Maartenn100

I do not disagree with the math. It's the interpretation of what you observe. You observe an expansion of space (socalled cosmological redshift) and you interprete this as an 'expansion of the universe'. No, it's just a relativistic observation of space. Other observers will disagree. So, relativistic expansion has nothing to do with a universe expanding in itself. Why? 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. Why: because they have the same ruler/clock. It's exactly the same in the gravitational fields. When you have the same time rate passage of your clock, you will see nothing happening with space in the other frame. To them both ships are not moving. Space-observations and timemeasurements are connected. You cannot make any statement about the spatial conditions of a universe in itself.

Think about the following: In special theory of relativity, two ships with the same speed near the speed of light will 'see' that their clocks tick the same and they will not observe a lengthcontraction of the other spaceship. It's exactly the same thing in the gravitational fields. When we observe a galaxy with the same time rate passage on Earth, we will not see any expansion of space in that galaxy. That's why space is not expanding over there in our opinion. Because we have the same clocks. Where there are different clocks (because of gravitational timedilation/contraction) we will observe a space-expansion/contraction.

The math already exists, it's the interpretation of the already existing math, what it means for our universe. The math of Hubble's law exists. The observations/measurements of the redshift of emitted ligth due to the socalled cosmological redshift are been done. It's the interpetation of this as 'a universe in itself expanding' what's wrong in my opinion.

No, you cannot make statements about the spatial properties of the whole universe, expanding, while this expansion is only a particular notion of a particular observer with a particular ruler. That's the whole difference with my theory. My theory says: you can only make relative statements about space (and time). You cannot make any absolute statement about the spatial dimensions of the universe in itself. You cannot generalise thjs to the whole universe, because other observers will disagree about the expanded universe. The universe, in itself, without observers, has no such expanding properties. According to who's ruler? And I don't call you stupid or ignorant because you think differently.

If 'expanding space' outthere is relativistic, then other observers will disagree about 'the socalled expanding universe'. Why do you make statements about the universe in itself expanding, while the expanding space is relativistic, so other observers will disagree about the expanded space (because it's relativistic).

Let me first tell you something else, if I may: The relativity of space On Earth, in laboratories, we are used to the ‘relativity of time’. We compare atomic clocks in planes vs clocks on the ground, we compare clocks in satelites with clocks on Earth. We are used to the relativity of time. To gravitational timedilation and to timedilation because of relative speed. But when we look at the ‘cosmological redshift’ and observe ‘expanding space’, we think that the whole universe is expanding. We don’t think about the fact that space is also relative. We are not familiar with the relativity of space (lengtcontraction, spacestretch, spacecontraction). We think about lengthcontraction as something happening in extreme conditions with hypothetical spaceships near the speed of light. We do not think about the socalled cosmological redshift as a relativistic expansion of space. We think that the whole universe is expanding. No, just our observed space is expanding, as observed from withtin a gravitational well. Is there an expansion of the space between atoms? Do we observe an expansion of space between molecules? Do we observe an expansion of space in our own solar system? Why not? Because all the clocks have almost the same timerate passage locally. The relativistic spacedeformations are always observed somewhere else. Never locally. It has nothing to do with a whole universe, in itself expanding. It has only something to do with different clocks, and therefore a different observation of space up there. Time- and spaceobservations hang together like twins. In special relativity, the observers in the spaceship travelling near light speed, observe an increasing blueshift of the emitted light of far galaxies. There is a shrink of space in the direction of motion, to them. Do they conlcude that the whole universe is shrinking in one direction? No, because they know that they observe a relativistic spaceshrink due to their speed. Not only time is relative, space is also relative.

i do not disagree with you. Spacetime is very real. It's even 'more real' then our observations of space and our measurements of time. But a timedimension always needs a referenceframe; And observers will always disagree about the rate of time passage. So, there cannot be a universal statement about time, nor space. (space is also relative). Since space and time are relative by nature, the universe in itself (spacetime), can not have such relativistic properties. According to which observer?

Spacetime is, in my opinion (and I can be wrong) a non-dimensional conceptualised 4D-object. We cannot measure it (only indirectly), we can only deduce it, mathematically. To us, it's pure a conceptualised non-dimensional idea of a 4D-object. Such an object has no spatial and timeproperties. It''s a Platonic entity, very real, even more absolute then our relativistic observations of space and time, but it can only be conceptualised. Such a conceptualised object cannot expand. It has no dimensions. It's a concept. Very real, even more real then our observations, but it has no spatial or timeproperties. You always need a (arbitrary chosen) reference frame to determine the velocity of an object, in my opinion. In every reference frame, the laws of Newton (for motion) work just fine. There is no difference between my idea and scientific theories about motion. I only say: all these statements about age and motion are relative, reference frame dependent. That's in line with the premisse of relativity. The use of a convention to define a frame to make universal statements about the universe is violiting the premisse of relativity. (see above).

it's basic physics: speed is relative. Look it up. Only the speed of light is absolute, relative to every observer. There are three main constants in the universe: an observer (a mind) the speed of light mathematical entity 4D-spacetime (non-dimensional conceptualised 4D-object). These triade (mind-speed of light-mathematical entity, conceptualised 4D-spacetime) results in an observable universe.

The speed of light is absolute, that's right. But motion is always relative.

It's indeed an arbitrary frame. You can also use another frame. So, you can not make any absolutee statement about the age of the universe. Because using another frame will give you other numbers. The fact that you need to use a frame by convention proofs the point that we live in a universe where we can make no absolute statements for time and space for the universe in itself.

I know scientists use the comoving frame. But that's in total contradiction with the premisse of relativity that there can be no prefered reference frame. That there is no universal clock. That's an important violation of that premisse. Scientists also seem to use the comoving frame to determine the 'true' velocity of Earth' in the Galaxy f.e. That's a violation of the principle that there is no absolute standard for motion in the universe possible.

Strange, you say that I don't know what I'm talking about and that I make stuff up . Swanson says that everybody knows what I'm writing, that it is not different from relativity (so, he says it's true), but it's not a big deal. It's true but negligible, he says. You are contradicting each other here. Even a layman can understand that 'if time is relative, there is no such thing as 'an age of the universe'. Every child knows that 'if space is relative', there can not be a certain amount of expanded space at a certain moment in time, because not only time, but also space is relative. That's as simple as 1+1=2, but is more solid then a rock. To say that 'it's negligible' or 'it's not a big deal'. That's not scientific. These 'negligible' facts are facts of the universe and make a very big difference for in what kind of universe we live.

If everybody knows this already, why do the moderators put my theory in the 'speculations' section of the forum? First it was wrong and you asked many questions (your own previous writings) and suddenly it is already been known 'but it is not a big deal'. You keep your theory immune for falsication by saying that 'it's negligible or 'it's not a big deal'. Swansont, there are differences between my idea and the current scientific theories. I say: the universe in itself is not expanding, there are only relativistic observations of (expanding) space. I think that 4D-spacetime is a mathematical platonic entity (very real and absolute), but only deducable. Not measurable nor observable. with undefined spatial and timeproperties. Until an observer exists. An observer will define the spatial and timeproperties according to his own referenceframe. That's a difference with the current theories.

You ask me to quantify the difference between a clock in a (hypothetical) massless and empty universe versus our clock here on Earth. To quantify the difference of time rate passage between these two clocks? I'm not able to do that. But there is a 'massive' difference, and that can be logically derived from the idea that mass curves spacetime. The difference with the current scientific consensus is that I say that the universe in itself is not expanding. Expanding space is only a relativistic observation, done by an observer with a particular ruler and a particular clock. There is no 'expansion of the universe in itself'. There is a relativistic observation of expanding space. Another difference is that I believe that the clocks in these far intergalactic regions of expanding space are ticking faster and faster to infinity. In the current scientific theories, they think that the graviational timecontraction is negligible.

you expect from me that I can calculate the influence of all masses of all bodies of the entire universe on our clock here on Earth? That I can compare this with the time rate passage of a clock in a completely empty universe? Don't you think that you expect too much here? It's reasonable to think that all the masses in the universe have an influence on the clocks in that universe. That there is a difference with a massless universe. But don't expect from a human being to calculate the gravitational timedilation caused by all these masses in the universe combined. Sorry, I can't do that on this forum in this topic here and I don't think a person can do that. My hypothesis: there is no 'whole expanding universe with defined spatial and timeproperties. There are only different observers with their own idea of a normal timeflow (a particular clock) and their own local idea of an uncurved or unexpanded straight line. (particular ruler). They observe expanding space far away, according to their own particular idea of an uncurved and unexpanded ruler in their particular referenceframe. When the big bangtheory is true, then the gravitational timedilation in the beginning must had been enormous, because all mass and energy was together. The curvature must have been enormous. The beginning of time must have gone very very slow. Slower then the time rate passage around a black hole; The curvature of spacetime was enourmous in the beginning. The fastness of time must have been increased since the big bang. Because space between the mass expanded. (I don't know all the answers, but this reasoning seems logical to me).

It's Logically derived from the already existing theory of gravitational timedilation. If mass curves spacetime, then the mass of all the bodies in the universe combined curves spacetime. Where is the fallacy? Therefore: relative to an empty universe our clock goes very slow. Where is the fallacy?

Welk that's indeed the difference with my hypotheses. In my theory all the bodies in the universe have an influence on our clock. Relative to an empty universe our time is going very slow.

What I mean is: with a cosmological expansion there must be an increase of gravitational contracton of hypothetical clocks in the intergalactic expanding regio'ns. Because the influence of the gravity of the rest of the universe on hypothetical clocks in these expanding regions of space decreases more and more. Time flows faster and faster over there. An increasing time contraction over there to infinity. The physics and math already exists. There is Hubble's law and we know that decreasing of mass due to space-expansion between massive bodies causes gravitational timecontraction. Now imagine that the influence of the mass of the bodies of the rest of the universe on the expanding space decreases to infinity. The clock over there will go faster and faster and faster.

Of course there is a huge chance that I'm wrong. And it seems like some things I thought are already been discovered/proven in science. And, I cannot quantify my predictions yet. It's a theory under construction, so to speak. Let me give you some more ideas/unquantifible predictions, and maybe you can tell me wether the ideas already exist or are probable wrong. We know that there is gravitational timedilation. So, there is also gravitational timecontraction. And that happens when two massive bodies are going away from each other. The influence of the mass on the clock between these bodies decreases when the space in between them expands, and there will be a gravitational timecontraction of the hypothetical clocks in the region between these receding massive bodies. So, the further away from us, the more gravitational timecontraction of the hypothetical clocks in intergalactic space. (Hubble's Law about distant receding galaxies) My idea is, that far away, where galaxies or clusters of galaxies are receding at very high speeds due to the socalled expansion of the universe, the time rate passage of hypothetical clocks in the intergalactic regions over here are going faster and faster to infinity. There is a gravitational timecontraction towards infinity outthere. Because the influence of the masses of these clusters of galaxies and the bodies closer to us on the hypothetical clocks in these expanding intergalactic regions of space over there is decreasing to infinity due to Hubble's law. I hope you understand what I mean. The further away, the more gravitational timecontraction, because 'the universe is expanding', so the influence of the gravity on the intergalactic regions decreases towards infinity. Time goes faster and faster far away, relative to our idea of time locally. But I think that an observer in these intergalactic regions far away from us, in this expanding space, doesn't observer these expansions between the galaxies or galaxieclusters locally. But he will 'observe an increasing amount of curvature of spacetime down here. Where we are. Wherever we are, as observers of space, we do not observe expansion nor contraction of spaces locally. We will have a normal observation of space locally. Therefore we will observe expansion and contraction somewhere else. Is this idea already a scientific truth or is it just my idea (and maybe totally wrong).

Actually for this theory to be true, I only have to proof that a different position of an observer in the field of gravity will result in a different observation of the nightsky. It's only necessary to proof that there is a difference. How much (the exact quantificication) is not necessary to proof my hypotheses. The fact that we will observe a different redshift of the emitted light of receding galaxies far away, and this different observation correlates with our different position in the fields of gravity, is sufficient enough to proof that there is a causal relationship beween your position in the gravitational field and what you observe in the nightsky. There must only be a measurable difference in the numbers. You don't need to predict the exact numbers. The fact that there will be a difference is sufficient enough to proof my point. By the way, on forums like this I always see that people expect that you can deliver a new nobel price in science or you meet a lot of hostelity and your idea will be qualified as been complete nonsense. Or you must have a breakthrough in science when you think differently or you are a crackpot. A normal discussion with some interesting pro and contra arguments on a free discussion forum without meeting the standards of a peerreviewed scientific article delivering the next big theory in science is not possibly. Or you accept the scientific concensus of the moment, of these day and age or you are a pseudoscientist, someone with the Dunning Kruger syndrom or a crackpot. When you have different ideas you are been seen as ignorant. Very offensive terms for people who just have different ideas then the scientists of this day and age and want share them on a forum with people with the same intrests.

double small is relative. To an observer in intergalactic space, the timedilation (relative to his clock) of our clocks here on Earth is bigger, then the timedilation on Earth relative to an astronaut's clock orbiting Earth. Therefore, 'timedilation' is a relative statement. That's how I understand it. Every observer will use his own clock (his own idea of normal timeflow) and his own ruler (his own idea of an uncurved/unstretched line) as a standard to measure the amount of curvature, stretch, contraction and dilation of time and space somewhere else. To an observer near a black hole, there is no timedilation of time on Earth, but a timecontraction, relative to his clock near the black hole. He has a different idea of normal timeflow near the black hole. Our time is contracted relative to his clock. Timedilation and timecontraction are relative statements. To us, there is no timedilation of time. There is a timecontraction of the clocks above Earth relative to our idea of a normal timeflow on our clock. Wether there is (gravitational) timedilation and the amount of it depends on who's clock you use to compare the time rate passage. Therefore 'curvature' of spacetime is relative. To an observer near a black hole, space and time are not curved on Earth, but time is contracted and space is expanded, relative to his ruler and clock near the black hole. That's how I understand timedilation/contraction and curvature and stretch of space. These are all relative statements.

I can only give you an experimental prediction, based on my hypothesis. Let me first say something about the special theory of relativity and about how observers perceive space: Imagine a spaceship A is travelling very fast, near the speed of light, relative to an observer in another spaceship B. The fact is that the observers in spaceship A will see that in their own spaceship A/reference frame, time flows as usual and there is no lengthcontraction of their own spaceship noticeable. The laws of Newton work just fine in the own reference frame. The observers in spaceship A and the observers in spaceship B will say that the spacedistortions (lengthcontraction in this case) and the timedilation are happening to the other spaceship, not to their own (from their perspective): the other spaceship contracts, there is timedilation of the clock of the other ship. So, the ruler of the other spaceship is always distorted in relativity. This relativistic observation of space, is (in my opinion) also happening when we look at the night sky into space, wherever we are. Here on Earth, Earth orbiting the Sun in the Milkeyway, there is gravity dilating our clocks and curving our space. (the mass of the cluster, of the Milkey Way, of the Sun and Earth are dilating our clock and curving our space.) But in our own referenceframe we don't experience a timedilation of our clock nor do we experience a curvature of our local ruler (just like in special theory of relativity). But we see spacedistortions somewhere else: we observe the redshift of the emitted light of far away galaxies following Hubble's law. (space-expansion). Experimental predictions: My prediction is: when we are in another field of gravity, we will observe, from that position, another redshift of the emitted light by receding galaxies, due to Hubble's law. The observed space expansion we see far away from us will be different. That's an experimental prediction. The reason is: our idea of time is normal to us in our own reference frame and there is nothing wrong with our ruler, to us. Wherever we are. The laws of Newton work just fine, wherever we are. But when we are in a stronger field of gravity, we will observe more spacedistortions somewhere else. Just like in the special theory of relativity. Another experimental prediction is: locally we will not measure a curved ruler. (curved spaces) in our own reference frame. We can form a perfect triangle with lasers, locally, All the angles in a triangle add up to 180, wherever we are in space, locally. Even when we are close to a black hole. That's a prediction. The huge curvature of space will be seen somewhere else. just like in the special theory of relativity. wherever we are, and to us there will be no curvature of space locally, and our time will not go slower in our experience. (the same duration of the actual moment, wherever we are) Like in the spaceship of the observers of spaceship A. Their ruler and their clock flow normal to them wherever they are. But they know there is a lengthcontraction happening to the other ship. The spacedistortions are always observed somewhere else. Wherever we are. And the reason is: we experience time normal, wherever we are, and we use our own idea of uncurved space in our curved spacetime environement as the standard for the observation of curved or expanding spaces somewhere else.

Maybe it can explain phenomena we can't solve at the moment. Like the observation of the effects of the socalled dark matter or dark energy. My idea is that our position in the gravitational field makes us observe dark matter up there. And it has something to do with our experience of time. With the fact that the duration of the actual moment to us, is everywhere the same, although there is graviational timedilation involved. Therefore we observe these strange phenomena up there. It would solve certain equations we can't solve at the moment. An existing factor we can't measure nor mathematisise: consciousness. It's a blind spot in our observations, a zeropoint in our mathematics. But maybe it can give answers to questions scientists can't solve at the moment.

ok, thanks for the efforts of you all to try to explain to me why it is wrong what I'm thinking. I learn because of that. I'm not a scientist and maybe I do not understand the scientific position enough to reason from there. My wish is to add 'minds' or 'consciousness' to the equations, so to speak. I like the idea that we, conscious beings (humans and animals) have some role to play in nature, one way or the other. Till now it seems like we don't. All the laws of nature work just fine without us, animals and human being. We do not seem to be of any value when it comes to what exists in nature. The laws of physics and chemistry work blindly and they do not need conscious observers. I liked to play with the idea that observers were lawfully connected with their observations/measurements of space and time. So that we could say: consciousness has a crucial underlying role to play, one way or the other, in nature and we, living beings, are some crucial factor here. It seems like reality doesn't need us to play this role. I wanted to defend the idea that consciousness is an undeniable factor in nature, but it seems like it isn't. And don't worry: I do not have some religious agenda here:-)