What's a universe?

[Cerveny]

- Semiconductor devices, that can be reproducibly produce, operate on the principle of motion of point defects and phase characteristics of P / N interface
- If you imagine for example condensing / growing sphere, all points on its surface are move away each other - Doppler effect
- The past is a conserved, frozen state, which has no forces. Only thin time layer (presence) is “live” - everything that happens, happens in presence. The history is causal substrate, pattern that is during condensation more-less followed. Physical forces can affect the manner of (displacement) replication…

[tillingborn]

- Semiconductor devices, that can be reproducibly produce, operate on the principle of motion of point defects and phase characteristics of P / N interface

The problem I have with this is that my background is philosophy rather than physics. I don't know whether what you are saying can be translated into words I know the meaning of and will describe behaviour I can visualise, or if it is a model based on some mathematical description that happens to add up.

- If you imagine for example condensing / growing sphere, all points on its surface are move away each other - Doppler effect

What is condensing? How is it also growing?

- The past is a conserved, frozen state, which has no forces. Only thin time layer (presence) is “live” - everything that happens, happens in presence. The history is causal substrate, pattern that is during condensation more-less followed. Physical forces can affect the manner of (displacement) replication…

Again, is this a mathematical or physical model? Am I supposed to be persuaded that the past 'exists' as a solid block in the present? Where do physical forces come from?

[Cerveny]

Sorry, but we seem to be lost in irrelevant details. Probably because of my bad English :(nevertheless):

Condensation means change of physical state - such as crystallization. Imagine how in the cooling water a balls of ice increases. All points on its surface move away from each other. You can imagine the universe as such ice and the “future” as surrounding water. Defects in the regular structure of ice are elementary particles. You have to add one dimension of course, to the phase border (surface of ice) (in our analogy the “presence”) is 3-D. The perpendicular to the surface of “ice” is the local timeline.
There was not any word about mathematics. I am trying to explain my opinions by the simple physical example / analogy.

[tillingborn]

Condensation means change of physical state - such as crystallization. Imagine how in the cooling water a balls of ice increases. All points on its surface move away from each other. You can imagine the universe as such ice and the “future” as surrounding water.

So if I try to put this into words I understand, I get something like: 'The present is where fluid possibility becomes solid fact. As we move into the future, the mass of historical fact grows.' If that's right, it is a slightly confusing analogy, because, to me, the growth of the universe is more literal; it is getting bigger.

Defects in the regular structure of ice are elementary particles. You have to add one dimension of course, to the phase border (surface of ice) (in our analogy the “presence”) is 3-D. The perpendicular to the surface of “ice” is the local timeline.
There was not any word about mathematics.

If I'm starting to grasp your model, it strikes me that adding a third dimension is a mathematical procedure to a mathematical model.

I am trying to explain my opinions by the simple physical example / analogy.

Yes, but that is different to saying what actually happens to what, that is the oldest question in philosophy. You are right, it is irrelevant to physics, or at best only of passing interest, but some of us would like to know.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Movement of crystallographic defects is common, such as forging of casting, or any usage of semiconductor ...

Does anyone actually know how semi-conductors work? Are you sure what say isn't a model you are taking too literally?

It is widely accepted view that the universe grows. I am deliberately avoiding (from many reasons) the word "expands". As I have already indicated several times, it seems much more logical that the universe condenses / crystallizes.

I think galactic red-shift is compelling evidence for the growth or expansion of the universe. What do you think it indicates?
1) So called, red shift, can't be seen as such, unless you experience cpa, so: blue -> actual variably indeterminate value -> red.
2) Standard candle has no place, due to continuously variable composition of any particular star.
3) Electromagnetic energy can either be reflected, scattered, absorbed, rarefied or unhindered.
4) Doppler shift is over time, and the extreme distances, relative to any given arbitrary relative trajectory, precludes the necessity of any particular deduction.
5) Expansion or supernova resultant? As a result, how many relative trajectories are there, after 13 billion years, as many as possible, I'd presume.
6) Also, remember if you will, that many stars, that you think you see, are actually "now," no longer there. Much of what you see happened then, and as such is not necessarily relevant to now. How can it be said to be currently expanding, if the indicators are of the past?
7) Red-shift or red giant?

In this case, some types of defects (eg screw dislocation) are automatically replicated to the new time / crystal layers. Generally, the movement of structural defects is caused by some tension, pressure ... Free, inertial, motion is apparently simple replication of deffects in the new growing, mounting time layers…

If the past is a solid, why can't defects move in it?

[Cerveny]

Condensation means change of physical state - such as crystallization. Imagine how in the cooling water a balls of ice increases. All points on its surface move away from each other. You can imagine the universe as such ice and the “future” as surrounding water.

So if I try to put this into words I understand, I get something like: 'The present is where fluid possibility becomes solid fact. As we move into the future, the mass of historical fact grows.' If that's right, it is a slightly confusing analogy, because, to me, the growth of the universe is more literal; it is getting bigger.

Defects in the regular structure of ice are elementary particles. You have to add one dimension of course, to the phase border (surface of ice) (in our analogy the “presence”) is 3-D. The perpendicular to the surface of “ice” is the local timeline.
There was not any word about mathematics.

If I'm starting to grasp your model, it strikes me that adding a third dimension is a mathematical procedure to a mathematical model.

I am trying to explain my opinions by the simple physical example / analogy.

Yes, but that is different to saying what actually happens to what, that is the oldest question in philosophy. You are right, it is irrelevant to physics, or at best only of passing interest, but some of us would like to know.

- balls of ice in supercooled water increases and its surface (in our analogy - the universe) thus increases too ...
- added a dimension is primarily physical matter. Formalized description of this operation is a mathematical matter. I believe in the local, time (fourth) dimension due to the significant influence of the time derivative at the common development...
- here I beg to differ: I do not think it's irrelevant. Mainstream physics crashes eighty years due to bad model - is necessary in order to leave the GTR...

[Cerveny]

... 6) Also, remember if you will, that many stars, that you think you see, are actually "now," no longer there. Much of what you see happened then, and as such is not necessarily relevant to now. How can it be said to be currently expanding, if the indicators are of the past? ...

Arguments in favor of the growth of the universe are subtle: instability (development) of the universe, the ultimate duration of the universe, the growth of information (of phenomena), red shift ...

[tillingborn]

1) So called, red shift, can't be seen as such, unless you experience cpa, so: blue -> actual variably indeterminate value -> red.

I don't know what cpa is. As I understand it, red shift is measured by comparing the absorption lines in the spectra of stars and galaxies. The patterns of absorption lines for elements are unique and well understood. In the spectra of galaxies beyond the Milky Way, with a few exceptions in the local group, the absorption lines are found closer to the red end of the spectrum. This is consistent with the lengthening of the wavelength of the 'photons' and, to me, the simplest explanation is that the galaxies are moving away from us.

2) Standard candle has no place, due to continuously variable composition of any particular star.

The vast bulk of the vast majority of stars is initially Hydrogen. Due to fusion this converts into helium, which if the star is massive enough, then fuses to form carbon and on to form other elements ending with iron. The idea of the standard candle is simply that any two stars which start out more or less the same, will behave more or less the same. Why wouldn't they?

3) Electromagnetic energy can either be reflected, scattered, absorbed, rarefied or unhindered.

Indeed.

4) Doppler shift is over time, and the extreme distances, relative to any given arbitrary relative trajectory, precludes the necessity of any particular deduction.

Well yes, but the commonly accepted one is a viable hypothesis, as far as I can tell.

5) Expansion or supernova resultant? As a result, how many relative trajectories are there, after 13 billion years, as many as possible, I'd presume.

Many (most) of the galaxies that have had their spectra examined are nowhere near 13 billion light years away. The ones which are show the greatest red shift, again consistent with an expanding universe.

6) Also, remember if you will, that many stars, that you think you see, are actually "now," no longer there. Much of what you see happened then, and as such is not necessarily relevant to now. How can it be said to be currently expanding, if the indicators are of the past?

I don't see that it makes any difference whether the source of electromagnetic radiation still exists or not; the photons emmitted any time up to 13 billion years ago won't suddenly stop in their tracks or cease to exist just because the star that spat them out has blown up.

- balls of ice in supercooled water increases and its surface (in our analogy - the universe) thus increases too ...

Yes, but what makes it a confusing analogy is that in our universe, not all the action is on the surface.

- added a dimension is primarily physical matter. Formalized description of this operation is a mathematical matter. I believe in the local, time (fourth) dimension due to the significant influence of the time derivative at the common development...

I'm sorry, I don't understand this bit.

- here I beg to differ: I do not think it's irrelevant. Mainstream physics crashes eighty years due to bad model - is necessary in order to leave the GTR...

Mainstream physics isn't about physical models, it's about mathematical descriptions of empirical data. GTR treats the universe as though it were topographical, the usual analogy is a stretched rubber sheet. It is a very accurate and useful model, but it doesn't follow that the universe is actually like that, anymore than the efficacy of Ptolemies epicycles means that the Earth is the centre of the universe. You have an interesting model of reality, but unless you can use it to make predictions that are verified by experiment, or generate mathematical models that are simpler to use, mainstream physics won't be interested. GTR is a tool and it works.

[Cerveny]

Mathematicians brought physics where there is: singularity, infinity, determinism, empty space or fractal quantum foam, desperate quantization of gravity, constantly increasing number of dimensions, dark matter, breaking of symmetry ... From physics faded logic, physical sense, "healthy" sense and at the end the prestige. Nobody knows what the universe is. All thanks to persistent mathematisation that clings to the physical nonsense (Minkowski "empty" space-time - determinism, misinterpretation of gravity of antimatter, infinitely fine structure of space ...) and draws from them obscure conclusions. It is the reason why I am trying to find more logical, more sensuous look at the reality of the universe (primary for me).
By the way, everything that happened happens in the presence - the past has been never changed - so far: (

[Hjarloprillar]

Mathematicians brought physics where there is: singularity, infinity, determinism, empty space or fractal quantum foam, desperate quantization of gravity, constantly increasing number of dimensions, dark matter, breaking of symmetry ... From physics faded logic, physical sense, "healthy" sense and at the end the prestige. Nobody knows what the universe is. All thanks to persistent mathematisation that clings to the physical nonsense (Minkowski "empty" space-time - determinism, misinterpretation of gravity of antimatter, infinitely fine structure of space ...) and draws from them obscure conclusions. It is the reason why I am trying to find more logical, more sensuous look at the reality of the universe (primary for me).
By the way, everything that happened happens in the presence - the past has been never changed - so far: (

Cerveny

Well said. I look for a more logical, common sense and yes, as a part of this, more sensuous model.
Distilling human knowledge. We have no idea what gravity is or why the SoL is an apparent cap.
Like 13 year olds we think we know everything.

We 'know' very little.

Prill

[ps. I was watching a movie 'from corner of eye' while on pc last week. Where a teacher expounded on 'what is the universe?.
Einstein said {Quote the teacher} . 'That what was before our universe? Nothing, for there was no time.'
I ask you Cerveny. Is our universe , the sum total of reality? Or, a everything i have learnt says. it is but a very small part of reality.
"Outside our universe or what is behind the EH of a singularity"
Is simply too much for near everyone. When Math cannot define it it becomes magic or whacky ideas.]

[Cerveny]

...
I ask you Cerveny. Is our universe , the sum total of reality? Or, a everything i have learnt says. it is but a very small part of reality...

As I have indicated, there are three "kinds" of reality:
- Frozen, solid, growing (sediment) 4-D “History” that we can see indirectly or can deduce only...
- "Future" that, is unreachable by our physical rules, by our causality (notice that it was here even before the history). Consciousness of deeply meditating of "free" people is able to touch it…
- Rather indeterminate 3-D interface between two above - the “Presence”. Consciousness is the feeling of possibility to influence the presence... :)

[Hjarloprillar]

...
I ask you Cerveny. Is our universe , the sum total of reality? Or, a everything i have learnt says. it is but a very small part of reality...

As I have indicated, there are three "kinds" of reality:
- Frozen, solid, growing (sediment) 4-D “History” that we can see indirectly or can deduce only...
- "Future" that, is unreachable by our physical rules, by our causality (notice that it was here even before the history). Consciousness of deeply meditating of "free" people is able to touch it…
- Rather indeterminate 3-D interface between two above - the “Presence”. Consciousness is the feeling of possibility to influence the presence...

Cerveny
The sedimentary 4d one is what we experience. Is more than 'deduce' it is object/subject causality.
THE FUTURE, LIKE THE PAST, DOES NOT EXIST.
[Sorry. i keep hitting capslock.. im in bed.hehe]
Consciousness is a 3d interface. Between future /past and universe/reality. That is why we are here with our big brains.[;)]

Well we are in same book if not same page. More than i could hope for in a forum. Im happy.
Just knowing im not alone.

[Hjarloprillar]

The brink

And again i twist my brain.
Past the accretion disk down to the very 'hell of gravity' just outside the event horizon. Where molecules are torn apart by gravitic differences in orbital deltaV.

In this environment so hostile to humanity. Or any organized material thing. Where LAW is all that exists.
My imagination can go.. without harm.
What is below the horizon?
Now there my imagination/speculation falters. my imagineering. wavers in doubt.

It is almost a challenge. This no thinking barrier. It is the hubris of man. who has not really even left his world in any number.
To be stumped at edge of a barrier of object only defined by its effects. [black holes].

The designer made good rules. Ones that tease and pull at the mind.
My life is this.

It makes not for easy living in our society.
Where we still exist at roman level of organization.

carpe cerevici.. [of the vienna circle]

[SpheresOfBalance]

1) So called, red shift, can't be seen as such, unless you experience cpa, so: blue -> actual variably indeterminate value -> red.

I don't know what cpa is. As I understand it, red shift is measured by comparing the absorption lines in the spectra of stars and galaxies. The patterns of absorption lines for elements are unique and well understood. In the spectra of galaxies beyond the Milky Way, with a few exceptions in the local group, the absorption lines are found closer to the red end of the spectrum. This is consistent with the lengthening of the wavelength of the 'photons' and, to me, the simplest explanation is that the galaxies are moving away from us.

2) Standard candle has no place, due to continuously variable composition of any particular star.

The vast bulk of the vast majority of stars is initially Hydrogen. Due to fusion this converts into helium, which if the star is massive enough, then fuses to form carbon and on to form other elements ending with iron. The idea of the standard candle is simply that any two stars which start out more or less the same, will behave more or less the same. Why wouldn't they?

3) Electromagnetic energy can either be reflected, scattered, absorbed, rarefied or unhindered.

Indeed.

4) Doppler shift is over time, and the extreme distances, relative to any given arbitrary relative trajectory, precludes the necessity of any particular deduction.

Well yes, but the commonly accepted one is a viable hypothesis, as far as I can tell.

5) Expansion or supernova resultant? As a result, how many relative trajectories are there, after 13 billion years, as many as possible, I'd presume.

Many (most) of the galaxies that have had their spectra examined are nowhere near 13 billion light years away. The ones which are show the greatest red shift, again consistent with an expanding universe.

6) Also, remember if you will, that many stars, that you think you see, are actually "now," no longer there. Much of what you see happened then, and as such is not necessarily relevant to now. How can it be said to be currently expanding, if the indicators are of the past?

I don't see that it makes any difference whether the source of electromagnetic radiation still exists or not; the photons emmitted any time up to 13 billion years ago won't suddenly stop in their tracks or cease to exist just because the star that spat them out has blown up.

CPA = Closest Point of Approach.
It would seem that the only thing you understood was that "3) Electromagnetic energy..." was true, but failed to see it's implications. It would seem that you've only parroted something you've read, without understanding it, and paraphrased at that.

What I was doing was listing those things, that if one understands them, and applies a little thought, it's plain to see that the theory, that red shift is indicative of an expanding universe is not necessarily correct. It shows that it has flaws, so as to raise enough doubt, so as to be inconclusive.

Do you know what Doppler shift is? It's in fact a shift in frequency of the light from a static value which is in fact dependent upon the stars composition, age, and size. One first has to know what frequency the stars light is when the observer is of parallel trajectory at the same speed. Then and only then can one know if in fact its frequency is either compressed or expanded, i.e., respectively, blue or red shifted. You have to see a change, (A SHIFT) otherwise how could one possibly know if in fact the blue or red color was due to shift and not that it was the stars natural color, or being distorted due to gravitational pull from another body, either reflected, scattered, absorbed, rarefied or some combination, or not.

The distances are too great to see this 'Doppler shift' in real time. Hubble's been up there only since 90, and the deep field cam's only been viable since 93. In addition due to super nova, which blows their material omnidirectionally; you do understand relativity, right, (if you are on a train traveling due north @ 50 and you throw a ball due south @ 40, how fast is it going relative to an observer standing still at a RR Xing? Answer: 10, in the opposite direction from which it was thrown), creating billions of differing trajectories based upon relative movement of galaxies and solar systems, you do know that every celestial body is spinning about an infinite number of axis, right? If becomes increasingly difficult to attribute any particular color to any particular causal, such that as to redshift, it's merely conjecture.

Also consider: Where is the center of the universe, keep in mind that mankind knows not of the full extent of the universe and only knows of the "visible universe", at this point how could one know of a center if one does not know of it's full extents?

It's simply hypothetical, theoretical, speculative, mumbo jumbo.

[tillingborn]

Mathematicians brought physics where there is: singularity, infinity, determinism, empty space or fractal quantum foam, desperate quantization of gravity, constantly increasing number of dimensions, dark matter, breaking of symmetry ...

All these things are mathematical entities, it doesn't follow that any of them are 'real'. Physics has always had an uneasy relationship with reality. Over 2000 years ago, Aristarchus of Samos described the universe much as Copernicus did. Hipparchus, 'the greatest astronomer of the ancient world' started calculating the observed movements of the planets according to such a heliocentric model, but gave up, because, for naked eye observations, Aristotle's (actually Eudoxus') nested spheres is perfectly adequate. This pragmatic approach was overturned by Isaac Newton, who is often credited with 'discovering' gravity. In fact, everyone was already aware that objects on the surface of Earth don't float off into space. Newton's inverse square described the effect of one mass on another, but famously he said 'Hypotheses non fingo', 'I frame no hypotheses'. In other words he could tell you what happened, but had no idea why. In the last century the dominant 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum mechanics was known as 'Shut up and calculate'. The cause of gravity or the structure of quantum entities is irrelevant to some physicists what matters is what happens.