Maartenn100

In my opinion, the universe in itself cannot be observed. There are only relativistic observations of space and time possible. No objective universe as a whole, observer-independent (=reference frame independent). That'a only a deduced manifold, pure mathematical. More real then our relativistic observations of space and time, but not directly observable, only deducable. Pure Platonic entity. And that's where the philosophy is involved.

Imagine the following. The observers in a fast spaceship (near the speed of light relative to Earth) observe a lengthcontraction of space in front of them in the direction of motion. Do they interprete this spaceshrink as 'a shrink of the universe'? No, they know that they are going at high speeds relative to Earth, so they know that the observed spaceshrink in front of them is a relativistic observation of space.

The observation of the redshift of the emitted light of galaxies far away from us, obbeying Hubble's Law can be theoretisised as a relativistic observation of space (space-expansion), but has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe as a whole. The universe in itself does not expand. We observe relativistic space-expansions. That's a crucial difference. Observers from another location do not observer this expansion where we observer the expansion. That's the relativity of space.

In my opinion there is no 'expansion of the universe in itself'. There is only the observarion of expanding space. We tend to forget that not only time is relative, but space is also relative. Wherever we see something strange going on with space, it has something to do with the relativity of space. And with the relativity of time. Because space and time are interconnected (spacetime).

Why do I think that 'expanding space' has nothing to do with 'an expansion of the universe'. Because whenever you observe that something is going on with space (curvature, expansion), your first mental thought ought to be: there must be something going on with time too. Because space and time are like twins. Spacetime.

To the clock of the Satelite time flows normal and time is slow here on Earth. a straight line to an observer in space is curved here on Earth. To us here on Earth and our experience of time, time flows normal here, but time is fast where the satelite is.

Fact is, minds exist in reality. It's above all the only thing you can be certain about. I experience, therefore I am. (cfr: cogito ergo sum) We have to wait for a new generation of physicists who will recognize that the mind is lawfully connected to its obsrvations of time and space.

Therefore it's philosophy and not physics. Minds do exist in reality. (not in physics). Minds howerver are crucial for our observation of space; Because minds do experience 'the actual moment' everywhere the same, even when time is dilated. Therefore, they will observe something going on with space somewhere else, while actually there is something going on with time. You don't know how much I know about philosophy, do you?

Strange, thanks for replying. I do believe the following: Because of the fact that we experience time everywhere the same (we do not experience a slower rate of time passage in a field of gravity), we will observe certain space distortions somewhere else. That's a hypothesis. We do not experience nor observe the curvature of space (and time) locally. To us, time flows everywhere the same. In our own referenceframe the laws of Newton work just fine. Therefore, to us, we will observe the spacedistortions (expansion of space) always somewhere else. Because we will have a local idea of straight ruler too. The philosophical aspect here is that minds or observers are crucial here. The experience of time or the experience of an uncurved local ruler, determines the observation of distorted spaces elsewhere.

I agree with you: it's speculation and it is not philosophy. But, I post it here because it has the term 'observer' in it. I also believe that 'minds' are crucial for our obsrevation of space. That's more philosophical (consciousness) then scientific. And I'm not an academic philosopher, but that doesn't mean I may not call myself a philosopher. It's not a protected title.

These are my 'laws of observation': If you observe 'expanding space' somewhere far from you (receiding galaxies obeying Hubble's Law), it has something to do with your local clock and ruler here on Earth. It has something to do with the difference between your clock and the hypothetical clocks in intergalactic space over there. If you observe curved space far away from you, due to gravity, the amount of observed curvature somewhere else has something to do with your local idea of a straight line. Determined by your local clock in your own curved spacetime environement. Wherever you are in curved spacetime, your local idea of a straight line and your local clock determines what you will observe somewhere else about space being curved or expanded. Every observer has his/her own ruler or clock. He or she or it is the measure for space and time somewhere else (through a telescope far from the observer's location). His clock and his ruler are the standards for space-observations somewhere else. ps: I do not believe in the Big Bang theory. I think that 'the observed expansion of space' has something to do with the difference between our local clock and the hypothetical clocks over there in space, far away from us. Whatever we observe to be going on with space elsewhere (curvature or expanding space), it has something to do with our local idea of time and the clocks over there. Because time and space are related. Maarten Vergucht Philosopher of time and space.

I agree with you. You can only observer or measure the past. Becasue of the limits of the speed of light. But you are in the actual moment, observing the past.

I didn't say that reality and physics did not exist before minds existed. I say: reality is 4-dimensional in itself. (with all the physics involved). space and time combined in one continuüm. Without minds existing, this reality is true. But a conscious mind can only observe reality from one vantage point: 'the present', 'the actual moment' A mesuring device cannot experience time in the actual moment. A measuring devicen, measuring someething = the beginning of the experiment till the end of the experiment exist together simultaniously in the block universe ( 4D-spacetime). But we do not have direct access to this whole 4D universe. This 4 dimensional spacetimeuniverse is pure mathematical to us. We, conscious observers have only access to the present. So, the observable universe, as we observe it, and all its motions in it, is a result of minds having access to only the actual moment of this 4D-spacetime block universe.

I want to share with you my hypothesis about spacetime, time and observers. What do you think about my following hypothesis: Reality, in itself, without observers, is a manifold, a 4D-object. Spacetime is this 4D-object, which is not directly observable/measurable, but only deducable. Spacetime is therefore, in my opinion, a Platonic entity, very real, even more 'real' then our relativistic observations of time and space, but pure abstract to us, and mathematical to us. We can’t observe it directly. So, the mathematicians and theoretical physisists should like this idea that reality n itself, without minds to perceive/measure it, is only pure mathematical. Einstein said that time is an illusion. Physicist Brian Greene also said that time is an illusion. In my opinion: time and space are not an illusion: it’s just a way of reality (spacetime) to present itself to a conscious mind. Let me explain this. Spacertime is all events from past, present and maybe future. (Einstein, Minkowski) The interaction of minds (human or animal) with spacetime results in the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment in the actual moment by observers. First there was spacetime. Undefined. Events from past, present and future existing together in a 4D object. Then a conscious observer (an animal, a human, ...) came into being. He experiences these events, unfolding themselves, moment by moment in the actual moment. Which is not how reality outthere, in itself, exists. (see 4D-objects in 4D-spacetime) These observers (humans) can deduce spacetime (reality in itself without observers), based on their relativistic observations of space and time. A mathematical 4D-object. More absolute (not relative) then their relativistic observations of space and time. The most important factor in this hypothesis is that 'minds' are involved in physics. Minds are, somehow, lawfully connected to their observations/measurement of the events through time. An observer is a mind in this context. I know that 'observer' in physics has another meaning. But only a mind can experience the unfolding of the events moment by moment. An instrument or measuring device cannot. All steps of a scientific experiment exist together outthere in spacetime. And the measuring device, measuring or observing the universe, is a series of events, already existing in the past, present and maybe also the future. Only a conscious mind, like a scientist, can experience the scientific experiment, unfolding itself, moment by moment in the actual moment. That’s a crucial the difference between a mind and a measuring device. The 'experience' of time. To have an observable universe as we see it through our telescopes, you need minds to capture the events moment by moment. The interaction of a mind with 4D-spacetime, results in the experience of the events through time, moment by moment. Maarten Vergucht

Ajb, Can you answer my following questions: 1) do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a straight line in our field of gravity to define curved spaces elsewhere, with it? (curved (or stretched) by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity) 2) Do you agree with my notion that we use our idea of a normal timeflow in our field of gravity to define dilation of it or contraction of it elsewhere? (dilated or contracted by another relatively stronger or relatively weaker field of gravity) 3) Do you agree with my notion that we always will use our idea of a straight line, wherever we are in the fields of gravity, to define 'curved paths' elsewhere? (curved or stretched (expanded) by relative weaker or relative stronger fields of gravity)

With an observer I mean: a measuring device, a telescope, a camera, a clock, a human being, an animal (less accurate) etc... But to be able to talk about 'curvature' you need a standard: an idea of an uncurved length. And, for example, we here on Earth: wich standard do we use to define 'curvature'? A straight path like we experience it here, in this field of gravity, the straight line in our field of gravity is our standard for calling something 'a uncurved path' further away from us. Curved by more gravity then in our field. My assumption is: everywhere we are, our standard for a straight path will be different. Depending on the field of gravity where we are. So our measurements of curvature outthere will be different. Yes, I understand that. But I must admit that my mathematical skills aren't very good. So, maybe, some good mathematicians can try to make a model about how the 'gravitational timecontraction' causes our observation of 'gravitational space-expansion' over there. i only can explain it in words: our observation of timecontraction is at the same time an observation of space-expansion and our observation of a space-shrink is at the same time an 'observation' of a timedilation. These observations of time and space are unseparable. But I do not know the exact mathematical formula how exactly they are related. Flat, according to who's ruler? i can't do that, I think, but that doesn't mean that my reasoning is invalid. It's logic reasoning. With lasers in the sky and triangles? When the triangle, made with the lasers isn't 180 degrees, there must be a curvature. And of course with making the resemblance between different atomic clocks. But think logically and try to show me where the reasoning went wrong: Every observer has his own clock (own particular idea of a normal ticking clock) Every observer has his own ruler (own particular idea of flat space) That's not what I say, that's realtivity theory. These are conclusions from relativity theory. Ok, let us talk about the content; How do you want me to use math to explain that every observer in the real world (not some chosen referenceframe on paper) has his particle idea of 'uncurved space and a normal ticking clock. You cannot explain 'meaning' with numbers. What you want is a specification of my hypothesis: wich numbers exactly. I'm afraid I can't give you that exactly. I only can predict, based on my hypothesis that your observations of curvature, dilation, contraction etc. will change, when you change your position in the gravitational fields, based on the logic ideas of relativity. I can't, however, not give you the exact numbers.

In my opinion: my hypothesis that the observer uses the local time and space as a standard to define distortions of it elsewhere is not a mathematical issue, but a matter of testing and experimenting. A falsification would be: Travel to a place in our solarsystem or further away where 'space is curved, according to our observations of space over there here on Earth'. And try to see wether you will measure a curved space, once you are there. My theory says no. That's an experimental falsifiable prediction of a hypothesis. That's not a matter of math, but a matter of experiments and tests. Gravitational timedilation, lengthcontraction, special theory of relativity etc. are well defined scientific concepts, and they are mathematically described. So, that's not the issue, in my opinion. . i only use these, mathematically, well defined concepts and use valid logic deducion and induction to explain them differently.. The math is already been done, the concepts are well described and been proven. Only the different meaning of it, described in words with these well-defined concepts, is different. And it predicts different things: Examples of testable predictions: when you move through space, you will see the curvature, or expansion of the space elsewhere change too. When you change position in the gravitational fields, your observations of space- and timedistortions elsewhere, will move too. . That's a scientific hypothesis: it's falsifiable, testable prediction.. Otherwise I have the question for you: where do you need math for (in this hypothesis)? The expansion is Hubble's Law. Timedilation and lengthcontraction is special theory of relativity Referenceframes is relativity Gravitatational timedilation is a well proven fact, wich is already been mathematically described. So, I should not know where you need math for, wich isn't already well-formulated.. , Only the theory wich explains the scientific concepts,differently gives different predictions. And these predictions are no matter of 'math', but a matter of testing and experiments.

An alternative hypothesis to explain the observation of 'the expanding universe' following Hubble's Law First of all, I want to say that this is a hypothesis of mine. It's a result of long thinking, but that's not an argument at all of course. Please be not too hostile, when you destroy it :wink:(with arguments). Thank you. Some true premisses: Observations of time and space are always relative (referenceframe dependent) Space and time are like two sides of a coin: when we observe a distortion of space, we must observe a distortion of time and vice versa. (spacetime is one united entity) For example: when we observe a spaceshrink of a hypothesised accelerating spaceship, closer and closer to the speed of light (relative to us), we know that we should measure a timedilation (relative to our clock). And: when this very fast spaceship slows down again, the shrinked ship will stretch while time will contract again, relative to our idea of timeflow. Gravity and relative measurements of space (and time) in the gravitational field Gravitation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two massive bodies. (Newton). So the more distance (space) between two heavy objects, the less gravity. Gravitational timedilation tells us that gravity has an influence on clocks. So, the timeflow of the clocks in the empty regions of space between massive attracting bodies goes faster, relative to our clock, when these bodies are moving away from eachother. Because the (influence of the) gravity between them becomes weaker. And this 'deduced' difference in timeflow is aligned with the observation of more space-expansion. Because: An observation of spaceshrink (lengthcontraction) is measuring (relative) timedilation, so (relative) timecontraction means an observation of space-expansion. (see Special Theory of Relativity) My general conclusions: When we observe a region of space between bodies in the sky, there will be an invisible timeflow outthere between these bodies, ticking faster then our clocks on Earth, Therefore, we observe a space-expansion of our idea of normal space between these bodies. And because of this observed expansion, the gravity between these bodies becomes weaker, so the influence of gravity on the time in the region of space between them becomes weaker. This will let us observe more expansion of space. We know that there must be more timecontraction because of this weaker gravitational attraction, and because of this increased timecontraction, relative to our rulers, we observe more space-expansion. And because of this observation of space-expansion we observe more timecontraction ad infinitum. An observer will always use the timeflow of his own clock (his own referenceframe) and the measurements of his own ruler, as the standards for observing dilation, contraction, curvature or expansion of space and time elsewhere. That’s not only for observers with relative different speeds, but also for observers in relative different fields of gravity. So, when we observe a 'relative heavier' field of gravity (then ours), we can assume a timedilation (by gravity), therefore we also observe a (relative) curvature of (our idea of normal) space outthere. And when we observe a 'relative weaker' field of gravity (then ours) we can assume a timecontraction (by gravity), relative to our idea of 'normal timeflow, therefore we also observe a (relative) expansion of (our idea of normal) space outthere. a youtubevideo to explain it better Thanks for potential feedback . Maarten Vergucht

I do not send my idea to scientific magazines, because I don't think they will accept my idea. But I think I have a good alternative to explain our observation of expanding space. The observed velocity-distance-relationship is an unobservable gravitational timestretch/distance relationship. The observed velocity of recession of galaxies, proportional to their distance (Hubble) is an observation of expanding space, because of an invisible timestretch relative to our clocks due to a weaker and weaker gravitational attraction between these receding galaxies, further and further away from each other. The gravitational timedilation is becoming less weaker, when galaxies are further from each other, then when they are close to each other. We can call this ‘gravitational timestretch’ of imaginary clocks in the empty regions between them. So, the observed velocity-distance relationship is also a field of gravity-distance relationship. It’s crucial to mention that the empty region of space must be of remote galaxies, because locally, we always measure normal properties of time and normal properties of space. In our own referenceframe, all laws of physics are as usual. (relativity principle). The difference in timeflow is small. We can say, that there is a stronger field of gravity between two remote galaxies closer to each other then between remote galaxies further away from each other. Therefore, we know that the empty space between galaxies closer to each other have a slower timeflow then galaxies further away from eachother. We are part of Earth, a solarsystem, a galaxy with a black hole in the centre of it, the Virgo cluster and the Local Group. The gravity of these objects are slowing down our clocks, relative to clocks in the empty regions of space without matter. But to us, our time is ticking as usual, wherever we are. And our space doesn’t seem to be distorted. conclusion The observed space-distortion is due to the difference between clocks on Earth and the invisible clocks in empty space between remote galaxies because of the difference in gravitational timedistortion. If the timeflow between remote galaxies or stars is faster than our clock, we see a space-expansion, when the timeflow between remote galaxies or stars is slower than our clock, we see a spaceshrink. Locally, we do not observe such differences, because the difference in timeflow is too small and our idea of time in our own referenceframe is always the standard to observe space- and timedistortions elsewhere. We will always observe space- and timedistortions elsewhere. Summary: Observed space-expansion is due to a gravitational timestretch relative to our clock and observed space-shrink is due to a gravitational timedilation relative to our clock. But when the difference in timeflow between clocks on Earth and clocks in the empty regions of space between remote galaxies is almost the same, we do not observe distortions of space. Testable predictions? When we leave our solarsystem and our galaxy, the influence of the gravitational timedilation of our galaxy on our clock will decrease. But according to us, our clock is still the standard for observations elsewhere. Our time and our idea of space is the norm for observations of distortions elsewhere, wherever we are. Which means: we observe a spaceshrink of the space between stars in our galaxies closer to the centre of our galaxy then further away from the centre. We observe a decreasing of ‘the expanding universe’ when we leave our galaxy. When we are further and further away from our Local Group in the voids of space, and we look back, we will see galaxies coming back together. We will see ‘a shrinking universe’. When we are closer to the black hole in the centre of our galaxy, we will observe ‘an increasing expansion of the universe’ because the difference in timeflow will increase. Our timeflow will always be the standard for observations of space- and timedistortions elsewhere, so the observed expansion rate will be higher when we are closer to the centre of the black hole. The math I only like to think about space and time and I was obsessed by the question of observations of time and space. But I invite you to find the mathematical equation, who will explain the relationship I described here in words with the proper well-defined terms. Maarten Vergucht, Belgium. Obsessive thinker about our observations of time and space. This article supports my theory that 'the universe an sich' is not expanding. It's just a relative observation of space.

No, but you quoted me wrong. You forgot the 'therefore....' premisse: all laws of physics must be the same, wherever an observer is in the gravitational field. (principle of relativity) Ergo (deduced idea): observations of space- and time-distortions must be elsewhere. (otherwise, his observations of time and space and the laws of physics would not be the same in his coördinatesystem) So, an observer will never see a space-expansion or a space-stretch in his laboratory. He will never discover 'dark energy' in his environment. Because he must measure space and time the same, wherever he is. (principle of relativity)

I like to think, and I want to avoid fallacies. i was, during a few years in my life, obsessed with the question: "how do we observe time and space". I was looking for answers via logic reasoning. And I discovered Einstein last year, even if I did not want that. But I necessarily must confront myself his ideas about time and space, to answer the question: "how do we observe time and space?" So, I walked through the spaceships of Einstein's thoughtexperiments and stood in heavy fields of gravity to observe the nightsky. I did a lot of thoughtexperiments. And I came to the conclusion that 'the observer' will always, wherever he/she/it goes have the same idea of time and space. I derived other conclusions from it, and came to a final conclusion: the observer must be the backbone of the coördinatesystem. Real existing observers are measuring devices, telescopes, gps-systems, human beings, animals. And I think, their existence obey laws of nature. To be clair, I do not think that 'I know it better'. I just had another perspective and started my reasoning from there on. And this perspective can give you feedback about what you think about 'observing expanding space' and 'observing time and space' in general. I only want to share my conclusions, logically derived from some premisses, to give feedback about what I discovered about nature. I derive from the principle of relativity for being in different fields of gravity: The laws of physics must be exactly the same in his referenceframe, wherever the observer is. Therefore, the observer measures space- and timedistortions elsewhere. For example, the observer in a very fast spaceship near the speed of light, will have a normal idea of time. He will also observe normal properties of space. Nothing is shrinking, dilating, stretching. Because the laws of physics must be the same, wherever he is. (in every frame of reference) Therefore, he will measure lengthcontractions and timedilations elsewhere. Do you see the resemblance for observers in different fields of gravity? Our clock is dilating here on Earth relative to clocks of hypothetical aliens in the voids of space. (without matter). But according to us, our time flows as usual and we do not measure spaceshrinks at all. Nothing wrong with time and space in our coördinatesystem. Because the laws of physics must work as usual. Therefore, the timeflow of thé aliens is stretching. And their space is expanding according to the observers here on Earth. An observer cannot afford himself space- and timedistortions in his own referenceframe, because the laws of physics must work exactly the same. So, he will project space- and timedistortions elsewhere. So, the existing observer, is the backbone of the coördinatesystem. And wherever he is, the laws of physics work properly. No spaceshrinks or timestretches. When he is repositioning himself, his observations of space- and timedistortions elsewhere are repositioning themselves too. His normal ticking clock and normal spatial observations in his coördinatesystem, are the norm for observing distortions of space and time elsewhere. So, when you are in a void region of space, where 'the universe is expanding very fast", you will not observe such an expansion of space, because of the principle of relativity: the laws of physics must be the same for you, wherever you are. Maarten Vergucht obsessed with the question (duration: two years): how do we observe space and time?