Expansion of space-time

[HydrogenBond]

Here is something that came to me the other day. If we assume the expanding universe is related to the expansion of space-time and if we call our earth reference, the zero reference, is some of the universe expanding into something loosely analogous to negative space-time, since the middle of the universe, more or less, it is already zeroed out at earth? Or is the universe still expanding toward the real zero reference such that the earth is not really at zero reference, except by human convention?

The first scenario leads to some interesting results. If the universe is expanding into negative space-time, one would expect something analogous to time and distance expansion affects relative to zero reference. Instead of things appearing to last longer, via SR, things are happening faster. This could explain what appears to be an accelerated expansion. It could explain the very energetic explosions at the perimeter. Phenomena should last billions of years are being used up much quicker, relative to our reference, resulting in the extreme energy output.

The second scenario, leads to an new SR consideration. Has anyone worked with the reciprocal of SR, where relative velocity lowers mass, for example. As an application, say one was part of a huge space exploration program, with a city sized space-ship. It is made to travel near C. The journey takes hundreds of years and many generations. One day it is voted to call the inside of their ship zero reference, out of mathematical convenience, rather than continue to tie the reference, to vague memory of earth.

They finally reach their destination, after many more generations. There is a beacon signal from their final port of call. If one used relative velocity and SR, relative to them being called the zero reference, the beacon would not come out right, but would appear to be a new phenomena. It should be time dilated, since it has a relative velocity is near C, relative to the ship. On the other hand, if you used reciprocal SR and plugged in V, it comes out right. The reason I asked this is, if the universe is expanding toward the real zero reference and the earth is not zero reference, except by convention, this might be useful.

[snoopy]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Here is something that came to me the other day. If we assume the expanding universe is related to the expansion of space-time and if we call our earth reference, the zero reference, is some of the universe expanding into something loosely analogous to negative space-time, since the middle of the universe, more or less, it is already zeroed out at earth? Or is the universe still expanding toward the real zero reference such that the earth is not really at zero reference, except by human convention?

The first scenario leads to some interesting results. If the universe is expanding into negative space-time, one would expect something analogous to time and distance expansion affects relative to zero reference. Instead of things appearing to last longer, via SR, things are happening faster. This could explain what appears to be an accelerated expansion. It could explain the very energetic explosions at the perimeter. Phenomena should last billions of years are being used up much quicker, relative to our reference, resulting in the extreme energy output.

The second scenario, leads to an new SR consideration. Has anyone worked with the reciprocal of SR, where relative velocity lowers mass, for example. As an application, say one was part of a huge space exploration program, with a city sized space-ship. It is made to travel near C. The journey takes hundreds of years and many generations. One day it is voted to call the inside of their ship zero reference, out of mathematical convenience, rather than continue to tie the reference, to vague memory of earth.

They finally reach their destination, after many more generations. There is a beacon signal from their final port of call. If one used relative velocity and SR, relative to them being called the zero reference, the beacon would not come out right, but would appear to be a new phenomena. It should be time dilated, since it has a relative velocity is near C, relative to the ship. On the other hand, if you used reciprocal SR and plugged in V, it comes out right. The reason I asked this is, if the universe is expanding toward the real zero reference and the earth is not zero reference, except by convention, this might be useful.

Yeah I thought about this some years ago but dismissed it as being wrong because it didnt really feel right.

There is no absolute zero reference and negative spacetime cannot exist after all spacetime is created at the big bang so you have to ask where the negative stuff was created if not at the big bang.

But interesting isnt it.

Peace

[Qfwfq]

Space is space. Coordinates can be negative, according to choice of reference, but space is just space. And Earth isn't at the centre of the universe!

[HydrogenBond]

The idea of negative space-time is a relative concept. It depends on what we call zero reference. If we were traveling at 0.99C and called this our zero reference, the earth reference would be negative relative to this. But negative relative velocity doesn't change the result of the SR equations. But the reciprocal added up properly. This simple assumption can do the same thing as more complicated approaches. It is new only in the sense of a new twist on a well proven set of equations.

For example, if we assume negative relative reference to earth, what should happen is space-time appearing to expand. This will not only create a red shift, but will create the appearance of acceleration. It will also cause things to speed up relative to our reference. With the speed of light constant, it will appear like very energetic affects. Thats the universe in a nut shell.

Using this approach, the dark matter and energy would amount to the conversion of mass due to the expansion of reference. In other words, if we increased velocity toward C, we would gain relativistic mass. This mass gain is connected to E=MC2, with the energy coming from the velocity. If we put on the brakes, this relativistic mass still needs to follow the conservation of energy. But since it is not part of the slow reference, due to SR, it needs to change into something else.

If we take negative space-time literally, it would imply matter hitting a cheese grater, i.e., loss of mass. In other words, if it was placed in such a reference, it would burn out quicker due to the distance-time expansion and the requirement of it also needing to lose mass. This different than shedding relativistic mass since it is starting with real mass. But it still may result in relativistic mass-energy, i.e., dark.

[UncleAl]

8.5x11 piece of paper, pen, enlarging photocopier. Draw five small circles randomly near the center of the paper and serially number their insides 1,2,3,4,5. Number the corner of the paper 1. Copy it with enlargement, say 10%. Take that copy, number its corner 1,2, and copy it with 10% enlargement. Take that copy, number its corner 1,2,3 and copy it with 10% enlargement. Number the last copy 1234

100% (1), 110% (1,2), 121% (1,2,3), 133% (1234) net enlargement start to finish, (1.10)^3.

Superpose #1 and #123 then hold the sandwich up to the light. Align each numbered circle in turn. All the other circles have moved no matter what circle you choose as a reference point. That's how the unverrse works. EVERY point is at the exact center. EVERY direction at EVERY point exactly points to the Big Bang EXACTLY the same distance away.

real zero reference

Aint no such, even in principle.

[snoopy]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

If we take negative space-time literally, it would imply matter hitting a cheese grater, i.e., loss of mass. In other words, if it was placed in such a reference, it would burn out quicker due to the distance-time expansion and the requirement of it also needing to lose mass. This different than shedding relativistic mass since it is starting with real mass. But it still may result in relativistic mass-energy, i.e., dark.

Yeah negative spacetime would be horrific but I dont think it exists.

Where would it come from ?

Qfwfq says space is just space but I dont think it is as simple as that.

After all space is made up of fields so it just isnt space its also interwoven explicitly with time into a 4 dimensional spacetime.

So space just isnt space its spacetime.

But that said I dont think negative spacetime exists.

Peace

[HydrogenBond]

One of the three SR equations is based on relativistic mass. This mass increase has a connection to the kinetic energy associated with velocity via E=MC2. This mass increase implies velocity on an absolute scale.

The conceptual problem, many fall into, is SR has three equations and relative velocity often uses only D, and T to make space-time. This partial use of SR can create the illusions of relative reference. Once you add M and the conservation of energy, there is absolute scale. Based on this absolute scale, measurements from a moving reference, relative to one with less relativistic mass, can be modeled with negative reference.

Relative reference, because it is based on 2 of 3 SR equations, will lead to the violation of the conservation of energy. Say we had one rocket in motion. We expended X energy to double its mass. We also have 10 stationary reference points at various positions, to view it. If we look out the moving rocket and see all 10 relative references at the same time, will we see then sharing a total of 10X energy? Even if we saw this, we know it can not real, since it would violate the conservation of energy and be a type of perpetual motion machine. If you just use one stationary and one moving reference it is easy to get tricked. If we add SR mass, we get an absolute scale that is velocity-energy dependent. In the above example, if any of the stationary references look at all the other ten reference the energy adds to X.

[steve 9]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Here is something that came to me the other day. If we assume the expanding universe is related to the expansion of space-time and if we call our earth reference, the zero reference, is some of the universe expanding into something loosely analogous to negative space-time, since the middle of the universe, more or less, it is already zeroed out at earth? Or is the universe still expanding toward the real zero reference such that the earth is not really at zero reference, except by human convention?

The first scenario leads to some interesting results. If the universe is expanding into negative space-time, one would expect something analogous to time and distance expansion affects relative to zero reference. Instead of things appearing to last longer, via SR, things are happening faster. This could explain what appears to be an accelerated expansion. It could explain the very energetic explosions at the perimeter. Phenomena should last billions of years are being used up much quicker, relative to our reference, resulting in the extreme energy output.

The second scenario, leads to an new SR consideration. Has anyone worked with the reciprocal of SR, where relative velocity lowers mass, for example. As an application, say one was part of a huge space exploration program, with a city sized space-ship. It is made to travel near C. The journey takes hundreds of years and many generations. One day it is voted to call the inside of their ship zero reference, out of mathematical convenience, rather than continue to tie the reference, to vague memory of earth.

They finally reach their destination, after many more generations. There is a beacon signal from their final port of call. If one used relative velocity and SR, relative to them being called the zero reference, the beacon would not come out right, but would appear to be a new phenomena. It should be time dilated, since it has a relative velocity is near C, relative to the ship. On the other hand, if you used reciprocal SR and plugged in V, it comes out right. The reason I asked this is, if the universe is expanding toward the real zero reference and the earth is not zero reference, except by convention, this might be useful.

Tell me what evidence you have that leads you to believe that this concept of space-time is a physical thing? Break it down if you want to, What makes you believe space or time is a real physical thing?

[steve 9]

Originally Posted by snoopy

Yeah I thought about this some years ago but dismissed it as being wrong because it didnt really feel right.

There is no absolute zero reference and negative spacetime cannot exist after all spacetime is created at the big bang so you have to ask where the negative stuff was created if not at the big bang.

But interesting isnt it.

Peace

You say space-time is created. What are the ingredients? What reference do you have that states space-time is a physical thing that exists?

[steve 9]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

8.5x11 piece of paper, pen, enlarging photocopier. Draw five small circles randomly near the center of the paper and serially number their insides 1,2,3,4,5. Number the corner of the paper 1. Copy it with enlargement, say 10%. Take that copy, number its corner 1,2, and copy it with 10% enlargement. Take that copy, number its corner 1,2,3 and copy it with 10% enlargement. Number the last copy 1234

100% (1), 110% (1,2), 121% (1,2,3), 133% (1234) net enlargement start to finish, (1.10)^3.

Superpose #1 and #123 then hold the sandwich up to the light. Align each numbered circle in turn. All the other circles have moved no matter what circle you choose as a reference point. That's how the unverrse works. EVERY point is at the exact center. EVERY direction at EVERY point exactly points to the Big Bang EXACTLY the same distance away.

Aint no such, even in principle.

According to what observed phenomenon?