cause>effect>affect

[north]

and of course when looked at three dimensionally

 

the expansion pushs and pulls three dimensionally

 

leading to a null expansion by the Universe

[Klaynos]

and of course when looked at three dimensionally

 

the expansion pushs and pulls three dimensionally

 

leading to a null expansion by the Universe

 

You what?

 

The universe is expanding in all directions...

[north]

Wouldn't causality (as we know it) be "non existent" for anyone who can observe the whole space time?

 

no

 

because the for anyone who can observe the full Universe ( this space-time concept is out dated now , since it is a two dimensional movement of things ) observes " affect " as well

 

so that cause>effect thinking ( which is two dimensional thinking upon things ) is advanced by the introduction of " affect " which produces a three dimensional picture of the way things really are.

 

the circle of movement of things ( cause>effect ) is replaced by and which then of course leads to the sphere of the movement of things , in no particular order > affect>cause>effect>cause>effect>affect>cause etc.

[Dr. Jekyll]

 

no

 

because the for anyone who can observe the full Universe ( this space-time concept is out dated now , since it is a two dimensional movement of things ) observes " affect " as well

 

so that cause>effect thinking ( which is two dimensional thinking upon things ) is advanced by the introduction of " affect " which produces a three dimensional picture of the way things really are.

 

the circle of movement of things ( cause>effect ) is replaced by and which then of course leads to the sphere of the movement of things , in no particular order > affect>cause>effect>cause>effect>affect>cause etc.

 

Yes, I don't know what I thought of with that sentence (I blame it on the beer hehe). I'm actually contradicting myself in the next sentences with Feyman diagrams. That is, an observer in space time would not see any "randomness as we know it," atleast not any random spontaneous decay - since they would see it kinda like a Feynman diagram.

 

Maybe kinda OT ...

[Royston]

Hang on...

 

and of course when looked at three dimensionally

 

the expansion pushs and pulls three dimensionally

 

leading to a null expansion by the Universe

 

north's conclusion to a non-expanding universe, has little or nothing to do with...

 

The same thing happens when we look at 4-d space-times. The spacial parts seem to expand, but when we take into account the whole space-time nothing "happens". Thus space-time does not need anything to expand into.

 

then...

 

( this space-time concept is out dated now , since it is a two dimensional movement of things)

 

Since when has space-time been two dimensional ?

 

the circle of movement of things ( cause>effect ) is replaced by and which then of course leads to the sphere of the movement of things , in no particular order > affect>cause>effect>cause>effect>affect>cause etc.

 

What precisely is 'the circle of movement of things, which of course leads to a sphere' ? I'm really struggling to understand what you're talking about.

 

I just don't want to see people confusing ajb's rather neat explanation, (which, mind you, I feel can be easily misinterpreted) with whatever north is talking about.

 

Just to make it perfectly clear, all current observational data, shows we're in an isotropic universe that is expanding at an accelerated rate, this data is becoming a lot more refined recently, so let's not confuse the issue, for casual readers.

[north]

Hang on...

 

Originally Posted by north

and of course when looked at three dimensionally

 

the expansion pushs and pulls three dimensionally

 

leading to a null expansion by the Universe

 

 

north's conclusion to a non-expanding universe, has little or nothing to do with...

 

with ?

 

Originally Posted by north

( this space-time concept is out dated now , since it is a two dimensional movement of things)

 

Since when has space-time been two dimensional ?

 

since it does not include " affect "

 

 

 

What precisely is 'the circle of movement of things, which of course leads to a sphere' ? I'm really struggling to understand what you're talking about.

 

cause>effect>affect is continuous and the circle of the movement of things , with no particular order of the three

 

each cause>effect>affect has aspects of the others before and after an event

 

 

 

 

I just don't want to see people confusing ajb's rather neat explanation, (which, mind you, I feel can be easily misinterpreted) with whatever north is talking about.

 

Just to make it perfectly clear, all current observational data, shows we're in an isotropic universe that is expanding at an accelerated rate, this data is becoming a lot more refined recently, so let's not confuse the issue, for casual readers.

 

but all this data is based on our position in this Universe

 

if I was in another point , say the exact opposite of our point of view what then ?

 

then I would see the opposite of what we see

 

so that what we see as expansion , and so would the opposite see expansion but in reverse

 

hence a null

[ajb]

opposite position?

 

Rule number one of cosmology - The Cosmological Principle.

 

It states that we do not occupy a privileged place in the universe.

[Klaynos]

space-time is 4 dimensional...

 

"affect" is not a dimension.

 

It don't appear in the 4-vector...

 

And see ajb's post...