Dear Mr. Grant,
I feel that this time it will be a long one, hope you will have enough time read.
After your last e-mail, I have noticed that sometimes you have to explain same concepts over and over again to me, which I believe can be very frustrating for you. Therefore, I went back and tried to carefully read all your previous e-mails not to make you repeat them again. Apologies in advance, if I will make you repeat any of our previous conversations again.
I see that after my last e-mail, my understanding on the subject seems a bit insufficient to you. That’s relatively correct on some subjects but thankfully, the walls of my prison is not that thick as you might think. I had the biggest paradigm shift on the concept of speed of light when I have found out about the velocity addition formula and solving some example cases with it. After seeing that, for example; the 2 objects travelling with 0,9c towards each other are travelling towards each other with about 0,994c in total which is very controversial to our common understanding. This has pushed me to think differently to better understand the idea of speed of light, time, dimensions etc. and as you have also witnessed, I came up with that true nature of dimensions theory at the end. So, don’t worry, I am not in that bad condition actually:) And your advices have also helped me to understand further, of course.
Having said that, I still have many problems in my head, even more than before. Many new ideas are coming up but I don’t rush to explain all to you because sometimes I can come up with some counter thoughts on my own within next few days. And sometimes, after I find something which I thought unique, I discover occasionally that somebody else has already come up with the same idea. That makes me happy to see that I am on the correct path but also makes me feel selfishly a bit sad, thinking that I could be the one who have first figured that out. I am comparatively less busy in these days, so I will take my time to go through your last e-mail and try to explain some of these ideas when it fits into our subject.
First, let me tell you that even it doesn’t seem so, in my previous mail my actual question wasn’t about understanding how the time dilation works. I wanted to get some questions out of my way while asking my actual question. My actual idea was; despite all these effects like relative mass increasing to infinity, one may not experience any difficulty even if they travel very close to speed of light and can even exceed it even though it seems impossible to outside observers or to their calculations. After asking you about what changes he will feel or observe while he reaches 10 light years distance within so short time, I looked at it on a Minkowski diagram and understood that due to length contraction effect, he will probably observe that the outside objects that he sees during his travel will seem like being compacted in his travelling direction and he will see that he is passing them much faster than what calculations say. He will probably calculate that he must exceed the speed of light to go that much of distance in so short duration of time but any measuring equipment that he uses would probably tell him that he doesn’t exceed it. As his speed gets close to speed of light, length contraction effect will become so much that when he look outside he will probably observe that the universe is getting compacted to a single line perpendicular to his travelling direction in front of his eyes as he reaches the speed of light, if he ever could reach to that speed.
This should be more or less what he experience while he is reaching to the speed of light but I cannot imagine what happens exactly when he reaches there. And for the question of; if he can ever reach to the speed of light, I assume that your answer would be; he cannot. While thinking about that, I have noticed that even if your relative mass increases to infinity, If we have enough advanced technology to use the mass as a fuel as in the most famous formula, it could mean that his fuel is also increasing to infinity. But then I have faced that problem of; even the fuel itself will become infinitely large so its energy may only be enough to take itself to the speed of the light. I have looked for that question in internet and found out that it has been already asked. https://www.quora.com/
I will change the subject a bit to talk about the some recent events. Few weeks ago, one of my colleagues whom I have talked about my theory, sent my blog post to his friend whom he says is obsessed with similar physics subjects. Few days ago my friend sent me his reply about it. He replied that according to Lorentz transformations for the constant velocities, the frame of the moving object can be shown with an angular rotation related to its rest frame and this rotation can be interpreted as the movement in a higher dimension so my theory may make sense. After that, I’ve read about Lorentz transformations and cannot say completely understood it but I liked his interpretation. Then while trying to further explain my theory to my colleague, I have drawn below Minkowski Diagram showing how the objects having different speeds take place in that diagram and how does their axis rotate accordingly.
By looking at that diagram, probably because of his friends comment and the things that I’ve read about Lorentz transformations, I found this very much look like a 4 conical gear setup which you can see below. (short animation of this is here: https://www.youtube.com/
May not be exactly the same since the gears on the Minkowski Diagram doesn’t turn on the exact axis with the above gears and their shape is not circular like those gears. But anyway it is a very close one. Today I have searched about “wheel of time” in internet hoping that I may find something similar to this and reached to this page and below animation which shows the exact motion that I was trying to describe. http://casa.colorado.edu/~
This was one of those moments which I have mentioned above. Somebody has thought it before me.
After seeing that, I was convinced more about that my theory actually works. In addition to those Minkowski Diagrams, I have drawn some v-t diagrams to see what happens when you approach and after you reach to the speed of light. It has showed me that you don’t change your direction towards the next dimension and you don’t move much away from your spatial dimension axis towards that next dimension until you get very close to the speed of light and only after you reach to speed of light, you turn your direction perpendicular to your pervious spatial axis (parallel to your previous time axis, which also explains why your time axis becomes the next spatial dimension that you start to move on). If that’s true, then our object travelling with speed of light will becomes a stationary object in the next higher dimensional space-time when it reaches to the speed of light in our space-time. So I interpret it as; any object having c speed in our 3d space-time environment, exists in 4d space time as stationary.
[Analogy corner:
Since the subject fits, I want to mention about a nice analogy that I have found to better understand the time and spatial dimension switching at the speed of light. I have imagined that I am standing by a train rail. A huge and infinitely long train is passing in front of me, representing the time. Inside of this train, I can see another train standing still like me because it is going to the opposite side of the huge train with the same speed, travelling inside of the huge train. That small train is representing the spatial dimension. Then, I start to run to catch the huge one. By the time I get close to its speed, it slows down for me while the small train inside gets faster. Then when I catch the speed of the huge one, I can get into it and see the one inside is now travelling with the same speed as the huge one at the beginning. Now, the huge train which represents time became spatial dimension and the small one vice versa. I know that there are many problems with this anology to fit into my theory completely but the scenario can be improved.
Another thing that this anology showed me while looking at different scenarios is that; while we are speeding up in our space-time, we might actually be slowing down in time direction. We can be a part of an explosion (I am not talking about the big bang as we know) being thrown away from the center of explosion. In this case, we would be exposed to maximum speed (time) if we stay stationary and we will be drifted away from the center (energy) of the explosion and when we try to speed up towards the center (to higher dimensions) we will actually become more stationary as our speed increases and we can get closer to center. In this analogy, I see the dimensions as different layer or energy levels of the explosion which we need to pass to reach the center. It needs to be improved I know, but at least it could give me a whole new way of looking at the universe. While drifting away from the center by the time, we are probably missing many things (other dimensions) because we are being drifted with so high speed. Just like being drifted by a very strong flow on a river. We can only move to the sides of the river while going with that strong flow because our any attempt to go front and back will not make any difference to us, like these directions dont exist for us to move. There is nothing but flow of the river in that direction. If the flow is fast enough, all the trees, and other structures will fade away so quickly that we won’t have chance to observe them. But if we can go back with the same speed of the river or if the flow stops then we will notice that we are able travel in front-back direction as well. Everything along the sides of the river will be observable to us like giving us a new dimension. Don’t know if I am missing something here but all these analogies are telling me that we will open the lock of a new spatial dimension when we reach the speed of light. Therefore, I know what it means; if we reach the speed of light, the time stops as you have highlighted many times. But now it also means to me that it becomes another spatial dimension. And there is still time concept in that higher space-time. It is always carried with the rotating time gear in Minowski Diagram. End of the analogy corner. ]
Then I learnt that in Special Relativity Theory, there is such a thing as 4 vectors which is the position of an event in space-time and it is shown with 4 coordinates as ct, x, y, z. I couldn’t figure out why the t is multiplied with c at first. When I thought in-line with my theory, I have figured out that it should actually represent a point on 4th dimensional axis. But since you are stationary on 4th dimension when you travel with speed of light in 3d space-time, this point should still be on that 4th dimension axis. It is like while living in 2d space-time on a surface of a balloon, being transferred to 3d space-time by reaching to speed of light but to still exist on that balloon’s surface. But I cannot figure out what the t stands for. Maybe it defines how far you are from axis center point. I will appreciate if you can help me on that if you could understand what I am talking about.
Going back to your mail, the twins’ paradox and "who is actually moving" question is a very interesting issue. I want to mention a related idea that I came up with recently. Do you remember that in the very beginning of our conversation, I have told you about that; I heard that due to the accelerating nature of the expansion of the universe, we might not see even the very close stars in future and you told that it is not possible and the guy who is telling that is mistaken? Later on, I guess that I have found the reason of your dispute. As I understand; the expansion of the universe also means the expansion of the space-time together with it. And as it turns out, the relativity theory doesn’t put any speed limit on the expansion of the space-time. Therefore, in future, the stars and planets will not move away from each other with higher speeds than what is allowed but the space-time itself will expand with a higher rate than the speed can reach us. Don’t know if this can convince you that it might be possible in future and I am also not sure that space-time can expand with a higher rate than speed of the light but this expansion issue gave me another thought.
Even today, the universe is expanding with a rate. It is not enough to prevent the light from the nearby stars to reach us. But it does after a certain distance which is around 13 billion light years as of today. It means that after that distance, even for the light itself, it will not be possible to reach us at no time (from the point of view of the light, not from the observers’ frame, which we know it takes about 13 billion years). This tells me something in-line with my theory. After 13 billion light years, our 3d space-time fades into the 4d space-time for the observers on earth. But for an object which is 1 billion light years away from us, these borders will change accordingly. They are 13 billion light years away from that observer. This tells me that our 3d space-time is a curved object within 4d space-time. Just like the surface of the earth, just like the ships fade away at the horizon due to the curvature of the earth, but this time due to the expansion of the universe, it curves into the 4th spatial dimension direction (or the expansion is a natural result of its curvature, whichever you please).
This tells me one more thing. Due to the accelerating nature of this expansion, the size of it also changes in 4d space-time. If the expansion rate was not changing, it would be like a static balloon in 4d space-time. Having acceleration in that expansion speed was first telling me that it really expands in 4d space-time. After after giving it a thought, I think that it actually shrinks. Just because of this acceleration, this 13 billion light year radius will get shorthened in time. It is analogous to a shrinking baloon for me. Only on a shrinking curved surface our observation limit will get smaller and smaller. And how does an expanding universe in 3d space-time can be shrinking in 4d space-time? I guess it has something to do with thatexplosion theory. If we are actually slowing down in 4d space-time by speeding up in our 3d space-time, an expansion in our space-time can be equal to shrinking in 4d space-time? I need to think on this further.
So, this thought brings me to an interesting point with your “who is actually moving” question. In above paragraph, we cannot say which object is actually moving. They just get away from each other because the space-time that they stand on stretches with a very very small speed compare to speed of the light. Can we consider each of them is moving away from all of the others? In above idea, none of them actually changes dimension from their own point of view, only observing an effect depending on their distance from the other object and their relative speed. So can we say it is all relative? Your dimensional existence for the other observers is depending on how the other observers see you? You can exist on 4th dimensional space-time to me just because of my location and speed? I guess that I am getting to a point as you have mentioned earlier, the importance of life concept and what does it matter if there is no one to observe. It is nice to start to understand it. But need to give it more thought to digest, I guess.
This e-mail even got longer than I have expected. I guess, I have collected too many things to share. I will say something on acceleration then I will finish.
About your question of instant acceleration; I have thought about this before. Do you remember the below graph? I have come to a conclusion that the acceleration in our space-time should also have a limit like the speed of light when I have explained you my dimension theory frst.
When I have first understood the true nature of dimensions, the theory was telling me that having acceleration is equal to traveling in one higher spatial dimension therefore, the acceleration should be limited in our dimension so that the to the speed of light in one higher dimension also has a limit. Later on I gave more thought on this. First of all, it cannot be a numerical value since it needs one more speed component, so it shall be a formula including a speed component in it. I have read that in relativity theory there is no limit defined for the acceleration. But I believe this limit exist, as I said depending on that speed component and it exactly fits onto the hyperbolic time curves on the Minkowski diagram. (Also notice that, for any object travelling exactly on those curves, time stops, just like travelling at the speed of light with a constant speed. Any higher acceleration rate will go below that curve. If we can suddenly stop after having such acceleration, we would actually go back in time, which I believe is not possible.). An object cannot have any more acceleration at the speed of light, therefore acceleration limit should be equal to 0 where those curves hit the v=c line (that means at the infinity). And at anything before that point, this limit should be able to be defined with the speed of the object and tangent of the time curve in Minkowski diagram depending on which point our object exactly hits those curves. My math skills are not enough to find the formula but anybody who understands the concept and have enough mathematical skills can do that I guess. And all the above things are valid for the objects which have no mass, in order to find the theoretical limit. When the mass is involved, things will get more complicated for sure.
I will finish now. Hope this long e-mail did not bother you much. Have a nice day.
Kindest Regards,
F. Eren Çıracıoğlu
---------------------------------------------------
Hello Mr. Faruk Eren ÇIRACIOĞLU,I will try to discuss your email in some detail this evening.
As I mentioned earlier I do not mind long emails, nor complex discussions, but sometimes do not have much time to give a good reply.
I will be honest and sometimes, I realize you will learn and the question you ask today, you will be able to answer yourself tomorrow, so those things I tend to just overlook.
First, let me better explain the mass increase towards light speed, and why it would not give you infinite fuel.
The mass/energy of the atoms increases, as you approach the speed of light, but you do not get more atoms.
So your would still burn the same number of fuel atoms as before, even though each atom weighs more.
So even though you may have far more mass, the actual amount of fuel never changes.
You could ask the question, what if you could use the increasing mass/energy as fuel to keep increasing your speed.
However, this is in fact a perpetual motion machine ( in a relativistic sense ).
The mass/energy is increasing due to the velocity, so you could not ever use that mass/energy to increase your velocity further, because that could only decrease your velocity, as that mass/energy is directly related and results from your velocity/ kinetic energy. Decreasing it in any way, would directly decrease your velocity/kinetic energy. Realize if you have two exact same amounts of water, but one is hot, the hotter one has more mass/energy( although very very small amount more ).
Energy is mass, mass is energy. This is the principle of mass energy equivalence. A moving object has more energy/mass than a stationary object.
If your mass reached light speed, it would be infinite mass, it would weigh as much as the whole Universe! This is why mass cannot exceed the speed of light.
It destroys the definition of mass. But, this is not as limiting to speed and travel as you would think, there are "loop holes", which allow us to exceed the "linear velocity" speed of light. Transference of Matter, kind of like teleportation, allows you to "move" mass, from one point to another over a distance, without exceeding the speed of light. You just jump from point A to point B, without actually traveling through the intervening space at all. So this is one way, we can "exceed" the speed of light, but you should understand this is not really breaking the speed of light, because you are not speeding or traveling linearly between the two points.
So measurement of speed, becomes a convenience and is no longer an accurate measurement for this method of travel.
You could say, it took 1 second to disappear from point A and then reappear at point B, and they were 1 meter apart, so you must have traveled one meter per second.
But if you did not actually travel through the space in between, speed and velocity, does not make sense. Using this method, it would not matter if the distance was 1 meter, or 1 kilometer, or 1 million kilometers it would all take 1 second. So speed, just doesn't work to describe or measure this type of "instantaneous" propulsion.
So yes, we will never be able to experience going the speed of light, but there is nothing to experience! Light is stopped. So what would you experience, you would actually experience nothing, blackness, void, the absence of motion, time would stop. What does stopped time look like, it looks like nothing. This is what you would see, if you could travel at the speed of light. Nothing. Only as you approach C, do you see odd things, at C you would see nothing. I think I have tried to explain this, but maybe I used better words this time, which make more sense.
You say this, "So I interpret it as; any object having c speed in our 3d space-time environment, exists in 4d space time as stationary." which is correct, except we are already in 4d space/time. So you do not move or change from 3d to 4d, you are already and always in 4d, but the appearance of time and space changes.
As you have concluded, when you hit speed = C, you become stationary! Realize, if you could do the opposite of speed of light, or slow to a stop, or go speed = 0, it would be exactly the same as going C!! But, how could you stop?? Stop your motion, relative to the entire Universe, is as much a limit as reaching C. Do you see?
Now, you mention various times, going into another dimension, which you say as going from 3d to 4d, and this is what will allow us to travel very fast. In fact it would be better described as going from 4d to 5d, or more accurately using the definitions which define 5d and 6d, as our "hole" through which we can do "instantaneous travel", as I described above. See this animation from my site, although crude they give the general idea of what it would look like and how it works:
http://www.ovaltech.ca/ovlpics
If you saw a spaceship travel in this way, it would just appear to disappear from one location and appear in the other location, you would not see it move at all.
The key is the rotation or spin, or angular motion, which in a sense is like vibration. Motion, without moving. Speed but not, linear speed. This is 5d, this is where matter fits into the picture. Centripetal and Centrifugal. Inward spiraling and Outward spiraling motion. Instead of linear, from point A to B, we have Inward and Outward. What direction is Outward?? You cannot really point Outward or Inward, you see? In fact, the center of the Universe is all around us. If you want to point to the very center of the Universe, you have to point every where at once! This is the key to 5d, mass, and to "dimensional" travel.
You say, "If we are actually slowing down in 4d space-time by speeding up in our 3d space-time, an expansion in our space-time can be equal to shrinking in 4d space-time? ", this is very much on the correct path. Through the changing time, much of the problems associated with our understanding can be resolved. Time is a dimension. It is an inward outward loop, much like a circle or a sphere, but something more which is difficult for our 3-d minds to visualize. Attached is a good animation which is 4-dimensional, but linearly through the fourth dimension. And the reality of Mass/Space/Time is more like this animation:
http://www.ovaltech.ca/ovlpics
We cannot actually easily animate a true four dimensional motion, it is like a expanding balloon, which can expand in a loop, because it keeps coming out of the center. The center and the Outside surface, are the same place.
I hope this helps you understand the fourth dimension better. I have intentionally left out much explanation of the 5-d, just realize the 5th dimension is related to mass and more importantly, density. It is how much stuff there is. 5-d is almost like having pockets of 4-D within 4-D within 4-D, which can have many 3-D spaces within them at various times. So we have 3-D in the same space/time as more 3-D, which gives density. Is very difficult to describe in words, I will try again another time.
I hope this better explains the speed of light limit, and why you cannot, and would not want to travel at C. Also explains, why we do not need to travel at C, and how we can travel point to point, without ever exceeding C or traveling at C.
As I mentioned earlier I do not mind long emails, nor complex discussions, but sometimes do not have much time to give a good reply.
I will be honest and sometimes, I realize you will learn and the question you ask today, you will be able to answer yourself tomorrow, so those things I tend to just overlook.
First, let me better explain the mass increase towards light speed, and why it would not give you infinite fuel.
The mass/energy of the atoms increases, as you approach the speed of light, but you do not get more atoms.
So your would still burn the same number of fuel atoms as before, even though each atom weighs more.
So even though you may have far more mass, the actual amount of fuel never changes.
You could ask the question, what if you could use the increasing mass/energy as fuel to keep increasing your speed.
However, this is in fact a perpetual motion machine ( in a relativistic sense ).
The mass/energy is increasing due to the velocity, so you could not ever use that mass/energy to increase your velocity further, because that could only decrease your velocity, as that mass/energy is directly related and results from your velocity/ kinetic energy. Decreasing it in any way, would directly decrease your velocity/kinetic energy. Realize if you have two exact same amounts of water, but one is hot, the hotter one has more mass/energy( although very very small amount more ).
Energy is mass, mass is energy. This is the principle of mass energy equivalence. A moving object has more energy/mass than a stationary object.
If your mass reached light speed, it would be infinite mass, it would weigh as much as the whole Universe! This is why mass cannot exceed the speed of light.
It destroys the definition of mass. But, this is not as limiting to speed and travel as you would think, there are "loop holes", which allow us to exceed the "linear velocity" speed of light. Transference of Matter, kind of like teleportation, allows you to "move" mass, from one point to another over a distance, without exceeding the speed of light. You just jump from point A to point B, without actually traveling through the intervening space at all. So this is one way, we can "exceed" the speed of light, but you should understand this is not really breaking the speed of light, because you are not speeding or traveling linearly between the two points.
So measurement of speed, becomes a convenience and is no longer an accurate measurement for this method of travel.
You could say, it took 1 second to disappear from point A and then reappear at point B, and they were 1 meter apart, so you must have traveled one meter per second.
But if you did not actually travel through the space in between, speed and velocity, does not make sense. Using this method, it would not matter if the distance was 1 meter, or 1 kilometer, or 1 million kilometers it would all take 1 second. So speed, just doesn't work to describe or measure this type of "instantaneous" propulsion.
So yes, we will never be able to experience going the speed of light, but there is nothing to experience! Light is stopped. So what would you experience, you would actually experience nothing, blackness, void, the absence of motion, time would stop. What does stopped time look like, it looks like nothing. This is what you would see, if you could travel at the speed of light. Nothing. Only as you approach C, do you see odd things, at C you would see nothing. I think I have tried to explain this, but maybe I used better words this time, which make more sense.
You say this, "So I interpret it as; any object having c speed in our 3d space-time environment, exists in 4d space time as stationary." which is correct, except we are already in 4d space/time. So you do not move or change from 3d to 4d, you are already and always in 4d, but the appearance of time and space changes.
As you have concluded, when you hit speed = C, you become stationary! Realize, if you could do the opposite of speed of light, or slow to a stop, or go speed = 0, it would be exactly the same as going C!! But, how could you stop?? Stop your motion, relative to the entire Universe, is as much a limit as reaching C. Do you see?
Now, you mention various times, going into another dimension, which you say as going from 3d to 4d, and this is what will allow us to travel very fast. In fact it would be better described as going from 4d to 5d, or more accurately using the definitions which define 5d and 6d, as our "hole" through which we can do "instantaneous travel", as I described above. See this animation from my site, although crude they give the general idea of what it would look like and how it works:
http://www.ovaltech.ca/ovlpics
If you saw a spaceship travel in this way, it would just appear to disappear from one location and appear in the other location, you would not see it move at all.
The key is the rotation or spin, or angular motion, which in a sense is like vibration. Motion, without moving. Speed but not, linear speed. This is 5d, this is where matter fits into the picture. Centripetal and Centrifugal. Inward spiraling and Outward spiraling motion. Instead of linear, from point A to B, we have Inward and Outward. What direction is Outward?? You cannot really point Outward or Inward, you see? In fact, the center of the Universe is all around us. If you want to point to the very center of the Universe, you have to point every where at once! This is the key to 5d, mass, and to "dimensional" travel.
You say, "If we are actually slowing down in 4d space-time by speeding up in our 3d space-time, an expansion in our space-time can be equal to shrinking in 4d space-time? ", this is very much on the correct path. Through the changing time, much of the problems associated with our understanding can be resolved. Time is a dimension. It is an inward outward loop, much like a circle or a sphere, but something more which is difficult for our 3-d minds to visualize. Attached is a good animation which is 4-dimensional, but linearly through the fourth dimension. And the reality of Mass/Space/Time is more like this animation:
http://www.ovaltech.ca/ovlpics
We cannot actually easily animate a true four dimensional motion, it is like a expanding balloon, which can expand in a loop, because it keeps coming out of the center. The center and the Outside surface, are the same place.
I hope this helps you understand the fourth dimension better. I have intentionally left out much explanation of the 5-d, just realize the 5th dimension is related to mass and more importantly, density. It is how much stuff there is. 5-d is almost like having pockets of 4-D within 4-D within 4-D, which can have many 3-D spaces within them at various times. So we have 3-D in the same space/time as more 3-D, which gives density. Is very difficult to describe in words, I will try again another time.
I hope this better explains the speed of light limit, and why you cannot, and would not want to travel at C. Also explains, why we do not need to travel at C, and how we can travel point to point, without ever exceeding C or traveling at C.
Thanks,
Grant
Grant
Hello Mr. Faruk Eren ÇIRACIOĞLU,I have something I wish to discuss briefly, which will help you grasp the true nature of time and the Universe.
Attached is an image you will enjoy.
It is the entire Universe, on a Logarithmic Scale. So it shows our Sun and Earth, all the way out to the "Big Bang".
I'm sure you know the logarithmic Scale goes up so fast, the outside rings are something like 1 follow by 23 zeros Kilometers away, incomprehensibly far.
Realize this important fact about what we see in deep space. It is 99% wrong. Let me explain.
As you likely know, when we look out into deep space, the light we are seeing, took time to reach us. So when we see something which is 1 light year away, we are actually seeing that object as it was 1 year ago. The light we are seeing in that case, is one year old.
The further away we look into space, the further back in time we are looking. The furthest away we can see is about 16 billion years ago, very close to the big bang, which is the very outside ring in that image.
So what we can see of our Universe, is actually "old news", in fact it is 16 billion year old news for the furthest away objects. In fact, we cannot and do not have any idea whatsoever, what is actually going on in the Universe. We cannot see what is really out there, right now. A star 15 million light years away, could have exploded into dust and disappeared long ago, and we would still see it shining in the sky. The true reality of what is beyond our point of view, cannot be know using light.
That is why the image is 99% wrong. The whole Universe could have vanished beyond 1 light year away, and we would have no way to even know, for one year.
So realize that all of astronomy is more like archeology, looking at the past. We just cannot know how big the real physical Universe is at this exact moment in time.
When we are looking at the deep sky, we are very much looking at the dimension of time, as much as we are looking into the dimensions of space. For this reason, current scientific estimates on the size and age of the Universe, could be way off by many orders of magnitude. We just cannot really know.
Now to tie this back in with what I was discussing earlier, about the outward and inner circular/spherical/4 dimensional nature of the Universe.
We look outward into space, we look outward back in time, so we are really looking inward, all the way to the beginning of time, we can see the big bang. This is the Universe we see from our position on Earth.
BUT, the reality is there is a totally different, real Universe out there, which exists at this same exact moment, which is the real far edge of the Universe, which we cannot see. That Universe, is the real expanding, growing Universe, which is outward. The far edge.
So you see, this is the paradox of a 4 dimensional existence. We are looking inward, back in time when looking out, and yet the reality is there another reality out there, a real edge far out there we cannot see. The beginning and the end, so to speak, are both out there.
I hope this better explains how we are in an endless cycle of time and space, and why there is actually no edge in the Universe.
Attached is an image you will enjoy.
It is the entire Universe, on a Logarithmic Scale. So it shows our Sun and Earth, all the way out to the "Big Bang".
I'm sure you know the logarithmic Scale goes up so fast, the outside rings are something like 1 follow by 23 zeros Kilometers away, incomprehensibly far.
Realize this important fact about what we see in deep space. It is 99% wrong. Let me explain.
As you likely know, when we look out into deep space, the light we are seeing, took time to reach us. So when we see something which is 1 light year away, we are actually seeing that object as it was 1 year ago. The light we are seeing in that case, is one year old.
The further away we look into space, the further back in time we are looking. The furthest away we can see is about 16 billion years ago, very close to the big bang, which is the very outside ring in that image.
So what we can see of our Universe, is actually "old news", in fact it is 16 billion year old news for the furthest away objects. In fact, we cannot and do not have any idea whatsoever, what is actually going on in the Universe. We cannot see what is really out there, right now. A star 15 million light years away, could have exploded into dust and disappeared long ago, and we would still see it shining in the sky. The true reality of what is beyond our point of view, cannot be know using light.
That is why the image is 99% wrong. The whole Universe could have vanished beyond 1 light year away, and we would have no way to even know, for one year.
So realize that all of astronomy is more like archeology, looking at the past. We just cannot know how big the real physical Universe is at this exact moment in time.
When we are looking at the deep sky, we are very much looking at the dimension of time, as much as we are looking into the dimensions of space. For this reason, current scientific estimates on the size and age of the Universe, could be way off by many orders of magnitude. We just cannot really know.
Now to tie this back in with what I was discussing earlier, about the outward and inner circular/spherical/4 dimensional nature of the Universe.
We look outward into space, we look outward back in time, so we are really looking inward, all the way to the beginning of time, we can see the big bang. This is the Universe we see from our position on Earth.
BUT, the reality is there is a totally different, real Universe out there, which exists at this same exact moment, which is the real far edge of the Universe, which we cannot see. That Universe, is the real expanding, growing Universe, which is outward. The far edge.
So you see, this is the paradox of a 4 dimensional existence. We are looking inward, back in time when looking out, and yet the reality is there another reality out there, a real edge far out there we cannot see. The beginning and the end, so to speak, are both out there.
I hope this better explains how we are in an endless cycle of time and space, and why there is actually no edge in the Universe.
Thanks,
Grant
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder