Curvature versus Expansion: Both Relativistic Observations of Space

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Maartenn100 said:

In my opinion <...> In my opinion

Nobody need care about your opinion since it's so clearly unblemished by enlightenment or understanding. 

[Maartenn100]

Imagine a world without observers. Even you, observing your own body in time are not attached to this body anymore.

Everything exists simultaneously (Einstein) in the block universe.

We know from NDE-ers who ar not attached to their body anymore that they can confirm that they experience 'everything at once'. They experience no time. A place where everything is accessible in the present.

There is no time. Many observers who are not attached to their bodies during a near-death experience can confirm this. They experience the block universe as it is in itself, without them observing it attached to a body in time and space.

Edited March 28 by Maartenn100

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

We know from NDE-ers who ar not attached to their body anymore that they can confirm that they experience 'everything at once'. They experience no time.

A brain death event within us mostly hairless apes, a lack of cortical oxygen leading to the sensation of dissociative consciousness, is not the same thing as "no time" or "time doesn't exist."

 

18 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

There is no time

Time is just another word for length. Length clearly exists as a formal context of study, even though you cannot touch or smell it. Your philosophical position here is self-evidently absurd to the point of laughable. 

[Maartenn100]

Psychedelics show that brain activity reduces, the more intense the psychedelic experience. See the research of Robin Carhart Harris of Imperial College London of the brain on psilocybin. (magic  mushrooms).

see here: Neural correlates of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocybin | PNAS

The remarkable effect was: the more intense the experience, the less brain activity was seen. A negative correlation between consciousness and the amount of brain activity.

This, and many other phenomena, confirm the 'filter theory' of consciousness, where at a certain point, we get access to Mind at Large or 'the block universe' or 'the universe as a whole'. This is the unity experience of mystics where there is no time. 

This correlates with a bad working brain, with no or less oxygen indeed. The more damaged the brain is, the more people experience Mind at Large and 'all events simultaneously'. This is a hypothesis, but this 'no time experience is another piece of the puzzle to see that time is an illusion of a mind connected to a body. Or to an observer in time and space.

 

Edited March 28 by Maartenn100

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Imagine a world without observers. Even you, observing your own body in time are not attached to this body anymore.

Useful as an exercise, perhaps, but it’s not the universe we live in.

Your opinions mean little; in science it’s the evidence you have to support a falsifiable idea

29 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Psychedelics show that brain activity reduces, the more intense the psychedelic experience

Can we stick to the topic? You keep avoiding addressing the question of the connection of relativity to the expansion of the universe

[Maartenn100]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can we stick to the topic? You keep avoiding addressing the question of the connection of relativity to the expansion of the universe

Give me some time. I will try to study first GTR better. Later I will answer when I understand it better. 

[Mordred]

37 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Give me some time. I will try to study first GTR better. Later I will answer when I understand it better. 

Try to wrap your study on the difference between an invariant vs a variant measurement.

The former all observers agree on literally all observers. That's is what's used to calculate the expansion and age of the universe etc. The commoving observer is used to establish that needed invariance

Edited March 28 by Mordred

[Maartenn100]

On 3/28/2024 at 5:07 PM, Mordred said:

Try to wrap your study on the difference between an invariant vs a variant measurement.

The former all observers agree on literally all observers. That's is what's used to calculate the expansion and age of the universe etc. The commoving observer is used to establish that needed invariance

The comoving observer. Ok, thanks.

[Maartenn100]

I think my theory is been (partly) proven by scientists:

Dark energy doesn't exist, according to new NZ study | University of Canterbury

"the “timescape” model of cosmic expansion, which doesn’t have a need for dark energy because the differences in stretching light aren't the result of an accelerating universe but instead a result of how we calibrate time and distance.

It takes into account that gravity slows time, so an ideal clock in empty space ticks faster than inside a galaxy."

Edited Monday at 06:58 PM by Maartenn100

[MigL]

From your link

"With new data, the universe's biggest mystery could be settled by the end of the decade.”

IOW, It isn't settled yet, as more data is needed.
Which means they don't know yet.

I know ... Why don't we just give it a name to indicate we don't yet know the expansion mechanism.
Something like 'Dark Energy' maybe ?

[Maartenn100]

This timescape model says exactly what I'm saying: the observed relativistic expansion is because of a relativistic timestretch.

 

Not only the time on your clock is relative, but you also have a particular ruler...

Your local ruler and your clock are the standard for measurements elsewhere.

Edited Monday at 09:13 PM by Maartenn100

[Markus Hanke]

10 hours ago, Maartenn100 said:

the “timescape” model of cosmic expansion, which doesn’t have a need for dark energy because the differences in stretching light aren't the result of an accelerating universe but instead a result of how we calibrate time and distance.

This is a particular example of a class of inhomogenous cosmological models. While interesting in principle, there are several fundamental issues with such models, which are important to note here. In particular, to actually make the model fit observational data, one has to make several assumptions, among them that the universe has globally non-zero spatial curvature; that we are located near the center of a low-density region; and that a particular choice of gauge is made in the model. It is also not at all clear that the model actually does produce the correct behaviour, since it isn’t analytically solvable, and numerical simulations have proven challenging.

Here is a more thorough overview.