Nobody right now knows what came before spacetime existed, so your statement is half-correct; it's wrong in that it suggests space existed before time did.
That is not the proper usage of those terms. First of all, entanglement is a very specific thing in physics that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Secondly, things can exist without time existing; it would just be static objects. Lastly, space and time aren't "connected" in the same way some object and time are, so that comparison is false.
Ah, so it's something specific to your model. OK.
What is "the uniqueness of the energy/ photon problem"?
What kind of "properties to time" does it "signal"?
Such as?
I'm not sure comparing clocks from different universes is something that makes sense.
I'm not sure it's correct to call "the running of the clock" "proper motion"...
I'm quite sure Einstein would object to your model, as it seems to be a step back from his theory of general relativity.
The expanding sphere model does not say that space existed before time at all. It is time that predated the origin of space. When reading Krauss, Penrose you can see, that fluctuations ( t^2) of virtual particles, the imbalance of matter anti matter all require the presence of time . time is fundamental, space is not.
But you insinuated it. You said: "space has become connected to time only since the origin." For something to "become", it had to exist previously. The origin is the start of time. So your wording strongly suggested that you think space existed before time.
Which is probably also not true, for the same reason I gave.
What are "(t^2) fluctuations"?
Yes, but since matter only started existing after spacetime did (or perhaps at the same time, but certainly not sooner), that's a mute point.
False. Space is indeed not fundamental, but neither it time. Spacetime is. If you disagree, you disagree with the fundamental concept of the theory of general relativity.
So it cannot account for all the cases of time dilation that the theory of general relativity can. So not only is it not applicable to as broad a range of possible universes, it's also incapable of describing many scenarios/effects inside those universes. Is there anything your model can describe that the theory of general relativity can't, or gets wrong?
True, so why did you start attempting that?
again, sorry, probably poorly translated , but in the post-Einsteinian works cited, the origin of the Universe is from nothing (sic) , a condition predating the big bang where the energy of nothing is expressed in virtual particles, that oscillate ( acceleration involved here ![time times time ] ] )*** in and out of existence. The same kind of mechanism that is responsible for the evaporation of Hawking's radiation off black holes.
What works were cited?
There can be no energy is there is nothing.
Energy cannot be expressed in virtual particles. Additionally, virtual particles cannot exist if there is no spacetime. You are describing a situation that is literally impossible.
Things don't "oscillate in and out of existence"; that's nonsense. Also, what does " ![time times time ] ] " mean?
Nothing there is "oscillating in and out of existence" there either.
Perhaps, but you need a darn good explanation of how that happened. The first step would be the quantum theory of gravity one obviously needs to explain this transition. Without that, it's only unfounded speculation and hand waving.
Nothing, but we know Einstein's equations don't work properly in the first few moments after the big bang. Einstein's equations are only valid from the moment gravity as a separate fundamental force decoupled from the other fundamental forces. After that time, spacetime existed as we know it today. Before that moment, we have no idea, because we need a quantum theory of gravity to be able to figure out what was going on.
$$\text{time}\times\text{time}=\text{time}^2$$, not $$\text{time}^3$$?
Perhaps you should also try reading a cosmological textbook used in universities; that's where the maths are. Without maths (or other quantitative derivations), all you have is hand waving.
Even in your model, time isn't (necessarily) infinite. It clearly has a start (radius zero), and can have an end (if the expansion stops).
That is incoherent. Energy is a property of things inside the universe; it cannot (by definition) exist without a universe.
Energy is not unstable; look up the energy conservation law.
It makes no sense to anybody that understands science.
You are taking a too parochial view. Yes, our movement through time started at radius zero, but that was just one little point in infinite time. Einstein, in his native language, called that, the beginning of spacetime, like notaneinsteintime, nebeltime in german, add words as they come on stream in time. Space was added to time as it came along in time, ~13.76 B earth years ago. 3 dimensions added to the one already existing.
But it's the start of time in your model. You cannot have a negative radius, so time started at radius zero.
What are you talking about? What is "notaneinsteintime"? Are you just arbitrarily stringing words together, as if that means something?
As I've already said, that's your view. Mainstream science (and cosmology in particular) said nothing of the sorts. Our current understanding of the universe starts at the moment gravity decoupled from the other fundamental forces, which is more-or-less the moment the domination of quantum gravity ended, and theory of general relativity took over. At that point in time and afterwards, there was spacetime. We don't know what came before.
False. A fluctuating temperature is not an acceleration (in the physical sense). And what does the "m" in "m/time x time" mean?
I'm pretty sure they don't mean it in the way you are interpreting it. Please provide a link.
Why do you keep adding "(sic)" to arbitrary quotes?
No, it is not the start of time in the expanding sphere model (not even mine). time has no start. it is the fundamental infinite 4st dimension. there are an indefinite number of points in time. one of them was our beginning, expanding outward ever since. having added space and it's share of energy, specific laws to it, now called by us spacetime continuum). and yes, to many, energy can be fundamental too.
Ah OK, so it's completely non-standard (and in my opinion wrong) usage of "(sic)", got it.
What does the setting in of fog have to do with time? You are making no sense.
That is at best philosophic musings, and incoherent non-sense at worst. The best we know today, both space and time "came along" together as spacetime, at the moment gravity decoupled from the other fundamental forces or earlier.
This is not the current scientific view. Please restrict your pseudoscience to the appropriate forum sections.
Yes, but we're not going to get there by misunderstanding science.
This is trivially demonstrated to be false. If the radius is time, and there is a more-or-less linear correspondence, then where is the infinite past? The radius has an obvious lower bound (zero), so time in such a model must have too. You simply claiming that it's possible without even attempting to resolve the evident conflict I pointed out is quite a dishonest tactic.
We don't know whether time is infinite (either into the past, or into the future).
Assuming time isn't quantized; yes. There are infinite points (moments) in an interval of 1 second. Doesn't mean time is infinite.
What point in time was there before the beginning, then?
Space itself doesn't (necessarily) have energy. What do you mean with "space's share of energy"?
It's always been the spacetime continuum according to the best scientific models we have today.
Absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
My point is:
If there's no point of time, then there is no time.
That is either a contradiction with the first part of the sentence, or you are using words in non-standard ways. What do you mean by "immense time dimension"?
Energy cannot exist (or at the very least, the concept is meaningless) with only time and no space.
What do you mean by "[pre]existing points in time", because using the scientific definitions of those words renders that phrase word salad.
Good speculation? Can you clarify what you mean by that?
Right, now point me to any moment in time before the BB (so with a radius smaller than zero, the hole in the paper).
The different dimensions aren't ordered like that in physics. In fact, in general relativity, time is often taken to be a dimension with index zero. The "zeroth dimension", if you will.
Why? Proof that this had to be the case.
Not just photon waves; there's a cosmic neutrino background as well.
In the expanding circle model, the whole page of paper, or roll at the mill, is time, the nothing that existed with infinitely duration. time is not the BB pinhole. it is the whole paper surface. Points in time can be happen anywhere (anytime really) in that infinite stretch. If any other point on time expands perhaps to a Planck length*** , then and there you have the "moment" you asked for. It will not be only on time but also in time.
Right.
Time is not nothing, and if a nothing existed with infinite duration, there wouldn't be something. This appears to be word salad?
I never claimed it was.
Correct; all possible points in time (moments) will be somewhere on the paper.
There cannot be any other points in time; as you yourself just said, all points in time will be on the paper.
A point in time cannot expand. What are you talking about?
Can you rephrase that, because I don't understand what you mean by that? What is the different between "on time" and "in time"?
I am not. I am looking at all possible moments in time (i.e. the total extend of time).
That is one of my points: you need a time outside of our spacetime (or at the very least, in the planck era). But with the best scientific knowledge available to us right now, we don't know whether time existed (in its current form) back then. Which makes all of your musing pure speculation.
Source please? And be sure to use one where he explains why he thinks that time is the 4th dimension, and cannot be the 1st or any other.
Will research that quote, a short sentence and will get back to you in time.
Nope, it's yours. You claim time is infinite, so it has to extend infinitely into the past.
That would work, except that your time now has two dimensions: the distance from the pinhole (a continuous value) and which side of the paper it's on (a binary value; the sign). You can merge them, but then you end up with a mysterious redefinition of how time is represented at the BB moment, which is (as I pointed out earlier) weird to say the least.
Note that you claim here time extends infinitely into the past...
...and here you claim it doesn't.
Probably incorrect. There was only one BB for our universe, so there can be only one pinhole. Only after making the pinhole do we get space-coordinates; space doesn't exist before it. And since the paper is infinite in size, there is no notion of location on the paper before pricking the pinhole. Pricking the pinhole in one place is thus indistinguishable from pricking it in another place. So the idea that it was "just one of many" possible places is most likely a meaningless idea.
Ah, OK, understood. I ask your forgiveness in advance for mixing the two up, because I know I'm going to forget this subtle difference; it's such an incredibly non-standard usage of those words.