## Comment Re:When did the universe get so big? (Score 1) 109

Actually, the claimed superluminal expansion is a coordinate artifact. Convert to a different set of coordinates and the expansion is understood as lightspeed at a maximum.

Actually, because of the principle of general covariance, it is necessary for academics to show that their cosmological calculations work in different coordinates. Thinking that is bound to special coordinates such as the Freidmann coordinates will only be confused by the fictitious forces exhibited therein. The standard mathematical precautions taken against this sort of problem have failed in this case.

Relativity itself disallows the necessity of thinking that space inherently expands or contracts. The principle of relativity instead allows anyone to think that space is stationary, and that matter and radiation are flying apart in it.

Yes you can use the Schwarzschild argument. Expanding space is only a handwaving rationalization, a coordinate-dependent way of thinking that is not compatible with the principle of general covariance.

If the gravitational source density was ever more than zero, then it follows that the contents of the universe were less massive in the past. In an inertial set of coordinates, not the screwy Freidmann coordinates, it can be understood that the shards of the Big Bang, flying apart at next to lightspeed, still add mass to the universe today, but at a diluted density.

Add together a hypothesis generator with a motivation calculator and a theorem prover. This has been shown long since to have the ability to regenerate number theory without further supervision by humans.

Actuallly, stationary gravitational fields do not curve space at all; all of the curvature is then in the direction of time. There are standard assertions to the contrary, but these are all out of confusion over coordinate artifacts.

Actually, wormholes break the Bianchi identities that are inherent in geometry. Wormholes are also mathematically equivalent to the existence of exotic matter - which would violate conservation laws.

Seriously everyone, the use of a special coordinate system does not actually allow for or make real any apparent superluminal expansion. The numbers that indicate speed faster than light are nothing more than artifacts from a non inertial and non homogenous coordinate system. It is a dirty secret that cosmological phenomenologists wave away with vague rhetoric. They ought to be required to validate their work with a different coordinate system, preferably an a priori Cartesian system.

When I look at the evidence for acceleration in terms of simple kinetics, I can only deduce either evolution of the supernovae in question (which is almost certainly so), or else deceleration of the universe. Phenomenologists may wave their hands (again) over the compilication of spacial curvature, but actually this is always dominated by the effect of simple gravity.

It is easy to think of a way to make free angular momentum from an actual magnetic monopole. Who can do this without searching the internet? Why do academics not do basic plausibility checks on their work?

And no, quantum mechanics is not exempt from conservation laws in ways that are macroscopically measurable. The Bianchi identities prohibit this where the metric exists. There was a failure to detect any slowing of gamma rays across the universe by vacuum effects.

I submitted again at viXra. http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0220

http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0115 Neglect of Metaphysics

--

Michael J. Burns

I would now narrow the middle section of the blue curve rather than increasing the slope. The settings for bright colors at the top right of the curves might not be so symmetric as I assumed above, since bright colors depend more on the transparency of the slides than on the faded dyes that count for dark colors.

This film and slide scanner beats out the device I bought by Wolverine Tech that snaps a digital picture of my negatives and slides. The Canoscan FS 2710 has no vignetting and no ill considered custom color curve that must be undone in post processing.

I posted two articles at the viXra archive for physics outsiders. Have a look if you will. I try to post first drafts of fresh thinking here, though. And look for my book "Hacking Physics".

http://vixra.org/abs/1211.0139 is my article "Neglect of General Covariance".

http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0094 is "Draw the metric!".

--

Michael J. Burns

Think about it in a careful way. Visualize a spacelike line, then extend it as a geodesic. Using a proper diagram of the universe, it is easy to show that this eventually intersects the big bang horizon. Don't be confused by convention; the Friedmann coordinates are very deceptive.

So shards of the big bang, expanding at light speed from a universal starting point in the past, are essentially contemporaneous with us.

I read his essays on this point but did not understand until this year. He knew that natural selection on groups was a truism. And so he did not even argue at length for it, only focusing on the selection that acts on various sizes of groups, as opposed to accidents of history.

A bug in the hand is better than one as yet undetected.