Maartenn100

Ok thank you.

Ok. Thank you for the effect explaining it to me.

Forgive me, but I still don't understand that stars of 100 000 year later can move together with stars of 100.000 year older as one galaxy due to Hubble's Law. The stars we observe in the back have 'experienced' 100.000 years of expension more in this univrrse then the stars we see in the front. Do you understand what I mean?

It doesn’t matter? Imagine that we observe a galaxy, very far away from us, moving at high velocities, due to Hubble’s law. The stars in the front are from a period of time, 100.000 years later then the stars we see from the back. How can the stars we see in the front be at the same position due to Hubble’s law then the stars in the back, moving together, if there is a difference of 100.000 years (for example)?

Hubble's Law = the velocities of recession of galaxies are proportional to their distances from us. Do we see galaxies following Hubble's law (distant galaxies moving faster and faster away from us) ot do we observe the (light of the) past, where galaxies further away are closer together? (because the further we look, the further we look in the past). Are far away galaxies closer together (the further we look in the past, the smaller the expansion of the universe back then) or are far away galaxies been observed further away (following Hubble's law)? Thank you for answering these questions.

Hubble's Law = the velocities of recession of galaxies are proportional to their distances from us. Imagine that we observe a galaxy far away from us, moving with very high velocies away from us. We know that the light of the star in the front of that galaxy reaches our eyes 10.000 years earlier then the light of the stars in the back. (we only can see the past and the further we look, the further we look into the past). Why is it that we see this whole galaxy moving away from us, while the observed stars in the front are from a period of time which is (for example) 10.000 years earlier then the period of time of the observed stars in the back of that galaxy. We see, however this whole galaxy moving away from us as one whole galaxy at very high velocities. Thank you for answering this question.

I know that 'minds' and 'consciousness' are not part of science. But it is a crucial part of reality. Only our minds have access to the actual moment. 4D-spacetime is past, present and maybe future together in a manifold. Only through minds we can capture the events moment by moment in the actualy moment. But that's not how the events exist outthere in 4D-spacetime. All events exist together from past, present and maybe future. We only can experience the events moment by moment. Thanks to ... consciousness. The interaction between consciousness and 4D-spacetime results in an observable universe.

Einstein said it already and Minkowski too: in reality, there is 4D-spacetime. A mind can only experience 3D space. or can you experience 4D spacetime, Strange? Tell me if you can. That's logical and in line with evidence and based on the postulates of relativity. Minds do only have access to the actual moment. Or do you see the past, Strange? Do you observe the manifold 4D-spacetime? Or do you need math for that? A measuring device is a 4D-object existing in past, present and maybe future (Minkowski, Einstein). What do you want from me on this forum? That I can deliver a nobel prize in physics? Or I will be banned when I cannot deliver the next breakthrough in science? People, it's directly logically derived from the ideas of Einstein and Minkowski. They postulated that reality in itself is 4D spacetime. But conscious minds are not capable of observing this 4D-manifold. We do experience 3D-space and can measure time with clocks. Therefore (logical conclusion): minds have only acces tot the actual moment. A measuring device cannot experience time. It is a 4D-object, existing in past, present and maybe also future. A measuring device measuring something is series of events existing together in spacetime in past, present and future. But a mind has access to the actual moment. Only a mind has access tot the actual moment; Therefore, the interaction between a mind and 4D-spacetime = an observable universe.

I will tell you also my idea about consciousness and 4D-spacetime. We can measure distance (space) and we can measure time (clocks). But we have to deduce 4D-spacetime based on that. We can't see the 4-dimensional manifold, called spacetime. We can only mathematisize spacetime. Therefore, spacetime is only mathematical to us. What we observe is 3D-space and what we measure is time. We deduce spacetime, spacetime-intervals etc. Why, Because we, minds, have only acces to the actual moment. While spacetime = events from past, present and future together in a 4D-manifold (Einstein, Minkowski) The interaction of a mind (an observer) with this manifold (only mathematical object, but very real) results in the experience of time. The experience of the unfolding of the events moment by moment. Let me tell you the difference between a measuring device and a conscious mind. A scientific experiment is actually a sequence of events in spacetime, existing together. The beginning of the experiment, the middle and the end of the experiment already exist together in spacetime. Only a conscious observer, a scientist, can experience the unfolding of the experiment moment by moment through time. That's the role of consciousness. A measuring device cannot experience time (the unfolding of the events moment by moment). The measuring device itself is actually existing in past, present and future simultaniously. Only a mind can observe the measuring device measuring moment by moment. A measuring device can't.

so, finally, you admit that these statements are relative. That's my point. Thank you. Conclusion: no absolute statements (= non-relative) age and amount of expanded space possible. Ergo: big bangtheory cannot be true. Because the Big Bangtheory postulates an absolute (not relative) timescale and amount of expanded space on every moment in time.

I don't understand you. You say exaclty the same thing: we can't make absolute statements for time and space for the universe. That's exactly what I'm trying to say here the whole time. But on the other hand, you accept absolute statements about an expanding universe. Why do you accept a universe with a certain age and a certain amount of expanded space on the one hand, while you admit on the other hand that we cannot make absolute statements about the timeproperties and spaceproperties of the universe? Isn't that a contradiction?

You do not think logically. Why light is an invalid reference frame, do you think? Because it would be able to make absolute statements for time and space. The math tells us that: such absolute statements for time and space are invalid in the universe we live in. Just follow the math. And don:t call me an idiot, because I have another opinion.

I interprete the mathematical fact that light (absolute object) is been seen as an invalid referenceframe, that it is forbidden by relativity to make absolute statements for time and space when you talk about the universe in itself.

You ask me for the math. I tell you to use the math of special theory of relativity using light as reference frame. A photon will tell you that it is invalid to make absolute statements about time and spatial properties of the universe in itself. Invalid means no absolute statements about time and space possible.

This is not a matter of math or physics. This is a matter of interpreting the already existing mathematics and physics. In my interpretation, light is the ultimate referenceframe. You can make absolute (=not relative) statements about the universe, using light as a reference frame. That's an interpretation. In physics scientists say that this is an invalid frame of reference. No, this frame of reference allows us to make absolute statements about the universe in itself. Statements which are not relative. This is a matter of interpretation, not of math or physics. Ask yourself these question: Are you not surprised that when a photon reaches your eye, after travelling billions of years, that it hasn't aged a second? What's the age of the universe to a photon? An object with absolute values (non-relative)? This object will allow you to make some absolute statements about the universe in itself, observer-independent. An observer with mass, can't tell you the exact time, because its mass will curve spacetime. An observer with relative speed, can't tell you the exact time, because observers with another speed will disagree. Only a massless observer with absolute speed, relative to everyone and everything can tell you something about the absolute time- and spaceproperties of the universe in itself, observer-independent.

Why don't you just follow the math? Undefined is undefined. Period. Undefinable spatial and time properties for the universe in itself possibly, using light as an absolute frame of reference. Just follow the math.

The devision by zero in mathematics is interpreted as: 'undefined'. The math tells you that the time and spatial properties of the universe in itself are undefinable. Every statement about age and an amount of expansion of space is an observers' statement and relative by nature.

By convention. I'm a philosopher and a freethinker. I interprete an object with absolute values for speed as an object that allows me to make some absolute statements about time and space.

One million years not significant? Again: it's about the principle of relativity: you can not make absolute statements about time and space. Even when the difference is 'small'.

I learned that light has the same value (speed= space/time) for every observer. Only the speed of light is absolute. So, if you want to know some absolute (non-relative) information about the universe, you must investigate massless objects travelling at the speed of light. They will give you information (as an absolute referenceframe) for the absolute nature of the universe. (absolute statement = not relative, observer-dependent) The fact that there is a difference, no matter how small, makes a significant difference for the kind of universe we live in.

Ask a photon: no expansion of the universe. (a photon is an object with absolute properties for space and time (speed: distance/time) and can give you absolute information (not relative) about the universe in itself, without observers. The spatial and timeproperties of the universe in itself are undefinable. 'expanding space' and 'x billion years old' are always relativistic observer's statements. It tells us nothing about the universe in itself without observers. To say that observers have 'pretty much exactly the same idea' about the age/expansion of the universe in itself is not scientific. Or they have exactly the same idea or they don't. 'pretty much exactly the same idea' is not good enough to make generalised statements about the universe. 'pretty much exaclty the same idea about the expanding universe' means: they have different ideas. And that makes a big difference for in what kind of universe we live.

ok, what will an observer see near a black hole? What's the universe to a photon? (no space, nor time) These are extreme examples to show that we live in a universe where observers do not have 'pretty much exactly' the same idea about space and time.

Whatever you measure is relative, other observers will disagree. So, why are you generalising this to all possible observers? I wrote that they have the same speed relative to Earth. In Dutch we translate 'speed' and 'velocity' the same. My native language is Dutch.

Imagine you are in a spaceship, going ver fast near the speed of light relative to Earth. Imagine another spaceship, going with the same speed relative to Earth. The observers in both ships will 'observe' no lengtcontraction of the other spaceship. They will have the same time rate passage and all laws of Newton work just fine. To them both ships are not moving. Why: because they have the same ruler/clock. It's exactly the same thing in the gravitational fields. When you have the same time rate passage as what's happening in another galaxy, you will see nothing happening with space over there. Space-observations and timemeasurements are connected. You cannot make any universal statement about the spatial conditions/time rate passage of a universe in itself.

Calling someone stupid, ignorant, dunning Kruger etc. Nice on this forum. The universe in itself, (=without any observer), has no defined spatial properties and their is no defined time rate passage (according to who's clock?).