BlackHole Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 In Scientific American they say that the big-bang was the explosion of space itself. A thing which i can't grasp is how galaxies receed faster than light if there is nothing physical pushing faster than light? The result is that space can expands faster than light because SR does not apply to recession velocities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Post big bang, the words space and time are artifical subdivisions of what is actually integrated into space-time. Everything in the universe that we are aware of is space-time. Everything with mass is space, and all particles or objects of space are always in motion, where such motion is motion through time. I think that space is not a container for objects, the objects are the space. Furthermore, there are no objects in space that can ever be without motion, which requires time. For example, it is meaningless to discuss a subatomic particle as an object frozen in time, where all of its rotation, let alone motion through space, has stilled. objects are space... <---- do you really believe that? your mind should be telling you that you have reached a contradiction any moment now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macroscopic Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Originally posted by Cadmus2. Time cannot exist while space does not. Time can only exist where space does. Why must this be so, in your opinion? I agree that post big bang this must be so, as spce and time combine as space-time. However, why must it be so prior to the big bang? Space and time were not joined at the big bang. Space had to have existed for the big bang to happen, and so did time. Something must have happened to trigger the explosion, And that something was in space, and happened over time. So space and time had to have been joined already for the big bang to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 objects are space... <---- do you really believe that? your mind should be telling you that you have reached a contradiction any moment now.I suppose that you find this statement meaningful. If you have a question, ask it. If you have a comment, make it. If you look carefully, you will find that your post provides no information except that you disagree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Space and time were not joined at the big bang. Space had to have existed for the big bang to happen, and so did time.I agree with your second statement, which I think does not contradict the first. I agree that both had to exist for them to join. Something must have happened to trigger the explosion,I agree. And that something was in space, and happened over time. So space and time had to have been joined already for the big bang to happen.I don't follow this line of reasoning. I agree that the big bang happened in space. I think that your conclusion that it happened over time is a point of disagreement between us. The big bang itself did not take time, because I consider that time was not unified with space until the big bang had completed its bang. Why would they have to have been joined before the big bang? What, then, would have been the effect of the big bang if they were already joined, and what caused the joining, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macroscopic Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by CadmusThe big bang itself did not take time The big bang was an event. An event can not take place outside of time. You agreed with me when I said that something happened to trigger the big bang. Whatever it was caused the big bang. Cause-effect relationships involve time, because one event in time is effecting another. How can an event take place outside of time? What, then, would have been the effect of the big bang if they were already joined It created the universe as we know it: with planets, stars, galaxies, etc. I don't think it changed any of the laws of physics, just the things they affect. and what caused the joining, in your opinion? In my opinion, nothing. It just is. I think it is like saying, "What created time?" I don't believe anything joined space and time, they have always been joined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 The big bang was an event. An event can not take place outside of time. You agreed with me when I said that something happened to trigger the big bang. Whatever it was caused the big bang. Cause-effect relationships involve time' date=' because one event in time is effecting another. How can an event take place outside of time?[/quote']I think that what is called inflation is the act of the big bang itself. Motion through space-time was 100% motion through space, with no motion through time. Time did not "begin" for any part of the universe until the big bang had concluded, and what is known as inflation stopped. When cosmologists say that the universe is some 15 billion years old, I interpret this to mean that the big bang completed, and time began, 15 billion years ago in this part of the universe. In other parts, the big bang completed earlier or later, and so are at at a different age. In other words, I agree that an event cannot take place outside of time, except for the big bang itself. It created the universe as we know it: with planets, stars, galaxies, etc. I don't think it changed any of the laws of physics, just the things they affect. In my opinion, nothing. It just is. I think it is like saying, "What created time?" I don't believe anything joined space and time, they have always been joined. OK, I understand your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macroscopic Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by CadmusMotion through space-time was 100% motion through space, with no motion through time. Sounds like a contradiction to me. Motion takes place over time. It's not possible for something to move through space but not time. I don't see why the big bang would be an exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Sounds like a contradiction to me.I recognize that it can sound that way. Motion takes place over time.More specitifically, motion through space-time takes place over time. During the big bang, I think that space was not yet unified with time. It's not possible for something to move through space but not time. I don't see why the big bang would be an exception.Because the unifier of the space and time, light, did not exist in space until after the big bang had completed for a given part of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHole Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 How can anything physical move in space-time? Defining time by change in motion is problematic because time is progressing whether we move in space or not. According to this defintion, if the cosmos was static and not accelerating there would be no time. Time is a constant and does not change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Defining time by change in motion is problematic because time is progressing whether we move in space or not. According to this defintion, if the cosmos was static and not accelerating there would be no time. It is not possible, post big bang, for space not to be in motion through both space and time. As you seem to disagree with this, please provide an example of something that can be devoid of motion through either space or time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHole Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 It is not possible, post big bang, for space not to be in motion through both space and time. As you seem to disagree with this, please provide an example of something that can be devoid of motion through either space or time. My question is why motion through space is necessarily essential to the progression of time (i take space-time as a non-physical, abstract mathematical construct). It's hard for me to believe that GR predicts motion through space-time. I believe we should think of time as an abstract parameter derived from change, not on the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 My question is why motion through space is necessarily essential to the progression of time (i take space-time as a non-physical, abstract mathematical construct).I take time differently. The reason why space is essential to the progression of time, post big bang, is that space can never be divorced from time. All of space is in motion through time, and all of time involves space in motion. There is no such thing now as space or time, there is only space-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHole Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I take time differently. The reason why space is essential to the progression of time, post big bang, is that space can never be divorced from time. All of space is in motion through time, and all of time involves space in motion. There is no such thing now as space or time, there is only space-time. No doubt because space-time has a changeless nature but motion in space-time is impossible because the change is self-referential. Motion (a change in position) requires the existance of a time axis. If there is no motion an arrow of time is not required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 No doubt because space-time has a changeless nature but motion in space-time is impossible because the change is self-referential. Motion (a change in position) requires the existance of a time axis. If there is no motion an arrow of time is not required.Can you give an example of where it could be possible that there is space that is not in motion through time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macroscopic Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by CadmusDuring the big bang, I think that space was not yet unified with time. That's the part I don't understand. I don't understand how time and space could both exist and not be unified. Because the unifier of the space and time, light, did not exist in space until after the big bang had completed for a given part of space. How do you think light unified space and time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 How do you think light unified space and time? I think that light is the force of gravity. All objects in space-time, all of space-time, constantly emits light. This acts as the force of gravity, which causes motion through space, and this motion takes time. Everything in space-time constantly emits light, and so causes everything else in the universe to be attracted to it. The attraction is motion through space, over time, motion through space-time. I recognize that the idea of light as the force of gravity is not mainstream. However, scientists do recognize that gravity moves at the speed of light, for a very good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHole Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Can you give an example of where it could be possible that there is space that is not in motion through time? I think what i can't grasp is how space can be in motion. Therefore i say that space-time is an abstract 4-D geometrical structure, not a physical entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I think that light is the force of gravity. All objects in space-time, all of space-time, constantly emits light. This acts as the force of gravity, which causes motion through space, and this motion takes time. Everything in space-time constantly emits light, and so causes everything else in the universe to be attracted to it. Are you actually serious, or are you just trying to wind us up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 He is winding you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Are you actually serious, or are you just trying to wind us up?I am serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I think what i can't grasp is how space can be in motion. Therefore i say that space-time is an abstract 4-D geometrical structure, not a physical entity.I think that you have it in reverse. It seems that because you think that space-time is a 4d geometrical structure that you cannot grasp how space can be in motion. Euclidean geometry is a useful model of nature, but it is highly abstract and is not to be taken as reality itself, as you seem to me to be doing. Instead, consider that you yourself are an example of space-time. Your body is composed of space, and your body and all of its atoms are in motion through their time. You are space-time, and as you move relative to the universe, the other space-time in the universe, you are in motion through space-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now