Cont: Why James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts (2)

[The Man]

They meant "nearby universe."

But, nearby is pretty misleading. The supernovae data extends to 2/3rds of the observable universe.

Then it should be 'nearby in the universe' since "in the nearby universe" makes it sound as if one is speaking of another universe that is nearby.

Meanwhile, "The lack of a clear answer" you spoke of, is that also in another universe that is nearby?

 

[Mike Helland]

Then it should be 'nearby in the universe' since "in the nearby universe" makes it sound as if one is speaking of another universe that is nearby.

Meanwhile, "The lack of a clear answer" you spoke of, is that also in another universe that is nearby?

Is that at serious question?

I have to admit, most of what you've been posting I don't understand. It seems to be belligerent gibberish.

Assume Ω_Λ = 0.7 and Ω_m = 0.3.

If H₀ = 67.5, the age of the universe is 13.9 billion years.

If H₀ = 73.0, the age of the universe is 12.9 billion years.

So which is it?

 

[The Man]

Is that at serious question?

Certainly.

I have to admit, most of what you've been posting I don't understand. It seems to be belligerent gibberish.

Asserting you don't understanding it invalidates your assertion of what "It seems to be" to you.

Assume Ω_Λ = 0.7 and Ω_m = 0.3.

If H₀ = 67.5, the age of the universe is 13.9 billion years.

If H₀ = 73.0, the age of the universe is 12.9 billion years.

So which is it?

Is this supposed to be a serious answer?
The question you had was…

How fast is space expanding, btw?

And the assertion you made was…

The lack of a clear answer to that question is part of the motivation behind finding an alternative to the standard model.

How fast is the expansion, not how old is the universe.

The rates cited were 67.5 and 74 kilometers per second per megaparsec not 73. Yet even at 73 km/s/Mpc it comes to 13.4 billion years not 12.9.
Heck, since expansion appears to be accelerating, calculating the age based on a constant expansion is going to be a rough guesstimate at best.

The gravitational lens method mentioned in the article cited puts expansion at 66.6 km/s/Mpc. Very close to the CMB value.

Again were are talking a difference of 2.09E-17 % of the distance involved and 5.83E11 times more precise than ones phone GPS error, along the major circumference of the earth.

ETA: Heck, even if you go by age the difference is only about 0.5 billion years about 3.7% of the total age we can only guesstimate becouse indications are expansion isn't constant.

 

[The Man]

This is the first of a 4-part series.


[size=+1]Abstract.[/size]

The Helland universe analyzed herein is defined by the metric tensor field Mike Helland proposed on 24 October 2023 and confirmed as the best of his several guesses

Thanks W.D.Clinger, most informative and detailed.

 

[Mike Helland]

How fast is the expansion, not how old is the universe.

The two are intimately related.

Again were are talking a difference of 2.09E-17 % of the distance involved and 5.83E11 times more precise than ones phone GPS error, along the major circumference of the earth.

That's a nonsense comparison.

It isn't simply a matter of a few km off out of a megaparsec. That's a gross misinterpretation of the units.

 

[The Man]

The two are intimately related.

So what, it is still a relation not fully understood (how expansion might have changed over time).

That's a nonsense comparison.

It isn't simply a matter of a few km off out of a megaparsec. That's a gross misinterpretation of the units.

When reduced the units end up as Second^-1, which is why an age can be calculated from it. The numerical value those units have is the proportion of the two distances. A minor change in that proportion is exactly "few km off out of a megaparsec".

 

[Mike Helland]

So what, it is still a relation not fully understood (how expansion might have changed over time).

Maybe.

 

[Mike Helland]

The strategy behind cosmology seems to be define a manifold, and then add a light cone, and wherever they intersect, that's observed reality.

Here's the handy "de Sitter sight-seeing tour" I've referenced before.

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/moschella.pdf

Page 4 has this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_762186543cb01b1a33.png[/qimg]
(Click to enlarge to read the caption)

My strategy seems to be different.

Let's use the light cone (specifically, the past light cone, ie, observed reality) as a manifold, and describe that. Presumably the light cone should be a submanifold of the greater "universe", if such a "metric of everything" does in fact exist. We have know a priori reason to suppose Einstein was right about all that.

Isn't it a bit odd the light cone isn't completely contained in the manifold?

If the manifold is the universe, why isn't the light cone in it?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The strategy behind cosmology seems to be define a manifold, and then add a light cone, and wherever they intersect, that's observed reality.

Here's the handy "de Sitter sight-seeing tour" I've referenced before.

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/moschella.pdf

Page 4 has this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_762186543cb01b1a33.png[/qimg]
(Click to enlarge to read the caption)

My strategy seems to be different.

Let's use the light cone (specifically, the past light cone, ie, observed reality) as a manifold, and describe that. Presumably the light cone should be a submanifold of the greater "universe", if such a "metric of everything" does in fact exist. We have know a priori reason to suppose Einstein was right about all that.

Isn't it a bit odd the light cone isn't completely contained in the manifold?

If the manifold is the universe, why isn't the light cone in it?

That paper's exposition of the de Sitter universe on pages 3 and 4 is unnecessarily confusing because it starts with a 5-dimensional spacetime M⁵ of which the de Sitter universe dS⁴ is a 4-dimensional submanifold. Figure 4 is a 2-dimensional representation that tries to illustrate three different things:

• the 5-dimensional manifold
• the 4-dimensional submanifold
• a 5-dimensional light cone

It is hardly surprising that people who don't understand the mathematics of that paper might have a hard time understanding its 2-dimensional representation of how a 4-dimensional space and a 5-dimensional space are embedded within a 5-dimensional Lorentzian manifold.

 

[Mike Helland]

That paper's exposition of the de Sitter universe on pages 3 and 4 is unnecessarily confusing because it starts with a 5-dimensional spacetime M⁵ of which the de Sitter universe dS⁴ is a 4-dimensional submanifold. Figure 4 is a 2-dimensional representation that tries to illustrate three different things:

• the 5-dimensional manifold
• the 4-dimensional submanifold
• a 5-dimensional light cone

It is hardly surprising that people who don't understand the mathematics of that paper might have a hard time understanding its 2-dimensional representation of how a 4-dimensional space and a 5-dimensional space are embedded within a 5-dimensional Lorentzian manifold.

It just seemed strange you wouldn't define the light cone as a submanifold of the universe.

Unless we're calling the higher dimensional space that contains the manifold the universe.

 

[The Man]

It just seemed strange you wouldn't define the light cone as a submanifold of the universe.

Unless we're calling the higher dimensional space that contains the manifold the universe.

Would one's mathematical model of the universe be representative of the universe if it left something out, like say one or more dimensions?

The five dimensional light cone would be representative of the dimensional extent of the universe considered. Though, to my understanding if one considers a light cone to be a sub-manifold of the manifold that subsumes it is more a matter of convention and definitions used by the author(s)

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It just seemed strange you wouldn't define the light cone as a submanifold of the universe.

Unless we're calling the higher dimensional space that contains the manifold the universe.

That paper was written for the 7th Seminaire Poincare, which was devoted to the theme of "Einstein 1905-2005". As can be seen from the seminar's program, the papers are historical and tutorial, "directed towards a large audience of physicists and of mathematicians".

In his tutorial paper, Moschella evidently thought his audience would benefit from understanding how the 4-dimensional de Sitter universe can be embedded within a 5-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. Moschella also thought his audience would benefit from understanding how the 4-dimensional de Sitter universe is related to a 5-dimensional light cone.

That tutorial paper was not written for people who say things like

• Essentially, the universe as a whole doesn't have a particular metric (as of yet), but each observer in the universe has a past light cone, and you can use where they intersect to move between observers.
  
  
• The universe seems ... meh. Like, we have "Nature" and "Reality" and "The World" and "The Cosmos"?
  
  
• And what's with the "uni" bit? Sounds like monotheism when you really get into it.
  
  
• Why should I believe, beyond or in addition to reality and the things in it, I should believe in this relatively modern idea that is "the universe", which is apparently all of existence as we know it... and it's a whopping 3.5 times older than the rock we live on?
  
  
• What direction do I point the telescope to see "the universe" and what should I be looking for?
  
  
• I'd say any claim that relies on the existence of "the universe" is fantasy.
  
  
• I think a reasonable person would have serious doubts about the status of cosmology as a real science.
  
  
• The strategy behind cosmology seems to be define a manifold, and then add a light cone, and wherever they intersect, that's observed reality.
  
  
• [The fact that mass-energy is negative throughout the Helland universe] doesn't seem so bad.
  
  
• Therefore, the speed of light there and then has to be half of what it is here and now.
  
  
• What we observe to be real should be considered real. And if it is, the whole of cosmology as we know it has zero basis in reality.

It is not surprising that people who say such things do not understand tutorial papers written for physicists and mathematicians.

 

[The Man]

Dang, W.D.Clinger that is some litany of irrelevance.

When I was only reading this thread and not participating, I would only look if the last poster was someone other than Mike Helland. Glad to see my inclinations were best served.

 

[Mike Helland]

That paper was written for the 7th Seminaire Poincare, which was devoted to the theme of "Einstein 1905-2005". As can be seen from the seminar's program, the papers are historical and tutorial, "directed towards a large audience of physicists and of mathematicians".

In his tutorial paper, Moschella evidently thought his audience would benefit from understanding how the 4-dimensional de Sitter universe can be embedded within a 5-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. Moschella also thought his audience would benefit from understanding how the 4-dimensional de Sitter universe is related to a 5-dimensional light cone.

That tutorial paper was not written for people who say things like

• Essentially, the universe as a whole doesn't have a particular metric (as of yet), but each observer in the universe has a past light cone, and you can use where they intersect to move between observers.
  
  
• The universe seems ... meh. Like, we have "Nature" and "Reality" and "The World" and "The Cosmos"?
  
  
• And what's with the "uni" bit? Sounds like monotheism when you really get into it.
  
  
• Why should I believe, beyond or in addition to reality and the things in it, I should believe in this relatively modern idea that is "the universe", which is apparently all of existence as we know it... and it's a whopping 3.5 times older than the rock we live on?
  
  
• What direction do I point the telescope to see "the universe" and what should I be looking for?
  
  
• I'd say any claim that relies on the existence of "the universe" is fantasy.
  
  
• I think a reasonable person would have serious doubts about the status of cosmology as a real science.
  
  
• The strategy behind cosmology seems to be define a manifold, and then add a light cone, and wherever they intersect, that's observed reality.
  
  
• [The fact that mass-energy is negative throughout the Helland universe] doesn't seem so bad.
  
  
• Therefore, the speed of light there and then has to be half of what it is here and now.
  
  
• What we observe to be real should be considered real. And if it is, the whole of cosmology as we know it has zero basis in reality.

It is not surprising that people who say such things do not understand tutorial papers written for physicists and mathematicians.

That's cute.

What is the actual relationship between observed reality and the omnipresent ground of being you call "the universe?"

Is there an explicit relationship, or are we just supposed to all join that delusion together without asking questions?

 

[Steve]

That's cute.

What is the actual relationship between observed reality and the omnipresent ground of being you call "the universe?"

Is there an explicit relationship, or are we just supposed to all join that delusion together without asking questions?

JAQing is frequently the default when posters here who don't know what they are talking about get exposed for what they really are.

 

[Mike Helland]

JAQing is frequently the default when posters here who don't know what they are talking about get exposed for what they really are.

It seems to me figuring out how reality works got hard so we invented this universe idea to give us something to do. Consequently, the universe is expanding, but that only really works if it inflated first, and that pretty much needs a multiverse.

I think we've tricked ourselves into thinking that we're talking about reality, when we're actually just making stuff up.

 

[Mike Helland]

[*][The fact that mass-energy is negative throughout the Helland universe] doesn't seem so bad.

You left off the bit about the cosmological constant.

 

[Steve]

It seems to me

That is quite unfortunate for you.

figuring out how reality works got hard so we invented this universe idea to give us something to do. Consequently, the universe is expanding, but that only really works if it inflated first, and that pretty much needs a multiverse.

I think we've tricked ourselves into thinking that we're talking about reality, when we're actually just making stuff up.

Interesting that you use the "Royal we" to refer to yourself. And you should be properly using an upper case W

 

[The Man]

It seems to me figuring out how reality works got hard so we invented this universe idea to give us something to do.

No the universe wasn't "invented", as noted before the term and concept have been around for centuries.

Consequently, the universe is expanding,

No, not a consequence of a word but simply an observation of data.

but that only really works if it inflated first,

Again, no, inflation comes from other observations.

and that pretty much needs a multiverse.

Again, no, inflation doesn't need a "multiverse", "pretty much"or otherwise. Your own citation asserted that inflation theories which even exclude a "multiverse" were possible. Just because an inflation theory may not specifically exclude a multiverse, certainly doesn't even imply that it needs such.

I think we've tricked ourselves into thinking that we're talking about reality, when we're actually just making stuff up.

You seem to be the only one here who evidently can't tell the difference.

 

[Mike Helland]

I was able to make my FLRW algorithm work for open and closed models too.

import math
data = []

H0 = 70
OmegaL = 0.7
OmegaM = 0.3
OmegaK = 1 - OmegaL - OmegaM

H0 = H0 / 3.08e19 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 * 1e6
H = H0
c = 1
z = 0
t = 0
x1 = 0.1
x2 = 0

while z < 10:
    t -= 1
    x1 += c - H * x1
    x2 += c - H * x2
    z = 0.1 / (x1 - x2) - 1
    H = H0 * (OmegaM * (1+z)**3 + OmegaL + OmegaK * (1+z)**2)**0.5

    xx = abs(OmegaK)**0.5 * x2 * (1+z)
    if OmegaK == 0:
        x = x2
    elif OmegaK < 0:
        x = 1/H0 * math.sin(xx * H0) / xx * x2 
    else:
        x = 1/H0 * math.sinh(xx * H0) / xx * x2 

    
    data.append([z, -t, x, x2 * (1 + z)])

Its results match CosmoloPy and Ned Wright's calculator. Cappi's was different from those two (right angular diameter distance, wrong co-moving distance).