Is there a 1 s/s diference in the rate of time between the observer and a distance of 13.9 Gly?

[captcass]

In view of the fact that an apparent relative velocity of c requires time to appear to stop, do the effects we see at ~13.9 Gly simple lookback time, of recessional V → c, and lateral V → 0, just as it does near the event horizon of a black hole, indicate a difference in the rate of time of 1 s/s between the observer and ~13.9 Gly, just as it does at the event horizon of a black hole, where time appears to stop, creating a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time between the observer and the event horizon?

-3? C'mon guys, I know something!

[Strange]

Are you asking if the time dilation (and therefore red shift) is the same at the event horizon of a black hole and at the Hubble distance?

If so, the answer is no. At the event horizon of a black hole (where the escape velocity is c) time dilation becomes infinite. At the Hubble distance the recessional velocity is c but time dilation (and red shift) is not infinite (I'm not sure what it is off the top of my head).

Also, the observable horizon of the universe is about 3 times larger than the Hubble distance, so we can see things that are receding at much more than the speed of light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

(I don't know what "a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time" is supposed to mean. Time dilation is a ratio, not a difference.)

[captcass]

We experience a 1 s/s rate of time in our inertial frame. The rate of time approaches 0 at an event horizon, hence a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time.

If we see an apparent recessional velocity of c, should we not also see time appear to stop?

8 hours ago, Strange said:

At the event horizon of a black hole (where the escape velocity is c) time dilation becomes infinite

We also see this as we go beyond 13.9 Gly. Einstein thought you could probably drive your car through a black hole with no ill effects.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

We experience a 1 s/s rate of time in our inertial frame. The rate of time approaches 0 at an event horizon, hence a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time.

You would still experience 1s/s (if that means anything) at the event horizon. 

1 hour ago, captcass said:

If we see an apparent recessional velocity of c, should we not also see time appear to stop?

No because it is not relative velocity (as in special relativity). That is why we can observe things receding at more than c. 

1 hour ago, captcass said:

We also see this as we go beyond 13.9 Gly.

No, we don’t. 

[captcass]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

You would still experience 1s/s (if that means anything) at the event horizon. 

I agree. This is why Einstein thought you could drive  car through a black hole.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

No because it is not relative velocity (as in special relativity). That is why we can observe things receding at more than c. 

I disagree. Apparent velocity is relative velocity. If we perceive it as receding at c, for whatever reason, time will appear to stop. The Hubble constant gives us this at 13.9 Gly.

We my just have to disagree on that as I am viewing a stationary universe, and you an inflationary one.

Anyone else want to state their opinion on this? Is inflationary recessional velocity also relative velocity?

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, captcass said:

I disagree

And you are wrong (which is why I provided a link, so you could check the facts for yourself.)

Also, as noted, we can see objects receding at more than c which trivially disproves your claim. 

25 minutes ago, captcass said:

I am viewing a stationary universe

And that is xplains why you are wrong. Note that in a static universe there would be no increasing red shift with distance.

Quote

and you an inflationary one

Inflation is irrelevant. Which suggests you don’t really know what you are talking about. 

[MigL]

Expansion is NOT a velocity.

Because of expansion, light emitted by objects 13 Bill yrs ago, has actually travelled over 30 Bill Light yrs.

[captcass]

OK. Thanks for the opinions. Of course you are perfectly correct in the expansion model. The shift would be there in a static universe if there was an acceleration factor to the evolution of time. We see everything being accelerated down time dilation gradients, so I am thinking about the relationship of acceleration to the evolution of time.

Thanks for the answers, though.

 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, captcass said:

The shift would be there in a static universe if there was an acceleration factor to the evolution of time.

Can you show this mathematically or is it just another random guess?

17 hours ago, captcass said:

C'mon guys, I know something!

Apparently not. And unwilling to learn.

[captcass]

As per the other thread.

Done here.

Thanks folks

I'm sorry Strange...you just don't get me. I understand everything you are telling me. I know what the mainstream science is. I know the "regular" science.

I am just playing around with other concepts because the regular science has, to me, too many unanswered questions and, frankly, idiotic premises. I'm not saying my concepts are correct. I'm just playing with ideas. The Hubble shift derivation I posted is just that, a simple derivation. It is not meant to prove the concept but to say that if the concept is correct, this could be a possible derivation of the acceleration constant.

I get it you guys don't like playing with concepts so I won't try that with you folks here again. I understand that.  If I get anything I think is in your balliwick, I'll ask.

 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, captcass said:

I am just playing around with other concepts because the regular science has, to me, too many unanswered questions and, frankly, idiotic premises.

You mean premises that perhaps on face value, may appear counter-intuitive? Which ones do you have trouble with accepting? Which ones are idiotic? Why do you believe cosmologists and other professionals would accept any idiotic premise that describes time dilation, when we observe it every day. 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, captcass said:

I get it you guys don't like playing with concepts so I won't try that with you folks here again. I understand that. 

You don't understand this (just like you don't understand the science behind current cosmological models). It is not a dislike of "playing with concepts", it is a dislike of random guesses in lace of science.

Science doesn't work by people making stuff up with no basis in reality. It works by developing (mathematical) models based on evidence and then testing those models against experiment and observation. You are clearly unable or unwilling to do either.

If you want to show current models are wrong or inadequate, then you need to either show how the evidence does not fit the model, or can be better explained by another model, or show an error in the mathematics. 

Claiming that (unstated) premises are idiotic is, frankly, an idiotic approach.

 

[Strange]

For those that are interested (apparently not the OP) there is a good summary of the theoretical basis and evidence for the expanding universe here: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-how-do-we-know-space-is-expanding-256d3e8f18a1

[captcass]

Nope, you just don't get it.......Researchers all over the world are looking at alternate theories and concepts to work on. And you have no idea what I know. You assume that because I look at different concepts that I don't know the mainstream. Ass-u-me. I'm surprised the moderator allows you to be so rude all the time. Sad, really.....Anyway, I won't get into your name calling BS here. That is also not the purpose of this forum. It is just trolling and cyber bullying. Face to face you wouldn't have the gumption.

I am also not going to get into what is ridiculous and what is not, BeeCee. You folks just can't see it. You also lack a proper foundation for a proper understanding because you do not understand what "life" is. That is, again, a discussion you folks don't want to have.

I wouldn't want to get another "-" for "specualtion".

So, sorry folks, that is it for me here. If anyone who has followed any of this and would like to continue in a private fornat, please feel free to email me.

Don't let me give you and ulcer, Strange, it isn't worth it. Lighten up and learn to play again.

BiBi

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, captcass said:

Nope, you just don't get it.......Researchers all over the world are looking at alternate theories and concepts to work on.

Yes, using science. Not random guesses.

22 minutes ago, captcass said:

And you have no idea what I know. You assume that because I look at different concepts that I don't know the mainstream.

It is based on what you say. It indicates a high level of ignorance. Otherwise you would be able to come up with a model and testable predictions.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Strange

[captcass]

BiBi, little man..... oh, what the heck, you can use a little name calling... 'Tis you who are ignorant, my friend. As I said above, I know all the mainstream stuff you keep trying to "teach" me. But I also learned to wash my hands in acid without harm over 40 years ago and have only grown since. You cannot even accept such a thing is possible. You have eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. You live in a universe those in the know know shouldn't even exist but you are blinded to the wonder of it by your own sense of self importance....and dumb theories. Singularity, Big Bang, .......totally illogical concepts...preposterous THEORIES you accept as fact that are certainly wrong. You are lost in physicality in a world of light. The saddest thing is that you don't even know who, or what, you are. You totally fail to understand the meaning of quantum physics. You do not understand GR or the continuum. You can't even see the continuum you live in. You do not even know what the life animating you is or realize that reality is based solely on relativisitic illusions that have no meaning without an observer....that it is the observer at the center of the perceived reality.....that it is all manifested FOR the observer.  And all you have is the preposterous theories you cling to so the world seems to be logical to you. The theories are your security blanket. They provide logic (not really) for you that makes you feel secure no matter how preposterous they get.

Sad, really.

And of course we cannot discuss any of that here.......

Well. I guess that will make me a "-4". I imagine you will insist on the last word. I will try not to answer.  This is a total waste of time.

One last time, consider the anomalies of light that GR is built upon. Totally illogical. It is a world of light.......manifested through effects in time. The evolution of time is the primary energy of the universe. Time evolves space and alters its characteristics, etc......

If you have eyes, see...

BiBi

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations, since this stopped being a mainstream question.

 

!

Moderator Note

Also, the personal attacks will stop immediately. Civility is our #1 rule here. In a science discussion, we attack ideas, not people.

 

[captcass]

Thank you. Sorry I rose to the bait.....I thought I started this thread in speculations???

Yup -4 Go figure......

Let me ask this....

Do you know what a synchronicity is and why quantum entanglement is the ultimate example? If not, I can wait while you Google it as it is my day off.......

If so, do you see them often in your day to day life?

If so, what does that tell you?

If not, you have eyes that do not see.....

Also If so, what does that say about cosmic expansion?

How about this? When we first study QM we are taught about an electron. What is an electron? We are shown how it can behave like a particle, but how it cannot be a particle, and how it can act like a wave, but how it cannot be a wave. (in fact, we are told, the planet Earth is the same kind of non-thing) That doesn't make any sense, but we say, "OK, that makes sense.", accept it and move on. Above I mentioned the anomalies of how light behaves, and we say, "OK, that makes sense.", and move on. We accept GR as reality, and are forced to use it as reality (so far), even though we begin in SR with "2 observers with identical clocks and meter sticks" and then show how THAT reality, becomes distorted into the reality we are stuck with because of light's stupid anomalies!

Then folk say the science built upon all this is logical and makes sense! I really think if we are honest about it, none of really "makes sense" even though we can apply so much of it to the reality we are stuck in through our science. Our science you folk, and I, love so much, describes the reality we are stuck in, not the reality that begins with "2 observers with identical clocks and meter sticks".

So.....I imagine this will now get shut down as speculization and heresy, and I will now become a "-5", but so be it.

You folk aren't interested in all this anyway. Thansk to the folk who tried to save me from myself.

BiBi

 

[captcass]

One can not find ultimate truths with a science that is describing the relativistic illusion and not the underlying reality.

 

[koti]

25 minutes ago, captcass said:

One can not find ultimate truths with a science that is describing the relativistic illusion and not the underlying reality.

 

Relativity is not an illusion, its a well tested property of reality. Einstein’s GR gave a broader view of reality than Newton did which does mean that Newtons laws became an illusion when that happened. The same with any theory which will come after Einstein, it will give a broader view but not render relativity an illusion.

[Strange]

54 minutes ago, captcass said:

One can not find ultimate truths with a science that is describing the relativistic illusion and not the underlying reality.

Science doesn't deal with "reality" (whatever that is). It doesn't even matter if there is no such thing as "reality", science still works.

You probably want philosophy, just down the corridor.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Strange

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

One can not find ultimate truths with a science that is describing the relativistic illusion and not the underlying reality.

One can only observe nature with a science that isn't interested in "ultimate truths" or "underlying reality". But at least we know now why science isn't working for you. 

[captcass]

Thanks, but I'll stick with Einstein, "Realty is merely an illusion, albeit a darned persistent one." Remember, it all begins with two observers with equal properties.

40 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

One can only observe nature with a science that isn't interested in "ultimate truths" or "underlying reality".

Then what was Einstein looking for, and Newton?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Science doesn't deal with "reality" (whatever that is). It doesn't even matter if there is no such thing as "reality", science still works.

I agree science works to a certain extent. Indeed, a great extent. But it is still the science of the illusion. I would think real scientists would like to know what is really going on.

Not the topic for discussion here, though. I'll end up with a -5.

BiBi

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, captcass said:

I would think real scientists would like to know what is really going on.

All we can do, if we have any intellectual honesty at our disposal, is to remove as much subjectivity like "truth" and "reality" and "proof" and "what's really going on", and observe what actually happens in nature, and use those observations, along with accompanying theory and mathematical models, to make predictions about the rest, and keep testing those against nature. 

All your attempts to know "what's really going on" are just guesswork, and that's what the methodology is there to reduce. You don't know what science is for, so you're like a person trying to measure their driveway with a song and then bitching when you don't get a meaningful answer.

[koti]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

All we can do, if we have any intellectual honesty at our disposal, is to remove as much subjectivity like "truth" and "reality" and "proof" and "what's really going on", and observe what actually happens in nature, and use those observations, along with accompanying theory and mathematical models, to make predictions about the rest, and keep testing those against nature. 

All your attempts to know "what's really going on" are just guesswork, and that's what the methodology is there to reduce. You don't know what science is for, so you're like a person trying to measure their driveway with a song and then bitching when you don't get a meaningful answer.

Yoda or Chuck Norris could learn from your flawless rhetoric. +1