cosmic inflation is pure illusion and speed of time also . universe is now

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/specialissue/specialissueinfo?journalid=122&specialissueid=122019

dear Amri

Are you sure?

Hello Mesut Tez,

I don't think that there ever was a cosmic inflation but if there would be an inflation then the speed can be estimated. The general consensus is that space is curved. There is local curvature out of the bumpy distribution of matter and global curvature out of the average distribution of matter. It is often pictured as an expanding balloon. But in this case we have to talk about a 4D balloon. This you can call a hypersphere.

If we go back to the balloon in 3D then it is more easy to imagine. This balloon, expanding sphere, has a radius and a surface. The surface is in this case 2D and the radius is orthogonal to this surface. In a Hypersphere the surface is 3D and the radius is orthogonal to that space in a 4th dimension. What we know of an expanding sphere is that all points on the surface separate with the same principle as the Hubble law. If the distance between point A and B is 1 unit and the distance between A and C is 2 unites then the separation speed between A and C is double the separation speed between A and B. When the separation distance between the two points is equal to the length of the radius, (point RAD) then the separation speed is equal to the expansion speed of the balloon. This is valid for every radius of the balloon. So when the balloon was small that same point RAD was near by point A. The distance increases with the increasing of the radius.

Now we can use this to estimate at what speed space would expand. We can see with our space observation tools unto a limit. That limit is the cosmic microwave background radiation CMBR. At that distance it is measured that space deviates from flat space less than the measurement accuracy. The CMBR moves away from us with z=1079. That is 1080 x the speed of light!! At that distance we are by far not yet at the radius distance where the curvature of the hypersphere would be 1 radial, about 53°

As you can see from this estimation the expansion of any hypersphere would go with a multitude of the maximum z value we can observe. With that speed there can't be any gravitational effect into this 4th dimension. So the attempt to assume that matter in 3D space has a 4D effect leads to impossible results.

The 4D spacetime that is used in the General Theory of Relativity equations has to be something totally different. There the time direction is set equal to one times the speed of light.

As I told you at the start, I am not convinced that space expands. You may look into my article and see that I have derived that the mass inside space, that generates gravity, has no relation with any possible scale change of the universe. Further I am convinced that the observed cosmological redshift never was confirmed to be originated from movement and that also the assumption that space expands is based on the assumption that matter is constant. Since also this never is tested they all are beliefs.

We have, since Galileo, started to abandon any interpretation that space rotates, where we would have a similar Hubble rule but not for radial direction but for tangential direction, and we have abandoned the interpretation that space translates. Instead of space rotation or translation we assume that we rotate and translate. With the same logic that we come to the conclusion that we move, we should conclude that space is constant in size and that any observed scale change originates from the change of scale of the matter. With that there are no more speeds that exceed the speed of light and there are no more infinitesimal small volumes that would have had infinitesimal large amounts of space.

I hope that you see from my answer that any assumed expansion leads to complete irrational results. I have given all the rational here to support my view. I hope that it can be an answer on your question.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Universe is very large and there exists causally disconnected regions, meaning information cannot reach from one region to another at the speed of light (c) given that universe has a well defined age (13.8 billion years approx). There is, then, a difficulty in explaining homogeneity among such causally disconnected regions (horizon problem) of space. Inflation is a mechanism which sets identical initial conditions of regions which are causally disconnected, which solves the horizon problem.

I can derive the Hubble constant from the hypothesis that the universe is an expansion of time (a four-dimensional (hyper)spherical wavefront), and only collaterally an expansion of space. By treating space as the surface of a four-dimensional sphere with a current radius of 13.82 billion years (equivalent to 13.82 billion light-years), a Hubble constant of 70.6 (km/s)/Mpc is derived from the measure of the expansion of a megaparsec arc on the surface, independent of empirical measurement or mathematical inversion. And one would think that a close correlation between the advancing temporal cosmic radius and the expansion of the arc subtending a Mpc suggests at least a remarkable coincidence, worthy of further investigation. ... But alas.

Data An advancing time hypothesis

dear Arnold

I read your manuscript entitled " AN ADVANCING TIME HYPOTHESIS " with great interest.

Thanks

Thank you, Mesut. It does seem intuitively similar to the basis of your question.

James Arnold,

You can get the principle of the Hubble law with your expansion model, but the same is described in my answer above. only I try here to come with real numbers and then your model with an expansion needs extreme speeds. The radius increases with the same speed as the distance of one radial separated points move away from each other. One Mpc arc is an extreme small part of that distance.

regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul,

You write that "[I] can get the principle of the Hubble law with [my] expansion model, but the same is described in [your] answer above."

I don't just get the principle of the Hubble constant, I derive the empirical finding from hypothesis. And I don't see how my "model with an expansion needs extreme speeds."

The expansion of space is not a "speed" in the usual sense. There is nothing moving from point A to point B in the expansion of space as it is commonly understood. The "Hubble constant" is strictly speaking only a "constant" at the present time, a measure of spatial expansion that is uniform across the universe now -- it might be best to call it a "universal" rather than a "constant." But the expansion has been accelerating as the surface of the universe has expanded, and the galaxies are not actually accelerating (or speeding uniformly) away from each other -- that would be impossible, as each would have to be simultaneously accelerating toward some and away from others, which of course is not what is being observed.

Dear James Arnold,

The expansion speed is something different to normal speed. Expansion speed is the movement of the fabric of space. The normal speed is movement through the fabric of space. Expansion is the movement of the comoving coordinates. Normal movement is moving from one coordinates to the next in the comoving coordinate frame. From the viewpoint of the comoving coordinate frame everything shrinks. From the viewpoint of our normal reference frame the comoving reference frame expands.

If we assume that our normal reference frame is at rest, then distance between the coordinate points of the comoving reference frame increases. Change in distance over time is defined as speed (v=dS/dt). The speed relates to the distance according to the Hubble law. This speed that is the subject in the Hubble law has no upper boundary since there is no upper boundary between coordinate points of the comoving reference frame. This is why I say that we end up with unlimited speeds. That are speeds of separation of comoving coordinates points. Galaxies tend to stay around these points. So Galaxies can move away from each other with unlimited speed while drifting on the fabric of space. In the same time they move around with very limited speed through the fabric of space.

I hope that I make clear that I understand the Hubble law.

Now, in my answer above I have taken the assumption that we have an expanding universe. You assume that the universe is a 4-Dimensional hypersphere with a radius of 13.82 billion years (equivalent to 13.82 billion light-years). With that you assume that the radius of the universe is expanding with light speed. In my answer above I have derived that you actually can estimate the expansion speed of the radius out of the observations. And then you come to the conclusion that the expansion speed of the radius is extreme, many thousand times, faster than the speed of light. So again here you have the result that we have extreme speeds.

In this text I use the term fabric of space. This can be just the mathematical coordinates or what ever you want to put in there. If we talk about something that expands then, what ever it is, we can trace it with those galaxies that move with it.

I hope that you now understand why I talk about extreme speeds.

The speed of time as in the question is completely unrelated to this expansion speed. That speed of time is the hypothetical relation between the unit of time and the unit of length via dS=c*dt. Unit of time multiplied by the speed of light is defined equal to the unit of distance. This is nice in the Minkowski space. But that is a mathematical entity only.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul, yes we agree that the "fabric" of space is expanding. Thank you for the clarification.

We disagree on the speed of time, which I derive from the implication of the Minkowski diagram properly conceived (freed of its pre-relativistic flaw).

I contend that I'm on firmer ground be deriving the Hubble constant from the hypothesis, i.e., I derive the observation from the hypothesis, whereas you derive a hypothetical (extreme expansion speed) from observation.

Some people may disagree with this; they may feelthat there is some absolute standard of time—a smoothly running time that fits

the differential equations used by physicists and is not composed of lumpy

events forever succeeding one another. But no way of measuring such a

“smooth” time has ever been found. All time as we know it is measured, and in

a sense produced, by processes that are iterative, lumpy, and discontinuous.

from

CHAOS AND LIFE

COMPLEXITY AND ORDER

IN EVOLUTION AND THOUGHT

RICHARD J. BIRD

Dear James Arnold,

You are content that you are on firmer gourd because you derive what you should see from Minkowski space hypothesis. You remind me from my time at school. When I was at the end of primary school I played a theatre play of Dr Faust. I happened to play the main character. This Dr Faust had a student. This student also felt very content when he looked out into the simplicity of the observation from his study environment enlightened by the light of science.

I learned in all my work that the observation is first and the explanation has to fit onto the observation. Minkowski diagrams are mathematical constructs. When you have a hypothesis that they are reality then you should explain me what exactly happens when curvature generates the effect of gravity.

I have derived that time, as carried, experienced, by matter, can change. We know that clocks in different environments have different speeds. We also know that the internal clock of subatomic particles can change their speed. So the principle that the progress of time is experienced different for different environments is, I hope, not a point of discussion between us.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul, you have a rather non-standard appreciation for observation -- or rather, a lack there-of.

Regarding your idea that "clocks in different environments have different speeds", if you mean the relative differences due to relative uniform motion, or the absolute differences due to accelerations, I agree.

Dear James Arnold,

I hope I didn't offend you. It was meant humorous. When you state 'I derive the observation from the hypothesis' I understand that as that you take an assumption, a hypothesis, and out of that you derive what you see. So you take first the theory and later the observation. I would expect that we first take the observation, the redshift, and then come with theories that might explain our observations.

Maybe you think that I have the position that space expands with extreme speed. I disagree with that. I try to show that the concordance model of the universe, the Lambda-CDM, has extreme speeds. In there the Hubble value is valid over whole space and there are enough documents that put emphasis on the interpretation that space expands such that at large enough distance, where the parameter z is larger than one, the recession speed exceeds the speed of light. I have seen several other interpretations that try to explain the same redshift by other models, but then I see no explanation of the time stretching that is observed in the supernova explosion sequence. Tired light can show explain redshift. It can't explain why the duration of a supernova also stretches with the same parameter z.

This is why I think I am on firm ground that one of the main explanations of the redshift implies extreme high speeds of the fabric of space.

I then come with a different explanation where I propose that the universe doesn't expand. As a consequence quite some other parameters have to change. One of them is the time. But the time is related to movement. So if matter had a larger size in the past then everything in that matter went slower.

When you think that the universe is a hypersphere then you have to calculate the speed of the expansion of the hypersphere radius. I showed you above that also the increase in length of that radius has to be an extreme high speed. This follows out of the observed redshift, the adopted explanation of space expansion and the mathematical fact that the speed of expansion of the radius is equal to the speed of expansion of the circumference at a distance of one arc radial from the observer. So when you take all that together then you see that we have an assumed expansion speed in the visible universe that exceeds at least 10 times the speed of light and also that at that distance there is no observed indication of curvature, so we are not yet at the one radial distance. Then I do mathematical estimations and state that the increase of the hypersphere radius is extreme larger than the speed of light.

I hope that you understand how geometrically I derive these speeds. Minkowski space is a mathematical construct. It helps in calculations but in there the time axis length unit is set equal to the c*t. So if there would be an expansion with this speed then space would be smaller than our observable universe. At z=2PI we would look into our own back. It seems that this is in contradiction with observation.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

“….According to the theory of inflation, the Universe grew faster than light and I think speed of inflation is "speed of time" at the same time. We are convicted of this inflation(time) with gravity…”

It seems that the “inflation epoch” indeed was very short; at that the Matter’s spacetime expansion wasn’t with a constant speed, it was exponential; and so even in average was much more then with the speed of light. Besides, the 4-th fundamental force “Gravity” is indeed utmost universal force and exists between all/every material objects: particles that have rest masses and “restmassless” ones, for example, photons, bodies, stars, etc ; however only between the objects. Including the speed of light is only a property of the objects: all/every objects move in the Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with 4D speeds that all have identical their absolute values be equal to the sped of light; at that the objects by no means impact on the spacetime.

Thus if at the inflation there were no the objects, then there was no gravity.

Some rater rational version of what happened at the Matter’s Beginning – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute

Sec. 6.1.3. The problem of Beginning and evolution of Universe

Cheers

Paul, thank you, you didn't offend me.

"I would expect that we first take the observation, the redshift, and then come with theories that might explain our observations."

One example of the significance of theory preceding observation jumps to mind: Einstein's prediction of the bending of light due to gravitation, and calculation of what it would look like. My prediction of the Hubble "constant" could have preceded its derivation from experience. Generally speaking, when a number of attempts are made to fit an observation to various theories, the impression is less decisive.