Macro Relativity, Universes Galore, Red Shift Error, and Dimensions United

Nov 19, 2021
Macro Relativity, Universes Galore, Red Shift Error, and Dimensions United a fun exercise for the New Year

It is all very well talking about the beauty of some of our mathematical penetrations into the mystery of all things, but what has happened to the philosophical support to back up our understanding? It is all very well the Elite of Mathematicians talking to themselves but failing to recognise the need to find concepts that actually work. Quantum Mechanics probably illustrates the point.

The Quantum world is, at first (and second sight) absolute nonsense and contrary to everything that makes sense to us in our experience in everyday life. But, clearly, there are answers that make sense or the Universe would not work. We are just not clever enough, so far, to find them - except in mathematics. It is ok and necessary for us to use what works with numbers to formulate answers, but surely it is obvious that this is not enough - otherwise why would we debate the issues for decades in a search for understanding.

We are beginning to ‘hand over’ the frontier of perception to computer programs. Software developed by future Quantum Computers will advance ‘description of all things’ way beyond any fantasies thought about by what we will become - if we do not try harder: mere Humans. We become the servants rather than companions; of evolved programs on computer hardware. And, eventually, obsolete curiosities.

Surely, mathematics is a tool, not an end in itself confined to the elite few - minds that happen to be gifted in number logic and the manipulation of ideas. I accuse such geniuses of a selfish laziness and a failure to express their findings in a way that can be understood by reasonably intelligent people who happen to have applied themselves to different fields during their life. I would further suggest that 'it' resembles the exclusive clubs of the past Guilds, supposedly used to protect their knowledge.

Having said that, it is only right to heap praise and gratitude on the magnificent achievements to date of wonderful scientists who have prised open our eyes to our universe and its workings so far. My point is only that from here on the going gets hard.
This all adds up to my excuse for the following humble attempts to make sense of things. I am nobody worth a mention. My only justification for writing this is that in the past – in entirely different fields of endeavour – for some weird reason I have been able to solve some persistent problems by thinking ‘out of the box’ without being in it. You never know…

So, by reading this you probably are just indulging the fantasies of an old man.

So here we go, I just hope it is a little better than the crackpot nonsense so persistent ‘out there’…..

Some assertions that to the best of my knowledge are generally accepted as facts and are central to my discussion here:

1. Time and length dilation can be considered a result of rotated frames relative to each other
2. Length (in space) and time units are interchangeable in application
3. Our visible universe has an event horizon
4. Our understanding of Black Holes is limited
5. A cross-section of a hypersphere is a sphere (a cross-section of a sphere is a circle)
6. The surface of an adjacent sphere (in a hypersphere) is concurrent – all surfaces abut each other.
7. I believe this true: Items 5 and 6 can be increased dimensionally i.e. the hypersphere (a 3 sphere) can ‘become’ a 4 sphere for argument, and the sphere (a 2sphere) can become a hypersphere (by adding a dimension) so that the principles of taking cross- sections and concurrency apply in the same way.
8. By definition our observable universe is expanding at c (the speed of light).
9. The event horizon of a black hole is ‘expanding’ at the speed of light (from the frame of the Black Hole)
10. Any 4th dimension is orthogonal to space (at right angles to)
11. Time is considered to be 4th dimensional like.

My thoughts:

That we are within a hypersphere. i.e. the surface of a ball. Not ruled out by cosmologists but they have difficulty fitting known "facts" to such a suggestion. Perhaps their facts are wrong. Take expansion of the universe for instance. If we were a hypersphere then Red Shift would be caused not by expansion of the universe but by Time Dilation: At increasing distance from ourselves the curvature of the hypersphere would rotate the frames of observed galaxies/supernova.
The Red Shift observed when viewing distant galaxies is mainly an effect of Time Dilation due to the increasingly rotated frames as the distance to galaxies increases. (Not necessarily wholly due to time dilation though). The reality might well be that the universe is Contracting as the Dilation may overwhelm the reduced space blue shift. I have no basis in fact to believe contraction is real or not. The sums need working.

Adjacent hyperspheres may affect the physics of our universe (and we theirs). To me it makes sense to consider that our Observable Universe is in fact our hypersphere and that the Cosmos beyond is adjacent hypersphere(s). To get our head around this we have to acknowledge that the expansion of our universe is, in this hypersphere scenario, not happening i.e. is the space between galaxies is not necessarily expanding, but not to rule out that the hypersphere could still increase in size (or decrease to a big crunch).

The age of the universe is 13.77 billion years as determined by viewing the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and then working out how long it would have taken for the EMR to cool to the CMB radio wavelength detected today. Previously and alternatively the process involved establishing the distance to various stella objects at increasing distance to work out how fast the universe seemed to expand (based on the assumption that the red shift was due to objects speeding away from us) and then extrapolating back to the singularity. This latter process uses relatively nearby objects and implies an older universe.

Again, it is assumed that the cosmic microwave background “cooling” arises as a result of expansion of the universe stretching the wavelengths of EMR into long wavelength radio waves. The alternative explanation is that of time dilation due to rotation of the relative frames at extreme rotation (the framework at 90 degrees to the observer). Again a red shift as T appears to reach t=0 at 90 degrees. The issue then becomes one of the size of the universe.

Standard theory establishes the size of the visible universe by calculating how far light could travel during the age of the universe. This is done by the assumption that the visible universe is a ball (the sphere would be an event horizon- see later). Calculation establishes an acceptable radius of 46.5 billion light years using ‘c’ as a consistent value for the age of the universe.

The size of the universe assuming a hypersphere for the visible universe can be established in a similar way. Bear in mind that the rotation to produce a dilation effect that gives t=0 after a 90 degree rotation is only relative to the position of an observer. A change in position pushes t=0 into a different place on the hypersphere. The furthest point therefore from which light can travel is the opposite position on the hypersphere (taking a diameter from the observer’s position). This would be 43.2 billion light years assuming an age of the universe of 13.77 years. I suggest this is comfortably close to standard theory experimental reasoning as to enhance the hypersphere proposal.

There are of course some outstanding things below to discuss but it is Christmas Eve and I am tired and need to have a whisky or two in celebration before Bed – so the rest will have to wait a while 😊
The flatness problem
How can the visible universe be considered a hypersphere?
Is this a resurrection of Steady State as apposed to Cosmological Expansion (Big Bang)?
Could the hypersphere described also incorporate expansion?
And no doubt a thousand objections I haven’t thought of. Yet.
Last edited: