[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells
Stuart LaForge
avant at sollegro.com
Mon Jan 22 00:30:44 UTC 2018
John Clark wrote:
>> A causal cell is a finite volume of space-time enclosed by an event
>> horizon wherein all inertial observers should agree on the temporal
>> ordering of time-like or light-like separated events, thus sharing an
>> arrow of time.
>
> If I say A caused me to do B nobody within my Hubble volume would disagree
> and say my doing B caused A to happen, although somebody outside my Hubble
> volume might.
Yes, nobody who is currently inside your Hubble volume would disagree with
your ordering of events. But nobody outside your Hubble volume would ever
disagree with you either because they could not see you even in principle.
I think that is whole point of event horizons is that they are like
curtains that prevent observers from seeing violations of causality, like
seeing A happening to you somewhere *while* they see you are doing B at
the same time somewhere else. Or in the case of reversed time, B causing
you to do A.
Event horizons prevent us from seeing places where time is flowing in a
different direction than it is for us thus we are spared from seeing
temporal paradoxes and violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics such as
supernovae unexploding.
> If we’re talking about my Hubble volume then the answer to your question
> is
> my now, if you’re standing a foot from me your Hubble volume will be
> slightly different than mine, very very very slightly.
That's only true if the Cosmological Principle is true and the universe
really is isotropic and homogeneous forever and since my own theoretical
research has given me reason to doubt this, I call bullshit.
If my Theory of Causal Cells is true, however, the cosmological event
horizon is a real event horizon that everything in our causal cell is
falling outward toward. In other words, it is an actual real place with
coordinates and everything.
If the Cosmological Principle is true, then you are right, and every
observer sees their own unique Hubble volume and it follows them around as
they move. That means that all observers must always be at rest with
respect to *their* cosmological event horizon regardless of the direction
and magnitude of their momentum.
Is that true? Let's see.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html
See that gradient of white to black shading on the second picture in the
top row? That white spot is the spot on the CMB surface of last scattering
that our solar system is moving toward at a velocity of 386 km/s.
When you factor in that our solar system is orbiting the black hole
designated as Sagittarius A*, aka center of the Milky Way galaxy,
obliquely *away* from that spot at a velocity of 230 km/s, that means that
Sagittarius A* and the whole galaxy are hurtling toward the cosmological
event horizon at 631 km/s or about 1/500 the speed of light.
So you see, the fact that there is such a thing as CMB rest frame that our
galaxy can be moving with respect to violates the Cosmological Principle
and invalidates it.
Couple that with the fact that the cosmic microwave background is
spatially the largest dipole we have ever measured, and you can see that
the Robertson=Walker metric no longer holds water. It's time to throw it
out.
But instead what do the cosmologists do? They hand-wave it all away, then
prune out our own galaxy from their data set so that they can focus on the
relatively minor hot spots and cold spots in the bottom picture at my
linked URL above.
That's laughably ridiculous. That's like patently ignoring the elephant in
the room and then speculating upon the existence of peanuts on the floor.
So forgive me for thinking that the cosmologists might have dropped the
ball on this one.
>> I know that equation looks ridiculously simple but it is derived from
>> the Schwartzschild metric and as counter intuitive as it sounds, a
>> white-hole's density should *increase* as it loses matter and energy and
>> its event horizon shrinks.
>
> Then we can’t be living in a white hole because there is no experimental
> evidence the density of the universe is increasing and plenty of evidence
> it is decreasing.
If I allow dark energy into my equations with positive mass, then the
density of a white hole can decrease but if, and only if, its event
horizon surface increases to compensate. Hell dark-energy could be the
white hole equivalent of time-reversed Hawking radiation.
What the Schwarzschild metric is really telling us is that any arbitrary
space-like interval has a mass density. As the mass density of that
spatial interval increases, it becomes more and more time-like. Gravity is
in a sense a measure of how time-like that spatial interval has become.
But that interval's linear density cannot increase without limit. At a
certain point, that spatial direction becomes saturated with mass-energy
and becomes a time interval. What this means is that a given interval of
space can only contain only so much mass before it ceases to be space and
becomes time.
>>> That's just it. It is not possible for both of them to be shrinking.
>>> The Friedmann Equations are wrong because they are based on
>>> the Robertson-Walker metric.
>> Forget the mathematics, in physics as in all science empirical evidence
>> always outranks theory, if what a theory predicts and the facts about the
>> universe are inconsistent the universe doesn’t care because facts remain
>> facts.
No, I will not forget the mathematics. In and of itself, math is the only
thing in the world guaranteed to be true and for all of time and in every
place no less. That's why prime numbers matter and the laws of physics use
math instead of say French for example.
Maybe you should remind cosmologists to stick with the facts. They are the
ones that prune their data to fit an outdated model and then when that
isn't enough, they patch and adjust their model to fit their pruned data
instead of just throwing it out and upgrading to a better model.
Me? I am just naive traveller with a love of truth, knowledge, and the
relationship between them. And the simple fact of the matter is that the
Hubble radius marks demarcates an event horizon that we cannot see beyond
period.
And any assertion of what *might* be out there is an extrapolation of one
sort or another. What the Robertson-Walker metric does is extrapolate an
*observation* i.e. it looks flat, isotropic and homogeneous in here so it
must be flat, isotropic, and homogeneous *out there*.
That's no different than going back to the casino because you won the last
time you were there. At least I am trying to extrapolate math and general
relativity out there and not a simple assumption based upon a myopic view
of the universe.
>> Experiment outranks theory and the facts say both the density and
>> the area of our Hubble volume are decreasing, so the product of the two
>> can’t be constant.
So can you find me some experimental results that don't presuppose the
Cosmological Principle? Also for which is there *more* evidence:
decreasing density or decreasing surface area?
And regardless of what the density and surface area of the Hubble volume
are doing over time, the simple fact of the matter is that as of 2018,
their product equals 3c^2/(2G) as does the product of the event horizon
surface area and density of every black or white hole.
> Obviously on a small scale that is true, but if you look at boxes a few
> hundred million light years on a side it is pretty homogeneous, and
> without
> simplifying assumptions none of the fundamental laws of physics would have
> ever been discovered because things are just too complicated.
Ok, so let me get this straight: on the smallest scales space-time is flat
enough that you can do calculus on Lorentzian manifolds. But then as your
scale gets bigger, on the scale of stars and galaxies, it is curved. But
then, as your scale gets bigger, to scale of dark matter filaments and
voids, space-time becomes flat again . . . out to infinity?
How do we know that space-time curvature doesn't oscillate like a sine
wave as you zoom out on the infinite universe, with the arrow of time
spinning around? Because what's *out there* has to be the same as it is
*in here* or our heads will explode?
You yourself quoted Einstein to me once: "Every thing should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler." The Robert-Walker metric is too
simple.
>> the so-called-universe cannot possibly be homogeneous because there is an
>> actual bona-fide event horizon 14 billion light years away from us.
> You’re using the same word for both the surface area of a Black Hole and
> of
> a Hubble volume, and I think that’s a bad idea.
Why not? Event horizons are even more general than causal cells. They
involve velocities that approach the speed of light rather than anything
specific to gravity. They can be of positive or negative time polarity.
They can be real or apparent. They can be planar or round.
For example, if you are in a spaceship being uniformly accelerated, then
as you draw closer to the speed of a light, a big flat event horizon will
appear behind you and start following you around.
And the closer you get to the speed of light, the closer the event horizon
will get to your ship. If this event horizon contacts your ship, then
Bell's Spaceship paradox ensues and your spaceship breaks apart.
> If I’m anywhere inside a
> Black Hole I will come into contact with things at the event horizon when
> we both reach the singularity, but I will never come into contact with
> things on the surface of my Hubble volume.
But your statement is precisely the temporal inverse of "If I'm anywhere
inside a white hole, then when I reach the event horizon, I will no longer
be in contact with anything that I was in contact with when we both left
the singularity."
> If you want to preserve CPT symmetry I think you’ll need to switch to the
> Kerr–Newman metric because although Reissner–Nordström understands
> electrical charge it ignores spin, and a key element of spin is parity.
> And parity is the P in CPT.
Ah good point. Thanks. :-)
Stuart LaForge
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list