Vril

1 minute ago, Strange said:

 

As I said, that makes no sense. Space is just three of the four dimensions of space-time. So you are saying space is independent of space?

The 3 dimensions of X,Y and Z are vector lines that define a volume of space boundary ,  a mathematical description  and quantity.  Maths is not the space , space is space . 

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

That makes no sense.

Space-time , 3 dimensional vector lines and time is a coordinate system.  A mathematical process to measure space. Space is independent of space-time. 

47 minutes ago, koti said:

spacetime is inseperable. 

You say that with surety but that is not the surety Wikipedia suggests. 

Quote

Space, in everyday language, is something that we all know. It is measured in the three dimensions of distance: length, width, and height.

In modern physics, space is a "boundless four-dimensional continuum" known as spacetime. Disagreement exists about whether it is an entity (something that actually exists).

 

I disagree with you and propose  that space and space-time are two separate independent things and you failed to understand what space-time is comparative to space. 

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

 

The finite speed of light. eg: You go out tonight and gaze at Alpha Centauri system...in fact due to the finite speed of light you are seeing the light that left it 4.3 years ago because it is 4.3 L/years away. You do not see it now.

I never said you do see it now , you have misinterpreted the question and are giving an answer to a question that has not been asked.   

I asked :

How can any experiment prove or show there is no Universal now? 

Please name one experiment

2 hours ago, Velocity_Boy said:

But you did...and rather smugly, I felt....say that Einstein's opus of work and thus his Laws and Theories were merely one guy's opinion. And that for whatever reason, science just decided to jump on his bandwagon. This claim hints that much if not all of science is on a tenuous and maybe even biased...or just plain wrong...footing. 

Reasons that also explain why what you think about the nature of the universe and its center and outer edges are wrong can be found by anyone with moderate Google skills in about five minutes.

Take it from a relative newcomer here, as well as one of the less-hard science savvy guys on this forum...you ain't gonna get far or learn much from these people by strolling in with a chip on your shoulder and immediately denigrating past science greats. Like another member suggested, it's prolly best for all if you just say from the gitgo what you don't like about the current state of science. Or where you think current theories are wrong. Then let them retort and explain. Then digest their answers and try to disprove if you can. And just tell us how you debunked them.

That right there is pretty much science.

Cheers.

That is your opinion . 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

There is no absolute time or space. You need an introduction to SR and (apparently) how science works. I'm not going to waste my time on that (and it would be off topic in this thread).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

Quite obvious you do not understand what you were taught.  Space-time occupies space. 

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nonsense. It isn't opinion. It is well tested theory.

This is part of Einstein's theory and, therefore, is supposed by multiple experiments.

 

How can any experiment prove or show there is no Universal now? 

Please name one experiment?

37 minutes ago, Strange said:

I would. There is no centre to the universe. And I don't know what you mean by the "outer" universe.

Also, none of this defends your claim that Einstein was wrong. Or that Einstein's theory is an "opinion". Or that there is a "universal now". All of which are wrong.

I do not believe I ever said Einstein was wrong ,  I did state Einsteins opinion, that which it is.  You claim there is no universal now, you have proof of this or is this just speculation by yourself? 

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yep...

Reasons?

Supporting evidence contrary ? 

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

OK, so you asked what science is to make it seem like you wanted to discuss this, but then you switched over to telling us what you think science is, which is speculative in nature, and doesn't belong in our mainstream sections anymore. I'm going to move this where you can defend your extraordinary claims, hopefully with more than just your incredulity. Please use evidence to support your claims.

 

 

I accept your challenge on defending that which I said. 

The supposed centre of the Universe is the exact same age as the ''outer'' Universe, expanding since  the big bang.   

Space divides the supposed centre and ''outer'' of the observable Universe. 

Time is  not a thing between masses,  space that is occupied by electromagnetic radiation is between masses. 

Would anyone disagree with that honesty? 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You can cross a street and a bus can drive down the street. Time allows that to happen without having a collision.

 

 

I have thought about your proposal and have a counter argument.  

You can cross the street and a bus can come down the street.  You can get run over, there is a collision. Time allows that to happen . 

How did time divide events , when the event was the collision? 

1 hour ago, koti said:

Relativity tells us thats not true. 

Einstein and relativity does tell us that is not true!   

What if common sense tells us that it is true ? 

What if Einstein had some things wrong? 

Einstein is just one opinion that got agreed with and then taught to the world.  What if some of these teachings were wrong? 

I do not want to really engage in a debate about who is right or wrong, but common sense ''says'' to me that things do happen all at once .  

In example,  it is now on Earth and it is now on the Moon,  although the observer may measure time differently , now is always now . 

Different events are in my opinion  just actions in different geometrical positions happening now .  

A delay in seeing the event is not the same thing as time dividing events.  It is the space and distance that divides the events, time divides the synchronous of seeing events. 

Would you disagree with my opinion? 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

 Time stops everything from happening together.

 

How does time stop everything from happening together when things in the Universe are all in motion together at the same time? 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

How does an answer to "What is Science" help with this? And perhaps you should explain what you mean by "divide" and "events", since separating between phenomena seems more like time's job.

Why would time separate events , when time is the event ?  i.e a Big bang in a multiple arena

9 hours ago, druS said:

The definition I have is:

The system of observation and experimentation (the scientific method) to discover the laws which govern the universe; and the body of knowledge resulting from this system. I would add that by it's very nature it is empirical not metaphysical. Step to philosophy if you wish to go there.

But honest, where are you going?

Ain't going nowhere , that was the only question I had thanks.  I thought space is  what divides events, I must of not understood class. 

Start at the beginning I say, what is science?