Thread: Fractal Topology of Spacetime

I would like to introduce you to my Fractal Topology of Spacetime theory. This is an alternative theory on how I perceive the way in which the universe works. I perceive time and distance as an emergent property of mass with the expansion of the universe as something frame dependent. It relies upon the universe being infinite. Gravity is a property of time dilation that is also an emergent property of matter. In this theory light exists in three separate dimensional flavours that I believe can explain the formation of matter and spacetime as an emergent property and why matter has mass. I also indicate how understanding gravity my way could unify the forces of nature. This is a nascent theory and I do have a long way to go and so to outline the philosophical thinking behind my understanding I have prepared five PowerPoint presentations and have put them on YouTube.

I now believe that I have a theory that is worth sharing and so I would like to start discussing it with the more knowledgeable people like the contributors on this site.

Below are the links to my five presentations;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FhwGpynlgw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l18Y578YzZw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmQgemjHklc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ecppbocBk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EQ8AD3unY0

Please summarise your "theory".
No one is going to sit through a series of videos unless they can be shown to have some merit.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Please summarise your "theory".
No one is going to sit through a series of videos unless they can be shown to have some merit.

Think of it as a string of summarized ideas that rely on one and other, if I showed you a picture of a spark plug and said this is my idea for a car you would not be impressed. If you take all five videos it is still just a sketch of an idea and not the detailed plans of a working theory. I am just proposing a new way of thinking about things and I think one needs to see the whole sketch with a bit of humility or not at all. Sorry I cannot be of more help.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Please summarise your "theory".
No one is going to sit through a series of videos unless they can be shown to have some merit.

Think of it as a string of summarized ideas

Then could you present some of those "summarised ideas" please?

Could you perhaps start by presenting what your definitions for "fractal", "topology" and "space-time" are. This will already give us a good indication of whether there is some merit to your idea or not.

I had a look, and instead of using es ist einmal falsch, I think another of Pauli's quotes is more suited: What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.

I have tried to summarize my hypothesis.

First part

This first part deals primarily with the expansion of the universe, Hubble flow, Hubble constant and our Hubble sphere and in particular the relationship between look back time and the interface between the luminal and superluminal recessional velocities relative to us the observer. The Hubble flow creates a continuously increasing look back time delay rendering any real movement such as rotation of a galaxy or the orbit of a planet or satellite as stationary at our Hubble sphere. Real movement beyond our Hubble sphere will appear to happen in reverse as the look back time increases faster than our forwards rate of time.

With all matter beyond our Hubble sphere receding super-luminary, objects such as galaxies will appear to get younger and reverse morph back to an earlier stage in their evolution with the furthest objects becoming the atoms that make up the surface of last scattering before they disappear. Therefor the CMB is neither stationary in time or position, it is only stationary in regards to the universes epoch of evolution.

Finally I suggest that the components of time and distance are changing over time and that all the detected galaxies up to those that are red-shifted up to Z=12 may only be a small proportion of the total within the visible horizon.


Second part

In the second part I look at length contraction and time dilation and propose that if time dilation is real in all three dimensions then in a moving frame just like light remains relatively the same velocity from all three dimensions then distances and size will also be dilated equally in all three dimensions. This is rejecting the eternalist “block universe” view and thinking that the transformations should be scalar embracing the presentist view of the universe, with a definite distinction between the past and the future I change the notion that ‘distances in the direction of travel’ are shorter to ‘a dimensionally dilated future time and distances’ and ‘an expanded past’, as all observations are from the past the observed universe will expand in a moving reference frame. I then link the expansion of the universe to dimensional dilation of all matter as though time is a moving frame in all three dimensions simultaneously.


Third part

From a presentist stance I argue against non-simultaneity of spontaneity with a look at the twin’s paradox. For one twin to have aged more than the other, time must have run slower simultaneously. Because time will run faster in a geostationary orbit than it does in a synchronous position on Earth, then they must share the same moments in time each day. To agree about the same moments in time they must disagree about the amount of time between those same moments. They must also disagree about distances if they are both to agree about the measured speed of light. If the components of space and time differ between Earth and the geostationary satellite, then in order to agree about their synchronicity and the same measured speed of light the speed of light will be relatively slower on Earth.

With the components of space and time changing over time the speed of light will be slowing down relative to the past. Other constants will be variable relative to the past and future.

Follow the trend into the future and size, distance, and time becomes infinitesimally smaller, shorter, and slower like the singularity of a black hole. Follow the trend back in time to the big bang and size, distance and time become infinite. At the big bang then we have no past time or space and so the infinite universe is momentarily all matter (containing all the infinite future distances).

Time slowing down over time would give us an infinite aeon of time where our universe is able to evolve in a transfinite way producing a spacetime geometry with a fractal topology.

Exploring transfinite space and time we find that although at any moment in time light will have the same velocity, it is slower relative to the past. This relative to the past slowing of light is the cause of the redshift of distant objects and their apparent recessional velocity.

The fractal evolution of matter causes a gradual increase in gravity and I show that this could have had an effect on evolution.


Fourth part

I show why I believe the universe to be infinite and how that creates an imaginary dimensionality to the three dimensions in a fractal loop. I propose that the evolution of stars put them at a deeper and deeper fractal depth. I indicate how the proximity of an object to a massive object can alter the fractal depth of that object. The curvature of space-time is linear for any object at any moment in time. The perceived curvature of space-time (rubber matt analogy) comes when we do a comparison to the past and the future.

Because distances are the property of a body of mass, distances in the direction of a massive body will always be less on a moment by moment basis depending on the fractal depth. An object falls to Earth because the distance is always very slightly less on a moment by moment basis and so a compounded movement creates a second per second increase in velocity towards the centre of the Earth. Gravity does not create time dilation it is the directional time dilation over time that creates gravity. As we stand on planet Earth the distance to the centre of the Earth continues to lessen, we are kept relatively stationary by the solidity of the ground as it continues to decelerate our progress. It is the fractal depth that gives objects their mass and objects of mass their gravity.

Finally the changing fractal depth towards the proximity of the super-massive black hole at the centre of most galaxies may be what gives galaxies their rather flat rotational curves.


Fifth part


Here I try and simplify particle physics to fit my hypothesis. Starting with the most basic energy particle, the photon I imagine that travelling as a photon time stands still and any journey is achieved in zero time. In a transfinite position with future distances reduced to zero and past distances stretched to infinity the photon is in a super-position, nowhere for any length of time. Travelling at an infinite velocity in one dimension the photon has a transfinite velocity relative to the other two dimensions. The photon must be a mono-dimensional particle existing in three dimensional flavours x, y and z.

At the singularity the big bang combine these mono-dimensional particles into two dimensional spheres, half right spin and half left spin and at three different fractal depths. The smallest, the neutron at the fractal prime and no charge. The next smallest sphere is the proton and the largest sphere the atomic shell being the electron. It is the relative shell volume that depicts the fractal depth. The first element with one neutron one proton and one electron is therefore deuterium.

With space-time being the emergent property of matter all future space-time is sub atomic and exists as mono-dimensional spacetime. Three dimensional space is super-atomic past spacetime and the now moment of time is the interface at the atomic boundary giving us our three dimensional reality.

Anti-matter at the big bang creates its own aeon of left spin time and separated by its own infinity from matter. Matter creates our aeon of right spin time. Space-time is transfinite and can only travel from a higher fractal depth to a lower fractal depth. To imagine each atom as being infinite at the big bang think of their size as the infinite decimal and each atom as one of the infinite integers, fractionalized in a transfinite way between future and past. Our aeon of time had a beginning and it will have an end in the singularity that transcends time and space. Every moment the singularity creates a new aeon of time, and every moment an aeon of time ends at the singularity, each aeon of time separated from the next by its own infinity.

That is how I imagine the universe, the totality of existence.

With all matter beyond our Hubble sphere receding super-luminary, objects such as galaxies will appear to get younger and reverse morph back to an earlier stage in their evolution with the furthest objects becoming the atoms that make up the surface of last scattering before they disappear. Therefor the CMB is neither stationary in time or position, it is only stationary in regards to the universes epoch of evolution.

But matter is not moving at superluminary velocities. The metric expansion of space is such so that light from these objects will never be able to traverse the increasing space between us. That's what is meant by expansion faster than light. There is nothing actually moving through space faster than c.

In the second part I look at length contraction and time dilation and propose that if time dilation is real in all three dimensions then in a moving frame just like light remains relatively the same velocity from all three dimensions then distances and size will also be dilated equally in all three dimensions

You appear to be proposing an absolute frame of reference. No such frame exists. Light is not a frame of reference, because it is invariant in all frames regardless of relative motion.

From a presentist stance I argue against non-simultaneity of spontaneity with a look at the twin’s paradox.

An argument which not only contradicts the relativity of simultaneity, but also contradicts experiment and observation.

If the components of space and time differ between Earth and the geostationary satellite, then in order to agree about their synchronicity and the same measured speed of light the speed of light will be relatively slower on Earth.

Again, a direct contradiction of both observation and experiment.

Your hypothesis does not appear to one which applies to this universe.

I have only skimmed this. It seems pretty devoid of meaning or science.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

In the second part I look at length contraction and time dilation and propose that if time dilation is real in all three dimensions then in a moving frame just like light remains relatively the same velocity from all three dimensions then distances and size will also be dilated equally in all three dimensions.

In which case, observation of the real world shows your speculation to be wrong.

The curvature of space-time is linear

How can curvature be linear?

Gravity does not create time dilation it is the directional time dilation over time that creates gravity.

No, they are both the result of curved spacetime.

Here I try and simplify particle physics to fit my hypothesis.

It would probably be more productive to try and fit your hypotheses to match observation and experiment.

To imagine each atom as being infinite at the big bang

There were no atoms at the early stages of big bang.

As you appear to be aiming to replace all of general relativity and quantum physics, I assume you must have some pretty sophisticated math behind all this?

Originally Posted by AlexG

Your hypothesis does not appear to one which applies to this universe.

Maybe it is the Discworld universe.

What happens if there is no distance between an object and e.g core of earth? What then brings about the formation of black holes? And i think from part2,the contraction with respect to the axis at which it travels and not (x,y,z)at same time. And i would like a mathematical description of this your fractal!

Your model's basic premises may have merit, but in my view as an ether theorist, I don't believe you will reach an end point without being able to include an undetected universal ether which is importantly involved mediatively. In the ether model I work with, time passes more slowly in outer space than near a spatial body like Earth or the Sun, because of the higher ambient level of energy near such bodies. The bodies and their nearby space are more energized, and quantized, whereas outer space is more etheric. Time passes more slowly in space due to the lower energy setting. -In a case like an atomic clock in motion, it is resonating more intensely with its ambience and the ether. The ether is contiguous withe the less energized ether of space, resonatively, and so the clock picks up the slower time of outer space, even if it is on the earth. It's the etheric resonance that's the key to understanding such enigmas. Time is a variable depending on the rate of vibration of etheric units, which in turn is related to the ambient cosmic setting.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

Your model's basic premises may have merit, but in my view as an ether theorist, I don't believe you will reach an end point without being able to include invisible pink unicorns.

Fixed it for you.

Please stop spamming this incoherent and ignorant pseudo-scientific drivel all over the place. You are just making a nuisance of yourself.

It is doubly annoying as you refuse to actually provide any details because it is all so "secret". If so, just shut up and go away. No one is interested and you don't want to talk about it.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

...in my view as an ether theorist...

*shudder* Rarely do I have physical reactions to things I read. Well played, sir.

Mr ether theorist.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

but in my view as an ether theorist

Presumably that's just your convoluted, face-saving way of saying that your "theories" are non-existent.

Originally Posted by AlexG

With all matter beyond our Hubble sphere receding super-luminary, objects such as galaxies will appear to get younger and reverse morph back to an earlier stage in their evolution with the furthest objects becoming the atoms that make up the surface of last scattering before they disappear. Therefor the CMB is neither stationary in time or position, it is only stationary in regards to the universes epoch of evolution.

But matter is not moving at superluminary velocities. The metric expansion of space is such so that light from these objects will never be able to traverse the increasing space between us. That's what is meant by expansion faster than light. There is nothing actually moving through space faster than c.

I never said that matter was moving super-luminary, I said it was receding super-luminary. Beyond the Hubble Sphere, matter has a recessional velocity that is faster than light, it could be stationary in its own frame of reference, it is only super-luminal relative to us the very distant observer. The observable horizon is much larger than the Hubble Sphere in a universe with a metric expansion. The most distant galaxies visible are much further than our Hubble Sphere. We will not see any future light from any galaxy beyond the Hubble Sphere but we will still see past light from those galaxies, that is until it is as far away to us as the CMB, for then it will be old enough to be the atoms that are creating the CMB. A static universe with a finite age would have a Hubble Sphere at the particle horizon.

In the second part I look at length contraction and time dilation and propose that if time dilation is real in all three dimensions then in a moving frame just like light remains relatively the same velocity from all three dimensions then distances and size will also be dilated equally in all three dimensions

You appear to be proposing an absolute frame of reference. No such frame exists. Light is not a frame of reference, because it is invariant in all frames regardless of relative motion.

That was not my intended proposition.

From a presentist stance I argue against non-simultaneity of spontaneity with a look at the twin’s paradox.

An argument which not only contradicts the relativity of simultaneity, but also contradicts experiment and observation.

I believe that I am giving a different interpretation to the observations.

If the components of space and time differ between Earth and the geostationary satellite, then in order to agree about their synchronicity and the same measured speed of light the speed of light will be relatively slower on Earth.

Again, a direct contradiction of both observation and experiment.

To agree about the speed of light, a stationary object A and a moving object B will have to disagree about the components of both space and time. Time will pass relatively slower for B and distances in the direction of travel will be relatively shorter, for those not sure about this see this YouTube video:
Cassiopeia Project - Relativity Chapter 3 - YouTube
It is assumed from this that all distances are simultaneously the same to all observers as light is a constant. When we assume this we have to concede that there is no simultaneity of spontaneity and so no absolute moment in time. I came to a different interpretation by wondering if distances for the moving object B were longer in the opposite direction to travel. Pondering whether that was longer from the start of the journey and shorter towards the end of the journey like perhaps it might be in a block universe I realized I could interpret it differently if I were to consider that all past time distances would be longer and that all future distances would be shorter. When you consider that all observed object are in the past, then any acceleration would cause all very distant objects to recede away from the observer.

If distances are dependent on the inertial frame of the observer then different inertial frames can share the same moment in time. Time dilation can still occur as time can run simultaneously slower in the dilated frame. In any frame of reference a second will be a second and an inch will be an inch and the speed of light will always be measured to be the same speed yet in the dilated frame all will be either relatively shorter or slower.

Guy jυѕт give us some mathematics and maybe it would be less misleading as it is.

Originally Posted by merumario

Guy jυѕт give us some mathematics and maybe it would be less misleading as it is.

Maybe "Guy" is unable to "give us some mathematics".
Even if "Guy" did as you ask I would probably not be able to understand and, I suspect, I am not the only forum member in this category!

is he still around self?

Originally Posted by Strange

I have only skimmed this. It seems pretty devoid of meaning or science.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

In the second part I look at length contraction and time dilation and propose that if time dilation is real in all three dimensions then in a moving frame just like light remains relatively the same velocity from all three dimensions then distances and size will also be dilated equally in all three dimensions.

In which case, observation of the real world shows your speculation to be wrong.

We can and have tested time dilation by comparing the elapse time on a caesium clock after it has spent time in a dilated state. There will not be any evidence of the clock being any smaller and I think this is untestable. Distances being dilated may be testable. The theory predicts that we have a gradual time dilation over time and that time is transfinite and that distances are changing over time as a result. As distances and measuring rods get shorter and smaller over time we can make a caparison to the past as we study the light from very distant galaxies as it appears to be coming from further and further away. The Hubble constant is a measure of this changing rate of past time distances. To check whether this changing rate is frame dependent we just need to measure this constant from let’s say a low earth orbit and then compare it to a less dilated frame such as at an L2 orbit where we should measure a lower Hubble constant.

The curvature of space-time is linear

How can curvature be linear?

The curvature of space-time is often explained with the rubber mat analogy. The massive object, usually the Earth, depresses the mat in a 3D way to represent a curve in 4D space-time. We could depict the 3D curvature with rings that get progressively closer together towards the Earth a bit like contour lines on a map. Although not as good at depicting an orbital path it can help with depicting a falling object as the shorter distance between the closer lines fits with Minkowski’s idea that the extra length of the depicted space-time curve becomes a negative factor (x,y,z and time + + + - ) as the distance becomes shorter.
You could use the rubber mat analogy to describe the fractal topology, The Earth would be at a deep fractal depth and the space surrounding it would curve away from Earth to where it was less deep. The moon would create its own fractal depth in the surrounding space at a less deep depth than Earth. The international space station would be at a deeper fractal depth than the Earth and that starts to weaken the analogy. The visual picture would also be wrong because distances are frame dependent and so the picture is a collage of different points of view with simultaneously different distances.
Measuring the distance to the moon and back with a mirror on the moon will give us a longer measurement than if we were to simultaneously take a measure from the moon to the Earth and back with a mirror on the Earth. This is because the Earth is at a deeper fractal depth than the moon and light is travelling relatively slower on the Earth and therefore takes measurably longer to take what is essentially the same journey.
To answer your question then I would liken the curvature of space-time time to the Hubble Constant. Measure this constant anywhere at any moment in time and the increase in velocity over distance will always be linear, but compare it to a measurement taken by a different observer in the distant future or where gravity is stronger, then we will find that constant will be faster (but still a constant), implying a curvature towards the future or towards a body of mass. An infinite circumference has no curvature, a finite circumference has and space-time in this theory is transfinite and that is kind of both. It curves throughout time but is linear at any moment in time.

Here I try and simplify particle physics to fit my hypothesis.

It would probably be more productive to try and fit your hypotheses to match observation and experiment.

I made the prediction that the first atoms would be deuterium before the first detection of nascent pristine gas clouds (first stage of galaxy formation). The main element detected in these clouds was deuterium. Being one of the predicted elements, the presence of deuterium was seen as conformation of the standard BBN model with the overabundance put down to an instrumentation sensitivity, deuterium is easier to detect, the main point being the lack of any heavier elements, never the less I found the results very encouraging.
According to my theory it will not be possible to re-create the conditions of the early evolution of our epoch of time. My BBN model will not be repeatable by us as time travel is impossible and the only way to achieve the very shallow fractal depth. According to my theory the LHC is pushing particles down the fractal depth towards the fractal prime and therefore in the opposite direction to the big bang.

To imagine each atom as being infinite at the big bang

There were no atoms at the early stages of big bang.

This was my attempt to imagine the opposite of infinite density. I suppose the opposite to infinitely dense could be when the components of the first atoms have emerged before the atoms have formed.

As you appear to be aiming to replace all of general relativity and quantum physics, I assume you must have some pretty sophisticated math behind all this?

I think it is beyond any single person’s ability to do that. It is certainly way beyond my limited abilities. I have not pretended to be anything that I am not, I am only an autodidactic lay person who has made an attempt to understand the universe and in doing so has thought about things in a very different or even perhaps a unique way.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

We can and have tested time dilation by comparing the elapse time on a caesium clock after it has spent time in a dilated state. There will not be any evidence of the clock being any smaller and I think this is untestable. Distances being dilated may be testable. The theory predicts that we have a gradual time dilation over time and that time is transfinite and that distances are changing over time as a result. As distances and measuring rods get shorter and smaller over time we can make a caparison to the past as we study the light from very distant galaxies as it appears to be coming from further and further away. The Hubble constant is a measure of this changing rate of past time distances. To check whether this changing rate is frame dependent we just need to measure this constant from let’s say a low earth orbit and then compare it to a less dilated frame such as at an L2 orbit where we should measure a lower Hubble constant.

You seem to be mixing up several different things here. Initially you appeared to be talking about bodies in relative motion. In this case we can measure time dilation and length contraction. You mention satellites so I will point out that GPS receivers have to make adjustments for both of these things due to the relative velocity of the satellite and receiver. (They also have to make adjustments for the difference in gravitational potential and the acceleration of the satellite, but those don't appear to be relevant to your article.) If current theories were wrong, your GPS system would not work.

Then you bring in the Hubble constant. This has nothing to do with relative velocity (which can be explained purely by special relativity). It is due to the changing scale factor over time. There would be no point trying to measure this effect in a satellite because (a) expansion of space only happens on a cosmological scale and (b) if it did happen within the solar system it would be immeasurably small.

The curvature of space-time is often explained with the rubber mat analogy.

So you are just basing this on a bad analogy not on the actual science, then?

You could use the rubber mat analogy to describe the fractal topology ...

Why would you do that? Is there something wrong with the current theory? Does your model produce more accurate predictions than existing theory?

Why do you want to discard 100 years worth of well-supported science?

I made the prediction that the first atoms would be deuterium before the first detection of nascent pristine gas clouds (first stage of galaxy formation). The main element detected in these clouds was deuterium.

Citation required. (Why do I find myself repeatedly saying that to people with random "theories".)

And, only crackpots pick one single result and say: "there, thAt proves I am right." when every other piece of evidence appears to contradict them.

This was my attempt to imagine the opposite of infinite density. I suppose the opposite to infinitely dense could be when the components of the first atoms have emerged before the atoms have formed.

The opposite of infinite density is no density: a perfect vacuum. No atoms. The first atoms were formed pretty late in the process. And there was probably never a time when there was infinite density.

I think it is beyond any single person’s ability to do that. It is certainly way beyond my limited abilities. I have not pretended to be anything that I am not, I am only an autodidactic lay person who has made an attempt to understand the universe and in doing so has thought about things in a very different or even perhaps a unique way.

Why make up fairy stories when you could spend the time learning some real science?

That is a genuine question by the way. I really, really can't understand why some people prefer to make up nonsense rather than attempt to understand how things really work.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

I would like to introduce you to my Fractal Topology of Spacetime theory. This is an alternative theory on how I perceive the way in which the universe works. I perceive time and distance as an emergent property of mass with the expansion of the universe as something frame dependent. It relies upon the universe being infinite. Gravity is a property of time dilation that is also an emergent property of matter. In this theory light exists in three separate dimensional flavours that I believe can explain the formation of matter and spacetime as an emergent property and why matter has mass. I also indicate how understanding gravity my way could unify the forces of nature. This is a nascent theory and I do have a long way to go and so to outline the philosophical thinking behind my understanding I have prepared five PowerPoint presentations and have put them on YouTube. I now believe that I have a theory that is worth sharing and so I would like to start discussing it with the more knowledgeable people like the contributors on this site. Below are the links to my five presentations; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FhwGpynlgw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l18Y578YzZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmQgemjHklc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ecppbocBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EQ8AD3unY0

I read this before I joined this forum. Why tell anyone?

Ricewind,

Your hypothesis sounds like a derivative of David Bohm's theory of "Wholeness and the Implicate order" and Renate Loll's theory of CDT (causal dynamic triangulation).

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Ricewind

We can and have tested time dilation by comparing the elapse time on a caesium clock after it has spent time in a dilated state. There will not be any evidence of the clock being any smaller and I think this is untestable. Distances being dilated may be testable. The theory predicts that we have a gradual time dilation over time and that time is transfinite and that distances are changing over time as a result. As distances and measuring rods get shorter and smaller over time we can make a caparison to the past as we study the light from very distant galaxies as it appears to be coming from further and further away. The Hubble constant is a measure of this changing rate of past time distances. To check whether this changing rate is frame dependent we just need to measure this constant from let’s say a low earth orbit and then compare it to a less dilated frame such as at an L2 orbit where we should measure a lower Hubble constant.

You seem to be mixing up several different things here. Initially you appeared to be talking about bodies in relative motion. In this case we can measure time dilation and length contraction.

We cannot simultaneously measure time dilation or length contraction when considering objects in relative motion. We can only compare elapsed time and infer contraction in the direction of travel relative to a stationary observer. Because we can compare elapsed time after a period of faster relative motion we know that time was simultaneously passing slower for that moving frame. For time to be simultaneously passing slower in a frame of reference where we measure the same velocity of light in all directions then, the components of space and time must be simultaneously different in that frame of reference. And because the passage of time is simultaneously frame dependent, so is the relative velocity of light.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Length Contraction is a relative inferred anisotropy during a direct comparison. For the observer in the inferred contracted frame there will be no experience of any time dilation or measurably any change to the velocity of light and they will not experience any anisotropy to their dimensionality, but the passing of time will be relatively slower and the speed of light will be relatively slower isotropcally and as for their dimensionality that will be relatively contracted in an isotropic way.
Even though light is travelling relatively slower in a time dilated frame, I think we should still use the finite speed of light as a way to measure distances.

You mention satellites so I will point out that GPS receivers have to make adjustments for both of these things due to the relative velocity of the satellite and receiver. (They also have to make adjustments for the difference in gravitational potential and the acceleration of the satellite, but those don't appear to be relevant to your article.) If current theories were wrong, your GPS system would not work.

“The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them”. ~William Lawrence Bragg.


When we consider the GPS satellite system with my theory the speed of light will be relatively slower on the Earth and therefore relative to the Earth the signal from the GPS satellite will take longer to reach the Earth, but we allow the clocks to run synchronously at different rates. Current theory require the satellite clock to run at an incorrect rate so as to agree about the distance and do not agree to a now moment of time synchronicity even though the satellite remains in a synchronous orbit.

Then you bring in the Hubble constant. This has nothing to do with relative velocity (which can be explained purely by special relativity). It is due to the changing scale factor over time. There would be no point trying to measure this effect in a satellite because (a) expansion of space only happens on a cosmological scale and (b) if it did happen within the solar system it would be immeasurably small.

You have missed the point. In this theory time is transfinite, this means that it has always been relatively slower relative to the past. All the components of space and time have been changing over time including the relative speed of light. This time dependent relative light speed is what creates the apparent red shift of distant galaxies. If we consider that the relative speed of light is also frame dependent then so is the Hubble Constant.

Is there something wrong with the current theory? Does your model produce more accurate predictions than existing theory?

All I can say to that is, I think so.

Why do you want to discard 100 years worth of well-supported science?

“In scientific work, those who refuse to go beyond fact rarely get as far as fact”. Thomas Huxley

In my quest to understand I have made many mistakes, I may be mistaken now, if so I feel no shame for only those who are prepared to be wrong could ever defy conventional wisdom and come up with an original concept to change the way we think or solve our darkest mysteries.

I made the prediction that the first atoms would be deuterium before the first detection of nascent pristine gas clouds (first stage of galaxy formation). The main element detected in these clouds was deuterium.

Citation required. (Why do I find myself repeatedly saying that to people with random "theories".)

[1111.2334v1] Detection of Pristine Gas Two Billion Years after the Big Bang

And, only crackpots pick one single result and say: "there, thAt proves I am right." when every other piece of evidence appears to contradict them.

And how did you get that interpretation from this;

Being one of the predicted elements, the presence of deuterium was seen as conformation of the standard BBN model with the overabundance put down to an instrumentation sensitivity, deuterium is easier to detect, the main point being the lack of any heavier elements, never the less I found the results very encouraging.

This was my attempt to imagine the opposite of infinite density. I suppose the opposite to infinitely dense could be when the components of the first atoms have emerged before the atoms have formed.

The opposite of infinite density is no density: a perfect vacuum. No atoms. The first atoms were formed pretty late in the process. And there was probably never a time when there was infinite density.

I am sorry that I did not make myself very clear, I had assumed that you had watched the presentations. I was referring to the relative density of the atoms and not the matter density of the universe. Although the sub atomic density is transfinite in that there is a relative finite distance between the electron shell (or probability cloud if you like) and the proton and a relative shorter distance between the proton shell and the neutron, the relative distance from the proton to the electron is relatively vast and the relative distance from the neutron to everything is infinite giving the atom a transfinite density. I think it is probably not actually infinitely un-dense at the beginning of any aeon of transfinite time and probably not infinitely dense at the end of any aeon of transfinite time. I think probably undefined at the singularity would cover it.
If atomic density is transfinite in this way changing their relative density over transfinite time then the matter density of the universe is always relatively the same in any aeon of time at any stage of any aeon of times evolution and omega will always remain at 1 (except at the undefined singularity).

Why make up fairy stories when you could spend the time learning some real science?

It is still real to me, you have yet to persuade me otherwise.

That is a genuine question by the way. I really, really can't understand why some people prefer to make up nonsense rather than attempt to understand how things really work

The idea that the whole of our observable universe was so compact that it resembled George Lemaitre’s primordial atom sounds a lot like Aladdin on a far grander scale. I guess it is the way the story is told, I prefer my story even if it does resemble Alice in Wonderland. There is more cause and effect and so an easier pill to swallow.

Originally Posted by Ricewind

We cannot simultaneously measure time dilation or length contraction when considering objects in relative motion.

sigh. GPS receivers have to correct for both distance and time.

You have missed the point. In this theory time is transfinite, this means that it has always been relatively slower relative to the past. All the components of space and time have been changing over time including the relative speed of light. This time dependent relative light speed is what creates the apparent red shift of distant galaxies. If we consider that the relative speed of light is also frame dependent then so is the Hubble Constant.

How can you compare the rate of time now and in the past? We can compare clocks in two frames of reference and see they tick at different rates. But how do you compare a clock today with a clock yesterday.

On the other hand, it is quite OK to choose a different set of coordinates for describing big bang cosmology. For example, you can say that time was slower in the past, and the speed of light has changed. This is exactly the same theory described in a different way but it is counter-intuitive and more complicated to work with (it puts the "origin" an infinite time in the past so some people think it makes more sense).

Is there something wrong with the current theory? Does your model produce more accurate predictions than existing theory?

All I can say to that is, I think so.

Well, that's not really good enough is it. I think there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garden. There is no evidence for it. I just think so.

This is a science forum: you need to show, in appropriate mathematical detail, with supporting evidence, that there is something wrong with current theories.

I made the prediction that the first atoms would be deuterium before the first detection of nascent pristine gas clouds (first stage of galaxy formation). The main element detected in these clouds was deuterium.

Citation required. (Why do I find myself repeatedly saying that to people with random "theories".)

[1111.2334v1] Detection of Pristine Gas Two Billion Years after the Big Bang

And that paper contradicts you. On the very first page: "the measured log(D/H) = −4.55". In other words a tiny fraction of the hydrogen is deuterium.

The other thing is that this paper shows the calculations and match with observation (including error bars). This is science. Saying "the main element" is not science. (Even if it weren't wrong). You need to quantify your predictions.

And, only crackpots pick one single result and say: "there, thAt proves I am right." when every other piece of evidence appears to contradict them.

And how did you get that interpretation from this;

Because you misintepret this evidence to support you and dismiss all the evidence that proves you wrong. That is not how science works.

I had assumed that you had watched the presentations

Yootoob? No. OK for comedians and puppies, not for science.

Although the sub atomic density is transfinite

To quote from The Princess Bride, you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

and the relative distance from the neutron to everything is infinite

And it sounds like you don't know what the word infinite means. If the relative distance from a neutron to everything else were infinite that would mean there was nothing else.

Which makes that paragraph meaningless word salad. Perhaps it could be expressed mathematically?

The idea that the whole of our observable universe was so compact that it resembled George Lemaitre’s primordial atom sounds a lot like Aladdin on a far grander scale.

Maybe. But it fits the evidence and was predicted by theory. Nature doesn't really care whether you like it or if you can understand it. It is what it is.

Thank's for that I will look them up

Originally Posted by Write4U

Ricewind,

Your hypothesis sounds like a derivative of David Bohm's theory of "Wholeness and the Implicate order" and Renate Loll's theory of CDT (causal dynamic triangulation).

Thank's I will look them up.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Ricewind

We cannot simultaneously measure time dilation or length contraction when considering objects in relative motion.

sigh. GPS receivers have to correct for both distance and time.

And what have I said that contradicts that? You have incorrectly assumed that I did not know this.

You have missed the point. In this theory time is transfinite, this means that it has always been relatively slower relative to the past. All the components of space and time have been changing over time including the relative speed of light. This time dependent relative light speed is what creates the apparent red shift of distant galaxies. If we consider that the relative speed of light is also frame dependent then so is the Hubble Constant.

How can you compare the rate of time now and in the past? We can compare clocks in two frames of reference and see they tick at different rates. But how do you compare a clock today with a clock yesterday.

You cannot, not directly. According to my hypothesis we may not need to. It is not just time that is effected, all the components of space and time are changing. Time is slowing down, the size of each and every atom is reducing relative to the past and all future distances are getting relatively shorter. I say distances and not the volume of space because that remains infinite and not really changing. The transformation of all the components of space and time are scalar to one and other, if time slows down for any reason, measuring rods get shorter (and narrower and thinner), and distances are shorter to match the rods. With light taking relatively longer to reach us from distant objects, the objects that we see with past light (that is all that we see) will be further away. Distances are not just time dependent they are frame dependent too. The Hubble flow is evidence of time dependent distances changing over time and to test frame dependent distances we could do the Earth to moon and back measurement simultaneously with a moon to Earth and back measurement.

On the other hand, it is quite OK to choose a different set of coordinates for describing big bang cosmology. For example, you can say that time was slower in the past, and the speed of light has changed. This is exactly the same theory described in a different way but it is counter-intuitive and more complicated to work with (it puts the "origin" an infinite time in the past so some people think it makes more sense).

In my hypothesis time was relatively faster in the past, and back when a second was relative to two seconds today one light second would be relatively twice as far, a relatively longer distance. More universe would be visible. The rate of time tends towards infinity as we plot the relative rate back to the beginning, but it is not the same as infinite it is transfinite, it did have a beginning. The rate of time will tend towards zero in the future and everything that began in our big bang will end when time for us stops at the singularity. Time is a continuum in a fractal loop always starting and always ending at the singularity and progressing in a transfinite way everywhere else (which is everywhere as the singularity is not a place and not within a frame of time).

Is there something wrong with the current theory? Does your model produce more accurate predictions than existing theory?

All I can say to that is, I think so.

Well, that's not really good enough is it. I think there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garden. There is no evidence for it. I just think so.

Check your medication.

This is a science forum: you need to show, in appropriate mathematical detail, with supporting evidence, that there is something wrong with current theories.

Until current theories can define what is and what causes dark energy and dark matter, and show that there is an explanation as to why this dark energy expanded the universe at a much faster rate during inflation, or why it slowed down, and then started to speed up, I shall continue to believe that there is something wrong with the current theories. We may well be able to give complex mathematical solutions for every unpredicted observation but like circles within circles it may not be our preferred view in the future.

And, only crackpots pick one single result and say: "there, thAt proves I am right." when every other piece of evidence appears to contradict them.

And how did you get that interpretation from this;

And still you do not show what I actually said

I had assumed that you had watched the presentations

Yootoob? No. OK for comedians and puppies, not for science.

What a narrow minded attitude, I shall continue to watch lectures from Stanford University, and watch video of people like Sir Roger Penrose, and if I am amused by something said by Richard Feynman then what a wonderful way to be illuminated and entertained. There have been plenty of trivial books published and some that are deliberately misleading but I assume you would not discourage the reading of all books now would you.

Although the sub atomic density is transfinite

To quote from The Princess Bride, you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

and the relative distance from the neutron to everything is infinite

And it sounds like you don't know what the word infinite means. If the relative distance from a neutron to everything else were infinite that would mean there was nothing else.

I think you are wrong to assume that. The infinity of the decimals do not exclude the possibility of the integers. The decimals may well be infinite but only as a fractalized part of the host integer. You may well think that the decimals are a countably larger infinity than the integers but neither the decimals nor the integers are countable they are both infinite.
When I said that the neutron was at a relative infinite distance from everything, the word relative was important, because we are dealing with a transfinite system, the distance may be infinite but it is not the totality of existence of all distances, it is a fractalized part of the totality of existence of all possible distances. Our aeon of transfinite time had a beginning and it will have an end but our aeon of time is not the totality of existence of all possible time, it is merely a fractalized part of the totality of existence of all possible time.
Imagine travelling as a photon, at the speed of light, time stands still. For you as a photon any journey will take zero time which implies travelling at an infinite velocity. As you travel from the past to the future you are at an infinite distance from everything in the past. The past no longer exists to you. Future distances are zero, from the moment you left you have had zero distance to travel so you could say, you are stationary relative to your future position, but as you are travelling, the future does not yet exist, you are in a superposition, and your destination does not exist until you reach it at the interface between past and future. The speed of light is transfinite until it is defined as C, when it is measured at the fractal depth of the observer. Relatively slower to the past from where it originated.

The idea that the whole of our observable universe was so compact that it resembled George Lemaitre’s primordial atom sounds a lot like Aladdin on a far grander scale.

Maybe. But it fits the evidence and was predicted by theory. Nature doesn't really care whether you like it or if you can understand it. It is what it is.

Neither will she care if we are all wrong.