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

[The Man]

That's cute.

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

The universe is what is observed, heck even in hallucinations the electrochemical impulses perceived are just part of the universe.

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

Likewise with delusions, though the electrochemical processes involved get a lot more complicated as there would likely be considerable psychological aspects involved. The explicit relationship is that it is all part of the universe. Go ahead ask questions, but just making **** up and ignoring answers given makes both the answering and asking moot.

 

[Mike Helland]

The universe is what is observed, heck even in hallucinations the electrochemical impulses perceived are just part of the universe.

Is the future part of the universe?

 

[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).

You can see it in action here:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/other/flrw.htm

And compare it to the other calculators. You can move your mouse around the graph to get values for it. Works for flat, closed, or open FLRW models.

 

[The Man]

Is the future part of the universe?

Yes, why wouldn't it be?

If the universe is deterministic then the future is as well.

Now, there is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that says the present (observational data) is comprised of equal parts of the past and the future. Transactional interpretation^WP
Based on Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory^WP and that, based on, in part, the time symmetry of Maxwell’s equations. Allowing both advanced (forward time) and retarded (backwards time) solutions. The retarded solutions are generally cast away as unphysical (not real). As well as the Path integral formulation ^WP of quantum mechanics, that (Path integral formulation) and Absorber theory form the basis of Quantum electrodynamics and chromodynamics. Theories, models and calculation tools that give us our modern technological society.

The universe and reality is what it is, we can only try to model it. Only experimental data can show how accurate such models reflect reality and then only to the degree of our understanding, modeling ability (math wise) and instrumentality (observation wise). It’s a big can of worms and most people don’t realize how closely such QM models are intertwined with cosmological models.

Your assertion before of the age of the universe being “intimately related” to the expansion factor.. . Both are imminently related to the standard model of particle physics. That’s the universe even before inflation and expansion.

 

[Mike Helland]

Yes, why wouldn't it be?

We don't observe the future.

If the universe is the reality we observe, it doesn't include the future.

If it includes the future, it's not the reality we observe.

Your assertion before of the age of the universe being “intimately related” to the expansion factor.. . Both are imminently related to the standard model of particle physics. That’s the universe even before inflation and expansion.

It just showed an algorithm that computes the age of the universe given FLRW parameters. No standard model of particle physics needed.

 

[Ziggurat]

We don't observe the future.

If the universe is the reality we observe, it doesn't include the future.

If it includes the future, it's not the reality we observe.

There's a little something called object permanence that babies learn when they're about one year old. Seems you haven't figured it out yet.

 

[Mike Helland]

There's a little something called object permanence that babies learn when they're about one year old. Seems you haven't figured it out yet.

You heard it here first folks. Babies see the future.

 

[Steve]

You heard it here first folks. Babies see the future.

Confirmation, as if more is needed, that your comprehension is pathetic.

 

[Ziggurat]

You heard it here first folks. Babies see the future.

Are you trying to miss the point?

 

[Mike Helland]

Are you trying to miss the point?

Nope, but I'm not sure what it is.

I said that the future isn't part of the reality we observe.

You brought up babies.

 

[Mike Helland]

Are you trying to miss the point?

Here's something way more relevant.

In the expanding universe, the light cone, in proper distance, so actual distance, over cosmic time, it's pretty clear that dx/dt does not equal c.

It equals c - Hx, where H = H₀ * E(z) and x is the proper distance, at time t.

This seems like a pretty important equation. Is it written down anywhere?

I get that there are much easier equations to work with. But it's super easy to deal with in algorithm where you already know H and x.

In the spirit of Cunningham's Law, I'll say I came up with it.

Any counterexamples to my claim?

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's something way more relevant.

In the expanding universe, the light cone, in proper distance, so actual distance

Hold up. The "actual distance"?

No, Mike. There is no single measure of "actual distance" between world lines. That's true in general relativity, and it's even true in special relativity.

Proper distance is a meaningful quantity, but it is by no means the only "actual" distance in cosmology.

 

[Mike Helland]

Hold up. The "actual distance"?

No, Mike. There is no single measure of "actual distance" between world lines. That's true in general relativity, and it's even true in special relativity.

Proper distance is a meaningful quantity, but it is by no means the only "actual" distance in cosmology.

At any given time slice there certainly is.

If the proper distance wasn't the "actual" distance, then things aren't "actually" getting closer, and the expansion of the universe and big bang are optical illusions.

Can't have that both ways.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In the spirit of Cunningham's Law, I'll say I came up with it.

Ward Cunningham is a smart guy. For a brief period, I worked with him.

Hold up. The "actual distance"?

No, Mike. There is no single measure of "actual distance" between world lines. That's true in general relativity, and it's even true in special relativity.

Proper distance is a meaningful quantity, but it is by no means the only "actual" distance in cosmology.

At any given time slice there certainly is.

If the proper distance wasn't the "actual" distance, then things aren't "actually" getting closer, and the expansion of the universe and big bang are optical illusions.

Can't have that both ways.

To understand the importance of Mike Helland's cosmological opinions, we should perhaps note that Mike Helland's most recent attempt to state a metric form says he and we reside at the singularity of a black hole.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the proper distance wasn't the "actual" distance, then things aren't "actually" getting closer, and the expansion of the universe and big bang are optical illusions.

You still don't understand.

Perhaps this will help. You could call proper distance an actual distance, but it is not the actual distance, because there's more than one way to measure distance. It's quite real, that's not the problem. The problem is you thinking it's unique rather than just convenient.

 

[Mike Helland]

You still don't understand.

Perhaps this will help. You could call proper distance an actual distance, but it is not the actual distance, because there's more than one way to measure distance. It's quite real, that's not the problem. The problem is you thinking it's unique rather than just convenient.

Actual distance would be how many rigid meter sticks it takes to get from one place to another, at a moment frozen in time.

That's proper distance.

Actual distances decreases exactly the same way proper distances decrease (going backwards in time).

You seem to be implying, "oh, that's not the whole story."

So what's the rest of the story? What are the other ways of measuring actual distance?

 

[Mike Helland]

Ward Cunningham is a smart guy. For a brief period, I worked with him.

That's pretty rad. I remember wiki's coming around in the 90's and always thought he was a pretty interesting fellow.

To understand the importance of Mike Helland's cosmological opinions, we should perhaps note that Mike Helland's most recent attempt to state a metric form says he and we reside at the singularity of a black hole.

Close. We reside at the intersection between a past light cone and a future light cone.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

To understand the importance of Mike Helland's cosmological opinions, we should perhaps note that Mike Helland's most recent attempt to state a metric form says he and we reside at the singularity of a black hole.

Close. We reside at the intersection between a past light cone and a future light cone.

It seems Mike Helland has not yet calculated the Ricci curvature at the center of the Helland universe defined by his most recent wild guess at a metric form for the Helland universe.

 

[Mike Helland]

It seems Mike Helland has not yet calculated the Ricci curvature at the center of the Helland universe defined by his most recent wild guess at a metric form for the Helland universe.

It doesn't describe a "universe". That's called a strawman.

It describes observed reality, which is in the shape of a past light cone.

Here's the metric, Ricci tensor, Riemann tensor, and Christoffel symbols.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Here's the metric, Ricci tensor, Riemann tensor, and Christoffel symbols.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_76218654d671b8fff5.png[/qimg]

Mike Helland has yet to notice that four of those Christoffel symbols blow up at r=0.

Mike Helland has not yet calculated the Ricci scalar at r=0. In his defense, it takes some knowledge of calculus to calculate the Ricci scalar at r=0, because naive symbol-pushing leads to subtracting infinity from infinity. If Mike Helland were able to compute limits, however, he'd find that the Ricci scalar converges toward minus infinity at r=0.