Time

[Zachary Smith]

And, yes, this DOES mean the the entire universe and every object within it WAS physically "smaller" in the "past". Literally.

This "Relativity of Expansion Rate" is difficult to perceive because all of our measuring instruments are ALSO expanding at essentially the same rate. Once we are able to get into deep space (and absent strong gravitational fields) for a significant period of time, it will be seen that objects returning from "out there" will be measurably larger than when they left Earth. The ratio will match the discrepancy in relative "time passed" also.

Zachary Smith, let's say there's space with the length of a meter occupied by an object with the length of a meter.

Let''s say that in a billion years, space 'grows' until it is 10 meter long.
The object will STILL be 1 meter long - and it will occupy the center of the space (9 meters being 'empty' space).

Just because space is expanding, 'growing', does NOT mean that the objects in it are also expanding.

HOW do you know? Basic simple question. The "size" of an object can only be determined by referencing it against another object (a "measurement"). If your object in question AND your reference object are changing size in the same direction at the same rate, HOW would you ever perceive the difference?

Put another way. You are in a room, expanding at a rate of 10% an hour. The room you are in, as well as all the objects contained therein AND the house the room is in are ALL ALSO expanding at a rate of 10% per hour.

HOW would you ever know?

My contention is that space AND matter are expanding, albeit at different rates. A gravitational field SLOWS the expansion of matter whereas space expands more rapidly, unimpeded by gravity. The stronger the gravitational field, the slower the expansion of any object within its influence.

Singularities, for example, are NOT "infinitely small" objects. They do not "collapse" into a pin-point. Gravity, the same as it prevents the escape of light, also prevents further expansion of the body. It does NOT change in size but, rather, the rest of the universe EXPANDS around it.

Without the ability to reach deep space, perhaps even intergalactic space, and escape the influence of most large gravitational fields it would be difficult to perceive the change in expansion rate from one region of the universe to another. More, we know time "slows" as gravitational influence strengthens and time "slows" as an object accelerates (my contention being that inertia at high velocities behaves in a way to serve the same function as gravity, slowing the expansion of an object (and thus "slowing" time) along the vector of acceleration.

The alternative to sending an object into deep space and bringing it back and measuring it would long term observation of distant object with high precision measurements of scale. I couldn't guess what the time frame my be because "time" would pass and "expansion" would occur at different rates in different areas of the universe based on local conditions. Some Math-head would have to figure things like that out.

At any rate, it's all fine to claim with authority that a 1 meter object will always be 1 meter and that "only" space and NOT "material" objects expand. But I challenge you to take a step away from that presumption (and it IS a presumption) and suggest how you can PROVE that.

Space expands as time passes AND all it contains expands CREATING time. The way you could prove your 1 meter object was still the same 1 meters after a billion years would be to travel BACK in time 1 billion years and set it next to its 1 billion year old self.

Otherwise, you would have to take an object OUT of local influences, exposes to different, more or less intense influences, return it to local conditions and examine it.

Perhaps getting a precision measurement on a test object of very specific size, then orbiting it in close proximity to the sun, returning it to earth and re-measuring it might be another way to test the theory. The supposition being that objects expand more slowly in a higher gravity environment so an item that was near the sun for a lengthy period of time would be both SMALLER and YOUNGER than we would expect from an identical object remaining on earth.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

STR,

It's something like a tug of war. Space wants to inflate, the other fundamental forces want to keep things together. Right now, the strong nuclear force is keeping all your quarks together as particles. All those particles are kept together by the weak nuclear force as atoms, and all those atoms stick together to form your body because of electromagnetism. And you're body is kept on earth, and earth is kept together, and everything in the galaxy is held in place by gravity.

So you're saying that the inequalities in this "tug of war" determine the progression of time?

 

[Trekker4747]

^That's pretty much it, though both sides have a point. Space is expanding. Objects exist in space, and space is "trying" to inflate objects along with itself, but the constituent matter has a far stronger bond to the other constituent elements than the force attempting to rip it apart.

It's something like a tug of war. Space wants to inflate, the other fundamental forces want to keep things together. Right now, the strong nuclear force is keeping all your quarks together as particles. All those particles are kept together by the weak nuclear force as atoms, and all those atoms stick together to form your body because of electromagnetism. And you're body is kept on earth, and earth is kept together, and everything in the galaxy is held in place by gravity.

Wait... electromagnetism? So my body is creating free energy?

 

[STR]

^That's pretty much it, though both sides have a point. Space is expanding. Objects exist in space, and space is "trying" to inflate objects along with itself, but the constituent matter has a far stronger bond to the other constituent elements than the force attempting to rip it apart.

It's something like a tug of war. Space wants to inflate, the other fundamental forces want to keep things together. Right now, the strong nuclear force is keeping all your quarks together as particles. All those particles are kept together by the weak nuclear force as atoms, and all those atoms stick together to form your body because of electromagnetism. And you're body is kept on earth, and earth is kept together, and everything in the galaxy is held in place by gravity.

Wait... electromagnetism? So my body is creating free energy?

For the lurkers:
Electromagnetism is the strongest force you deal with in everyday life. Think about it, you jump out of an airplane and it takes the entire Earth to generate enough gravity to propel you to 200mph. It takes a 6" thick block of concrete to stop you.

The Four Forces:
Strong (nuclear) Force: The force that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons, and other subatomic particles.

Weak Nuclear Force: The stuff that powers nuclear reactors and warheads, it's what bonds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of atoms. If we ever master fusion, it will power the world, just as fusion powers the sun.

Electromagnetic force: Electrical charges, what attracts negatively charged electrons to positively charged atom nucleuses. What powers magnets, generates electricity, runs the computer you're reading this on. Chemical reactions are merely the suffling of electrons from one atom to another, as such all chemical reactions are electromagnetic reactions. You stay on the surface of the Earth (rather than fall straight through the Earth to its center) because of electromagnetism, as friction is the EM resistance of electrons to other electrons.

Gravity: The weakest force, by a large factor. While technically the curvature in space-time caused by the presence of matter with mass, since all matter is affected by gravity, it's essentially a force that attracts all matter to each other (which is how it's treated in Newtonian physics).

STR,

It's something like a tug of war. Space wants to inflate, the other fundamental forces want to keep things together. Right now, the strong nuclear force is keeping all your quarks together as particles. All those particles are kept together by the weak nuclear force as atoms, and all those atoms stick together to form your body because of electromagnetism. And you're body is kept on earth, and earth is kept together, and everything in the galaxy is held in place by gravity.

So you're saying that the inequalities in this "tug of war" determine the progression of time?

No. It just dictates whether or not you continue to exist as a single collection of matter or are torn to shreds by an expanding universe. Think of it this way

<<x10>> The 1 unkown force trying to stretch you out (the expanding universe)
>>>>>>>>>>x1,000,000<<<<<<<<< The 4 forces keeping you together

So long as the 4 forces are stronger, you stay in one piece. Time isn't a force, it's a dimension, so it's driven by something else entirely. A better question is what is the 1 force trying to pull you apart. It's generally referred to as dark energy (which is more an admission of not knowing what the hell it really is than a declaration of an actual substance). What is dark energy? That's the million dollar question. Einstein invented it to balance out some equations in general relativity. Quantum Mechanics suggests that it's the smallest amount of energy you can have in a point of space. Essentially, space must have something in it for it to exist as space.

If I've lost you, don't worry. No one really knows for sure, but if we know all this, surely we should have a good idea what time is, right? Well...the thing about time is, is that if it is some kind of physical phenominon, it's so small and basic we probably can't ever detect it and test its constituent components. It is because of the un-testability that study of the nature of time is a field dominated by philosophers, who don't have the burden of proving anything that they say is true, just that it is internally consistent. In science, it's just treated as a given. You have spatial dimensions, you have time, and you can do all this stuff in space and time, you just can't go backwards in time.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Umm...anyone debating WTF time is should be aware of the four fundamental forces of the universe. Really, it's basic stuff. It's like debating American politics without knowing the 3 branches of the federal government. All of chemistry is based on electromagnetism. Magnets stick to each other because of it (note: that's not chemistry). Atoms bond to form molecules because of it. You stay on the surface of the Earth (rather than fall straight through the Earth to its center) because of electromagnetism.

Electromagnetism is the strongest force you deal with in everyday life. Think about it, you jump out of an airplane and it takes the entire Earth to generate enough gravity to propel you to 200mph. It takes a 6" thick block of concrete to stop you.

For the lurkers:
Strong (nuclear) Force: The force that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons, and other subatomic particles.
Weak Nuclear Force: The stuff that powers nuclear reactors and warheads, it's what bonds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of atoms. If we ever master fusion, it will power the world, just as fusion powers the sun.
Electromagnetic force: Electrical charges, what attracts negatively charged electrons to positively charged atom nucleuses. What powers magnets, generates electricity, runs the computer you're reading this on. Chemical reactions are merely the suffling of electrons from one atom to another, as such all chemical reactions are electromagnetic reactions.
Gravity: The weakest force, by a large factor. While technically the curvature in space-time caused by the presence of matter with mass, since all matter is affected by gravity, it's essentially a force that attracts all matter to each other (which is how it's treated in Newtonian physics).

I knew these things, thanks.

So long as the 4 forces are stronger, you stay in one piece. Time isn't a force, it's a dimension, so it's driven by something else entirely. A better question is what is the 1 force trying to pull you apart. It's generally referred to as dark energy (which is more an admission of not knowing what the hell it really is than a declaration of an actual substance). What is dark energy? That's the million dollar question. Einstein invented it to balance out some equations in general relativity. Quantum Mechanics suggests that it's the smallest amount of energy you can have in a point of space. Essentially, space must have something in it for it to exist as space.

My contention is also that "TIME" is a physical dimension (the cumulative of the more familiar three which, taken together, combine to have unique properties which do not exist individually) and it is the EXPANSION of that dimension along the axis of the other three obvious vectors that "creates" MOVEMENT through time. Why? Because subtle changes in the fundamental structure of ALL that exists occur as space AND matter expand--though not at a constant rate as influenced by local conditions.

If I've lost you, don't worry. No one really knows for sure, but if we know all this, surely we should have a good idea what time is, right? Well...the thing about time is, is that if it is some kind of physical phenominon, it's so small and basic we probably can't ever detect it and test its constituent components. It is because of the un-testability that study of the nature of time is a field dominated by philosophers, who don't have the burden of proving anything that they say is true, just that it is internally consistent. In science, it's just treated as a given. You have spatial dimensions, you have time, and you can do all this stuff in space and time, you just can't go backwards in time.

Not REMOTELY lost. And I've offered several testable methods for verifying my concept. The easiest would be to have two identical objects PERFECTLY matched in size and, perhaps even able to measure the passage of time. One object is launched into space and orbits in very close proximity to the sun ( a much stronger gravitational field than Earth has). The other object remains earth-bound. After a certain interval passes (math-heads get to figure that out) the second object is returned to earth and compared to the standard that remained here to see if scale and sychronization remain intact. And, yes, you get to adjust for dialation variances based on acceleration and other already known gravitational factors.

If my theory holds water, the test object will be measurably SMALLER and demonstrably YOUNGER (ie. having "lost" time) compared to its earthly counterpart. The smoking gun would be, of course, if the object is measurably SMALLER than the comparison sample.

Now, as to WHY space or the universe or matter might be expanding in the first place? Not a clue. "Dark Energy" works for me until something else comes along.

EDIT:

Just had another thought. "Gravity" may be absolutely nothing more than the effect of objects with mass expanding into and therefore intruding upon the immediate environment of "space". Space is not "curved" inward toward massive bodies by any force per se, but rather, massive bodies are expanding INTO space, distorting it. Objects on the surface of a planet do NOT "fall toward" the planet through curved space but, rather, the planet expands TOWARD the objects, distorting the space around it and pinning things to the surface like a bug stuck on a windshield of a car moving at high speed.

Once an object becomes sufficiently massive (i.e. a black hole) the other nuclear forces overwhelm the impetus to expand (whatEVER that source may be) and the object ceases entirely to expand. The universe continues to expand around it and the apparent effect is that the object "collapses" into itself and become infinitely small. In reality, it has simply stopped expanding with the rest of the universe. This would also explain why objects, including light, caught below the event horizon of a black hole cannot escape. That area of space/time is "pinched off" by the sheer magnitude of the nuclear forces generated by it dead star's mass. Like a roach-motel, you can check in, but you can never leave.

Anyhow, that eliminates "gravity" as a force, nuclear or otherwise. We're all really just stuck to the surface of the earth because it's expanding into the space around it.

Okay, that solves "time" and "gravity". What else do you need figured out?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

And, yes, this DOES mean the the entire universe and every object within it WAS physically "smaller" in the "past". Literally.

This "Relativity of Expansion Rate" is difficult to perceive because all of our measuring instruments are ALSO expanding at essentially the same rate. Once we are able to get into deep space (and absent strong gravitational fields) for a significant period of time, it will be seen that objects returning from "out there" will be measurably larger than when they left Earth. The ratio will match the discrepancy in relative "time passed" also.

Zachary Smith, let's say there's space with the length of a meter occupied by an object with the length of a meter.

Let''s say that in a billion years, space 'grows' until it is 10 meter long.
The object will STILL be 1 meter long - and it will occupy the center of the space (9 meters being 'empty' space).

Just because space is expanding, 'growing', does NOT mean that the objects in it are also expanding.

HOW do you know? Basic simple question. The "size" of an object can only be determined by referencing it against another object (a "measurement"). If your object in question AND your reference object are changing size in the same direction at the same rate, HOW would you ever perceive the difference?

How do I know that? By using gravitational fields.

In a gravitational field, there is less time and space than outside a gravitational field.
Why? Because space and time is sucked into the mass at the center of the gravity field.
And when we have space/time of different densities, we can see how an object behaves when space becomes more dense.

Now - let's say you are at the bottom of a gravity well, and, near you, there's an object 1 meter in length.
Let's say the object rises to exit this gravity well. From its POV, the object remains 1 meter long. But as it rises, leaving the gravitational field, the space in which the object is becomes more...dense, for lack of a better word (the effect is similar to the space 'growing', causing the expansion of the universe).
How would you, at the botom of the gravity well, perceive the object? You would PERCEIVE the object as shrinking (this is an illusion caused by you being in space less dense than the space the object occupies).

For example: what for you is 1 meter, for the dense space above is 1,5 meters.
From its perspective (from the point in which it is) the object still has 1 meter (it doesn't occupy all 1,5 meters) when it leaves the gravity well. You, at the bottom of the gravity well, will see the object as shrinking to 0,6 meters.


But what if the object falls back into the gravity well, until it is near you again? From its local POV, the object remains 1 meter long at all times.
From your perspective, the object will inflate from 0,6 meters to 1 meter, when it's near you.


Conclusion: when space 'grows' - let's say, from 1 to 10 meters - an object 1 meter long 'shrinks' from occupying all this space to occupying only 1/10 of the space.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If physical objects (that is, those composed of matter) were expanding along with space, then all subatomic particles would be growing, too. Even with my (admittedly limited) understanding of physics, if electrons, protons, and neutrons were constantly growing, it would throw a huge monkey wrench into basically everything we know about how physics works.

Even if that was the case, space is expanding more rapidly than the objects themselves, and from our reference point no matter is expanding in size. So, as far as we can tell, objects are not expanding, and the rules of physics are not gradually coming apart, so I think we could chalk it up as being one of those "differences that makes no difference," and thus just a mental exercise rather than anything remotely useful in the study of physics.

 

[STR]

I knew these things, thanks.

Based on the rest of your post, I really don't think you do. Your contention of time is close enough that I'm not going to split hairs over it. The rest is quite...incorrect.

The easiest would be to have two identical objects PERFECTLY matched in size and, perhaps even able to measure the passage of time. One object is launched into space and orbits in very close proximity to the sun ( a much stronger gravitational field than Earth has). The other object remains earth-bound. After a certain interval passes (math-heads get to figure that out) the second object is returned to earth and compared to the standard that remained here to see if scale and sychronization remain intact. And, yes, you get to adjust for dialation variances based on acceleration and other already known gravitational factors.

If my theory holds water, the test object will be measurably SMALLER and demonstrably YOUNGER (ie. having "lost" time) compared to its earthly counterpart. The smoking gun would be, of course, if the object is measurably SMALLER than the comparison sample.

The theory doesn't hold water, because if variable rates of gravity (positioning in various gravity wells) alter the expansion of objects, than we would notice the Moon or Mars expanding or shrinking relative to us. Especially the Moon, since we can measure it down the millimeter and it travels much faster and has for longer periods than any human launched experiment. Well known orbits would be altered, finely tuned instruments would not work because they're based on constants (such as the speed of light, which is always the same in a vacuum). Your theory, as Robert Maxwell pointed out, simply breaks a lot of physics as a byproduct.

Just had another thought. "Gravity" may be absolutely nothing more than the effect of objects with mass expanding into and therefore intruding upon the immediate environment of "space". Space is not "curved" inward toward massive bodies by any force per se, but rather, massive bodies are expanding INTO space, distorting it. Objects on the surface of a planet do NOT "fall toward" the planet through curved space but, rather, the planet expands TOWARD the objects, distorting the space around it and pinning things to the surface like a bug stuck on a windshield of a car moving at high speed.

Except gravity works in opposition to the universal constant. In fact, all the other forces do, which is why matter doesn't expand with space. However, gravity (because it's the only other force that acts of a intergalactic scale) is the most apparent counter.

Your hypothesis may seem neat and tidy to you, but it flies in the face of both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Once an object becomes sufficiently massive (i.e. a black hole) the other nuclear forces overwhelm the impetus to expand (whatEVER that source may be) and the object ceases entirely to expand.

??? Black holes are defined entirely by gravity. If anything, a black hole is gravity run roughshod over every other force. Strong/weak forces and EM are all overpowered to reduce matter from what we recognize as such into, first, degenerate matter (which you don't even need a black hole to create) and then a singularity, a point which is nothing but gravity emanating out from a coordinate.

 

[Zachary Smith]

I knew these things, thanks.

Based on the rest of your post, I really don't think you do.

Well, I can tell you that at least THAT part of your thinking is quite WRONG.

You're straying dangerously close to coming off like a smug ass. Thinking outside of the box is NOT the same as the same as not having a foundation in the basic concepts. Whatever else you may or may NOT be right about--you're really QUITE wrong here.

Your contention of time is close enough that I'm not going to split hairs over it. The rest is quite...incorrect.

So, I understand the essential concept of TIME but I fail at the basics of fundamental nuclear forces? What an INTERESTING fellow I must be!

The easiest would be to have two identical objects PERFECTLY matched in size and, perhaps even able to measure the passage of time. One object is launched into space and orbits in very close proximity to the sun ( a much stronger gravitational field than Earth has). The other object remains earth-bound. After a certain interval passes (math-heads get to figure that out) the second object is returned to earth and compared to the standard that remained here to see if scale and sychronization remain intact. And, yes, you get to adjust for dialation variances based on acceleration and other already known gravitational factors.

If my theory holds water, the test object will be measurably SMALLER and demonstrably YOUNGER (ie. having "lost" time) compared to its earthly counterpart. The smoking gun would be, of course, if the object is measurably SMALLER than the comparison sample.

The theory doesn't hold water, because if variable rates of gravity (positioning in various gravity wells) alter the expansion of objects, than we would notice the Moon or Mars expanding or shrinking relative to us. Especially the Moon, since we can measure it down the millimeter and it travels much faster and has for longer periods than any human launched experiment. Well known orbits would be altered, finely tuned instruments would not work because they're based on constants (such as the speed of light, which is always the same in a vacuum). Your theory, as Robert Maxwell pointed out, simply breaks a lot of physics as a byproduct.

And quantum entanglement doesn't violate Relativistic Causality, either, does it?

How LONG have we been able to measure the moon to the millimeter? On the cosmological scale of time? A FRACTION of an INSTANT. How LONG have these "finely tuned instruments" been making their measurements?

Your point here is no different than if someone were to take an ice tray out of a freezer and 1/2 second later claim "ice no longer melts at room temperature because I've been watching this 1/2 a second and it's STILL frozen. Who knows how long or how many observations it might take for the type of inconsistencies I propose to appear--IF they WOULD EVER appear within the confines of the solar system? Tell me, WHAT is the dominate source of gravity in the solar system? The SINGLE STRONGEST gravitational influence between here and Alpha Centauri?

Oh yeah, the SUN. Well, IF the sun is the dominating influence in this region of space, it stands to reason that it would be the most influential factor on everything WITHIN the solar system, including Demos and Phobos and our own happy little moon. I would propose that LOCAL effects would be FAR more subtle in comparison with a dominate body like the sun, which would probably set the STANDARD for EVERYTHING within it's influence. You'd need to reach interstellar space before you started seeing the sun's influence on EVERYTHING near it diminishing. What can we measure to the "millimeter" in interstellar space?

Just had another thought. "Gravity" may be absolutely nothing more than the effect of objects with mass expanding into and therefore intruding upon the immediate environment of "space". Space is not "curved" inward toward massive bodies by any force per se, but rather, massive bodies are expanding INTO space, distorting it. Objects on the surface of a planet do NOT "fall toward" the planet through curved space but, rather, the planet expands TOWARD the objects, distorting the space around it and pinning things to the surface like a bug stuck on a windshield of a car moving at high speed.

Except gravity works in opposition to the universal constant. In fact, all the other forces do, which is why matter doesn't expand with space. However, gravity (because it's the only other force that acts of a intergalactic scale) is the most apparent counter.

Your hypothesis may seem neat and tidy to you, but it flies in the face of both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

You mean the way Relativity and ESPECIALLY Quantum Mechanics flies in the face of Newtonian physics? Shouldn't happen, should it? Yet, it DOES!

Once an object becomes sufficiently massive (i.e. a black hole) the other nuclear forces overwhelm the impetus to expand (whatEVER that source may be) and the object ceases entirely to expand.

??? Black holes are defined entirely by gravity. If anything, a black hole is gravity run roughshod over every other force. Strong/weak forces and EM are all overpowered to reduce matter from what we recognize as such into, first, degenerate matter (which you don't even need a black hole to create) and then a singularity, a point which is nothing but gravity emanating out from a coordinate.

Gravity, the "absolute weakest by FAR" of the nuclear forces runs "roughshod over EVERY other force. Well, by gum, just HOW can that be? Suddenly, the by far weakest force is the "big dog" among nuclear forces. I wonder also, if you get in the proximity of a black hole if pennies are suddenly worth more than ten dollar bills, also?

Look, man. I'm NOT a scientist and I never claimed to be. I DO have some fair knowledge of science and scientific concepts. My WHOLE point here is a MENTAL EXERCISE in "what if". 99.9% of scientists and science geeks do NOTHING but parrot back what they've been taught without contemplation or consideration or even the slightest degree of imagination involved. They ACCEPT what's been taught as fact and they regurgitate it as "fact" in the same smug tones as countless others before them--any number of who have been WRONG. You can start from the Four Basic Elements, Earth Air Fire and Water and you can run it up to Einstein's Cosmological Constant and beyond. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Science is only PART "Observation and Explanation". If it's to PROGRESS, you have to have people who don't just contemplate "what is" but also wonder "what if". It takes CREATIVITY and INNOVATION to advance, not repetition of what "is known as fact". We'd never have gotten to Quantum physics if everyone had just said, "well that violates Newtonian Physics" and everyone else had just nodded and said, "yeah, it MUST be wrong".

I am CONSTANTLY amazed at the lack of WONDER in most "science-minded" people. And I'm not talking about respect for the function and complexity of things, which is a different issue entirely. I'm talking about the ability to look at what is BELIEVED to be "fact" (because I have NO doubt that MUCH of what we hold to be "fact" now will be proven wrong in the future--after all that's the way it has always been and there's no reason to think that starting with this generation they'll get everything right from here on out) and play with it. Turn concepts on their heads and inside out. Make NEW shapes out of them and TRY to make them fit with what is "known" instead of shrugging grumpily at the onset and say "that CAN'T be" (mostly based on the single premise that it wasn't what you were TAUGHT how things are).

You jump up and down and scream that "matter CAN'T be expanding like space!!!!" We've been able to measure the MOON to the last millimeter for the last fraction of second, so it CAN'T be so. You're so ANXIOUS to prove your "knowledge" of "what is" that you simply can't consider even for a moment "what if". Yeah, I made up the whole business about time being a function of the expansion of space AND matter. And the gravity thing was another kicker to toss on top of it. It's funny to see all the "knowledgeable" people racing BREATHLESSLY to explain why it "CAN'T" be so without EVER puasing for an INSTANT to even considering the prospect in passing. I said in my initial post that the expansion of matter would be inhibited by the presence of a STRONG gravitational field. WHAT is the dominate gravitational body in the solar system? The sun. So what would, in my concept, be the throttle that sets the pace for every atom in the solar system? The sun. You were so anxious to DISCOUNT my theory you NEVER bothered to consider ANY aspect of it except to consider ways to discredit it. Is it so hard to play along and try to find ways to make an idea WORK? Find ways to actually ADVANCE the concept--just for the hell of it--and see if you can find SOMETHING new?

Nah, you'd rather repeat what you've been taught and regurgitate the Gospel of "Science". But it IS, WAS and ALWAYS WILL BE, the INNOVATORS that push the boundaries of Knowledge. Those who don't satisfy themselves with the explanation of "this is how things are" but strive for more by saying "What if things were like THIS".

Thanks for playing though. Better luck in the next round.

 

[STR]

I'm going to keep this simple.

1) Your response to my explanation of what a black hole really is either A) an indication that you're talking out of your ass or B) a poor attempt to hand wave my answer away so you can change the subject. Given your bizarre use of terms, I'm going to go with A), but feel free to cop to B). If you're going to stick to your guns, and insist that gravity (despite being fundamentally weaker) can never win over the other forces, explain how gravity will beat a refrigerator magnet when you use it to try and lift a steel anvil.

2) You still haven't dealt with the speed of light, which is a constant in all frames of reference. If objects increase in size, along with space, than the amount of time it takes for a photon to travel from one side of an instrument will increase with the ballooning size of an object. This doesn't happen. In fact, if the earth was expanding, particle accelerators wouldn't work very well either given how precise their measurements must be. If the speed of light is variable, then we have no proof that the universe is expanding at all, since all the hubble shift measurements could be caused by light speeding up/down over long distances, of which there's zero proof of that and no mechanism for that to happen.

3) No one is persecuting you, so stop acting like it. If you don't like what science has settled on, it is on you to learn the basic elements that lead them to that conclusion. You can't say whatever you want, and when called out on it, scream that you're not a scientist. I'm no scientist either, I'm a business major and my last job was in sales. The difference between us is that I took the time to actually learn or look up what I've said before posting it. This finite knowledge I have appears to be slightly more than yours, hence this schism.

4) No one cares about hypothetical creativity if it has nothing to do with reality. You don't get a gold star for spouting out an idea that simply doesn't work in our universe. That is, unless you write a fictional book and get a publisher to buy it. Then you get money at least.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Take a chill pill, Zach. STR wasn't attacking you, he was just correcting your numerous misconceptions about physics. I, for one, appreciate him taking the time to explain these things in an easy-to-understand fashion.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Eight days now without a new post in this thread. Oh my, YES, but the deafening silence and absolute NON-communication going on here is MUCH more fun and far more productive than the previous admittedly rampant speculative theorizing and playful contemplation. We see here the FULL impact of how shrill screaming of "BUT THAT'S NOT RIGHT *sniff* *sniff*" by inflexible and unimaginative minds which DARE NOT step outside the lines drawn by others (lines which have OFTEN been drawn in the WRONG place by others who have OFTEN been WRONG in the past) brings even gentle consideration of Possibilities to a screeching halt.

Pedantic adherence to dogma inhibits progress. If you're not willing to PLAY with concepts, BEND rules and twist and tweak what "is" and contemplate what "might be", even if--or ESPECIALLY--because it is violation of what you "know", you'll NEVER be able to perceive anything new.

Then again, I don't "know" nuthin, do I? (Of course, ironically enough, "NOT knowing" is a required basic for permitting the existence of the condition of being "able to learn"--after all, you can't learn ANYTHING if you already "know" EVERYTHING, can you?)

But you guys keep working on the great mysteries. Spinning in silence, each in your own little cocoon and absolutely certain of your "facts", is a SURE way to move knowledge forward. After all, this approach is MUCH more likely to net a positive result than wildly speculating and throwing every idea against the wall and seeing if ANY stick.

 

[STR]

The whole logic and scientific method things have thus far worked out pretty good thus far. So I think I'm going to keep listening to that.

Have a good day.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

After all, this approach is MUCH more likely to net a positive result than wildly speculating and throwing every idea against the wall and seeing if ANY stick.

Yes, Zachary Smith, the 'scientific method' approach IS, indeed, far more likely to achieve results than wildly speculating.

 

[Zachary Smith]

After all, this approach is MUCH more likely to net a positive result than wildly speculating and throwing every idea against the wall and seeing if ANY stick.

Yes, Zachary Smith, the 'scientific method' approach IS, indeed, far more likely to achieve results than wildly speculating.

The idea of curved space was conceived BEFORE it was observed. As were the concepts of the black hole and even the atom. SPECULATION, my stodgy friends. It's only PART of the equation to say, "We observe that X does Y and our measurements confirm it". Some things (like everything I've mentioned here as well as many others including the nature of Time) DEMAND speculative thinking before observational data can be gathered and measurements taken.

 

[STR]

Black holes weren't some random idea. They were what happened when certain forumlas spit out an infinity when you ran them, which meant gravity can run amok. Above all else, they were "invented" via math, and only after they were predicted, and their characteristics calculated, did we finally start discovering them decades after they were described mathematically.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Black holes weren't some random idea. They were what happened when certain forumlas spit out an infinity when you ran them, which meant gravity can run amok. Above all else, they were "invented" via math, and only after they were predicted, and their characteristics calculated, did we finally start discovering them decades after they were described mathematically.

Sorry, black holes were NOT "invented" via math or by virtue of any other human effort or endeavor. Your hubris is showing. Black holes existed LONG before the Earth's crust cooled and will continue long after this world and its sun are gone (and, yes, I DO understand the concept of hyperbole and I note your quotation marks).

Rather than being "invented" by math, black holes were PREDICTED by math--and, yes, this IS more than a semantic distinction because in order for math to PREDICT them someone had TO SPECULATE and run with the concept of gravity to a place where none had gone before. "What happens if we crank up gravity to the point where light cannot escape?" It just happened to be a place where, by golly, the KNOWN laws of physics had to be reconsidered.

Imagination, intuition and speculation are extremely important elements in the quest for knowledge. You own example demonstrates that. And, yes, sometimes it can be fun or even advantageous to rearrange what is "known" in ways to look at possibilities in new ways. After all, your strict adherence to the "scientific method" would have resulted in this thread being a two sentence exchange:

Q: What is the nature of time?

A: We dunno.

END of discussion.

Now, with ALL due respect to you devotion to the "scientific method", how much thought have you applied toward the nature of time in the last eight days?

Yeah, WAY to advance the boundaries of science . . .

BTW, you ARE aware, are you not that August Kekulé realized the structure of the benzene ring via an INTUITIVE LEAP. right? "A snake biting its own tail"--came to him in a day-dream.

 

[sojourner]

^ Using all caps once per sentence is not helping your argument.

 

[Zachary Smith]

^ Using all caps once per sentence is not helping your argument.

Well, so long as you're evaluating what I have to say OBJECTIVELY, I'm feeling good . . .

Nice to know you consider all the RELEVANT aspects of the discussion. With sharp contributions like yours' we'll have all the mysteries of the universe solved and tied up with bow by lunch-time tomorrow.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

After all, this approach is MUCH more likely to net a positive result than wildly speculating and throwing every idea against the wall and seeing if ANY stick.

Yes, Zachary Smith, the 'scientific method' approach IS, indeed, far more likely to achieve results than wildly speculating.

The idea of curved space was conceived BEFORE it was observed. As were the concepts of the black hole and even the atom. SPECULATION, my stodgy friends. It's only PART of the equation to say, "We observe that X does Y and our measurements confirm it". Some things (like everything I've mentioned here as well as many others including the nature of Time) DEMAND speculative thinking before observational data can be gathered and measurements taken.

Gravity as curved space was established by general ralativity, an theory which respected the experimental findings of its time and was since confirmed by several more - hence, its value.
Black holes were predicted by relativistic mathematics - and nobody was sure they existed until confirmed experimentally.

You see, Zachary Smith, THIS is what scientific method means.
NOT lack of speculation/hypothesis - but being sure that these hypothesis are in accordance with experimental findings; and, when it becomes fesible, experimentally confirming these new hypothesis, too.

Your ideea of bodies expanding with space is contradicted by the behaviour of bodies inside gravitational fields (which are space/time distorsions).
Therefore, your 'hypothesis' was conclusively refuted.

Also - your speculation needs to much more rigurously expressed (mathematically) before it graduates to being a hypothesis.

BTW, you ARE aware, are you not that August Kekulé realized the structure of the benzene ring via an INTUITIVE LEAP. right? "A snake biting its own tail"--came to him in a day-dream.

And when he woke up and described his ideea rigurously, he realised his ideea was in conformity with experimental facts.

Q: What is the nature of time?

A: We dunno.

END of discussion.

Now, with ALL due respect to you devotion to the "scientific method", how much thought have you applied toward the nature of time in the last eight days?

For thousands of years humanity speculated wildly about the creation, god, the nature of time, whatever.
And humanity got it wrong each time - it was just wild speculation, nothing validated by objective facts.

How many scientists think about the nature of time, space, creation, etc? Enough of them.
The true answers are much harder to come by than specualtions.