Originally posted by lemon lime
Space and time are both functions of mass. Simply put space is defined as area between objects and time is defined as movement of objects. And movement can be defined as objects changing relative position to one another...if objects remain in a fixed position relative to other objects then there is no movement.

Space can exist without time (motion) but ...[text shortened]... i]starting[/i] with clear definitions before moving on to discussing things like space and time.

"Space can exist without time"

Matter cannot exist without time, therefore space without time cannot be in our known universe since it contains matter.

Do you believe that space without time exists beyond our visible universe? Do you believe space is finite?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't know what your point is or what it is you are objecting to. First you say I'm wrong about distances between objects because objects don't necessarily have mass, then you say I'm wrong about mass-less objects not having distance between them. Either you didn't understand what I was saying or I'm having trouble understanding you. I never said objects (whether they have mass or not) cannot be separated by distance.

As far as I recall, you didn't say anything about mass-less objects prior to this post. What I am objecting to is your claim that 'Space and time are both functions of mass.' Mass is irrelevant to your descriptions.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Really? Does this mean for example a massive object made of wood does not have the same mass as an equally massive object made of iron? Well how about that, I learn something new every day...

No, I am saying a quark, has a different mass than the electron, yet it doesn't affect the measurement of distances between two quarks or two electrons. Therefore distance is not[b] a function of mass.

[b]So what is this, a physics lesson for 1st graders?
Only if you continue to act like one.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have never shown that my theory makes no sense. You just say it and that is all. You can't even explain why space is expanding. You don't even know if (so called) dark energy exists and can't prove it does, so by your own criteria is not real science.

You just have a strong herd instinct with regard to theories. If the majority accepts that dark e ...[text shortened]... nce by your own criteria but you accept it anyway because popular means acceptable in your mind.

You have never shown that my theory makes no sense

I just did show it makes no sense.
Reminder of what I just said:
“...If space is a “functions of mass“ then how can you have the existence of space and that space expanding while there exists no mass? That makes no sense ...”
The fact you cannot answer this shows it make sense. If you dispute this, then just tell me your answer to my question:


If space is a function of mass then how can you have the existence of space in the early big bang and that space expanding while there exists no mass?

-your silence on this would tell us you know you are wrong.

The rest of your post is totally obtusely irrelevant.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Space can exist without time"

Matter cannot exist without time, therefore space without time cannot be in our known universe since it contains matter.

Do you believe that space without time exists beyond our visible universe? Do you believe space is finite?

Why can matter not exist without time?

Originally posted by humy

You have never shown that my theory makes no sense

I just did show it makes no sense.
Reminder of what I just said:
“...If space is a “functions of mass“ then how can you have the existence of space and that space expanding while there exists no mass? That makes no sense ...”
The fact you cannot answer this shows it make sense. If you ...[text shortened]... s would tell us you know you are wrong.

The rest of your post is totally obtusely irrelevant.

You moron. I never said that at all. I said time was expanding with space because one could not exist without the other. Go back and look for yourself.

It is like you make up stuff and believe it so you can convince yourself you were right. What is wrong with you? Can't you read?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Why can matter not exist without time?

Electrons move.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You moron. I never said that at all. I said time was expanding with space because one could not exist without the other. Go back and look for yourself.

It is like you make up stuff and believe it so you can convince yourself you were right. What is wrong with you? Can't you read?

By that logic, does a man expand along with his head because one cannot exist without the other?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You moron. I never said that at all. I said time was expanding with space because one could not exist without the other. Go back and look for yourself.

It is like you make up stuff and believe it so you can convince yourself you were right. What is wrong with you? Can't you read?

I never said that

arr yes; my apologies. It was lemon lime who said “Space and time are both functions of mass”. Easy to get you two confused because you two say such similar kinds of false assertions.

I said time was expanding

which it wasn't.

time was expanding because one could not exist without the other

false inference; one doesn't in anyway logically imply the other (your above “ because” does imply a deduction -right? )
Art and artists cannot exist without each other and my art collection is expanding; So my art collection expanding means I am?
Actually, I have been loosing weight -proof that your above 'logic' is wrong. If you dispute this, explain the logical contradiction of there being an expanding space but with time not 'expanding'...
(in logic, all valid logical deductions using deductive logic can be verified by demonstrating a contradiction with its converse. This is why I ask you to show the contradiction with its converse -no such contradiction means the original 'deduction' is wrong )

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
By that logic, does a man expand along with his head because one cannot exist without the other?

actually it was lemon lime that said this and I got the two confused because they say such similar things. Still, some of his assertions are quite wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Electrons move.

The movement of electrons is a consequence of time existing, not the other way round. I can write down a perfectly adequate theory with no time dimension. The theory would not describe this universe but exists in the mathematical sense. I see no reason why matter requires time for its existence.

Originally posted by humy

Before the big bang ...

we currently don't know if there was a 'before' the big bang (I am assuming the semantics here that the singularity before the expansion being defined as part of the big bang else, being pedantic, there was a “before” but I assume that is not what you meant? ) . That is currently one of the big unanswered questions ...[text shortened]... ass due to gravitational affects. Note how “affected” doesn't logically equate with “caused” ) .

...the singularity that lead to the expansion of the big bang may have simply been completely causeless. Not everything must logically have a cause.

If something can be defined as being a self existent first cause then it fits the definition of not needing a cause. But for everything else I think it is logical to assume causation. However, a quantum vacuum containing virtual particles does not fit the definition of something coming out of nothing... these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. One of the problems I have with envisioning virtual particles is that they are not real, and getting something real from something that isn't sounds a bit like magic.

It appears you are referring to the theory that describes a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws, and the original 'real' particles making up our universe are thought to originate by fluctuations of this self existent energy in a vacuum. Is this what you are saying does not need a cause? If so then isn't saying 'does not need a cause' the same as saying it doesn't need to be explained?

I'm not sure how you are defining space itself, because according to the big bang theory space itself was created along with everything else. "Quantum fluctuations in a vacuum" do not necessarily mean there was an area of space preceding the the big bang... the word 'vacuum' is probably misleading because it presumes an area of space, but this is probably nothing more than a good example of how words can often get in the way of meaning.

Originally posted by humy

Before the big bang ...

we currently don't know if there was a 'before' the big bang (I am assuming the semantics here that the singularity before the expansion being defined as part of the big bang else, being pedantic, there was a “before” but I assume that is not what you meant? ) . That is currently one of the big unanswered questions ...[text shortened]... ass due to gravitational affects. Note how “affected” doesn't logically equate with “caused” ) .

And then I pointed out that this logically must be wrong because there was a short period during the very early part of the big bang where there was no rest mass nor particles with mass and yet space was still expanding...

How are you able to prove me wrong about something I didn't say?

Anything with a real physical presence can account for an expanding space. Why you would presume I was saying solid mass is needed for space to exist and then expand is something I can't answer, because 1) I wasn't talking specifically about the formative period shortly after the big bang and 2) I said nothing about a minimum requirement for the existence of space itself.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[...] according to the big bang theory space itself was created along with everything else.

Nope.