Hi Grumpy.

The difference between spacetime at a certain temperature and a proton collision at that energy is huge. Isolated protons have no opportunity to interact with other protons(or a very limited interaction)in an accelerator, that is not true when everything in spacetime is at that energy level. And the relative velocities are completely missing in uniform spacetime and they remain important ESPECIALLY at the higher energy levels.

What do you mean? The 'spacetime' concept is an abstract mathematical/geometrical construct. As is the 'field' concept. Only the energy-space extent is real physical entity. So any underlying background 'temperature' only relates to energy-space physical entity, not some mathematical 'space-time' or 'field' abstractions.

Any energy-levels at any epoch of the universal extent/process is what it is. And the temperatures are a consequence of the MOTIONAL states of any and all energy-space constituents whether in the form of the most fundamental energy-states (ie, quark-gluon or even more fundamental states) or the more evolved states such as protons, electrons etc. Any arbitrary connections are made by us, and the processes do what they do according to the motional energy-space states obtaining in any particular local/global processing stages in any particular evolutionary point along a trajectory of possible interactions/dynamics. energy-space and the evolved states of that energy-space into photons, quarks/gluons, electrons etc 'features' are all still energy-space.

A photon in vacuum follows the geodesic path through spacetime between where/when it was emitted, to where/when it is absorbed, if that spacetime is bent by mass, so is the path, but the photon sees itself following a straight line(a least energy line).

That's what I already said. Which goes to confirm that your argument's reliance on GR states at beginning/expanding etc of BB hypothetical 'spacetime' inflation/expansion etc is neither here nor there wherever higher-energy processes/interactions are concerned (like in LHC, black holes and galactic nuclei processes OR in hypothetical scenario like BB 'beginnings' etc). So, we are agreed on that now?

Inflation happened in the milliseconds before gravity and the other forces were operative. There was no lightspeed limit and spacetime became enormous until gravity and spacetime's lightspeed limit stopped it. We now live in a Universe that has lightspeed in it's structural properties, gravity dominant at shorter distances and DE pushing mass apart at longer distances, oh and a little mass scattered here and there circling the BH drains, the only edge the Universe has.

Do you realize the implications for your 'time' abstraction in what you just said above about no speed limit for light? You want it both ways with 'time'. If here is no speed limit for light then there was no limit to process rates. Yes? Imagine that! Processing rates, and hence 'timing' rates were 'unlimited'! Only an abstraction/hypothesis without any direct or indirect evidence for such assumptions/interpretations/extrapolations based on a MATHEMATICAL model. You are not talking evidence or reality, but rather pure conjecture beyond the available logical/physical evidence/reasoning. Not in any way valid supporting case for claims that 'time' exists as you think it does. Only the process rate exists. The 'timing/comparisons' of same are our abstractions and modeling conveniences. Period.

Time is dilated 100% at lightspeed, no mass can travel that fast, but energy propagates through the spacetime field AT lightspeed, it's time is 100% dilated, it therefore experiences no time between when the packet of energy was emitted to the point it is absorbed. It's frequency/wavelength is stretched by having to travel further through expanding spacetime, thus it's energy is reduced(energy level is frequency/wavelength dependent), and it's path through spacetime will swerve according to the mass it passes but it still is travelling through spacetime AT lightspeed, even at less than 3 degrees above absolute zero from 13.7 billion years ago. That is why light does not get "tired", it hasn't done anything to get tired of as it had no time to do it in.

But we just agreed that photons 'see' all energy-space paths as 'flat' and propagate at the same speed irrespective of remote co-ordinate timings. So like I said, you can't have it both ways. Either 'time stops for the photon', or it goes at the 'fastest rate possible in flat space' as you also said. You can't have both.

This self-contradiction should tell you that our 'time' construct is abstraction/modeling based, and varies according to the particular process and rate involved in energy-space dynamics in/across energy-space conditions/expanses which are REAL.....and not just your 'mathematical field qualities/properties' which are equally abstraction and not reality mechanisms/entities on their own.

I don't see the problem, Relativity is counterintuitive but it is easily understandable. Space and time are structural qualities/properties of the Universe wide spacetime field, There is no such thing as space that does not contain the time field as well as the space field that created that space. The Universe is, by far, mostly an empty spacetime field. You are talking about how we perceive the Universe and then trying to discard the Universe itself and claim our perceptions are reality, they are not. They are simply a map of the real properties of that Universe and only the Universe really exists. Changes in energy states can dilate time, but they don't create it, it already exists. And time passes at it's fastest rates in the absence of energy, it's slowest rates at the maximum represented by mass at lightspeed or at the event horizon. Do you deny that fact?

The 'structural qualities/properties' of an abstract 'spacetime 'field' construct is also abstract. Only once the energy-space ITSELF is considered does the true real structure/entities and dynamics of the energy-space processes become evident. And it dos not need 'time' abstraction for the motional states/changes of energy-space to process/evolve. It is the process rates/locations/comparisons that we then 'overlay' in abstract mathematical modeling analysis constructs as 'time'.

And the rate of 'time' is 'slowest' for photon propagating in energy-space. Yet you have also claimed that 'time' STOPS for the photon in transit. And you can't get any more 'slower time' than STOPPED 'time', can you? You seem to want it both ways but still fail to see that self-contradiction in your arguments.

**And let's be absolutely clear on this point, Grumpy, everyone: As far as anyone or any model can say, there is NO "absence of energy" in the universal energy-space.** There are different states of process/evolution dynamics at different locations, but there is NO "absence of energy" at any stage/location in/of energy-space universal extent. Period.

Hence any 'time concept' abstraction which 'predicts' such an obviously discernible non-sequitur as 'absence of energy-space' is already doomed to invalidity a-priori.

The Big Bang was the only White Hole we know of ever existing. Black Holes are the only edge spacetime has, what is inside can no longer be considered a part of this Universe, apart from their gravity. The math tells us of wormholes and travel backward through time. It is my OPINION that all BHs have wormholes that connect ONLY to the White Hole at the beginning of time. But those are the only two places where Relativity breaks down, all the rest of the Universe acts as I have been telling you.

A "white Hole" is just as HYPOTHETICAL a 'beginning' as the BB hypothesis's interpretation/extrapolation of astronomical observations. And if black holes are merely different states of energy-space per se, there is NO ''edge', but merely PROCESSING DIFFERENCES in/of the energy-space regions in question. Period. If the matter inside black hole features is some fundamental energy-space state like quark-gluon or even more 'exotic' energy-space state 'plasma', then no-one can yet say what will happen in the far distant stages of that process, when the internal states may be sufficiently energetic to re-exit that process and start new ones. These things are being considered even as we speak, and I myself have a possible process/mechanism which would do the job of recycling the Black Hole interior de-constructed energy-space contents (But that's for my book, so you'll understand if I don't reveal any more on that now!

).

You misunderstand, photons still have the time field, it's just dilated to 100% and does not pass for that photon. But the photon still travels through spacetime AT lightspeed, just like a time dilated space traveller would only experience very slow time at near lightspeed. Are you denying that,too?

I previously explained to others that the photon has 'oscillations' by which it propagates, hence MUST have a 'time rate' associated with it. But others kept saying that 'time stops' for the photon. So I gave up trying to explain it to them that there i NO real 'stop' or 'time' as such, but merely DIFFERENT RATE of time in the photon process compared to all the other observed/compared process involving matter/bodies motional states in/across energy-space conditions/rates. So again others want it both ways, even though I already explained all that is actually involved in reality with the photon and any other energy-space process/motion RATE differences, period.

Yes, the spacetime field as described by Einstein. Both time and space as properties of that spacetime field. The spacetime field that is what the Universe actually is.

Again, as I already pointed out earlier above, the 'spacetime' and the 'field' is a purely abstract mathematical/geometrical concept/device for modeling and analysis. The actual physical entity/process it 'abstractly models' is the energy-space and its dynamical consequences due to differing RATES of process in/across differing energy-space regions/conditions. You keep cautioning about the 'map and territory', but there is no 'map', merely 'abstractions' in a mathematical construct. The actual 'territory' is the energy-space and its motional/processing changes which WE compare and measure etc for analysis and extrapolation/prediction of 'properties' and 'outcomes' of whatever the processes/entities MAY be in reality, but so far not actually IDENTIFY as to physical nature and mechanisms for REAL.

An example in point: We can abstractly speak of 'spacetime curvature' as causing/being 'gravity' etc etc, but we haven't yet actually identify by what PHYSICALLY IDENTIFIABLE (not merely 'mathematically abstractly describable') way/mechanism the presence of mass 'curves' its surrounds and by what means/ways the matter in the surrounds 'couples' to that surrounds and caused to mutually accelerate towards the gravitating body understudy. Only a true explanation of the real physical nature and mechanisms of energy-space processes and interactions/motions/states dynamically real constructs can truly be said to explain gravity phenomenon.

Neither the Universe, nor the spacetime that is it's properties is an abstract, they really exist. The mathematical construct is only real in your intellect, it is an abstract thing, but it is only a map that describes the real territory, spacetime. Just because our monkey minds need those abstract constructs to understand reality, it has no effect on reality's well...reality. YOUR MAPS ARE NOT THE REALITY, spacetime is.

Sure, the universal energy-space extent and its inherent properties DO exist. No argument. However when we 'describe' it we use abstract mathematical models, and predict abstract mathematical behaviors etc. None of that modeling/prediction etc actually IDENTIFIES or EXPLAINS the physical entities/properties per se. We currently just call these properties 'field' and 'spacetime' aspects which we go on to explore abstractly and compare to real phenomena. Just because we can predict/measure the result of certain observations/phenomena, it does not mean we have identified the mechanism (like for gravity, for example). This is the next big step for science. Only then will science and the mathematics be compatible and complete and consistent with each other and with the actual physical reality. Good luck to us all! Cheers Grumpy, everyone.