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?

I'm afraid I'm already getting lost in semantics here. When you ask if space without time exists beyond our visible universe do you mean the 'observable' universe (the universe we can see) or beyond the actual (finite) universe itself?

As far as physical existence is concerned, there is nothing that can be physically described or explored beyond the entirety of physical existence. Time is a part of our physical existence, so if there is no physical existence then I believe there can also be no time.

There is no definable area of nothingness beyond what physically exists... the word area in itself implies the existence of something physical so it's a poor word for me to be using, but unfortunately I'm limited to using imperfect words. Time space and physical existence are all real entities existing together and codependent, although time appears to be more of a result of space and physical existence than a building block of reality.

At some point visualization for me becomes impossible, and I have to rely solely on definitions. A state of nothingness is a good example of 'something' that can't be visualized. It can't even be described as 'something'. A state of nothingness is devoid of anything that can be described... and that necessarily includes space, or even the vacuum of space.

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?

I believe the word 'time' itself is something that should be clearly defined. If we think of time in terms of cause and effect, then statements like the arrow of time always pointing in one direction will make perfect sense... because cause and effect never reverse order, and will always point in one direction.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 [b]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.[/b]

I don't know if you are presuming something I'm not saying or are intentionally muddying the waters, but I'm not intimidated by you or humy. You'll have to do better than making absurd statements about the intelligence of the average layperson, or trying to create a false and essentially nonexistent argument when no argument is necessary.

I have enough background in science to know when I'm being played. If you want to continue with this then that's fine, but don't expect me to be diverted by cheap debating tricks or to take much of what you (or humy) say seriously... I see enough of this happening at other boards. I will play along for a few postings, and then drop the both of you like a bad habit if nothing changes.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]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 accoun ...[text shortened]... he big bang and 2) I said nothing about a minimum requirement for the existence of space itself.[/b]

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

second post down on page 7 of this thread you said “Space and time are both functions of mass”.
Are you now saying that is wrong?

Why you would presume I was saying solid mass is needed for space to exist

“Space and time are both functions of mass”
In every day English that statement would generally imply to most reasonable people that space (and time ) cannot exist without mass and thus that is what both I and others on this thread perfectly naturally assumed you meant. If that is not what you meant then your statement was unintentionally misleading.
+ I didn't say "solid mass", just "mass" although not sure if that subtle distinction has any real relevance here.

Originally posted by lemon lime
.... but don't expect me to be diverted by cheap debating tricks....

You made the '1st graders' comment, not me. If you start the insults, don't blame others for it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
But for everything else I think it is logical to assume causation.

No, it isn't. There is nothing in logic or physics that suggests universal causation should be assumed. In fact, quantum physics quite strongly suggests that it shouldn't.

Originally posted by humy

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.
[quote] time was expanding [b]because one could not exist withou ...[text shortened]... contradiction with its converse -no such contradiction means the original 'deduction' is wrong )[/b]

You know of space that is expanding without time? That is not consistent with the visible universe.

Let me make it more simple. Do you know of space or time existing without the other?

I have not made any false assertions that you have proven to be false. You need to know the difference between what you believe to be false and what you prove to be false. You are letting your arrogance get in the way of proper communication. Step up to the plate. Saying something is not proof.

Originally posted by lemon lime

But for everything else I think it is logical to assume causation.

as twhitehead's said, quantum physics implies this is false.

But WHY is it "logical" to assume everything else has a cause?

there is no logical contradiction in us living in a universe where many events/things, not just one thing, is causeless. Therefore, and especially when also considering specific quantum events where we have no know cause of why they happened exactly where and when they did i.e. they appear random, it is certainly NOT logical to assume everything else has a cause. And, if there can be one exception to universal causality, what is the 'logical' reason to think there couldn't be others?
Explain this 'logical' reason....

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You know of space that is expanding without time? That is not consistent with the visible universe.

Let me make it more simple. Do you know of space or time existing without the other?

I have not made any false assertions that you have proven to be false. You need to know the difference between what you believe to be false and what you prove to be ...[text shortened]... nce get in the way of proper communication. Step up to the plate. Saying something is not proof.

You know of space that is expanding without time?

when you say "expanding without time" above, do you mean "expanding without the existence of time" or "expanding without time expanding"?
Big difference in meaning! And the converse of the former doesn't logically imply the the converse of the latter (perhaps you thought it did and this is your source of confusion? )

-if the former:

I didn't say space is expanding without the existence of time. You just made that straw man up. I implied time is not expanding with space. How does that logically equate with implying space is expanding without the existence of time?

-if the latter:

neither the big bang theory nor any other scientific theory I know of says or any way implies time is expanding with space and there is absolutely no rational reason or premise to think that time is expanding (whatever exactly "time expanding" is supposed to mean! You have never explained that part )

Do you know of space or time existing without the other?

No. So what? Irrelevant. Are you implying the same false inference with its 'logic' that I have already debunked?
Reminder:

“Art and artists cannot exist without each other and my art collection is expanding; So my art collection expanding means I am? “

-I have answered your questions so just answer a simple yes or no to the above....

Originally posted by lemon lime
I believe the word 'time' itself is something that should be clearly defined. If we think of time in terms of cause and effect, then statements like the arrow of time always pointing in one direction will make perfect sense... because cause and effect never reverse order, and will always point in one direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

Originally posted by humy

You know of space that is expanding without time?

when you say "expanding without time" above, do you mean "expanding without the existence of time" or "expanding without time expanding"?
Big difference in meaning! And the converse of the former doesn't logically imply the the converse of the latter (perhaps you thought it did and this ...[text shortened]... ns I am? “

-I have answered your questions so just answer a simple yes or no to the above....

“Art and artists cannot exist without each other and my art collection is expanding; So my art collection expanding means I am? “

Why do you make these ridiculous comparisons? Time and space are not like art and artists. What the hell are you thinking?

Lemon lime suggested that space can exist without time. I didn't agree with him. Who do you agree with, me or lemon lime? That is all I am asking. If you agree with me I can move on to my next point. If you agree with him I can ask another question to understand you better and get somewhere.

I don't think you understand what I have been explaining. Either that or you are being deliberately evasive.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
“Art and artists cannot exist without each other and my art collection is expanding; So my art collection expanding means I am? “

Why do you make these ridiculous comparisons? Time and space are not like art and artists. What the hell are you thinking?

Lemon lime suggested that space can exist without time. I didn't agree with him. Who do you agree ...[text shortened]... k you understand what I have been explaining. Either that or you are being deliberately evasive.

Time and space are not like art and artists

Irrelevant because the question is to test your logic, not your premise. Just answer the question. I answer your questions to the full so it isn't polite for you to not ever answer a single one of mine.

Lemon lime suggested that space can exist without time. I didn't agree with him. Who do you agree with...?

I believe space has always existed with time in our universe and I don't see how space without time (assuming that can make sense ) could ever be observable or measured or even deduced to exist.
As to whether there is some unknown dimension where space can exist without time and whether such a thing can makes any real physical sense, I don't know. But I assume speculating of the possible existence of space without time to be probably pure metaphysics if not nonsense.

I have answered you questions to the best of my ability -will you return the favour by answering mine? If not, why not? Would you like me to stop answering your questions so I do what you do to me?
I would like you to answer the questions in my previous post.

If you agree with me I can move on to my next point

let me guess; your next point would go vaguely along the lines similar to the way it did before that “space exists with time” and “space is expanding” means “time is expanding”? If so, that is a false inference ( please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference ) . “X exists with Y” and “X is expanding” implies “Y is expanding” ( and any other similar flawed logic like you used in your other post ) is a false inference and it is a law of logic I only have to show ONE example where that is false (like I did in my last post ) to prove this. If just one example of the applied logic of an inference is false, the inference itself is false. It is irrelevant what you substitute X or Y with -they don't have to be anything like space or time to prove the inference totally wrong. Just try answering all the questions in my last post and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference so you know what an inference is and look up the distinction between logic and premise and come back to us.

Originally posted by humy

Time and space are not like art and artists

Irrelevant because the question is to test your logic, not your premise. Just answer the question. I answer your questions to the full so it isn't polite for you to not ever answer a single one of mine.

[quote] Lemon lime suggested that space can exist without time. I didn't agree with him. ...[text shortened]... what an inference is and look up the distinction between logic and premise and come back to us.

"expanding without the existence of time"

That was what I was asking. You already answered that question and since I answered yours I can ask my next question.

Is space finite or infinite?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"expanding without the existence of time"

That was what I was asking. You already answered that question and since I answered yours I can ask my next question.

Is space finite or infinite?

and since I answered yours

which ones? How?
Can you list those questions I have asked and what was your answer to them?
Or, better still, just answer them now.

Is space finite or infinite?

I don't know.
According to popular theory, space is finite because our universe is finite albeit unbounded. Most big bang theories that I am aware of say this. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility of space being infinite for I understand that there are some cosmological theories that say it is.
In other words; I don't know.

I don't see the relevance of this question nor my "I don't know" answer to the discussion at hand.

Now I have answered yet another of you questions (to the best of my ability with a "I don't know" which isn't strictly an answer but cannot do anything about that! ) , can you answer at least some of mine?
start with this one:

Art and artists cannot exist without each other and my art collection is expanding; So my art collection expanding means I am?

all that is needed here is an extremely simple "yes" or "no" (or even "don't know" if that really is the truth ) and then you can qualify and elaborate on that as much as you like afterwards.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"expanding without the existence of time"

That was what I was asking. You already answered that question and since I answered yours I can ask my next question.

Is space finite or infinite?

How do you define the finiteness or infiniteness of space?