I need a theoretical physicist, please.

And it's about as dark as you think.

originally posted by: Nodrak
Think about a jet flying away from you at Mach 1.5, will you hear it? Will you ever hear it?

If you're in the US and the jet is in Australia, you won't hear it whether it's subsonic or supersonic.

But sure, if it's close enough, you can hear a supersonic jet flying away from you. Let's say it's half a mile away, it's emitting sound. That sound will reach you at the speed of sound, even though the jet is flying away from you faster than that. The jet flying faster than the speed of sound won't prevent that.

Similarly with stars receding at faster than light due to the expansion of space. Some were always too far away and we'll never see them, but, we can still see the light from some stars in galaxies with superluminal recession velocity. There is some misinformation about this topic, and relativity is not the easiest topic to understand, so it's not surprising some people are confused as a result. Here's a good paper to read for anyone interested in this topic, though it's somewhat technical:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

In the context of the new standard Lambda-CDM cosmology we point out confusions regarding the particle horizon, the event horizon, the ``observable universe'' and the Hubble sphere (distance at which recession velocity = c). We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests.

originally posted by: Exit89
Great response thank you for taking the time

If we could determine according to the dark matter map where this exotic material was, do we have the tech to see what it looks like in our reference though?

What exotic matter? We know a few small components of dark matter, and some of it is not very exotic, like baryonic dark matter, what makes up the earth. Some is black holes. Some is likely neutrinos. But we just don't know what the vast majority of dark matter is, though we have some ideas. This is a slide a physicist posted here showing some of the ideas:


Some of those are exotic, some are purely hypothetical or speculative, but the point is there are a lot of ideas and dark matter is almost certainly more than one thing.

I imagine sending a probe into the dark matter is not necessary. I think we are just looking at what it is ejecting a bit poorly.

I have no idea what you mean by this, because I've never heard dark matter being described as "ejecting" anything.

Also i assume dark matter has the opposite effect of gravity which would make a probe very hard?

You seem very confused. Maybe you're thinking of "dark energy" which has been very loosely and somewhat incorrectly described as an opposite of gravity or "anti-gravity", but that's a relatively poor and inaccurate description even for dark energy. Dark matter on the other hand, is thought to interact gravitationally with matter, explaining the rotation curves of galaxies, amove other things. You said you wanted to ask a question that was difficult to google the answer to, but explanations of what we know about dark matter and dark energy can be googled...see NASA's descriptions of them for starters.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter

I want the readers of this to imagine sending a signal from a matter dense planet. Lets say its a flashlight. We send the signal at a certain " wavelength" but please for now just think of this as a width of a beam. As we send this beam out it expands because it enters a lesser gravitational field. Over time we have to compress and speed up this beam to view it as it was originally sent. When we are viewing planets using radio ( because the visible light spectrum stretched ) it is due to the effects of the beam going from a stronger gravity field into a lesser over time ( im sort of making this part up ).

Well, sort of, but in reality, observations of planets are only in our own galaxy and the stretching of the wavelengths called "gravitational red-shifting" is rather limited for things like planets. It's been measured even on earth in the Pound-Rebka Experiment, but it's a rather small effect so it wasn't that easy to measure.

As you suggested earlier, the gravitational redshift effect would be more pronounced with more exotic objects than planets (such as neutron stars or black holes). The cosmological redshifts can also be quite large, for distant galaxies, receding faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of space.

I am imagining if we turned this flashlight on from a "white-hole" ( im really sorry this is probably ridiculous ) that it would blue shift into a tiny tiny tiny wavelength before it entered our fields of our negative pressure gravity ( and then refract or dilate a bit?).

I wouldn't call "white-holes" ridiculous, but on the other hand they lost their popularity after the 1970s when it was realized they would be unstable:

Have we seen a white hole?

The idea of white holes was fashionable for a time in the 1970s. People spoke of wormholes, with a black hole on one end and a white whole on the other. Could these wormholes be tunnels in spacetime through which intrepid travelers could journey instantaneously across vast distances in the universe? But further thought caused people to realize that white holes would be extremely unstable, and hence highly unlikely to exist, in fact so unlikely that no one has talked about them much in recent decades. They are truly fringe science. So far, no astronomical source has been successfully tagged a white hole.

Then the article talks about a way to get around the instability problem is to say maybe white holes can be observed as "bangs", perhaps short-lived events like gamma-ray bursts. Some papers have been written along these lines, even one saying the big bang might be a gigantic white hole event, but it seems to me like "the jury is out" on those ideas. A paper hypothesized that GRB060614 might be a white hole event, but as you can see from the linked NASA article on that, NASA just says we are lacking a model to explain it. Maybe a white hole is one possibility, but further research is needed.

In easy mode, if we were listening to a voice recording that is in a stronger gravitational field than ours it would be low octave and slow.

If you're talking about planets, again we are typically trying to look for evidence of those in our own galaxy, and planets don't have that much gravitational redshift, which you will see if you study the measurements in the pound-Rebka experiment.

So can i assume that something from a negative gravitational field would be really fast and high pitched? And can we mess with that?

The closest things I'm aware of to a "negative gravitational field" is not really that at all, but dark energy has been compared to that. But what this "sort of anti-gravity" effect does is often misrepresented in the popular media, so many people hear the term "anti-gravity" and a large misunderstanding results. A good explanation is offered here by physicist Frank Heile:

How accurate is it to label dark energy as anti-gravity?

The problem is that the word "anti-gravity" invokes a vision of a vehicle floating above the ground (as seen in many science fiction movies). Dark energy will not allow the development of anti-gravity floating vehicles. In fact, dark energy cannot even be added to an object so that it could repel other objects (it doesn't matter if the other object has "dark energy" in it or not).

What dark energy really does is that it causes space to repel itself. So dark energy is anti-gravity but only for space itself.

If there were no dark energy, then as the universe expands from the big bang, the rate of expansion would slow down with time since all the matter in the universe is attracting all the other matter in the universe via their mutual gravitation attraction. Gravity would not likely be able to stop and reverse the expansion of the universe, but it would definitely slow it down.

Instead we observe that the universe's rate of expansion is actually speeding up right now. Why? Because as the universe has expanded, the matter density of the universe (mass per volume) has decreased with time such that the repulsion of space pushing against itself (because of dark energy) has now overcome the attractive force of matter...

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: Nodrak

As a wave travels through space, it hits atoms and gets absorbed. The frequency of this wave that gets absorbed is related to the energy required to alter electron orbits. These happen in things called 'Quanta'. In math terms, thees are just whole numbers.

Is this related to Zyklotronresonanz? The resonance frequency needed to transfer energy from EM waves to free electrons in the ionosphere, for example?

No. Cyclotron resonance in the atmosphere is a larger scale plasma physics effect and can be calculated with classical Maxwell physics & electrodynamics, without quantum mechanical effects.

In semiconductors there is an equivalent effect but QM may sometimes become important.

Cyclotron resonance: "the absorption of electromagnetic energy by a charged particle orbiting in a magnetic field when the electromagnetic and orbital frequencies are equal"

What dark energy really does is that it causes space to repel itself. So dark energy is anti-gravity but only for space itself.

The one thing i know about gravity is the more of it there is the slower you accumulate events and when radio waves bounce off these things and travel long distance they expand their wavelength. We then shrink this wavelength to see what was "redshifted" in a visible spectrum.

Why would antigravity NOT have the opposite effect?
If "dark energy" causes space to repel itself i think we can assume time will be condensed here, considering when space condenses on itself time dilates.

Im assuming dark energy would cause anything that bounces off it to blue shift to an extreme degree and this is why we cannot visibly see the stuff.

If we can see light that has redshifted into radio waves, is it possible to do the opposite thing and stretch something that blue shifted ?



a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nodrak
Think about a jet flying away from you at Mach 1.5, will you hear it? Will you ever hear it?

If you're in the US and the jet is in Australia, you won't hear it whether it's subsonic or supersonic.

Technically you will hear it as part of the noise of the environment, even if its below your detection threshold. This is effectively the basis for the saying 'butterfly effect'

Are you familiar with anisotropic mediums or non-linear optics? It seems odd to even consider cosmology without them as you already account for gravity. The problem with the Hubble limit is that is presupposes a uniformly expanding universe, which has only been measured by the Doppler effect to my knowledge. High sensitivity experiments have tried to prove a local Doppler effect in order to prove the expansion, but all have failed to my knowledge. This phenomenon is much more simply explained by a shift in μ0 and εo, both of which have been experimentally shown on earth in man made laboratory and commercial situations since 2012 ish.

Modern science will already admit that there is non-symmetry between the North and South magnetic fields and their response to the sun, as well as delayed response times in high energy outputs.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
Is this related to Zyklotronresonanz? The resonance frequency needed to transfer energy from EM waves to free electrons in the ionosphere, for example?

This is the basis for many things, including cyclotrons (microwave ovens), electron orbital distances. If you heard of china's new engine for their missiles, this is it.

Yes, the cyclotron in a microwave uses copper usually, it is put in a magnetic field then ionized in a resonant harmonic way that produces microwave EM spectrum. The wavelength comes from the size of the resonating chamber. A plasma gas is the same thing, and this process is effectively what a Tokamak is. The difference between a microwave oven and a Tokamak reactor, is that one is designed to let the resonant energy out, and one is designed to direct it in a direction that amplifies the system, typically by increasing the velocity of the electrons while containing them in the orbital of the magnetic field (middle of the torus). The EM producing cyclotron, lets the electrons give energy to resonating chambers on the outer ring when they gain too much velocity instead.

originally posted by: Exit89
"What dark energy really does is that it causes space to repel itself. So dark energy is anti-gravity but only for space itself."

That's what the physicist Frank Heile said, after explaning it's not really anti-gravity.

The one thing i know about gravity is the more of it there is the slower you accumulate events and when radio waves bounce off these things and travel long distance they expand their wavelength.

That's not completely true. Let's say a radio wave is emitted from a source 10 light years from a neutron star. As the radio wave heads toward the neutron star, it's gravitationally blue shifted, so the wavelength shrinks more and more as it approaches the surface, then if it bounces off the surface, it's gravitationally red-shifted when leaving. Once the reflected radio wave is 10 light years away from the neutron star, assuming no other gravitational influences, the net change is wavelength is zero. It has neither shrunk nor stretched once it bounced off to the same distance away.

We then shrink this wavelength to see what was "redshifted" in a visible spectrum.

Can you find even a single example in the scientific literature where a gravitationally red-shifted electromagnetic signal originating in visible light was shifted outside the visible spectrum by gravitational red-shifting alone?

There are visible light sources shifted outside the visible sectrum, typically not because of gravitational redshift, it's because of cosmological redshift.

Why would antigravity NOT have the opposite effect?

For starters, it's not anti-gravity. That's a dumbed down analogy used to explain the dark energy phenomenon to laymen, and even then the physicist I cited started out by explaining it's not really anti-gravity.

If "dark energy" causes space to repel itself i think we can assume time will be condensed here

Why would you assume when we have measurements? The whole reason we think space in the universe is expanding is because wavelengths from more distant sources are longer, and we think the expansion is accelerating due to dark energy, meaning the stretching is even more than we would expect if there was no dark energy.

considering when space condenses on itself time dilates.

I don't know what space condensing on itself means? According to general relativity it's matter or energy that causes time dilation, not "condensed space" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Im assuming dark energy would cause anything that bounces off it to blue shift to an extreme degree and this is why we cannot visibly see the stuff.

That's a poor hypothesis in several respects.
Take a form of energy we know something about, electromagnetic energy. The vast majority is outside the visible spectrum, so the majority of the EM energy cannot be "visibly seen".
Another thing we know is that typically EM energy doesn't usually bounce off other EM energy, it passes right through.
Another thing about dark energy is that there's not very much per unit volume. So to me it seems a poor hypothesis to suspect that something with an energy density barely above zero would cause things to bounce off it. I made a thread exploring this topic assuming dark energy and vacuum energy are the same thing which is a common hypothesis.

The only reason there's so much dark energy in total in the universe, is because there's a lot of empty space in the universe.

If we can see light that has redshifted into radio waves, is it possible to do the opposite thing and stretch something that blue shifted ?

I think what astronomers do is record the light they receive, then they can process that recorded information however they want. So they could shrink or stretch what they find, but I think more typically they would use spectroscopy to see where the spectral lines are located, which can tell them if what they see is red-shifted or blue-shifted and by how much. For cosmological observations they then convert this to a "z" number, a measurement of red-shift if positive, or of blue-shift if negative. The comparison looks like this:

Redshift

Arrows indicate redshift...

The value of a redshift is often denoted by the letter z, corresponding to the fractional change in wavelength (positive for redshifts, negative for blueshifts), and by the wavelength ratio 1 + z (which is >1 for redshifts,

originally posted by: Nodrak
Technically you will hear it as part of the noise of the environment, even if its below your detection threshold. This is effectively the basis for the saying 'butterfly effect'

I don't think that's a good example of the 'butterfly effect', but yes I suppose you might make the argument the signal is still there and just overwhelmed with the noise from other signals such that the signal to noise ratio makes it impossible to hear it. Looking for alien transmissions from outer space in the way SETI does tend to result in signal to noise issues, since there a lot of other sources of noise, but the signals should still reach us in the background.

In the example of the jet on the other side of the world, I'm not 100% sure even the signal will make it. The sound is atmospheric pressure waves and there are a lot of ways those could be absorbed or dissipated travelling though the atmosphere, the point being there may be more losses than just inverse-square loss as we might have from astronomical sources.

High sensitivity experiments have tried to prove a local Doppler effect in order to prove the expansion, but all have failed to my knowledge.

The paper I linked for you in my previous post mentions this at the end of the abstract:

arxiv.org...

We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23σ.

The authors go on to explain at length how the cosmological redshift is not a special relativistic Doppler redshift, even though they found some misleading literature to suggest that, such as "texts asking students to calculate the velocity of a high redshift receding galaxy using the special relativistic Doppler shift equation."

According to the authors, that's the wrong approach, and they explain the right approach at the end of section 3.1.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Even your link shows the world lines diverging from the Hubble sphere. They just hand wave it away by picking a sub-set of the examples that happen to cross the boundary. Anything with their Redshift value of 3 or higher in their data coincided exactly with what I am saying. If we use minkowski space, this is 2 times C, if we use FLRW space, this means scale factor increase of 4. Either way, it is a definitional argument over what the event horizon is based on how you attempt to reconcile the difference between the observed and the calculated.

As of 2015, they are up to a Z magnitude of 10^-17 on the local earth Lorentz in-variance of light. This value is so tiny that people can throw objects that generate more doppler shift. A 1m/s source will generate a Z magnitude of 10^-9. Using the same methods and evidence to say the universe is expanding, also says the earth is not moving, or that the medium itself is not as we understand. You have even posted a paper discussing the gravitational redshift observed from a gravitational object on earth, which was detected without issue.

Most of that paper's reconciliation is spent discussing the co-moving scenarios, which have yet to even be established as true. Quoting the paper:

The Hubble sphere recedes as long as the deceleration parameter q = − ̈RR/ ̇R2 > −1
...
Exponential expansion, such as that found in inflation, has q = −1. Therefore the Hubble sphere is at a constant proper distance and coincident with the event horizon.
...
Firstly, objects on our event horizon do have infinite redshift.
The current distance to our particle horizon and its velocity is difficult to say due to the unknown
duration of inflation

Effectively, that paper says 'The universal expansion is probably slowing down so we will eventually see everything'. Which is such a non answer it is not even funny.

Figure 6 shows the expected change in redshift due to cosmological acceleration or deceleration is only ∆z ∼ 10^−8 over 100 years

shows that all galaxies beyond a redshift of z = 1.46 are receding faster than the speed of light (Fig. 2). Hundreds of galaxies with z > 1.46 have been observed. The highest spectroscopic redshift observed in the Hubble deep field is z = 6.68 (Chen et al., 1999) and the Sloan digital sky survey has identified four galaxies at z > 6 (Fan et al., 2003). All of these galaxies have always been receding superluminally

This is the 'supersonic from behind' scenario I was talking about. As they exceeded the speed of light, they either give off a luminal boom type scenario, which if you believe SR will leave behind an image forever. Or if the space-time is expanding and not TrueDistance, then the balance points talked about above will come into play. The problem here stems from what people think of as 'seeing'. If space-time can expand into the space of the light because it is also expanding faster, then this is like seeing the end of a train and claiming you saw the engine at the front, or as the OP put it, 'seeing in time'.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Could all the data that supports an accelerating beyond c expansion of the universe be flawed?

Due to the fact that measurements can only be taken from a point in space against other points in space (galaxies etc) and is only relative to points within space (the volume of the universe (embedded in spacetime)).

Whereas, all points within space (volume of the universe (embedded in spacetime)) actually remain the same distances apart relative to the scale of the universe.

The expansion of the universe does not need to be accelerating beyond c to look like the data that supports acceleration beyond c.

Regardless of what colour energy is responsible. Dark energy is energy, heat and light. And, light can only travel up to c.

a reply to: Nodrak
a reply to: blackcrowe

I've quoted George Box before, who said "All models are wrong, some are useful."

It's been a while since I read the "expanding confusion..." paper I linked in previous posts, but I do recall them mentioning a reference to the ΛCDM or Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, sort of a "standard model" of cosmology. As George Box inferred, that model, like all models, is likely wrong, but does it make good predictions? Maybe not as good as general relativity and special relativity do, but, for now, it's the best cosmological model we've got. There are other models being considered, and if enough evidence is found for us to prefer one of those, then perhaps another model will replace ΛCDM as the "standard model" of cosmology. There are some troublesome issues with the calculation of the Hubble Constant using different methods, creating some tension in our models, which we need to resolve one way or another. That's discussed here, and perhaps upon resolution of this issue we might have more insights into improving our models:

The NEW Crisis in Cosmology


Whether the improved model which may result from resolving this crisis will change the way superluminal recession velocities are modelled based on the ΛCDM model, I can't say at this time, since it depends on how the crisis is resolved.

What I have observed is light and it's shadow or once a source energy clung to from a fuel source are still present; Although, the mass that was the source of both are gone... sort of like looking at a light bulb and closing the eyes and there is an image burn. Because of space time is said to be curved is likely due to masses of energy still present and being consumed instead of a residual light and shadow. Like a lens flare the eyes do not see and yet there is "information" there.

Both of those residual effects of light and shadow having no mass both move at the same speed and yet still have a paired bond from their source but the only thing they have in reality is the space or distance between the two phenomenon.

Without mass the light emitted from and shadow of that light emitted from are still present and yet not light and shadow per se as we "know" it; a far as energy and it's so called laws of conservation... the odd thing is see "light" one assumes mass being consumed and the presence of heat and or a cold so cold that it burns and the shadow to be weightless and variable and well in space that shadow has weight and collects the more that come into contact with each other... it may seem strange but that's how I have observed it.

once it gains enough mass and entanglement the shadows then gain very heavy mass equal to the amount of energy that was burned and the light is more of a flash or lens flare not really existent in the visible spectrum or what could be called clear light like that between a wick and the flame; those heavy shadow masses that are no longer fuel start pulling the light they once had them as a byproduct of fuel being consumed become super massive and entangled pulling that light back into contact...

Th phenomena is called a black hole but it is also entanglement; one light and one shadow? No big deal two lights and two shadows a tangled pair but the strange thing is? All of what is perceived as space is like this with matter that has yet to be consumed and light and shadow yet to be released and entangled from it.

When one looks at the atomic blast sites of WWII notice the shadow of people that were instantly made into light; such a thing is similar to what I'm speaking of; of course the shadows of the people lost in such a thing; is very heavy... the same thing occurs in meditation one sits and sits and sits and most of their atomic mass and or decay is similar as those people but for them the atomic decay was all at once.

When people speak of "shadow people" one should first close their eyes and see if there is an inner bright glow; if not I wouldn't be concerned about them as a phenomenon... as it is like matter and antimatter about to combine and well once that occurs the phenomena known as death however, neither knows one as light or darkness without experience in such matters and neither one of them even thought they are the same "person" wants to die as silly as that may sound when one typically perceives one as already in such a state and not themselves as the light or shadow.

It basically boils down to what is often called the trinity or basically just; light, fuel, and shadow.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Unfortunately, George's quote is also a model. And, therefore wrong. Although, it might be useful 😉

I've already explained that nothing (galaxies etc) actually move away from anything else (galaxies etc) relative to the scale of the expanding universe.

But, data shows that things (galaxies etc) are moving away from each other relatively and, beyond c when fixed within the volume of the expanding universe (embedded in spacetime).

The concept that when you double the size of any object. The volume much more than doubles (although, in a similar reply in another thread i stated it was 4x. Is in fact 8x. I noticed too late to edit to correct it). can be applied to the universe. Where, any 2 or more fixed points within the volume (embedded in spacetime) will appear to move relatively away from each other by more than a linear doubling measurement or, relative from an observer not scaling with the object (universe). And, all points (matter/mass) are becoming infinitely smaller as the universe becomes infinitely larger.

The concept above is not new. I have applied it to the universe to argue that the universe does not need to expand beyond c. The concept also works below c.

I was made aware of that concept after learning that, although famous for building bridges. English Civil Engineer I. K. Brunel used the same concept when considering how large a ship would have to be in order for it to make a transatlantic return journey to the U.S.A, using a ship with steam, coal powered engines instead of the traditional sail, wind powered ships currently being used at that time. And, were very slow.

He knew that he only needed to double the size of the sail ship. Which gave him more than enough room for the large engines, could carry more than enough coal for the crossing and return, room for paying passengers and cargo. Success. Unfortunately however. His ambition to rule the seas wasn't such a success when he built even larger ships that could manage a return trip to Australia. As Australia had plenty of coal. And so, only needed to be 2 x one way trips.

a reply to: blackcrowe

The original people of Australia see the cave as their origin(mother) and all being born out of the red earth(sun) in their tribal "mind" none of them have ever left the cave or mother and when they see each other; it's simply known as a; walk about... when they know they are out there hunting for something and that something could be anything. So it's either going about one's business also hunting or listening to see what all others have to say about them in their passing.

The empty parts of the night sky being a reflection of all of those on the ground have an inner light that will eventually return to the sky.

But like an old camp site of a circle of stones and charred wood one can see the remnants of where light and shadow once feasted together. The wise set up camp there and keep the fire burning and offer the meal to the person that arrives to "that place they know" on their walk about and then leaves the site them self without a word having made the place "better" or more habitable for the weary and hungry traveler that made the circle.

several names for the same thing doesn't mean anything to butterflies wings pretending to be flowers on a naked bush, their work is not mine and talking about it would be rude.

a reply to: Crowfoot

I'm sorry.

I do not understand the point of your reply to me. Or, why you posted it to me.

Am i rude for talking about "it"?

a reply to: blackcroweuntil that dark energy that has a massive amount of past gravity c remains a constant the entanglement that appears vortex like that can strip the fire off of a sun isn't really spooky when light is what it feeds off of and protects those "bodies" from being consumed like the light as a sibling and matter that gave birth to both... seeking that sort of matter it only finds the light it "eats" attached to it and in a way undoing the cause of more like it is all it appears to do in a conglomerate mass when c gets sucked into it could it be said to even be c anymore or just a type of residual fuel left out there that that energy is attached too as multiple entangled pairs of the same type no longer having the original mass or origin as a source as a third party entanglement that gave rise to both...

after one chews up and swallows the food they put in their mouth is it really food anymore or basically just the same sort of process seen externally when thinking about it internally like the thing called hunger an entanglement and when the mouth opens the black hole and walking around the neighborhood no one knows what you have consumed as energy as it has ceased to be anything other than movement that will require even more fuel until there are no more outflows that are seen as beneficial for others consumption the inflow of you is due to light that light may be yours or may not be yours.

Sympathy for the "devil" as it were is putting the human face to the real problem and in doing such a thing that's how humans made gods and goddesses the personification or reference of out there to in there inside oneself somewhere is the mirror to all that arises and all that passes... oh don't blame Zeus for your torch going out blame Vesta of course that just says that name once held more teaching in personifications and embodiments than what we get in simply saying they are the gods or goddesses of this that or the other in how they relate to oneself was a very important aspect to learn in understanding proper view and responsibility... Worldwide the same occurrences personified in different pantheons and argued about and warred over and yet missing the point of them altogether as signs and wonders that are easily grasped when the personifications are embodied in relation to internal mirroring external and vice versa.

But looking at darkness requires energy to close the eyes shut out the light to see the night sky as a closed lidded eyeball of Horus or his counterpart or Nyx or whomever meets the more known in ones sphere of understanding of such a thing than those that do not choosing those that do not is leaping off the ten thousand foot pole or into the maelstrom or the heroes and or heroine's journey not the one safe well known and well traveled by thousands over countless amounts of feet to where Atlas would say a friend you are road for supporting so many scared of any path other than the tried they still perceive as true.

Many people having experiences used to be blamed on drugs by psychology all over the world and when those long suffering with paths not traditional not tried and considered true at least by demographic statistics those people were considered crazy what I think is crazy is when atheist Asians recognise the awakened mind as god instead of buddha perhaps many long practiced caucasoid descended people know what I am speaking of that have leapt into that chasm of study and philosophy... but no other than the previous mentioning of gods and goddesses such a thing as godhood is a hindrance... the constant blame by others for things that were never in one's control and even if they were no one of any sort of sanity would want that sort of burden and abandon it was the wiser path.

It's not that those things are not gifts or teaching in yet to figure it out wrappers but even with all the time for it too much life in harm's way floating about as if any of it was ever made for another. When someone says something like "my dog" out of respect for boths parents one wouldn't be able to hit that person hard enough and whisper in their growing cold form let me know when you are self possessed and not so weak in thinking you could ever possess another... see I'm not fit for such a title and what's even more is the arrogance that claims someone as their lord or their god.

Anyways

in regards to c it's a speed not a light and neither one is truly constant by other phenomena both directly or indirectly both observable and also not that contact it in various ways. But please consider the poor thing called an Ant all it's life it toils not knowing self from other until it's a fish out of water called a queen such a thing would be the same as heaven she has to do absolutely nothing until she becomes a birthing queen strange they don't call them princesses but it is what it is... best food and constantly doted on day and night pampered to a fault but what keeps their species going not light not math not fire not darkness the queen. None of them mentally struggle unless too far from home sending out call after call until one finds it and carries it back above its head like a hero yay we found a defaulted one now we can grow more advanced and stronger in the next brood after analyzing what went wrong with it... sure we've modeled after those before being found all over the world and have built great civilizations some still standing some still being lived in no different than thousands of years ago and then you hear I can't live without my cell phone wll does your antenne pop up and a grinch like smile across your face and think defaulted one? No well there is still hope as arguing about anything without measure as you said arbitrary points in space nothing but futility or energy that could be spent more productive elsewhere.

There is a very very large group of people that have directly experienced what one thinks one becomes... such a thing has been suggested as groups and yet it is likely ill advised as just seeing that arise and pass until there is no more becoming or the ending of what is called individual cause and effect can take a very very long time. Looking at the opening page here at ATS you can see such an agenda in action and others noticing that previously made a place to go or camp out until whatever it is blows over. That is of course speaking of conspiracy in and of itself on a site for conspiracy to where hey if you people dont mind stop purposefully experimenting with those that are anti conspiracy when the narrative being pushed is one?

Not letting the world turn that way takes ignoring it and not allowing such ignorance that wants such things to occur or happen as they've written or want to design it occur... oh we just want to drop a few bombs to save the many bombs.

a reply to: Crowfoot

The term "dark energy" should be considered a placeholder term only at this time.

It is an attempt to label something which can't be described properly.

It is a singularity of which everything else we observe came from.

It is a positive energy. Heat and light at velocity. In every direction (isotropic).

Rotation of the potentially infinite energy together with entanglement create finite states of energy that can be labelled.

It can't be created or destroyed. Only change form (state of energy).

a reply to: blackcrowe

Atomic decay is a misnomer it is best thought of as trading through the forces of the entire atomic structure. Hence the changing form like gold trading off one planck distance worth with other local elements to become lead... such a process can be speeded up by electroplating however it being a chemical process with a waste slurry.

How long it would take for gold to become lead through that atomic exchange? Who knows, but it was the goal of alchemists knowing gold becomes lead to attempt to reverse the process. Unfortunately; Philosophy has made that happen in the form of bullets. Perhaps regarding the atomic exchange of the two(gold/lead) as alchemical philosophers running back and forth as an old form of embodiment is the proper thing to do... there is however a moment where one atomic weight of gold and one atomic weight of lead can't tell the difference between each other and such a thing in my opinion would be termed space time.

the changing form like gold trading off one planck distance worth with other local elements to become lead

a reply to: Crowfoot

I undertand what you mean, but certainly you would agree with me that there is no way an atom can trade off anything at a Planck distance because, as you know, Planck distance is (measured in seconds) ten to the minus 85 seconds, some ten to the minus 35 meters in SI, which means no atom, no nothing, can approach that distance.

a reply to: Crowfoot

That reply was more understandable. Thanks. Although, I'm not a scientist and my replies should only be considered as my opinion. However, there is a scientist active in this thread. And, it might be worth asking Arbitrageur rather than me. To receive a qualified answer. I am also here asking for a qualified answer.

Atomic decay is a misnomer it is best thought of as trading through the forces of the entire atomic structure.

there is however a moment where one atomic weight of gold and one atomic weight of lead can't tell the difference between each other and such a thing in my opinion would be termed space time.

In my last reply. I claimed that "dark energy" was a singularity of a potentially infinite source of positive energy responsible for the creation of everything we can observe. It is repulsive and travels away from the source at velocity and with rotation in 3 dimensions of length, height and width. And so, creating the electro field.

The rotation can be broken down into spin. Where, the 3 dimensions of positive "dark energy" are rotated through 90* x 90* = 180* = + half spin to their squared positions in a geometric coordinate system. Where, using the up and down quark for an example. The up quark is rotated by + half spin to its squared coordinate of down. The down quark is rotated by + half spin to its squared coordinate of up (this requires a fixed set and a rotational set of coordinates).

The up and down quarks, carrying the + charge having travelled away from their source and, together with rotation. Now find themselves not only in their opposite coordinates of the dimension. But, also from a position away from the source. Still travelling in their original directions. Now become anti's. And are travelling back towards the source. The anti-up and anti-down quarks are negative. The negative aspect being attractive.

The rotation of the system continues to make a complete rotation. The anti-up and anti-down quarks having - half spin. Together with rotation and entanglement of the dimensions. Become the magnetic field. Where the positive repulsive energy has been carried round to its squared coordinate and is now anti-positive. Negative and attractive and tending back towards the source.

Upon completion of the rotation of the system. Spin 1. A finite state of energy is created. Which can be measured and labels applied. It is now dualistic. Each coordinate having both a positive and negative aspect to them. Eg. The up coordinate now contains both an up quark/anti-down quark pair and is a meson. A more exotic meson would be between the coordinate pair of up/down. Where, it contains an up quark/anti- down quark and a down quark/anti-up quark pair. And would be a tetraquark. The strong force represented by an up quark/down quark pair and the weak force an anti-up quark/anti-down quark pair. The other dimensions behave in the same manner. Becoming a triality of dualities of a singularity.

However, the completion of a rotation of the system does not make the system finite. The system continues to expand and rotate infinitely, become larger.

At this point. It only describes the nucleus of an atom or the Planck early epoch era ("big bang") stage of a system. And, contrary to my previous argument that there is no need for the universe to be expanding beyond c. It does not apply to the velocity at which the Planck scale happened. Which was beyond c as we know it.

We now have a finite state of energy that can be labelled. And, having already used quarks as an example. There are also protons and neutrons. Where the proton is positive and the neutron is neutral. The negative aspect forming the shell of the finite state of energy.

The neutrons form another set of neutral dimensions where the colour charges of the quarks meet. Like a neutral boundary/border between two different colours of light. Or, where a positive or negative charge decays to.

Rotation 2 sees the system continue to expand by lengthening of the dimensions at c. Together with rotation, creating new points (of information) by entanglement. Where, having rotated through half spins to complete the rotation where the fixed and rotational sets of dimensions are again aligned. Another finite state of energy is created. And would look like an orbital shell in the common representations of atoms for example. Where the space in between the nucleus and the new outer orbital shell is a field of energy between one state of energy (nucleus) and the next finite state of energy (orbital shell). It is an entangled field that contains all the information of what it was and creating new points with more information of higher energy, to become something else (another form of a finite state of energy) at a higher energy level (n number).

Upon completion of the second rotation. And, as a finite state of energy. Again, we can label the new points (of info).
They are positrons (+e) and electrons (-e). The neutral boundary dimensions (neutrons in the nucleus) extend to the next energy level (orbital shell) and become active in their own right as another set of spatial dimensions plus a fourth spacetime dimension. They are offset to the fixed and rotational sets of dimensions already described above. And make up the 3+3+(3+1) dimensions of the Poincare Group.

The addition of the (3+1) dimensions also transforms what was a 3d system (ball of positive and neutral energy) into a 4d system by entanglement of the new points with positive scalars responsible for the expansion and negative tensors responsible for holding the 4d geometry of the universe together.

The tensors are responsible for the gravitational effect. Also attractive. Unlike the weak force. Cannot tend back towards the source. But can only tend back towards the nucleus/core.

Neutrino's would be found at the neutral boundary extension point of the (3+1) set of dimensions. As the decay points upon positron. electron annihilation.

Spacetime would be represented in all the dimensions of the (3+1) set. They all behave the same. It is scalable effect. Where, a constant velocity at c can appear to be faster at larger scale and slower at smaller scale relative to an observer.

Whatever scale is being observed. The velocity is distance x time where the distance is one complete rotation of the system at a constant c.