Minkowski metric, is a deduced reality where everything exists simultaneously, in past, present, and possibly future. A 4D reality that we can access when we are in a different state of consciousness."

Space and time observations are inherently relativistic observations, relative to our clock and ruler that we use as a standard. (Einstein) Therefore, as observers, we are always in the center of an expanding universe, expanding in all directions in space. This is because, both in terms of time and our spatial measurements, we are the standard for what we observe as 'curvature' and 'expansion' (frame of reference).

Well, we always see through the lens of a clock when we observe space. And whenever space is observed as curved or expanded, there is a difference over there with our clock. Due to (gravitational) time-dilation or time contraction. We cannot see not through the lens of our clock or ruler when we observe space. (and time) Because, to us, our clock ticks 'normal', where ever we are, our ruler and our clock are locally uncurved and unexpanded. (to us). We take our clock and our ruler as flat, as a reference (frame) for observed space somewhere else. But, wherever we are, we see everything further away from us expanding in all directions. Because to every observer, his local clock and ruler are taken as the Standard/reference for time and space measurements elsewhere.

The James Webb Telescope confirms the measurements of the Hubble Telescope regarding the speed of the so-called expansion of the universe, thereby ruling out presumed errors of the Hubble Telescope. This is problematic because the ESA Planck satellite, through another, also very accurate, measurement method, came to different conclusions. (see here for more information) Personally, therefore, like an increasing number of scientists, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the Big Bang theory and the idea of an objective expansion of the universe. As I have previously indicated on this forum, I believe that if gravitation in the theory of general relativity is equivalent to acceleration in the theory of special relativity, then observed space expansion or observed space contraction in special relativity also has its equivalent in observations of space (from a time frame with a specific clock) in gravitational fields. Different observers will therefore disagree on the degree of space expansion. The universe itself is not expanding; it is our relativistic observation of space that differs, for different observers who take their clock, their own time, as the standard for observations out in space. It is a property of space observation that the observed space can shrink or expand, depending on the different clocks in the gravitational field that we, as observers, have as a standard. Hence the difference in measurements between ESA's Planck satellite on one hand, and the Hubble and James Webb Telescope on the other.

You can't call it dimension, place, domain, etc. What would be a good name to point to this 'mental space' and to recognize its existence next to the physical domain in this world? Because this 'mental space' exists, doesn't it? Every day we witness it personally. The whole body of mathematics is only 'visible' in mental space. The whole body of science is only 'visible' in mental space. If there was not a 'mental space', we could not read these words, could we? So, it's time to recognize this 'mental space' as a part of the world. As some 'realm' in this world. M point is, that whatever activity happens in this 'domain', it's non-physical. Even if there are physical correlates (neural correlates); Your inner voice is not happening in the physical domain, isn't it? A measuring device cannot find it in the brain. (or in other materials). It's not part of the description of the physical world (physics) or chemistry. But it exists. Your inner voice exists somehow, somewhere, but it is not described in physics, nor in chemistry, both descriptions of our material world. And because its not described in physics or chemistry, both descriptions of what exists in the material world, it's not part of this material world. But the inner voice exists and is real. What is it made off? So, it has to be in some other 'domain' of reality. It is made of some other 'stuff' then its neural correlates. If neuroscientists talk about 'neural correlates', what does it correlate with? With something non-neural/non-physical? There are two 'things' correlating here. What is on the other side of the neural correlate? You can call it 'mental stuff'. So, my point is, as a physicalist, recognize, at least, that 'a mental domain' exists, next to the physical world, that correlates with neurons.

You can't call it: space, dimension, place, domain, etc. What would be a good name to point to this 'mental space' and to recognize its existence next to the physical domain in this world? Because this 'mental space' exists, doesn't it? Every day we witness it personally. The whole body of mathematics is only 'visible' in mental space. The whole body of science is only 'visible' in mental space. If there was not a 'mental space', we could not read these words, could we? So, it's time to recognize this 'mental space' as a part of the world. As some 'realm' in this world. You can't call it: space, dimension, place, domain, etc. What would be a good name to point to this 'mental space' and to recognize its existence next to the physical domain in this world? Because this 'mental space' exists, doesn't it? Every day we witness it personally. The whole body of mathematics is only 'visible' in mental space. The whole body of science is only 'visible' in mental space. If there was not a 'mental space', we could not read these words, could we? So, it's time to recognize this 'mental space' as a part of the world. As some 'realm' in this world.

It's idealism: everything is mind, and fysicality is the appearance of the mind of nature to a localised mind. That's not my model, that's the model or hypothesis of philosopher and computerscientist Bernardo Kastrup actually. It's called analytic idealism. We are like whirlpools in a river. Localised minds in the Mind of Nature. When we cease to exist we go back into the broader stream of Consciousness, just like the whirlpool ceases to exist and becomes back part of the greater stream. How other 'whirlpools of localised minds' look like for 'one localised whirlpool of mind' is like a brain and body. A metabolising organism. That's an appearance in the mind of a neuroscientist, a localised mind. A dissociated alter according to Bernardo Kastrup. We are dissociated alters from the broader Mind of Nature. We perceive a shared dream, like the dissociated alters of someone with dissociated identity disorder in the dream of this person, having a shared dream. When the alters cease to exist, the Mind awakens and recoginises: it was me all along.

The neural correlates are just the outer appearance of this inner world, dimension, or space, seen from the viewpoint of another mind. The neural correlates are 'this inner space and inner thoughts' seen in the perceptions of another mind. The neural correlates of consciousness do not cause the mind, they are the mind, seen from the perspective of another mind.

Science (as concept) is non-physical. Without this non-physical mind you could not read these words here on the page or any other book for that matter. Take the non-physical mind away from the world, and science ceases to exist.

There is at least one other dimension beyond the physical dimension we witness daily: the hidden 'spatial' dimension where the inner voice, inner thoughts, inner images, and dreams 'reside'. For ourselves, this dimension is visible to our 'mind's eye'. We notice our inner voice, witness our thoughts and observe our dreams. However, the same dimension and its non-physical entities are not visible to us in others or in the rest of the physical world. Thus, we do not know if ChatGPT also has such an 'inner experiential world'. Such a hidden spatial dimension. We assume it in animals. We hardly suspect it in a computer component or radio. We do not even consider that there may be other hidden dimensions tied to the physical world that we cannot discover, which are different from that inwardly noticeable non-physical space. When we see someone, we do not see their hidden non-physical dimension from which they conceptualize, dream, have inner images, and so forth. When this person dies, we also do not see what happens to this inner space. It is possible that this inner space 'expands', now that the physical matter to which this dimension was tied, crumbles. We can never directly see this space of the other, so we also do not know what happens to it after the death of the material correlates. I am asking here and now for immediate recognition from the physicalists for this non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside! That there exists at least one non-physical domain, or 'space' or 'dimension' that each of us personally witnesses, but cannot observe in others or the other physical objects, and about which we fundamentally do not know what happens after the disintegration of the material correlates of this non-physical dimension!

I accept that timedilation happened in a field of gravity. But to a conscious astronaut, he/she will experience his clock ticking at a normal rate. There will be no difference in time perception for him. Take the following thought experiment from special relativity: on a ship travelling near the speed of light relative to Earth, the observers on that ship don't experience a dilation of time, nor a shrink of their ship. To them, everything on the ship is perceived 'normal'. To them: Earth is shrinking in one direction and the clocks on Earth do have strange effects. To the conscious observers in the ship. So, to a conscious observer, his perception of time rate passage is the same, wherever he or she is. He has no experience of a timestretch or timecontraction, a spacecontraction or a space-expansion locally. Only when we compare the clocks afterwards, when we bring them together, we see that there must have been a difference in time rate passage. Think about the travellers in the ship near the speed of light. We, from Earth, see that the ship is shrinking and that the time is dilating over there. But the conscious observers in the ship do not perceive anything weird on the ship. The ship is as always. The clocks run normal. Everything is fine. Why? Because wherever an observer is, his idea of time is 'normal'. Even when he is close to a black hole. Why is this relevant? It's relevant for our observations of space through our telescopes. What we observer has also something to do with our clocks and with our normal perception of time here on Earth, while time is actually dilated.

My claim is that conscious observers have their own particular clock and their own particular ruler. A reference for time and a reference for a straight uncurved, unstretched ruler. Wherever we are, as conscious observers, we experience the same time rate passage. And we have our local idea of what's an uncurved and straight ruler. Time So, far above the Earth, scientists say: the time rate passage goes faster, due to gravitational timedilation here on Earth. Gravity slows down time. But what's actually happening is: relative to an observer high above the Earth (an astronaut f.e.), the time rate passage is slower on Earth then his reference idea of a standard ticking clock. But to a conscious observer near a black hole, time on Earth goes faster then his local standard idea of a normal ticking clock. Time goes very fast on Earth, relative to this conscious observer near that black hole. Because his consciousness experiences time 'normal' locally, wherever he is. ('normal' means: a reference time rate passage for consciousness, that is everywhere the same for every observer, wherever he or she is). So, our experience of time is everywhere the same. Therefore, everywhere we have a particular ruler. Ruler I think that every conscious observer has also his or her particular idea of a straight line as his or her reference for the observations of 'curvature' or 'expanding' spaces elsewhere, far away from the observer. In relative heavier or relative weaker fields of gravity. So, a straight uncurved and unexpanded ruler for a conscious observer in intergalactic 'expanding' space is different from a straight uncurved or unexpanded ruler for a conscious observer here on Earth. Time-observations and ruler-observations are connected Whenever we, as conscious observers, observe a 'curved environement' in space, due to gravity, f.e. gravitational lensing etc., we see this curvature through the lens of our clock. We see this curvature through the lens of our idea of an uncurved and unstretched ruler in our referenceframe. It means, that overthere, the clock will tick relative slower then our reference clock, as conscious observers on Earth. So, whatever we observer 'outthere' depends on our local idea of a normal ticking clock and our particular idea of a straight uncurved and unstretched line as our reference for 'curvature by gravity' (or speed). Maarten Vergucht

You're right. Thanks for your feedback.

New theory indicates present and future exist simultaneously...

What's wrong with the following reasoning? - The past is gone (doesn't exist (anymore)) - The future isn't there yet (doesn't exist) - The actual moment is all there is. - The actual moment can't have a duration, because in that case it could be divided into a past, present and a future. So, the duration of the actual moment must be 0 sec. Conclusion: time is an illusion.