Infinite time and space.

[The Sum of Awe]

Found a quote I think fits you nicely.

Can you stop with the ignorant ignoring of the evidence you promised and just post it... I might be wrong, I don't know, just prove yourself so I know...

 

[Photonic]

Can you stop with the ignorant ignoring of the evidence you promised and just post it... I might be wrong, I don't know, just prove yourself so I know...

Time has historically been closely related with space, the two together comprising spacetime in Einstein's special relativity and general relativity. According to these theories, the concept of time depends on the spatial reference frame of the observer, and the human perception as well as the measurement by instruments such as clocks are different for observers in relative motion. The past is the set of events that can send light signals to the observer; the future is the set of events to which the observer can send light signals.

In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe. Mathematically it is a manifold consisting of "events" which are described by some type of coordinate system. Typically three spatial dimensions (length, width, height), and one temporal dimension (time) are required. Dimensions are independent components of a coordinate grid needed to locate a point in a certain defined "space". For example, on the globe the latitude and longitude are two independent coordinates which together uniquely determine a location. In spacetime, a coordinate grid that spans the 3+1 dimensions locates events (rather than just points in space), i.e. time is added as another dimension to the coordinate grid. This way the coordinates specify where and when events occur. However, the unified nature of spacetime and the freedom of coordinate choice it allows imply that to express the temporal coordinate in one coordinate system requires both temporal and spatial coordinates in another coordinate system. Unlike in normal spatial coordinates, there are still restrictions for how measurements can be made spatially and temporally (see Spacetime intervals). These restrictions correspond roughly to a particular mathematical model which differs from Euclidean space in its manifest symmetry.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, time was believed to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames; however, later experiments revealed that time slowed down at higher speeds of the reference frame relative to another reference frame (with such slowing called "time dilation" explained in the theory of "special relativity"). Many experiments have confirmed time dilation, such as atomic clocks onboard a Space Shuttle running slower than synchronized Earth-bound inertial clocks and the relativistic decay of muons from cosmic ray showers. The duration of time can therefore vary for various events and various reference frames. When dimensions are understood as mere components of the grid system, rather than physical attributes of space, it is easier to understand the alternate dimensional views as being simply the result of coordinate transformations.

TL;DR, this IS a TL;DR.

The bit you are focusing way too much on it actually a very old view of time.

"Until the beginning of the 20th century, time was believed to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames;" This bit here. We now know that this is no longer true, as explained above.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Time has historically been closely related with space, the two together comprising spacetime in Einstein's special relativity and general relativity. According to these theories, the concept of time depends on the spatial reference frame of the observer, and the human perception as well as the measurement by instruments such as clocks are different for observers in relative motion. The past is the set of events that can send light signals to the observer; the future is the set of events to which the observer can send light signals.

In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe. Mathematically it is a manifold consisting of "events" which are described by some type of coordinate system. Typically three spatial dimensions (length, width, height), and one temporal dimension (time) are required. Dimensions are independent components of a coordinate grid needed to locate a point in a certain defined "space". For example, on the globe the latitude and longitude are two independent coordinates which together uniquely determine a location. In spacetime, a coordinate grid that spans the 3+1 dimensions locates events (rather than just points in space), i.e. time is added as another dimension to the coordinate grid. This way the coordinates specify where and when events occur. However, the unified nature of spacetime and the freedom of coordinate choice it allows imply that to express the temporal coordinate in one coordinate system requires both temporal and spatial coordinates in another coordinate system. Unlike in normal spatial coordinates, there are still restrictions for how measurements can be made spatially and temporally (see Spacetime intervals). These restrictions correspond roughly to a particular mathematical model which differs from Euclidean space in its manifest symmetry.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, time was believed to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames; however, later experiments revealed that time slowed down at higher speeds of the reference frame relative to another reference frame (with such slowing called "time dilation" explained in the theory of "special relativity"). Many experiments have confirmed time dilation, such as atomic clocks onboard a Space Shuttle running slower than synchronized Earth-bound inertial clocks and the relativistic decay of muons from cosmic ray showers. The duration of time can therefore vary for various events and various reference frames. When dimensions are understood as mere components of the grid system, rather than physical attributes of space, it is easier to understand the alternate dimensional views as being simply the result of coordinate transformations.

TL;DR, this IS a TL;DR.

The bit you are focusing way too much on it actually a very old view of time.

"Until the beginning of the 20th century, time was believed to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames;" This bit here. We now know that this is no longer true, as explained above.

The only thing I got that could be claimed as evidence that time is only a proponent of the universe is "According to these theories, the concept of time depends on the spatial reference frame of the observer, and the human perception as well as the measurement by instruments such as clocks are different for observers in relative motion. "

Is that what you were directing me to?

 

[Photonic]

Also, don't insult someone who has chosen to try and help you understand.

I don't have to sit here and type this to show you where your understanding went wrong, especially when you refuse to listen.

 

[Photonic]

The only thing I got that could be claimed as evidence that time is only a proponent of the universe is "According to these theories, the concept of time depends on the spatial reference frame of the observer, and the human perception as well as the measurement by instruments such as clocks are different for observers in relative motion. "

Is that what you were directing me to?

You are actively attempting to disagree with me simply because what we know to be true no longer agrees with your world view. Listen to the facts instead of saying "I'm on the fence, but I still think you're wrong because what I know makes sense based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject and cognitive bias."

You may not accept the facts as evidence but that's your problem, not mine.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

TL;DR, this IS a TL;DR.

The bit you are focusing way too much on it actually a very old view of time.

"Until the beginning of the 20th century, time was believed to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames;" This bit here. We now know that this is no longer true, as explained above.

Even if it is independent of motion, making the claim that there is no motion outside of the universe when both of us do not know is not albeit very scientific.

If you are not sure, you do not make a claim, you can go for it if there's a very likely chance, but what is the likeliness of this chance that there is nothing moving at all beyond the universe?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Also, don't insult someone who has chosen to try and help you understand.

I don't have to sit here and type this to show you where your understanding went wrong, especially when you refuse to listen.

You insulted me so I can insult you...

 

[Photonic]

Even if it is independent of motion, making the claim that there is no motion outside of the universe when both of us do not know is not albeit very scientific.

If you are not sure, you do not make a claim, you can go for it if there's a very likely chance, but what is the likeliness of this chance that there is nothing moving at all beyond the universe?

Again, I have not made any claim as to what lies beyond the big bang, I am simply saying that what you understand does not apply past that point, don't put words in my mouth.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You are actively attempting to disagree with me simply because what we know to be true no longer agrees with your world view. Listen to the facts instead of saying "I'm on the fence, but I still think you're wrong because what I know makes sense based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject and cognitive bias."

You may not accept the facts as evidence but that's your problem, not mine.

What...? I was asking if that's what you were pointing out?

I'm not disagreeing with you on my 'world view', why even make these claims they are irrelevant to the questioning. I don't know you seem to think debating is a game of losing and winning, I'm just trying to learn in case I am wrong, and I'm pointing out why you can't use certain things as evidence.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Again, I have not made any claim as to what lies beyond the big bang, I am simply saying that what you understand does not apply past that point, don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry then, I thought you were supporting what outhouse said

space and time is only limited to our universe, it is not infinite.

I was asking how he KNOWS this, I'd certainly like to know if my view is wrong and I must see evidence supporting this knowledge. He seems to 'know' sense he wrote it so sincerely

 

[Photonic]

What...? I was asking if that's what you were pointing out?

I'm not disagreeing with you on my 'world view', why even make these claims they are irrelevant to the questioning. I don't know you seem to think debating is a game of losing and winning, I'm just trying to learn in case I am wrong, and I'm pointing out why you can't use certain things as evidence.

I still don't understand you.

I haven't made any claims yet you keep insisting I have.

 

[outhouse]

I must see evidence supporting this knowledge

impossible, in this forum

you need a education on the subject to see what you wish, its obvious you dont have one on the subject.



could you find something relevant to debate?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

impossible, in this forum

you need a education on the subject to see what you wish, its obvious you dont have one on the subject.



could you find something relevant to debate?

Skirting around again... Avoiding having to give evidence

 

[muhammad_isa]

space and time is only limited to our universe, it is not infinite.

I was asking how he KNOWS this, I'd certainly like to know if my view is wrong and I must see evidence supporting this knowledge. He seems to 'know' sense he wrote it so sincerely

Surely, it's by definition! What is the def. of 'the universe' ?

Whatever else might be outside it, is irrelevant .. it wouldn't be part of "our" space-time

 

[PolyHedral]

That would require a reshaping of how we define distance.

Einstein beat you to it.

 

[Photonic]

Einstein beat you to it.

A re-reshaping then.

 

[outhouse]

Skirting around again... Avoiding having to give evidence

the eividence has been given to you over and over

you dont have the education to understand it is all.

 

[PolyHedral]

A re-reshaping then.

Why would we need to rewrite equations that already take into account curved space?

 

[Photonic]

Why would we need to rewrite equations that already take into account curved space?

They no longer apply. They would simply come up with undefined except in circumstances where there is a frame of reference.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Surely, it's by definition! What is the def. of 'the universe' ?

Whatever else might be outside it, is irrelevant .. it wouldn't be part of "our" space-time

In the same way it isn't important on what is outside our galaxy