originally posted by twhitehead Along the time dimension we have:
1. Egg on table.
2. Egg in air.
3. Egg on floor.
Depending on which way you go along the timeline, you may see the egg jump off the floor and reassemble on the table.
Treat time as if it were a dimension and then we could have:
4. egg jump off floor
5. egg reassemble on table
So the sequence of events, which is what time measures, continues along just as always, while at some point the laws of physics changed.
You have convinced me that time is not a dimension.
Its also odd that you essentially claim that the egg could fall off the table and smash on the floor given that you also claim the past doesn't exist and the egg was never on the table in the first place. The past existed. It does not currently exist.
The future will exist. It does not currently exist.
Originally posted by humy Clearly yes;
For example, you can pass a light photon through it and measure how long the photon takes to reach the other side and, given c is constant, thus measure the length of that empty space. And if you argue that it is no longer empty as soon as you start passing the photon through it, you can use the workaround of passing the photon not directly thoug ...[text shortened]... s it through some space adjacent i.e. along side it and measure its length that way indirectly.
There are two issues here.
1. If space can be pure nothing, then science has no business saying it expands or it curves. Just say objects move away from each other or that mass attracts mass. The two analogies in question beg the freaking question.
2. Pure empty space, at a minimum, is such that it can potentially transmit that photon. Potential is not nothing, and so pure empty space must be something after all.
Originally posted by twhitehead The speed of light for one.
If space is expanding, then objects can move away from each other faster than the speed of light. If space is not expanding, they can't.
That's the map. I thought c was a limit in reality.
originally posted by twhitehead If you were to measure the distance across the sun (diameter) and measure the distance around the sun (perimeter) you would find that the perimeter is not pi time diameter. This is because gravity makes space actually compress within the sun. Wow. We've measured the sun and geometry is fine. I'm starting to think you are a super-troll.
The whole effect involves time as well, and this can be measured (and has been measured, and is a necessary consideration for GPS). GPS relies on the circumference of the sun not equaling pi times diameter. Well known fact. Elvis was found in the roswell ufo, too.
Originally posted by twhitehead You are wrong and missing something.
If you were to measure the distance across the sun (diameter) and measure the distance around the sun (perimeter) you would find that the perimeter is not pi time diameter. This is because gravity makes space actually compress within the sun.
The whole effect involves time as well, and this can be measured (and has been measured, and is a necessary consideration for GPS).
Exactly, it involves time. This is why there should always be a distinction between space and spacetime.
Originally posted by apathist That's the map. I thought c was a limit in reality.
What is the map?
Yes, c is a limit in reality. But c is a measure of speed which is distance over time. Distance travelled is measured through space. This means space has a fundamental scale. When that scale changes you can actually go faster than c.
Originally posted by humy Who says it is "pure nothing"? Nobody I am aware of says this or would think this. Space is 'something'.
Well okay then. So what is it?
I wonder too, should it ('empty' space, which is something but I don't what) be considered as different from whatever surrounded the original singularity? In what way?
Yes, c is a limit in reality. But c is a measure of speed which is distance over time. Distance travelled is measured through space. This means space has a fundamental scale. When that scale changes you can actually go faster than c.
Map v terrain. A description of something v that something itself. Physics math v physical reality. The word 'tree' v the tree.
Your last two sentences. They merely restate that space itself can expand - and not because the things in it move apart. Rather, the things in it can move apart because the space itself can expand. Which leaves my question unaddressed. What does space itself consist of such that it can expand?
Actually go faster than c? We've observed this have we? More likely, you merely conflate suggestions derived from physics maths with the actual nature of reality.
Originally posted by twhitehead And I am starting to think you are super dense with my posts just warping around you while you block any sense from entering your head.
That's a possibility of course. More likely though is that our communication problem mostly is caused by you, the guy who doesn't understand the concept of context when reading (evidenced in the addiction thread) and who doesn't understand tense when using language and who doesn't understand the difference between a description and the thing being described (both evidenced in this thread).
All three of those concepts are simple, fundamental and basic requirements for successful communication.
Yes, c is a limit in reality. But c is a measure of speed which is distance over time. Distance travelled is measured through space. This means space has a fundamental scale. When that scale changes you can actually go faster than c.
How comfortable you are with offering an assertion that contains a direct contradiction. I bet you were unaware of it. Some sort of cognitive dissonance.
Btw, 'traveled' has only one 'L' according to spell check. I'm not sure if I already knew that. Apparently
The official requirements are that we ‘double a single consonant letter at the end of any base where the preceding vowel is spelled with a single letter and stressed’.
The age of the universe thread
22 Oct '16 08:57
Back to Top