Expanding time?

Correct me if I am wrong cavediver, but from my understanding there would be no way to tell if the universe is rotating without an outside point of reference. Since the universe is defined as the spacetime dimension in which we reside, there in essence cannot be anything outside of this universe which could be considered a point of reference outside.The only other way to determine if our universe was rotating would be to somehow be able to observe our universe from another dimension other than the 4 dimensions of spacetime i.e. the brane-bulk cosmological theory which suggest that there are higher dimensions in which our spacetime universe resides. This brane-bulk cosmological theory is still theoretical and not proven. However, it makes the most sense mathematically and provides valid explanations for previously unanswerable physics questions such as why gravity is so weak.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Word of Warning in concern of V-Bird: I would agree with CaveDiver, that V-Bird, at the least, misconstrues modern cosmological theories accepted by the whole of the scientific community and, at the most, deliberately misinforms people with unsubstantiated giberish. I am not sure what his motives are (i.e. selling a book, etc) but in my opinion, I would totally ignore him.And no I am not being bigoted nor do I think V-Bird to be less intelligent than me (I cannot make that type of value judgement). I just don't think it is fair for unsuspecting members to think that he speaks for the whole of the scientific community when he obviously does not.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Oh yes, I forgot Newtons spinning bucket hypothesus and Mach's discussion of whether there is a space "ether" from which we could determine the affect of centrificul forces on the water inside the bucket. Something to that affect. I would have to do some further reading on this as well .

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Actually spacetime is expanding faster than light not "as fast as light". In fact the inflation of the universe is accelerating at an increase pace. No, spacetime itself is stretching out in 4 dimensions (3 of space and 1 of time) from singularity. As pointed out by CD there is a way to determine if the universe is rotating but it is rather complex. All I know is that it has something to do with centrifugal forces as proposed by Ernst Mach. CD would you like to expound on this?

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

What you negate in your reasoning is Hubble's constant derived from his discovery of red shifted galaxies. Further expounded, galaxies exponentially increase with speed the further away they are from each other (which is just an illusion because it really is space that is stretching the distances apart).If we reverse this expansion, it takes us back to a singularity of infinite density and infinite gravity (actually this depends if the universe is infinite or not, if it is finite than the density resides at or below the immensely dense but not infinite Planck density, if the universe is infinite than this density would be infinite). Thus, how could this singularity be of "average cosmological density" of the present universe? If this where the case there would be no singularity, no Big Bang no crunch; and we would live in a static non-expanding, non-contracting universe (which Einstein himself originally proposed and later called his biggest blunder). However, this does not jive with what Hubble's constant & red shift evidence and the cosmic background radiation evidence from COBE, WMAP and other scientific studies. The infinitely aged static universe would be on an infinitely sharp pinnacle between the forces of gravity on one side pulling everything inward and vacuum energy/dark energy pulling everything apart which is nowhere substantiated by scientific evidence. In addition, an infinite age of a static universe would indicate that the universe would be in a deep freeze in which stars, galaxies and all matter would have disintegrated by now and the universe would be a void of nothingness.I take it by "average cosmologically density you are including matter, dark matter, energy, and dark energy into your equation are you not? By law of conservation of energy, all matter & energy (dark or otherwise) is wrapped into closed spacetime and condensed to the infinite density and gravity of singularity would it not at some point in time?So why do scientists think that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light during the universes earlier inflationary period?What we are observing as the expansion of the universe faster than light is the after effects of the universes' earlier inflationary period mere 10-30 or so after the Big Bang commenced the universe underwent an extraordinary rapid expansion of spacetime even faster than the speed of light. This super rapid inflation fits the cosmological models because it solves the problems of flatness and that of the density fluctuations that resulted in matter coming together to form galaxies, stars, etc. If the universe was not geometrically, flat so to speak (i.e. sphere) than the universe would most likely collapse back in itself (big crunch). If it was a hyperbola, than the universe would expand so fast into a "big freeze" in which matter would be flung apart and could not congeal into the large structures of galaxies, stars or even planets. However evidence shows that this not the case, the average density of the universe is slightly above its critical density and the universe is "flat" 3 dimensionally and the universe is expanding at a rate somewhere between the results of a "big crunch" and a "big freeze" which explains why it now appears that universe is accelerating in its expansion.I know CD will correct me on some of this, but this is my own understanding based on the evidence for this cosmological model that the majority of the scientific community has accepted based on decades of research and experimentation. V-Bird if you want to pick this apart go ahead but you better provided substantiated evidence and logic to back up your point of view, otherwise it is meeningless giberish.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

What is moderate density? Can you define this "moderate density"? This term is so vague, it means absolutely nothing. Can you speak proper english please, what does "countenance" have to do with anything, this sentance makes no sense. How is gravity an effect of FTL interaction, whatever that means? Your sentances are pure pseudoscientific gobbly gook.You claim you are still tinkering around with your totally unsubstantiated proposal for the last 20+ years and are not ready to publish it. Then you have the audacity to say the entire cosmological community else has it wrong and you are the only one in the "know". A real scientist would be humble enough to wait until he has tested and proven his hypothesis to see if what he or she proposes matches reality before challenging other theories. Even then he or she would be humble enough to work with other scientists of his field to further test his theory to ensure it was correct (this is EXACTLY what Einstein did as well many other REAL scientists).What a joke. Go peddle this on the Creationist site or youtube where you probably will get droves of people ignorant of modern cosmology, astromomy or even the basic tenants of the scientific method applauding your attempt to topple modern cosmology and scientific theory.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

No, what the moderators have said is if you make assertions, you need to back them up with real evidence. I am saying that literally, the distances between galaxies and other cosmologically macroscopic objects is increasing. The relatively weak force of gravity (compared to the other intensely stronger nuclear and electromagnetic forces) is keeping matter at a more cosmologically microscopic level i.e. stars, planets and the galaxies themselves from themselves flying apart. Meaningless assertions. How is Hubble's constant fundamentally wrong? The ridiculous 'belief' of conservation of energy? Are you fucking kidding me? It is only the cornerstone of modern physics and cosmology. The universe is a closed system subject to this conservation of energy, void or no void. A void implies being subject to spacetime and thus part of this universe anyways. The justification for an early FTL inflation of spacetime has to do with the specific geometry of our universe, specifically whether the density of the universe (Omega) is greater or less than a certain critical density. It has nothing to do with a 'void'? Whatever that means. Can you provide any evidence for this? This seems to be a plagerism off modern cosmological models in which it is determined that negative-pressure vacuum energy is proposed to to cause the earlier super rapid inflation of the universe. Mass and energy cannot be created out of nothing in a closed system i.e. universe. They can only be converted back and forth i.e. from energy to mass and vice versa. EM is not sub-light. It proceeds at the speed of light. Mass and energy are two physical attributes of the same entity, matter. As matter approaches the speed of light its mass infinitely increases and the energy required to push it increases infitely as well. Pure energy proceeding at the speed of light has 0 rest mass. However, matter can never exceed this universal speed limit. Einstein's theory of special relativity breaks down in a supposed "FTL universe". If a FTL universe existed than matter and energy could not exist? What happens to matter in a FTL universe as its speed increases? How could energy exist at an infinite speed? It makes abosulutely no sense and goes against all the laws of physics. Have you considered you are going down the wrong path and that before proposing a FTL universe that you need to ensure it fits the laws of modern physics?

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Thief,Here is a book for the uninformed layman that will help you out (though it is about a decade old itself) and explain some of the underpinnings of modern cosmology and quantum physics. It is called Hyperspace by theoretical physicist Michio Kaku. The first section goes into the history of todays understanding of multidimensional space including the 4 dimensions of spacetime that we humans can percieve. Like cavediver rebutted, you are 100 years behind the power curve and are talking in terms of the 19th century and prior. Trailblazers such as 19th and early 20th century mathematicians and physicists Carl Gauss, Bernhard Riemann, Theodor Kaluza, Oskar Klein and of course Albert Einstein (this is not an all inclusive list) at the turn of the century helped explore and define the nature of spacetime and layed the foundation for the field of quantum mechanics.Theoretical physicist and leading string theorist, Brian Green's books "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" give us a more up to date picture of today's understanding of quantum mechanics and multidimensional space.Kaku has a new book called "M-Theory: The Mother of All Superstrings" but I have not had a chance to read it yet.As I myself am a layman I defer to Cavediver to correct me if I am wrong in any of this. I am just trying to help out another physics layman.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

I am glad you realize this. Not many layman do. Many think that without training, education they can comprehend concepts that have taken decade if not centuries to develop. A good quote that sums this up is by Isaac Newton (though he himself did not originate this metaphore but rather it is recycled from the 12th century) in a letter to his rival Robert Hook: I'll take a crack at this. Though I will defer to our resident physicist Cavediver if I get this wrong. Space-time is a 4 dimensional zero-point energy field in which energy and matter resides. Spacetime, energy and matter are all intricately linked physically in our universe. Spacetime is really a difficult concept for layman (like myself) to even begin to understand.However, to answer your question technically the answer is no, time is not energy or matter but rather part of the framework (I think mathematicians and physicists use the term 'manifold') in which energy-matter resides and interact. Also energy and matter themselves are two different forms of the same 'substance' as defined by Einstein's famous E=MC2 forumula.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Problem is Thief,Your posts make no sense. They are not coherent or understandable. And what is the point of your post. It makes no sense.Since a half dozen or more people on this one thread have complained about your incoherent posts (even after trying to correct your misguided beliefs and knowledge on the subject), many of which have advanced degrees and are specialists in this field of science, we would think you would have caught on and tried to make your posts more understandable and logical.Instead you insult us and the moderators of the post. What do you think is going to happen?

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan