Put as simply as possible [Occams Razor] Time is what separates events: without it, everything would happen together. Space is what keeps matter/energy apart: without it, everything would be together. And they are all part and parcel of what evolved from the BB.
I think you should be in against the mainstream because you arguing a definition of time which doesn't exist in the framework of the theory. Don't worry, you're not the only one that has fell for the idea that spacetime is continuous right to the very ''beginning of the universe.'' Though, anyone with an advanced understanding of what has been discussed here the last week can see, you're ignoring how time is defined in relativity. Doing that makes me slightly angry. You see, I am passionate about physics and you are basically taking everyone for a ride.
Fundamentally, probably not. That isn't pseudoscience, it's something physicists are taking very seriously today.
Paddo you've made no reply to this statement. But as it turns I have already wrote something which explains this very well. Time isn't exactly disappearing, we are just unveiling it for it's true form and that is that it measures changes in the universe. The universe as a closed system to define time, we need moving clocks (matter). Clocks where formed originally to measure what we call time, but time is a concept created to understand the linear form of events which come about through the physical changes of the system. There is in fact no indication time even exists external to the human perception. We already have wonderful biological reasons as to why we even have a sense of time and we owe this to a set of gene regulators inside the brain which regulates our ''flow'' of time. If there was no motion in the universe, there would be no way to even say time passed. Time in this sense is created to measure an order of change in the universe. Einstein certainly, when developing the relativity theories never considered time as anything more special than a phenomenon which a clock measures. Motion in General relativity arises as a symmetry of the theory, it isn't a true time evolution [1]. The Einstein field equations are invariant under diffeomorphisms in which we actually find that spacetime points are not physical in themselves, only events are physical characterized by physical interactions. Keep in mind the real problem comes from uniting space and time as a union, which you recognized before but use it as ''evidence'' time is somehow real. It certainly adds no evidence whatsoever, things change and this is how we define time, however, things are changing in space it isn't space itself. So setting time equal to space may be very wrong indeed.
From what I understand, (which isn't much) is that setting time equal to space isn't wrong and clearly works. I would agree that change is the overall circumstance involved, but space is quite elastic and has an observed relationship with many things.
Yes it's wrong and no is does not work. It's as wrong as creating or destroying energy or matter., and indeed its the same thing. All of reality would cease to exist. It's about the most egregious of all kinds of errors. Velocity and acceleration can not exist if time equals space. No force or momentum, no energy and no matter. Nothing is left. There is nothing elastic about space in the inertial reference frame, which is where nearly all human perception takes place. Free bodies do not possess weight without gravity, nor do they exert a force merely because they have mass. To develop a force the mass must undergo acceleration, to include the static force of gravity, which is equal to the mass of the body times the gravitational acceleration g = 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup]. As you see there are units of time in the acceleration. This not only means there can be no weight without time, nor can there be any force without time, but that length must be twice differentiable with respect to time (there must be a second derivative) in order to develop an acceleration, or to claim there is a weight or a force. What you are saying is that the length is differentiable with respect to time, and the resultant can be measured, yet time itself can not be measured. That's a gaping contradiction. You haven't explained why you substituted the word "separation" for "length" in this sentence. It seems to imply the Euclidean distance, which the precise technical term for "the shortest distance between two points". Since the distance from Washington to Moscow is not the same as their Euclidean distance, whatever you meant by this is probably untrue. You said we can measure length, not time. I said said "when" and you said "what do you mean" and I said "when do you measure length. State that and you have done a time measurement". That's the point. Look at the time on your screen and you've have done a measurement.
Too harsh saying it is wrong, a more appropriate way to describe time is a low energy epoch stage in which matter fields and geometry is present. This means they are emergent phenomenon, they are not fundamental.
More to the point how long will they put up with you? You can't do basic maths or hold a decent conversation, you've trolled my threads and now you're intentionally baiting and flaming.
Ban Nightshift Since you've admitted to being Reiku, I suppose your days are numbered. That makes this a free for all. Flame me all you want. Unlike you I have repeatedly stated the simple mathematical error you committed in your supercilious condescending* posts. You've refused to answer my repeated requests that you explain what df(t)/dx = 0 means. By preponderance of the evidence, you have no clue what it means. Evidently you have no more than about an 8th grade level of fluency in math. Your claims are baseless and your supercilious demeanor is tolerated only at the leisure of the mods. Posting claims based on math and science you never studied, and pretending to use it to manipulate the gentler readers, is not only overt trolling but it's emblematic of the propaganda tactics used by Creationists to imprint their fallacies into young and impressionable minds. How or why you integrate these two (trolling out of psychopathic ideation vs trolling for Jesus) remains to be seen. Maybe when you return in your 19th socket puppet (or do I have that backwards: are you up to 91 already?) you can confess your actual agenda. I vote to ban Nightshift. *hats off to TheHun for this best-ever characterization of religious pseudoscience.
I'm rather curious as to how our "resident professor of detail" views the above reference to notorious examples of trolling, dishonesty and fraud. ps: I now lay claim to be one of the gentler readers on this forum. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As long as time changes there is something there which isn't. You can carry space as being filled with physical dimensions and represent time as an inertial reference frame. I kinda mean influenced more with heat yet lacks the ability to decay. You ever had a rubber band stretched so long around something it would stay together but fall apart the second you tried to get it off? Which is kinda an example where heat over a long time has about the same effect as cold over a short time while being stretched. So yeah you have a point there.
Oh, so only "probably not" now.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The correct answer is that The BB/Inflationary theory does say that the Universe started with an evolution of space and time, or if you prefer, space/time. And I don't believe for one minute that anything different it is being considered by physicists today, as it would invalidate both the BB and GR....And latest data from many advanced probes further supports both theories as is.
paddoboy; re twins That is the point that SR makes, that time is subjective or observer dependent. There is no tangible 'time' that is measurable. Clock events are counted, and appear as a number in any math expression. All standard clock events are by definition and based on spatial intervals.
I see it exactly reversed, the subjective nature of time, and the fact there is no Universal "Now" shows the real nature of time. Remember that that fact stems from the simple finite speed of light. And remember, all FoR's are as valid as each other.
In calculus we speak of differential elements of existence. You can slice objects by time and/or space. Every slice exists. Relativity appears to be telling us that each slice persists for all time, kind of the opposite of not existing. When we speak of inertial reference frames, we are referring to both a spatial origin (coordinates) and a temporal one (a reference clock). Well space doesn't stretch in the inertial reference frame. It only appears to be stretched to the observer looking at the space of an accelerating frame. This is why gravitational lensing makes the space around supermassive objects appear to be curved. Locally, no such curvature would be evident. I thought you were saying space was elastic for this reason, due to relativity. Since most human observations all take place in the same inertial reference frame (Earth) almost all the time space is not warped at all.
I'm not sure if you're going with the program though paddoboy. I think the religiosos of the world have a special place in hell carved out for you since you just won't sit down and submit to their nonsense. In a regular school they might have sign that says "no talking in class" but that wouldn't cover the class participation you're doing. The Reikus of the world hang a different sign up, one that says "no thinking allowed in class". This is why religious people need to butt out of academia altogether, unless they are actual scholars who have enough sense to leave their personal beliefs out of the discussion of objective fact.
Hiya Aqueous Id While I agree basically with the above description, isn't this akin to if we are walking down the street, or even just driving, we view the ground we walk on as straight, or the road as straight, when in fact it is the arc of an overall much larger curvature, which we cannot perceive. [unless we take a flight at 35,000 ft or so...... And didn't GP-B "see" the local space/time curvature caused by Earth, as well as the Lense Thirring effect? What do you think?
