How Can real energy 'permeate space-time', when space-time is just maths construct?

If the troll in question actually acknowledged and read and understood properly the bolded and red highlighted parts of the "Hole Argument" wiki article quoted in post #267, he would not have to continue posting 'links and excerpts from purely philosophical views of 'space-time' constructs. Instead, post #267 states clearly that 'space-time' descriptions/coordinates by themselves are meaninglss unless the events/process occurrences are included, as Maxila et al, including Einstein and Sean Carroll and Penrose, have pointed out as the empirically supportable view of 'time' as an derived abstraction from motion/change in energy-space processing occurrences. But will this deter the troll in question from further cluttering up the threads with his 'links' to purely philosophical views about 'time'? Probably not. The troll has not shown any glimmer of understanding of what mainstream and Maxila et al have presented him with, if only he could actually read and understand it all. Which he apparently cannot. So be prepared, forum, to suffer more of that troll's interminable clueless meaningless science empty repetitive postings. Cest la vie when such trolls are apparently 'given the nod' to clutter and bait and 'bury' threads/discussions at will.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A lie.

That you misunderstand Einstein's hole argument does not vitiate the lie.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please support your lies and assertions. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Did you understand the implications/inferences of/from Carroll's results and his and Saul's statements that the results indicate Euclidean underlying space (I call it energy-space for reasons already stated) extending to infinity beyond observable volume (even if localized processing energy-space creates NON-Euclidean space regions/features locally/transiently in that overall Euclidean space they spoke of)?

If you did, then there is nothing more to say. Good luck in future discussions, mate!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: What is there to misunderstand in the following clear statement:

...wherein it is made clear (in red) that the 'space-time' descriptions and coordinates etc are meaningless in themselves, and so must be given context in real events/processes in order to make anything meaningful from such maths/abstract analytical constructs' ad 'time' and combined GEOMETRIC 'space-time' constructs? Can't face the facts? Only 'cranks' and 'crackpots' and 'trolls' can't face the facts when under your nose. Isn't that what you and other trolls here say about others whom you target for your trolls? The shoe seems to be on the other foot now, doesn't it; being as how you have done everything to avoid an distract from the facts under your nose which make your trolling stance untenable in any way whatsoever? Give it up, mate, you've lost this one! Concede gracefully, that's a good chap. Cheers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And there you just proved your lie. And that you are deluded about the science.

 

You keep making lies and assertions, but do not support them with proof. Only liars and scoundrels do that. Oh, and 'cranks' and 'crackpots' and trolls' also do that.

So,mate, how about you tell the forum what Sean Carroll's and Saul Perlmutter's observations in that relevant BBC doco meant, when they concluded:

Go on, mate, 'spin' it for all you're worth...it won't change the implications/inferences one iota from what is clearly meant by them according to the results of Sean's exercise as presented by Sean himself in that BBC doco.

But don't let reality and the facts presented stop your troll-dreaming posts, Phys! Good for a hearty collective laugh by all here if nothing else. Go to it, while you wait for some 'accommodating' troll-mod 'savior' to come to your aid and ban me because one of his protected trolls is losing it. Dear oh dear oh dear. And what a funny/sorry sight it is, to be sure!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Quote Originally Posted by Sean Carroll & Saul Perlmutter
SEAN: The answer is: EUCLID WAS RIGHT! Space seems to us to be flat as far as we can measure it!


>>>>>>>>>SEGUE TO SAUL PEARLMUTTER's segment>>>>>>>

SAUL: That means that the simplest picture of the universe is a universe that is INFINITE! We really COULD live in a universe where there's galaxy after galaxy after galaxy in every direction; UP, DOWN SIDEWAYS and IT NEVER STOPS.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::




Ummm, it says that Carroll said that Euclid was right, space is flat....

and that means the Universe is Infinite....
Great stuff! Exactly what the data from WMAP verified.
Of course when we talk of a topologically flat Universe, we mean flat over the largest scales, just as the expansion is visible over the larger scales.

What it doesn't say is that the speed of light is not constant, or that time is not a real integral part of the Universe,space/time and is described to great accuracy by GR.

 

You're too late to the party, troll. I already used you in my experiments over the last few weeks to PROVE that Trippy is a crooked mod protecting you and his other 'stalking horse' trolls he uses to help frame and trump up excuses to ban me.

Your 'spin' and 'framing' like usual above is neither here nor there. Since I agreed with Carroll and it was PhysBang who tried to 'spin' it as my being 'deluded' and 'lying' etc, even though I had the proof of what Carroll said which PhysBang tried to DENY before he even saw the BBC doco!

Your continued framing and trolling in mindless fashion is just more proof that Trippy ignores when you trolls transgress, and just waits until you've baited and created enough heated atmosphere and drawn enough in-defense responses so he can trump up some excuse for banning the one trying to have a real discussion on the facts not the trolls version of the 'facts'.

I must say I am seriously disappointed if in fact you ARE Australian as you claim, paddo. Not a good advertisement for Australian 'intellectual rigor' and 'calibre' if you are the troll-mod protected species of troll type here from now on. Sad, for all concerned, really.

Have fun in the troll way of life you seem to have chosen for yourself, sad, sad, Aussie.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, I've been here all along.
Now answer my post and the inferences I have made.

 

How can you say space is flat and infinite? when you say somethings flat you've given it a shape which then makes it finite. Do they mean infinite in length and width, then finite in height? Can you explain what they mean?

Flat over large scales means what? And how does something infinite expand?

where does the big bang fit in there then... :bugeye:

If theres galaxies in all direction that never stop, where’s the flatness then?

 

When cosmologists speak of the shape of the Universe, they are speaking geometrically, and there are three probable outcomes.....Open, closed or Flat.These shapes are governed by the amount of mass/energy density the Universe has.
An open Universe is similar to a saddle geometrically speaking, and a triangle drawn on such a surface would see the angles adding up to less then 180 degrees.
Or when two parallel beams of light diverge.
If the Universe is determined to be closed, the angles of a triangle on such a surface would be more then 180 degrees......Or the same two beams of light would converge.
If as has been determined by WMAP, the Universe is flat, the angles of the triangle add up to the expected 180 degrees and the beams of light would remain parallel.

The determination of the shape depends on the critical density of the Universe, in comparison to the actual density and is known as Omega.
When Omega is 1, as has been determined, the critical density and the actual density are equal.
If Omega is greater then 1, the Universe would be opened [saddle shape] if Omega is less then 1, it would be closed [ spherical shaped]

A Flat Universe dictates that it will expand forever and is Infinite....
A closed Universe is finite with expansion slowing down until a reversal and a Big Crunch......
An Open Universe is also infinite and will also expand forever.

That's putting it rather briefly and from memory, but should give you a basic idea.

The BB is as has always been evidenced. The shapes do not change that.

If the Universe is infinite [which the flat geometry dictates it should be] then by definition, there will be galaxies in all directions stretching far beyond the observable Universe.

 

paddoboy

If something had a beginning, it is by definition finite. Time is not infinite, neither is space. It may continue to expand endlessly into the future, but it will always be a finite time and finite space. Einstein called the Universe "Finite but unbounded" So a flat Universe is one right on the cusp between eventual collapse and eternal expansion. Additionally, the flatness of the Universe has changed over it's lifetime. It was actually born closed, if conditions of the early Universe had remained steady gravity would have overcome momentum and lead to a collapse. But conditions changed, Dark Energy(which seems to be proportional to total volume of space)grew as the expansion continued, pushing the closed Universe to our present nearly flat Universe, but DE continues to grow and current thought is that we will be moving into an open condition(the expansion has been seen to be ACCELERATING)where there will never be a Big Crunch. But there are no real infinities in our Universe, it's a concept that scientists consider a sign of a fault in their logic or their math, when infinities fall our of your calculation, there is something wrong in your logic. So avoid thinking or talking about infinities, they just don't exist in our Universe.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is just not the case in so many ways.

First, there are many solutions to the Einstein Field Equations that have space-like hypersurfaces with infinite volumes. The open and flat versions of the standard old "Big Bang" scenario use such solutions. These solutions have a finite past that always has infinite volume of space that ends in a singularity.

Second, the critical density that determines overall geometry is something that is set as of a given time. That is, when giving the critical density, we are making a claim about the present cosmological era. So we cannot expect this to change over time, since it is a determination of a particular time. The density of the universe can change given certain ways of determining density, but the density relative to the critical density cannot change.

We could also give another critical density indexed to another cosmological era; we could think of the critical density as a function of the expansion of the scale factor and what density could overcome this expansion. But this too should not be different, since we are talking about the dynamics of the universe over time, and this is deterministic, so the state of affairs at one time determines the dynamics at future times.

Third, a finite volume cannot become an infinite volume. So if the universe is closed, it will always be closed. (Regions within an open universe can become such that they are effectively closed volumes.) It is possible to have a model where expansion of a closed universe goes on forever. We might be in such a universe, since the current measurements of the universe allow for a closed universe with ever accelerating expansion.

Fourth, conditions in the early universe, as far as we can tell, were always such that expansion could overcome gravity. Additionally, there is speculation (with some evidence to support it) that there was a period of inflation, where the expansion of the universe was greatly accelerated. This may or may not be associated with the cosmological constant or dark energy. Regardless, this inflation should not change the closed or open status of the universe as a whole.

There is some confusion in this topic since without a cosmological constant or dark energy, there is a straightforward relationship between mass-energy density and closure. With cc/de, this relationship is not straightforward and we can have constant expansion in closed universes or collapses in open universes, depending on how we set our parameters.

 

Hi Grumpy.....
First off my previous post was rather just a brief description. I am somewhat adverse to posting large posts and intentionally keep them as brief as possible.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

With regard to what you have said about whether the Universe/space/time is finite or infinite, I raised the question of the Universe/space/time having a beginning at the BB on another forum with an astronomer [Geraint Lewis]
He told me that this only applied to the Observable Universe, and that this was what was confined to a point and not the Universe as a whole.
That did not originally make too much sense to me at the time, and I did some research myself and found this....
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html



I do understand [I think] that DE acts over all space/time, and as such, as mass/energy density lessens as space/time expands, the DE component gains prominence over the effects of gravity from the constant mass/energy density.
But if one thinks about this DE, we actually do not know what it is, and other then its effects to overcome gravity and recollapse, any other effects are not known at this time. What connection does it have with the Inflationary epoch for example.
What I'm trying to hypothesise is that could the effects of DE change in any future epoch?

Interesting to here your comment on the finite/Infinite aspect of the Universe/space/time, and my reasons for claiming it in relation to the flat scenario.
In general, I'm in agreement about your infinities comment in physics, just not sure yet how that applies to space/time.

 

paddoboy

OK, the Universe had a beginning in both space and time(item one).

At no time or place in the Universe did either expansion or time occur at an infinite rate for an infinite time(item two).

Therefore the Universe is not now, nor will it ever be infinite in size or duration. The problem with the concept of infinity is that if you can conceive it, it isn't infinite. Many scientists use the word infinite when what they mean is stuff like "It will continue to expand for all future time". And math can show you things that just aren't true(Relativity equations have no arrow of time, but that doesn't change the fact that there is one). Infinite time has not passed since the beginning of this Universe, only 13.7 billion years have passed, a finite number of years. That will always be true, there will forever only have been a finite number of years since the start. No infinite time. And therefore no infinite space(at least in this one Universe that we know of). Again "Finite, yet unbounded"

Nothing with a beginning can ever be infinite, there will always be a finite period of time to that beginning in time. Even in equations that allow infinities, that is still true in reality(just like the arrow of time in timeless equations that do not differentiate between past, present or future).

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The universe as modeled by GR-based cosmologies had no beginning in space. You can't literally point to a place where people agree is the center of the expansion because (as modeled, and without contradiction from the evidence) the expansion is uniform.

The point where known physics breaks down in cosmology is not the spatially-point-like, time-like singularity of a Schwarzschild black hole, but is instead a temporally discrete space-like singularity.

For hypothetical geometrically finite but unbounded universe this is analogous to a balloon starting off as an absurdly tiny balloon and then inflating to larger than we have time to see. For the actual universe, the balloon may never have been any finite size.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#HOLE
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#XIN

And http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

 

Well said, and appropriate in the light of statements that make it sound like the issue of a beginning in both space and time is settled.

 

The conclusion does not follow. If the beginning in space of the universe was everywhere in an infinite volume, then the universe is and always has been infinite.

 

rpenner

I wasn't really limiting my thoughts on infinities strictly to GR. I know the math in GR both allows infinities and treats the past present and future as indistinguishable(IE no arrow of time). But the BB scenario is the one that most Cosmologists think is valid. And in most Cosmologies there was an expansion of spacetime from a hot dense state. Let's put it this way, then. IF the hot BB scenario in Cosmology is accurate, there is not an infinite time or distance from that beginning anywhere in the Universe. And the center of the Big Bang is the center of your chest, and every other point in spacetime. At the beginning the stuff that you are made from were at the center of that event and all of the rest of space expanded away from that point. And every point in spacetime also sees itself at that center. (or do you think it is chance that the CMB is equidistant at all vectors from Earth?). The Universe has a beginning, we can see that it was not the same back then, we see how it evolved over time, it is not a static or eternal thing(eventually entropy will get so high that the Universe will go dark). It had a beginning, a middle and eventually will just fade away. But if it had a beginning, it can never be infinite in size or duration.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But you missed that the Big Bang didn't have a center in any direction you can point at. In whatever place you are, all time like past worldlines trace back to the same space-like singularity in Big Bang Cosmology. Everywhere is the "center" of the Big Bang, so there is no special place which is "the" center.

But if you start at two different places (with non-overlaping observable universes), you can find a co-moving coordinate frame that fairly traces each place now to a different place in the original Big Bang singularity.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

 

You really should follow some of the links that rpenner put there. They actually detail the "big bang" scenario (infinite or not).