Time and space has no connection.
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Yeah, that's the thing, you don't like to measure time because it's reality. You like to pretend about time instead?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
edited to correct the second paragraph to read "but does NOT indicate a physical thing"
Ummm, Not real sure what you are on about, but I have been arguing my thoughts that time is indeed real for the last week or more and this is the popular view held by mainstream cosmology....My only proviso was that at worst, the situation is debatable.....
Much the same way that most astrophysicists certainly are of the opinion that ETL exists out there, somewhere, sometime, but officially other than the numbers argument and the stuff of life being everywhere, we still have no direct evidence of it.
So what do you believe I am pretending about time?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
That it's debatable. It's not, it's measured. Do you not understand that time is measured?
Clocks may measure time....I agree, and I agree that time is real.....It's what separates you and I from the BB, by about 13.83 billion Earth years.
But the true nature of time is still unknown in scientific circles. Therefor, although personally I accept it as real, it is debatable among some.
Please read post 64 again and check out "What is Time"thread in physics and maths.
I understand the measuring of time, the recording of passage, however there is definite proof of, that time existed before the big bang. If there was no time and space before the big bang, then where did the gas come from to make a big bang?.
Empty space had to exist for matter to be formed into, and fill the empty space.
Without empty space proceeding the BB, there would be no space to fill.
Call it fundamentally thinking, or call me a pedants, but the logical rational thought is greater than the logical thought of just a BB.
No, nothing you have posted is correct. It's all nonsense and flat wrong.
That has nothing to with physical reality, which played out for billions of years before humans appeared on Earth.
That's false and incorrect. All it tells readers is that you have no idea who Kepler was, what he accomplished, and why it is relevant to this thread.
So basically you are expressing hostility toward scholarship.
That's pure superstition. The academics you despise will tell you to open your eyes, observe the world around you, and learn from the abundance of evidence, how Nature actually works.
Despite your fantasies which for some reason give you comfort (probably because science is beyond your interest, and remains a troubling enigma to you) Nature will not bend to your will. It is what it is, and you need science to understand what that is. The rest is moronic nonsense.
All nonsense and childish gibberish.
THAT IS A BLATANT LIE.
Is this why you have been continually banned from elsewhere?
No, I will just say that you are not only completely ignorant of present day cosmology, but you insidiously refuse to learn. And for you to invoke logic is highly Ironic and hypocritical, considering that you in your best "Hans Christian Anderson"guise was claiming light is an illusion and dark and shadows are real things.
Agreed. The sorry point about this is that all these individuals that continue to sprout nonsensical claims, are making no difference to academia and the scientists leading the way at the coal face, forever taking us forward in the pursuit of real knowledge.
These other stubborn pseudo pushers will go to the grave, having learnt nothing, contributed nothing, and be remembered for nothing.
Why would time not exist before the big bang?
How can nothing make something if nothing exists?
There is no time before it!, so are you stating that science invented time?, and time is mere fabrication, a fallacy made by humanity? a fallacy based on counting the passage of numbers based on the timing period since the big bang?
If nothing and time did not exist before the big bang and you deny science invented it, is science agreeing in there is a god?
You have been told that many times but you ignore it. Is this why you were banned?
In reality and again as you have been told, we do not know.
But educated qualified physicists have speculated on that all the while aligning with the laws of physics and GR...which you so insidiously ignore.
again......
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
No that is a stupid and rather childish statement that you are making.
Time evolved, along with space from the BB.
And that may well have been from nothing.
If you chose to deny that, that is your choice...But it seems highly hypocritical that someone in the 21st century, that claims dark and shadows are real, while claiming with 100% certainty that light is an illusion, can then have the audacity to call the giants of the present and past as Idiots in relation to present mostly verified cosmology.
Yes, its quite obvious why you were permanently banned elsewhere.
It is childish to tell the truth, and to say exactly how reality is, and what we truly observe, and where the maths originates from and what it truly represents, when formalised back to the basic fundamentals.
I have not a certainty of anything, but I am certain I am giving the best account of myself on this forum so far, compared to literate disasters on other forums.
I have give several good reasons that warrant debate.
Science is not my enemy, I am not out to destroy science, they do many amazing things. I am hoping my information I provide from my perspective look on information , ideas that might even in a small way help science.
The statement is not childish it is an axiom with only 2 answers, not blackmail, or manipulation, but logic of absoluteness pendants.
''Time evolved, along with space from the BB.
And that may well have been from nothing.''
You are agreeing in the bible then?
And that may well have been from nothing.''
You are agreeing in the bible then?
A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.
If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.
If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
There are many Idiots, anti-mainstream conspiracists, Religious nutters, and just those with plain old grossly inflated egos, that try their damndest to make a mark on this world, in which they tiresomely languish...Most, in fact all on this forum have failed dismally.....
Here's an example from famed and knowledgable theoretical physicist, Gerald 'T Hooft
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html
It concludes.....
Amusingly, there is a crowd of interesting guys, I guess all members of the viXra community, who all condemn me for my views on real science, and my description of BAD theoretical physicists. C is a member, and it turns out there are more vociferous people there. Remarkably, in their e-mails I am accused of exactly the shortcomings they suffer from themselves - I could not have described those better. I will patiently wait for them sending in their solutions of the undergraduate problem sketched above. Long before that, undoubtedly, I will receive more insulting emails.
and the home page.....
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/
Here's an example from famed and knowledgable theoretical physicist, Gerald 'T Hooft
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html
It concludes.....
Amusingly, there is a crowd of interesting guys, I guess all members of the viXra community, who all condemn me for my views on real science, and my description of BAD theoretical physicists. C is a member, and it turns out there are more vociferous people there. Remarkably, in their e-mails I am accused of exactly the shortcomings they suffer from themselves - I could not have described those better. I will patiently wait for them sending in their solutions of the undergraduate problem sketched above. Long before that, undoubtedly, I will receive more insulting emails.
and the home page.....
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/
I could not disagree that there is religious members, and trolls, attention seekers, etc. But also there is some genuine people, who are learning and may have some input.
I will read your provided quote of a universe from nothing proper , when I awake more, but from the first few sentences, it looks gibberish.
The truth about the un-observable Universe is science members are simply guessing, without putting reasonable logic to use.
Your hypocritical posts are amazing. Considering you have been permanently banned elsewhere for trolling, and now you say one of the world's foremost physicists is talking gibberish.
Do you really believe you are Impressing anyone?
Considering the gibberish that you have so far posted in your fairy tales posts, your opinion, logic, and attempt at being sensible is taken with a grain of salt and like those religious folk that invoke God for the unknown, is not in the least scientific.
I also said I would read it fully later, I stated it looks gibberish, not is gibberish. I can not conclude, by only a glance that it is gibberish, but I can conclude from a glance , to me, it looks gibberish. I also would agree that it may be a lack of understanding from not reading it.Your hypocritical posts are amazing. Considering you have been permanently banned elsewhere for trolling, and now you say one of the world's foremost physicists is talking gibberish.
Do you really believe you are Impressing anyone?
Considering the gibberish that you have so far posted in your fairy tales posts, your opinion, logic, and attempt at being sensible is taken with a grain of salt and like those religious folk that invoke God for the unknown, is not in the least scientific.
Do you sir , not make a post without mentioning the word banned?.
I put forward to you, that it is not my lack of knowledge about Physics, but your lack of complete understanding of what I am saying and making points on.
I have already provided a relativistic model of why time dilation is not true, and to show that ''time'' , in humanity terms is timing.
The model is an absoluteness to the reality of the observable Universe, all dimensions <humanity version>, being isotropic to distance measured, by timing.
The model can be placed inside the 9 dimensional cube I originally mentioned, made ''transparent'', rotated, flipped upside down, and you can see the steady state of the Universe is counted.
I would rather not comment, rather than you say I am wrong. Energy of the false vacuum, is rather vague.
For me to talk about this, I would have to talk Quantum, and I am sure then you would think I was trolling if I made opinion on the atom process, and the entropy of atoms.