Mitcher

A process decreasing the inflationist power can be understood but slowing down all the matter in the Universe from thousands of times c to a relative standstill is a different thing. Maybe gravity at works ? I like the idea the Universe might be critically oscillating. I read some authors contest the accelerated expansion measurments. Maybe we should really ascertain it's real first, mostly because it's so weird. And if it's real we should stop talking about the Hubble constant then, it should be the Hubble variable.

This is understood, thanks. Some times ago I tried to represent O by an angle 0<alpha<90 and gave it a try to see what it would translate to if I used the angle beta = (90 - alpha)/90 as O'. Even if it is conceptually wrong, for some reasons the results are very close to x' resulting from the Lorentz transform proper, a couple of degrees apart at most and spot on on the limits. Amazing. Yes, I can do some math, that's why everything I asked before was about exactly what x and t represent and if they measure a fixed event or an interval because the numerical data I input simply don't close. When using v = 5 and c = 10, say, then I cannot get x'/t' = v for instance, and I can't find where its wrong.

To sum up, O is measuring an object moving along with O' at velocity v then, fair enough. But just earlier you wrote x and t can have any value; they are unrelated to v. So I'am still confused.

Couldn’t it be that the Universe’s topology forms quite a unique and unparalleled object ? Its inside and ouside could be indistinguishable for instance, with a single, not permeable membrane seen as the Planck’s wall from one side and as the BB horizon on the other one. Just running wild on that one.

Just a layman way of saying it is outside the manifold. In plain words, a hole, or a throat, appears on the space-time fabric as with a Flamm surface, which is not contractile and has no center. Thanks for your explanations, indeed Schzartchild used r as a simple parameter which has been wrongly understood to be a radius but in his mind it was never the case at all. According to Weyl, when M grows bigger than 2.5 solar masses then the proper mass is inverted. Weyl wrote his article in 1917 but was translated only 90 years or so later so Oppenheimer and Wheeler had not read it when they invented the singularity-based BH model many years later. According to Schwarschild, if r becomes smaller than Rs then the ds squared becomes negative, hence we are outside the hypersurface. Tolman and Oppenheimer only forgot about the preriquisite condition r > Rs (that’s what I mentionned as "corrupted"). IMO only a mathematical singularity can make sense, believing in a physical one is like believing flat oceans could have no borders. So yes, Kruskal and Oppenheimer theorized time and space directions inversion to allow for time to flow endlessly into the singularity but, as for the flat Earth borders, it seems far from substantiated.

ok but I was speaking about a braking mechanism(s), capable of stopping the inflation which pushed everything away at many times over the speed of light, then later identically able to seemingly re-accelerate everything.

Hi, sorry for the delay but I was blocked from answering earlier. Thanks for all your answers there but being as precise and specific as possible, is x the instant spatial coordinate of a single body moving at the same velocity v as O’, or is it the distance between two fixed points attached to O ?

Hello, thank you for your answer but no, it doesn't clarify really. Is O measuring the changing xt coordinates of a mobile moving at velocity V different from v, or is it the fixed coordinates of an event in O ?

The inflation is based on the handy existence of inflatons that nobody has ever seen. And there are no known mechanism explaining how inflation was seriously slowed down and, conversely, how it could start again recently.

Black holes and Big Bang are just that : models. In fact the Universe could very well be a black hole as far as we know.

My guess is space and time would ultimately degenerate and transform under rules we still don't know about. According to Pierre Petit there is no such thing as the inside of a BH, it merely went outside the continuum as per the original view of Schwarschild, which has been later corrupted. PP explains it very well.

Hello, I'am new here and in search of a simple explanation to a rather dull question : in the classical Lorentz first equation to translate from O to O' referentials we have x' = gamma.(x - vt). But v should be x/t, hence x = vt and we have x - vt = 0 which is meaningless. No amount of litterature I read on the subject could enlight me, I'am trying to write simple numerical exemples but this point is a non-goer.