How the univers came to be

I have a theory.
Our univers are bulid on a single proposition.

Time is not equal to distance.

So just before our univers came to be did

time equal distance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you are saying that than distance is a derivative of time of sort?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What Im saying is that for any given point in space to another there is time and distance.
Before there was no time and no distance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is silly - everyone knows "proposition" can not hold it up - that is the big turttle's never ending task.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are you saying that time and distance existed before the universe did ?

 

ok...

Like 8 seconds is not equal to 8 meters? or is this a reference to space-time?

Is this a question?

I think you need to elaborate a bit more.

 

It wasn't here before I was born

It will be long gone when I'm dead

It is all

In your head!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is distance... but where does time come in? If you are travelling between two points, then it will take you time to get from one point to another. But that time depends on how fast you travel.

What I'm saying is that 'for any given point in space to another there is' a set distance (although not necessarily), but not a set time (unless you also specify a set speed).

Of course, I'm not really sure this is what you're talking about.

You mean before the universe came to be? Before the BigBang? We don't know what there was or wasn't. Some think that there was nothing and in that case you would be right, but how does that help?

 

Even if there was "nothing" before creation/bigbang, there would still be space (distance, nothing), and therefore time. Things can start in time, but time itself can't start, and neither can the universe. Energy can't be created or destroyed. A nothing without space is impossible (nonexistent), because space can't be destroyed or created.

 

To every action there is a reaction.
Most often the reaction to the action is the direct oppisite.
There for If our univers is base upon the proposition " time is not equal to distance" the oppisite of this must be time equal to distance.

 

I actually somewhat agree, but how do you know that the "birth of the universe" didn't create space and time as well ?

 

Your concept of "nothing" is not complete. You are thinking that "nothing" is that neither energy nor matter exist.

Space itself was generated by the big bang also.* I.e before the big Bang there truely was nothing, not just a lack of any energy or matter.
----------------------
*Space is still being produced - I.e. the universe is expanding by expanding space. The separation between all "A" and "B" objects is increasing (Provided it is large. In some case when it is small, and they have motion towards each other, then their separation can be decreasing.)

 

Except for maybe the 'seed'. But then, where did that come from ? :scratchin:

 

What do you mean by "time is not equal to distance"? How, exactly, are you relating time and distance?

 

As you note, the postulation of a "seed" or a "god" or a "big turttle's fart" as the cause of the big bang explains nothing - it only move the mystery back one step. Hawkins and others have a somewhat acceptible mathematical explaination associated with the concept of "fluxuations of nothing." - Sort of like a perfect vaccuum can briefly violate conservation of energy and generate an electron/positron pair out of nothing.

I did not want to confuse readers too much, but you may have noted that I said the big bang generated space itself (but did not mention "time"). That is because time does not really exist. Time has no mass, no energy, no observable property. I.e. time can not be observed in any way.

Clocks do not measure time, as most believe. All clocks do to is state how far* one process has progressed or finished when some other process has finnished X cycles or progressed to its final state. For example, the "other process" might be a runner moving from the start to finish line, light traveling one meter, candle burning down, etc.
---------------------
*How many "cycles" usually as most clocks repeat their prior states, but a rusting piece of iron clock does not. -It has a finite number of steps to run and then stops. Each step is an oxidation process until all Fe atoms have been oxidized. The time parameter, usually "t" in equations, can be totally eliminated from every equation describing every process existing in the universe, in principle, but no sane pearon would try as this parameter make it possible to descibe many processes quite accurately and separate them. For example I can use my watch (an electro-mechanical process) to get me to the train (a complex system or public transportation process) or the same watch to judge when to turn the fire off boiling my breakfast egg.

If one did actually eliminate the paramert "t" from all the describtive equations of the universe, this train and egg process would be mixed in the description. Although the time parameter could be removed from all descriptions, this is not true of space. For example, Neutons gravity law depends upon the separation which is real, measurable, directly observable, etc.

Humans naturally assume time is something real, but it not. Usually humans imagine time is sort of a invisible river flowing along and carrying all events into the "future" but time has no causal effects, because it does not actually exist. Space, in contrast does.

For example, starlight passing near the sun is deflected by the stress in space we call gravity. I am too old a physicsit to have keep up with the theory of general relativity, but as I understand it the accepted POV is that gravity also does not really exist - masses just stress space. However, like assuming time is real, it is more convenient to use Neuton's law, in most cases, as if gravity were real instead of just a directional stress in the properties of space. Likewise, time is very conveniently thought of as being real. (I am not about to throw my watch away, but do understand it is just a repetive process, not measuring the non-existent, unobservable item humans call "time.")

 

And that's what I mean by 'nothing'.... nonexistence.

No space, no distance, no void, no time... nothing. :huh:

 

Distance
From your finger to a key on your keyboard, there is a distance of X cm or mm. even when your finger press a key on your key board there is a distance from the atoms of your fingercells to the atoms on your keyboard.
When ever there is a distance there is time, the time it take to travel that distance.

If we remove the time factor, there would be no distance. Everything would be at exactly the same place.

If we remove the distance factor, there would only be time left and time is only a measurement.

 

ok...

Why? I would be more prone to say that there will still be distance, there will just be no way of getting from point A to point B.

Distance does not need time to exist. Motion does.

But back to your original post...

Ok, so this is what I am getting from your posts...

-Before the big bang was the 'action'

-Everything from the big bang until now is the 'reaction'

-The 'reaction' includes the fact that 'time does not equal distance'

-So the action (before the BB) must have included the opposite fact that 'time (is) equal to distance'


Here's my version:

-The 'reaction' includes the fact that 'I am not King of the Galaxy'.

-So the action (before the BB) must have included the opposite fact that 'I was king of the Galaxy'



Alternatively, it seems like you are saying:

-Time and distance exist in the reaction

-So time and distance must not exist in the action

Now, the logic is just as flawed as in the above version... but the result seems to be:

There was NOTHING (no time, no distance, no space, no void) before the universe existed. So, again, how does your theory help us?

 

I know clocks don't measure time. But how can you say that time has no causal effects ? Without time how can there be movement ? Time makes transition from one state to another possible. That's what we call time, in this definition it exists whatever it is.
As for gravity, the effect exists so there must be a cause. Whatever the physical cause exactly is the thing that we call gravity definitely exists.
For instance, if it turns out that what we call gravity is indeed just directional stress in the properties of space, than that is what gravity is.