# World Lines & (x, y, z, t)

I like exploration of alternative theories about space and time, but from what I heard, Smolin's arguments are vague, confused and completely unpersuasive.
Ms Harris also seemed to have her doubts.

The whole thing reminds me of the Carlin's 'Hippy Dippy Weatherman"

The whole attempt to discover some 'deeper meaning' about time is vague, confusing, and irrelevant in my opinion. I'll always suspect scientific discourse where 'folks' can have any opinion they like and not be called a crank. Just my opinion. LOL.

I am sure I am missing something , but how can you describe motions of atoms as part of "world lines" (time)) and come to the conclusion that "there is no motion" in the space-time continuum.
This was answered in my Post #11.
The (x, y, z, t) World Line POV is a static model.
It is a useful model just as Differential Geometry provides a useful model for General Relativity.

Most people do not realize that the equations of GR describe the laws of physics using a model which is static: There is no motion, only geometric relationships.

Such models can be very useful & provide insights/conclusions not obvious using other methods. The concept of particle motion is not denied: It is modeled by curved paths or straight lines in a 4D space-time continuum.

Note that these models do not treat the Time dimension as exactly equivalent to a space dimension.

Note that it is quite reasonable to accept the static model as useful & still believe that there is motion.

UOTE=Motor Daddy;3188789]Space is not an object, it is VOLUME![/QUOTE]

Space is an expanding volume. That's why we use the term "inflation". If we already were an infinite volume, we would not be inflating, but we are.

One can make a point for multiple "universes" each representing a volume of space, but you can see the inherent contradiction in that concept, because it means each universe is finite and the claim of a single infinite universe containing multiple infinite universes becomes problematic .

Messed up post.

Space is an expanding volume. That's why we use the term "inflation". If we already were an infinite volume, we would not be inflating, but we are.

One can make a point for multiple "universes" each representing a volume of space, but you can see the inherent contradiction in that concept, because it means each universe is finite and the claim of a single infinite universe containing multiple infinite universes becomes problematic .

Doesn't it seem strange to you that you're the one that it would be problematic for, and I see no problem at all? That's because your method creates problems, and mine doesn't. You claiming there was no space before the BB creates many problems, because it's BS. Do you get that too?

"Space is an expanding volume. That's why we use the term "inflation". If we already were an infinite volume, we would not be inflating, but we are.

One can make a point for multiple "universes" each representing a volume of space, but you can see the inherent contradiction in that concept, because it means each universe is finite and the claim of a single infinite universe containing multiple infinite universes becomes problematic".

I said to Write4U

I could surmise, from my readings on Eternal Inflation, that a distinct possibility exists [Occam Razer] all the multi-verse is comprised of universe that are infinite in extent. It's a consequence of Guth's Eternal Inflation Theory. This is a much more interesting subject than whether time exists or doesn't exist. In my opinion. LOL.

I am an accountant, and well familiar with models and modeling, albeit in the field of finance.

Speculate all you want, your speculations can't remove space or time, they are inevitable. You measure the time from the BB all you want to, that in no way affects any other object's measured duration in space. There were objects in space long before the BB. Mass evolves to space!

I'm not speculating. I'm stating the accepted cosmological model based on observational evidence.
You though, are indeed speculating and have no observational or experimental evidence to support such hypothesis.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that you're the one that it would be problematic for, and I see no problem at all? That's because your method creates problems, and mine doesn't. You claiming there was no space before the BB creates many problems, because it's BS. Do you get that too?

You say your method does not create problems?
Well then, you know what to do. Get it peer reviewed.
You say mass evolved space???
Umm, I mean how can that come about?...Where in blazes did you dig up such a crazy unsupported, notion.

I'm not speculating. I'm stating the accepted cosmological model based on observational evidence.
You though, are indeed speculating and have no observational or experimental evidence to support such hypothesis.

The default is that there is space now, so there is space. You want to claim there was no space at a prior time? Prove it! Tell me how you make space go away?

I'm not speculating. I'm stating the accepted cosmological model based on observational evidence.
You though, are indeed speculating and have no observational or experimental evidence to support such hypothesis.
Yes, you are, but the way you say that, you are implying that the accepted cosmological model says something about the nature of the singularity. As far as I know, the part about a point space is not part of the model. Can you correct me on that, with a generally accepted source about the infinitely dense point space as being the singularity where the math breaks down. I though it broke down at about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, which in cosmological terms is after the Big Bang.

You say your method does not create problems?
Well then, you know what to do. Get it peer reviewed.
You say mass evolved space???
Umm, I mean how can that come about?...Where in blazes did you dig up such a crazy unsupported, notion.

Did I say mass evolved space? Provide the quote!

...and why should I get it peer reviewed, so you know what to think?

I wanted to ask you, did the point in space come from nothing? Or do you just say we can't know because, after all, it was a singularity?

There was no point in space.
There was a point OF space and time.
The BB happened everywhere at once since everywhere [space/time] was what evolved from the BB
The Singularity, was a Singularity OF space and time, as opposed to a BH Singularity, being a Singularity IN space and time.

brucep;

"Space is an expanding volume. That's why we use the term "inflation". If we already were an infinite volume, we would not be inflating, but we are.

One can make a point for multiple "universes" each representing a volume of space, but you can see the inherent contradiction in that concept, because it means each universe is finite and the claim of a single infinite universe containing multiple infinite universes becomes problematic".

I said to Write4U

I could surmise, from my readings on Eternal Inflation, that a distinct possibility exists [Occam Razer] all the multi-verse is comprised of universe that are infinite in extent. It's a consequence of Guth's Eternal Inflation Theory. This is a much more interesting subject than whether time exists or doesn't exist. In my opinion. LOL.

Took a quick peek at "eternal inflation" in wiki...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motor Daddy, could we still fashion a useful static model given the parameters of Eternal Inflation?

My problem with that is the creation of a static model of something which by definition is not static. What's the use?

there was no point in space.
There was a point of space and time.
The bb happened everywhere at once since everywhere [space/time] was what evolved from the bb
the singularity, was a singularity of space and time, as opposed to a bh singularity, being a singularity in space and time.

bs!

There was no point in space.
There was a point OF space and time.
The BB happened everywhere at once since everywhere [space/time] was what evolved from the BB
The Singularity, was a Singularity OF space and time, as opposed to a BH Singularity, being a Singularity IN space and time.
Yes, point of space, but show me where the consensus theory states that. 10^-43, Planck time, is as far back at the back tracking goes. A point of space and time is suggested, but not in the theory, afaik. The math breaks down before that. And also, the 280,000 point in the back tracking is as far back as as you need to go the establish a Big Bang event. That is the point where protons captured electrons and photons were released to form the CMB, according to theory.

Everywhere at once, when the universe was a point of space, is easy to understand. The origin of the point of space is maybe problematic. Did you every wonder about it?

Did I say mass evolved space? Provide the quote!

YEP, POST 56
Speculate all you want, your speculations can't remove space or time, they are inevitable. You measure the time from the BB all you want to, that in no way affects any other object's measured duration in space. There were objects in space long before the BB. Mass evolves to space!

...and why should I get it peer reviewed, so you know what to think?

Being under an illusion, that it is smart not to align with mainstream cosmology, just for the sake of appearing to think for ones self, is rather daffy to say the least.

But that's OK, don't get it peer reviewed. Let it stagnate for your lifetime in your brain.
No skin off my nose.
The mainstream model, remains as is, for obvious reasons.

Motor Daddy, could we still fashion a useful static model given the parameters of Eternal Inflation?

My problem with that is the creation of a static model of something which by definition is not static. What's the use?

Light travel time doesn't lie! The definition of the meter BINDS distance and time together in one definition. They are inseparable, mathematically and in reality. This is not a theory, it is a fact!

Yes, point of space, but show me where the consensus theory states that. 10^-43, Planck time, is as far back at the back tracking goes. A point of space and time is suggested, but not in the theory, afaik. The math breaks down before that.

The maths breaks down at t=10-43 seconds......the planck time. :shrug:
I'm rather busy so you can google that yourself.