I challenge the world , bring it on!

[james blunt]

Actually what most of us here are trying to do it preserve the integrity of truth that @Sustainer is so intent on butchering with his highly delusional outlook that does not even approach being representative of reality.

If somebody comes to you and says , ''hey, you know that science truth, I think it is ostensible'',

Now the illogical thing to do is defend the ostensible content, the logical thing to do , is look why it is ostensible.

 

[YmirGF]

And that is why I continue, actually. The ideas are ones that are commonly misunderstood. Having even a bad stimulus can lead to interesting conversations.

Can't disagree there. Like with a heroin addict before they can make progress against their addiction they have to want to change and likewise the key ingredient in resolving misunderstand is that it is essential to want to learn. What is troubling in this discussion is that our new friend seems to be impervious to reason and his absolute certainty is going to have real world results that are going to affect him negatively (and I suspect are already having a negative impact) as he puts more and more energy into his distortions.

That he feels somehow empowered by god is troubling enough in its own right. That he is growing impatient with people not coming around to his highly distorted sense of reality is more troubling. That he is contemplating a world free of naysayers working against his distortions is more troubling still.

One can only hope (and pray, if you are into that) that there is an intervention before he decides to act on these later impulses against those that he perceives are attacking his great message and quest. Paranoia is an extremely difficult thing to battle alone and from the looks of things in this thread he is not winning that battle and is, in fact, losing ground at an alarming rate.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I'm guessing I'm correct that relativity states that time slows near a heavier body apparently due to gravity. So time and gravity are somehow linked according to relativity. In the beginning (in current big bang theology) all the stuff was close(er) together and the balloon was smaller so gravity was greater anywhere on the surface of the balloon and time was slower according to relativity. Seems to me the expansion of space drives time rather than the other way around. As time becomes faster and faster the distance light covers becomes less and less so light (photons) from far distance points become more and more delayed. If it is expansion of space that drives time wouldn't the age of the universe currently inferred by constant time and perhaps varying light speed be very wrong?

Just to humor me can anyone here comment as to how old the universe might be if time was considered a variable? I think scientists consider time constant from now back unto the beginning but if time in the beginning was a lot slower then time in the now then based on "now time" the universe could be infinitely older than predicted.

So if time is increasing with expansion then all things equal the distance light covers in the same time is less and less so eventually the universe would at some point go dark not because of the big rip but because light can't move any distance given the accelerated time factor.

I am just thinking out loud guys...

 

[james blunt]

I have no concerns about that.



Well, I strongly doubt that based on what you wrote above. You confuse entropy and energy. You confuse both with time.

No sir, you are confusing time, thinking it has anything to do with space.

 

[JoshuaTree]

So if time is increasing with expansion then all things equal the distance light covers in the same time is less and less so eventually the universe would at some point go dark not because of the big rip but because light can't move any distance given the accelerated time factor.

I am just thinking out loud guys...

In which case we have a very undense perhaps empty space! From which QF would generate another big bang.

 

[james blunt]

So if time is increasing with expansion then all things equal the distance light covers in the same time is less and less so eventually the universe would at some point go dark not because of the big rip but because light can't move any distance given the accelerated time factor.

I am just thinking out loud guys...

Sort of , you are doing very well, your thinking is good. Very clever .

 

[YmirGF]

If somebody comes to you and says , ''hey, you know that science truth, I think it is ostensible'',

Now the illogical thing to do is defend the ostensible content, the logical thing to do , is look why it is ostensible.

I wholeheartedly agree, but you have fallen on your face with virtually every utterance you make. There is nothing you have provided that approaches (even minutely) denting modern cosmological theory. You have proven, repeatedly, that your grasp of these matters is not particularly refined and on the level of a high school student who skipped an awful lot of classes.

 

[JoshuaTree]

In which case we have a very undense perhaps empty space! From which QF would generate another big bang.

Time so fast that light couldn't move would look empty, yes?

 

[james blunt]

In which case we have a very undense perhaps empty space! From which QF would generate another big bang.

Yes, but relative to an infinite space, a full universe can fit in a point

 

[james blunt]

Time so fast that light couldn't move would look empty, yes?

Time is infinitely fast

Δ t = ∞

 

[JoshuaTree]

Sanity check. Anyone?

 

[JoshuaTree]

Yes, but relative to an infinite space, a full universe can fit in a point

If time exceeds the threshold of light then wouldn't the universe appear as a single point so to speak?

 

[JoshuaTree]

Now lets's make a time machine!

 

[james blunt]

If time exceeds the threshold of light then wouldn't the universe appear as a single point so to speak?

yes that right , it is relative

 

[Polymath257]

I'm guessing I'm correct that relativity states that time slows near a heavier body apparently due to gravity. So time and gravity are somehow linked according to relativity.

More accurately, gravity is a curvature of spacetime. The amount of curvature is associated with the density of mass, energy, and momentum at the point.

In the beginning (in current big bang theology) all the stuff was close(er) together and the balloon was smaller so gravity was greater anywhere on the surface of the balloon and time was slower according to relativity.

More accurately, spacetime was more curved close to the BB. That curvature affects both space and time. But we can still set up a time coordinate that agrees with the 'proper time' experienced at each point.

One aspect of this is that time is relative: it isn't an absolute. Nor is distance. So, what I measure to be the time between two events may disagree with what you measure for the time between those events.

There are also 'paradoxes' like the twin paradox: if twins are both moving with respect to each other, each will see the clocks of the other as slowed. There is a symmetry here.

Seems to me the expansion of space drives time rather than the other way around. As time becomes faster and faster the distance light covers becomes less and less so light (photons) from far distance points become more and more delayed. If it is expansion of space that drives time wouldn't the age of the universe currently inferred by constant time and perhaps varying light speed be very wrong?

The distinction here is between a time coordinate, which only has to 'point' to the future, and the proper time of an observer. In a BB scenario, the time coordinate we choose is the proper time of comoving observers. To say time is 'faster and faster' misunderstands the spacetime geometry. Which, again, is consistent between observers, even if time duration (and distances) is not.

Just to humor me can anyone here comment as to how old the universe might be if time was considered a variable? I think scientists consider time constant from now back unto the beginning but if time in the beginning was a lot slower then time in the now then based on "now time" the universe could be infinitely older than predicted.

Part of the difficulty is what is meant by time being faster or slower. For a gravitational field, there is a difference in measured time between someone in the field and someone out of it. That is what is meant when we say time slows down. Having two viewpoints allows a comparison.

But for the universe as a whole, there is no outside observer with a clock. Time is part of the geometry of the universe (spacetime is, in fact, the geometry). So there are not two observers that can compare measured time durations.

 

[james blunt]

More accurately, gravity is a curvature of spacetime. The amount of curvature is associated with the density of mass, energy, and momentum at the point.


More accurately, spacetime was more curved close to the BB. That curvature affects both space and time. But we can still set up a time coordinate that agrees with the 'proper time' experienced at each point.

One aspect of this is that time is relative: it isn't an absolute. Nor is distance. So, what I measure to be the time between two events may disagree with what you measure for the time between those events.

There are also 'paradoxes' like the twin paradox: if twins are both moving with respect to each other, each will see the clocks of the other as slowed. There is a symmetry here.



The distinction here is between a time coordinate, which only has to 'point' to the future, and the proper time of an observer. In a BB scenario, the time coordinate we choose is the proper time of comoving observers. To say time is 'faster and faster' misunderstands the spacetime geometry. Which, again, is consistent between observers, even if time duration (and distances) is not.



Part of the difficulty is what is meant by time being faster or slower. For a gravitational field, there is a difference in measured time between someone in the field and someone out of it. That is what is meant when we say time slows down. Having two viewpoints allows a comparison.

But for the universe as a whole, there is no outside observer with a clock. Time is part of the geometry of the universe (spacetime is, in fact, the geometry). So there are not two observers that can compare measured time durations.

Sir, relativistic time (substance) is relative to absolute space , without the absolute 0 of space, there is no comparative because relativistic time is a variate. i.e the entropy of an isolated system (time) can and does change in many ways.

 

[Polymath257]

Can't disagree there. Like with a heroin addict before they can make progress against their addiction they have to want to change and likewise the key ingredient in resolving misunderstand is that it is essential to want to learn. What is troubling in this discussion is that our new friend seems to be impervious to reason and his absolute certainty is going to have real world results that are going to affect him negatively (and I suspect are already having a negative impact) as he puts more and more energy into his distortions.

That he feels somehow empowered by god is troubling enough in its own right. That he is growing impatient with people not coming around to his highly distorted sense of reality is more troubling. That he is contemplating a world free of naysayers working against his distortions is more troubling still.

One can only hope (and pray, if you are into that) that there is an intervention before he decides to act on these later impulses against those that he perceives are attacking his great message and quest. Paranoia is an extremely difficult thing to battle alone and from the looks of things in this thread he is not winning that battle and is, in fact, losing ground at an alarming rate.

Yes, I would recommend seeing a therapist. But I suspect that recommendation will be rejected.

 

[Polymath257]

If time exceeds the threshold of light then wouldn't the universe appear as a single point so to speak?

In context, that doesn't make sense. It's sort of like saying that if a path on earth exceeds the threshold of latitude, what would happen.

 

[Polymath257]

Sir, relativistic time (substance) is relative to absolute space , without the absolute 0 of space, there is no comparative because relativistic time is a variate. i.e the entropy of an isolated system (time) can and does change in many ways.

x,y,and z are variables also. So there is nothing special about t in that regard.

Entropy is not the same as time. It can help in pointing a *direction* to time, breaking a symmetry in the laws, but it isn't time.

 

[james blunt]

In context, that doesn't make sense. It's sort of like saying that if a path on earth exceeds the threshold of latitude, what would happen.

Try this, observe our entire observable Universe from the third person view , looking from outside.

Now what happens when you travel backwards still observing the universe?

It starts to visually contract right? To a point of no visual existence.