Random nonsense about expansion

[Age]

Oh, you want time to be bounded and circular as well. Have fun with that.

THANK YOU!

You're literally the first person I've met on a philosophy forum who understood the bounded and circular time concept (you did, right?). It's not part of Western philosophy. It's not part of Eastern philosophy. It's not part of mainstream science. It's completely counter-intuitive.

There was nothing to not understand about it.

But it sure is a lot of fun, so I'm having fun with it. But more importantly, it's the only speculation about the total universe that I've found logical, due to its total simmetry. Every other speculation I find illogical, and is therefore not interesting to me.

Another example of one who is narrowed, or closed

(Also, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a goner in my view - just a necessary local Goldilocks feature. I even think that black holes probably do decrease entropy, but I'm open to being shown wrong on this one. I'm a heretic.)

I think we sort of have to bet that the total universe behaves logically, otherwise it's completely pointless to speculate about it.

Once again, speculations and assumptions are made instead of just 'looking at' 'what IS', only

Can't be a big bang without expansion. The bang happens everywhere, not at some location. A finite size universe would have a tiny beginning that expands into what we see today.

This is an example of an uninteresting speculation to me - an inherently illogical picture due to lack of simmetry.

Antigravity wouldn't be constant just like gravity isn't. But dark energy is constant energy density regardless of the change in the density of everything else as expansion occurs.

That's why if dark energy is antigravity, then maybe antigravity should be most effective on very large scales, maybe on scales beyond that of the cosmological principle. In that case, dark energy wouldn't be constant, but would appear as largely constant to us, as the dark energy of many galactic superclusters would roughly average out.

That, or maybe antigravity just flat out gets stronger the bigger the distance.

OK, you mean a spacelike worldline, not a timelike worldline of something travelling (moving through space). Sure, that can encircle the hypersphere even with accelerating expansion.

I don't think so, I'm talking about a spacetime worldline. It can't actually be travelled, I'm just talking about it from "a God's eye perspective fromn outside the universe".

I can visualize that, but it's still curved.

And then drop the curvature and any spacelike consideration, and just retain the fact that we have a circular chain of elements.

[Noax]

Well, no. The cyclic model isn't finite in time, it's infinite.

Yours is, is it not? You said time was circular, and a circle has finite circumference, but it has no bound.

I don't think Hawking radiation is relevant to entropy. The entire universe is filled with quantum fluctuations, not just a black hole's event horizon, and quantum fluctuations could be non-random and simply another layer of the universe.

Wouldn't this still be compatible with the idea that antigravity works on very large scales or flat out gets stronger the bigger the distance?

There is no antigravity, so if you invent it, you get to say the rules. Dark energy is the same density everywhere and does not increase with distance, especially since distance is something that needs to be relative to something which violates the principle of there not being a preferred location in space.

[Atla]

Well, no. The cyclic model isn't finite in time, it's infinite.

Yours is, is it not? You said time was circular, and a circle has finite circumference, but it has no bound.

Yes it's finite. It's like the eternal return but with only one "cycle". And all change is ultimately an everyday illusion, change doesn't exist fundamentally.

There is no antigravity, so if you invent it, you get to say the rules. Dark energy is the same density everywhere and does not increase with distance, especially since distance is something that needs to be relative to something which violates the principle of there not being a preferred location in space.

Yes I meant relative distance between objects. But I guess you're right, in this case dark energy shouldn't be constant, it should have been weaker in the past because objects were closer to each other. (unless whatever, again too nebulous)

[Noax]

And all change is ultimately an everyday illusion, change doesn't exist fundamentally.

Not sure what you mean by that. In a generic definition, 'change' is a difference in one variable when another variable is altered.
Sure, the universe itself, if viewed as a 4-D manifold and not a 3-D state, does not change since the only variables I can think of to play with are things like fundamental constants like c, just to name one, and if c was different, well, then it would be a different universe, not this one but changed.

in this case dark energy shouldn't be constant, it should have been weaker in the past because objects were closer to each other. (unless whatever, again too nebulous)

Dark energy is constant over time, but in the past, the mass density of the universe was higher that the gravity of it dominated. When the two were equal for a while, there was no change in expansion rate over time.
Your idea attempts to dispense with the dark energy and explain it by asymmetrical mass distribution on the 'far side' of the universe.

[Atla]

Not sure what you mean by that. In a generic definition, 'change' is a difference in one variable when another variable is altered.
Sure, the universe itself, if viewed as a 4-D manifold and not a 3-D state, does not change since the only variables I can think of to play with are things like fundamental constants like c, just to name one, and if c was different, well, then it would be a different universe, not this one but changed.

I meant that if time is circular then change is impossible, whether or not we view the universe as a 4D manifold.

Dark energy is constant over time, but in the past, the mass density of the universe was higher that the gravity of it dominated. When the two were equal for a while, there was no change in expansion rate over time.
Your idea attempts to dispense with the dark energy and explain it by asymmetrical mass distribution on the 'far side' of the universe.

Haven't thought of an asymmetrical mass distribution on the 'far side' of the universe here.

[Noax]

I meant that if time is circular then change is impossible, whether or not we view the universe as a 4D manifold.

Of course not. Einstein is alive in 1950. Einstein is dead in 1960. That's a counterexample of change, refuting the assertion. The example is indeed not in any way dependent of a view of the universe as a 4D manifold or not. The definition of change (the one I gave at least) doesn't depend on one's interpretation of time, or whether that time is finite, infinite, linear, circular, real or not, or whatever.

[Atla]

I meant that if time is circular then change is impossible, whether or not we view the universe as a 4D manifold.

Of course not. Einstein is alive in 1950. Einstein is dead in 1960. That's a counterexample of change, refuting the assertion. The example is indeed not in any way dependent of a view of the universe as a 4D manifold or not. The definition of change (the one I gave at least) doesn't depend on one's interpretation of time, or whether that time is finite, infinite, linear, circular, real or not, or whatever.

That's not change, just two different points on an unchanging circle.

I mean change as a temporal concept. I don't really understand your definition, changing variables is something we "do".

[Noax]

That's not change, just two different points on an unchanging circle.

It wasn't an example of a change to the circle. It was an example of a changed state of Einstein over a 10 year interval, and that difference in state is very much change. I never said the circle was any different.

[Atla]

That's not change, just two different points on an unchanging circle.

It wasn't an example of a change to the circle. It was an example of a changed state of Einstein over a 10 year interval, and that difference in state is very much change. I never said the circle was any different.

What's the point of calling any difference "change"?

[Noax]

What's the point of calling any difference "change"?

Not any difference, but a difference in a state at different times. Change (of something that has pragmatic identity say) over time is a typical usage, but it isn't always time. For instance, one might say that the air pressure changes with altitude. That's a valid use of the word that isn't a change over time.

My left eye sees better than the right, but the right is the dominant one. That's a difference that is hard to characterize as a change since it is a difference between things that don't share identity in the same way where the word 'change' is typically used.

[Atla]

What's the point of calling any difference "change"?

Not any difference, but a difference in a state at different times. Change (of something that has pragmatic identity say) over time is a typical usage, but it isn't always time. For instance, one might say that the air pressure changes with altitude. That's a valid use of the word that isn't a change over time.

My left eye sees better than the right, but the right is the dominant one. That's a difference that is hard to characterize as a change since it is a difference between things that don't share identity in the same way where the word 'change' is typically used.

When not just space but also time are circular, then "change over time" is like the difference between your two eyes right now. And identity is a meaningless concept.

[Noax]

When not just space but also time are circular, then "change over time" is like the difference between your two eyes right now.

Non sequitur

And identity is a meaningless concept.

If that were true, the court systems would not be able to function. Society would not be able to function.

[Atla]

When not just space but also time are circular, then "change over time" is like the difference between your two eyes right now.

Non sequitur

And identity is a meaningless concept.

If that were true, the court systems would not be able to function. Society would not be able to function.

But I'm not talking about pragmatic identity or pragmatic change here, everyday conventions, when I'm talking about how the universe fundamentally works.

[Age]

Well, no. The cyclic model isn't finite in time, it's infinite.

Yours is, is it not? You said time was circular, and a circle has finite circumference, but it has no bound.

I don't think Hawking radiation is relevant to entropy. The entire universe is filled with quantum fluctuations, not just a black hole's event horizon, and quantum fluctuations could be non-random and simply another layer of the universe.

Wouldn't this still be compatible with the idea that antigravity works on very large scales or flat out gets stronger the bigger the distance?

There is no antigravity, so if you invent it, you get to say the rules.

Just like there is no beginning nor expansion to the Universe, Itself, and, if you invent these things, then you, also, get to say the rules.

Dark energy is the same density everywhere and does not increase with distance, especially since distance is something that needs to be relative to something which violates the principle of there not being a preferred location in space.

[Age]

Well, no. The cyclic model isn't finite in time, it's infinite.

Yours is, is it not? You said time was circular, and a circle has finite circumference, but it has no bound.

Yes it's finite. It's like the eternal return but with only one "cycle". And all change is ultimately an everyday illusion, change doesn't exist fundamentally.

WOW, 'this' really is getting more 'random' and more 'nonsensical', now.

There is no antigravity, so if you invent it, you get to say the rules. Dark energy is the same density everywhere and does not increase with dis7tance, especially since distance is something that needs to be relative to something which violates the principle of there not being a preferred location in space.

Yes I meant relative distance between objects. But I guess you're right, in this case dark energy shouldn't be constant, it should have been weaker in the past because objects were closer to each other. (unless whatever, again too nebulous)
[/quote]