[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells

[John Clark]

This is the third time I tried to post this, it bounced the other 2 times.

========

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:

​> ​
> John, the nature of nested Schwarzschild geometries makes sense out of all
> ​ ​
> our observations to date.
>

I don't think so.The Schwarzschild
​ ​
equation says that the future of everything inside the event horizon of a
non rotating black hole is in the direction of the singularity at the
center, but what our telescopes tell us is things are not going to collapse
into a singularity but instead the universe is expanding and accelerating
and the singularity was in our past not out future.
​ ​
Physicists Sean Carroll
has more to say about this in a article called "The Universe is Not a Black
Hole" at
​
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/04/28/
the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/#.WlKd-tQrLMo



> ​> ​
> Observers within causal cells can never see
> ​
> anything actually leave their causal cell. The image of whatever crossed
> an event horizon is forever squashed on the event horizon getting redder
> ​
> and redder until it fades out at infinite time.


That's what some thought before it was discovered that the universe is not
only expanding but accelerating. You only need to wait a finite amount of
time before a distant galaxy you can see now will accelerate till it is
moving away from you  faster than the speed of light, and then it becomes
unobservable. We will see this happen for every galaxy in the universe in a
finite amount of time, except for Andromeda and a dozen of so dwarf galaxy
that are gravitational bound together with the Milky Way in the local Group.

 And you keep using the term
​"​
causal cell" but its not a common term in cosmology and I am no longer sure
what you mean by it. Is it the volume of the universe
​ ​
that could have had a effect on us
​ ​
or the volume of we can see now, or the volume we can still effect?
Those are 3 different volumes and if its the last 2 its shrinking with the
passage of time. And its not invariant, ever point in spacetime would be at
the center of a different (and shrinking) "causal cell", so it doesn't seem
like a very useful concept.

​> ​
> And no, John it can't be an infinite distance away because it has not had
> ​ ​
> infinite time to accelerate.
>

Because the universe is not only expanding but accelerating a galaxy we can
see right now can
​ ​
be infinity far away in spacetime,
that is to say
​ ​
we can't reach
​ ​
it any finite amount of time because we can't accelerate through space
​ ​
toward the galaxy until we're going faster than light
​ ​
but space itself canand so can that galaxy embedded in space.

​> ​
> I have already explained that the outward acceleration is caused by the
> ​ ​
> black hole that swallowed our causal cell.
> ​
>

I don't see why that would cause a uniform outward acceleration.



>
> ​>
> When that happened, our causal
> ​
> cell went from being a black hole to being a time-reversed black hole: a
> ​
> white hole.


​
That sounds a bit like a Einstein-Rosen
​ ​
bridge
​ ​
that connects a Black Hole to a White Hole, but to make one of those you'd
need matter with negative mass, that is matter that accelerates in the
direction opposite to
​ ​
the
​ ​
applied force, and although such stuff would not cause any mathematical
inconsistencies there is no evidence such a thing actually exists. There is
no evidence White Holes exist either and there should be because they would
be even more conspicuous than Black Holes.

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20180111/31d8d481/attachment.html>