The Relativity of Time

[paddoboy]

Yes, but doesn't change what I have been saying. You still don't have any matter present even after this Planck Epoch. Also, there is no notion of space or time at this initial stage, indicating it is an emergent phenomenon.

Because there was no matter, does not mean there was no space and time space/time.
Because without space/time we would have had no mass/matter would we?
And we don't know what existed at the Planck epoch.....But best guesses would say space and time, as we don't know them, or in a quantum type phase.

 

[Nightshift]

Because there was no matter, does not mean there was no space and time space/time.

Yes it does matter if there was matter. You sound like a creationist, ''just because we can't see him, doesn't mean he isn't there!''

I've told you, this isn't how science works and time is well-defined in relativity. What you are wanting is for us to rechange the way we should think about time in relativity and I am not prepared to do that.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

After $$10^{-43}$$ seconds, quantum fluctuations and inflation. At $$10^{-34}$$ seconds, those fluctuations caused the formation of matter, and at $$10^{-4}$$, quarks could then combine to form protons and neutrons. And the universe cools down more after that.

 

[Nightshift]

And we don't know what existed at the Planck epoch.....But best guesses would say space and time, as we don't know them, or in a quantum type phase.

Wrong. There probably wasn't any space or time, considering the space we are working in would have to be compactified to a point like state. Space and time clearly must have emerged from expansion. It's the only logical way.

 

[Nightshift]

After $$10^{-43}$$ seconds, quantum fluctuations and inflation. At $$10^{-34}$$ seconds, those fluctuations caused the formation of matter, and at $$10^{-4}$$, quarks could then combine to form protons and neutrons. And the universe cools down more after that.

You'll see from the link I gave, matter doesn't suddenly appear after the Planck Epoch, we are still dealing with scenario's in which we cannot measure time

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

 

[paddoboy]

Wrong. There probably wasn't any space or time, considering the space we are working in would have to be compactified to a point like state. Space and time clearly must have emerged from expansion. It's the only logical way.

No its not wrong.
We don't know what existed at the Planck era. But It probably was space and time as we don't know them.
IT'S UNKNOWN AT THIS STAGE.
Space and time clearly did emerge from expansion, and the expansion of space and time evolved from the BB.

You appear to be going in circular confusion Nightshift.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You'll see from the link I gave, matter doesn't suddenly appear after the Planck Epoch, we are still dealing with scenario's in which we cannot measure time

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

Wiki says $$10^{-36}$$ seconds with citation needed.

I said $$10^{-34}$$ seconds.

 

[paddoboy]

You'll see from the link I gave, matter doesn't suddenly appear after the Planck Epoch, we are still dealing with scenario's in which we cannot measure time

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

I didn't say matter suddenly appeared after the Planck epoch.
Are you able to show where I did?
Matter appeared later.
And without checking your link, the first fundamentals of matter most likely evolved from the space/time, as the Superforce started to decouple.
That decoupling created phase transitions and false vacuums, and the excesses of energy went into creating our first fundamentals.
You really need to read what people post and stop inserting your own interpretation to invalidate my replies because they in turn invalidate your fairy tale scenario

 

[paddoboy]

Yes it does matter if there was matter. You sound like a creationist, ''just because we can't see him, doesn't mean he isn't there!''

I've told you, this isn't how science works and time is well-defined in relativity. What you are wanting is for us to rechange the way we should think about time in relativity and I am not prepared to do that.

You sound like a pseudoscientist and conspiracy nutter actually.

Again, just because there was no matter, does not mean there was no space and time...

 

[Nightshift]

I didn't say matter suddenly appeared after the Planck epoch.
Are you able to show where I did?
Matter appeared later.

Good, now tackle the definition of time in relativity. Without the definition of time being moving clocks (aka. matter) then you will begin to realize that time cannot even be defined fundamentally. This doesn't mean we can't ''quantize time'' like you said before.

 

[Nightshift]

You sound like a pseudoscientist and conspiracy nutter actually.

Again, just because there was no matter, does not mean there was no space and time...

Well you sound like a religious nutcase who doesn't know how to conduct science properly, so what a pair we make?

 

[paddoboy]

Well you sound like a religious nutcase who doesn't know how to conduct science properly, so what a pair we make?

At least I'm not making stuff up like you, and as others have pointed out.
I'm sticking to the mainstream position, because that's the one most supported by observational evidence, and logical extrapolation.
Your agenda and baggage actually blinkers you obviously to what I have been saying.
An otherwise obvious great Astronomer Fred Hoyle was also mislead by a personal agenda.
He could not accept the BB despite the evidence, simply because it may have implied the possibility of a creator.
That didn't concern the main bulk of cosmologists, and they went the way evidence was pointing.


Obviously you do not have his credentials or knowledge, or intelligence, but you do have the other.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

No, there is one basic scientific method, that acts as a foundation.

As a "foundation" for what exactly, paddoboy? Is it to act as a "foundation" for confusing Theories with Reality?

Most of us learn from others in many respects...standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.....You need to get out from under that rock.

A suspect statement to say the least. For instance, in what "respect" did you "learn" the that I "...need(ed) to get out from under that rock"?
Was it in the same "respect" that you "learn(ed)" to apply "Strawman Arguments" and make "Ad Hominem attacks"?

Oh but he did align himself with mainstream science...Maxwell, Lorentz, and others, than followed the scientific methodology, including Imagination, Innovation, and observation.

Is the ^^above quoted^^ confusing statement, another excellent example of your esteemed "learn(ing)", paddoboy?
Did you and the rest of the "us" that you claim to represent, "learn" that the two different words : "than" and "then" were identical in meaning, and therefore interchangeable in use?

 

[OnlyMe]

I'm interested in what is on the mind of the person named, Nightshift.

O.K. But why?

 

[Nightshift]

At least I'm not making stuff up like you

wtf are you talking about? Stop trolling. What have I made up? These conditions have been known since the 1960's. Even Penrose recently made a cyclic universe theory and to do this mathematically, it took into account that the universe for a while was dominated by a radiation field phase which mean't he could remove time.

It's you who can't grasp simple concepts.

 

[paddoboy]

As a "foundation" for what exactly, paddoboy? Is it to act as a "foundation" for confusing Theories with Reality?

It's more your attitude that needs questioning....certainly not the reality of space, time, space/time, gravity, and matter and energy

A suspect statement to say the least. For instance, in what "respect" did you "learn" the that I "...need(ed) to get out from under that rock"?
Was it in the same "respect" that you "learn(ed)" to apply "Strawman Arguments" and make "Ad Hominem attacks"?

No, not suspect at all....quite factual...all normal people, in and out of science do it...even you I suspect.
We all at one time or another, will stand on the shoulders of giants.

Is the ^^above quoted^^ confusing statement, another excellent example of your esteemed "learn(ing)", paddoboy?
Did you and the rest of the "us" that you claim to represent, "learn" that the two different words : "than" and "then" were identical in meaning, and therefore interchangeable in use?

Leaving your nonsense pedant aside, yes it's an example of my learning, but I would Imagine anyone interested in SR/GR and the great man, would already know that he did consult, seek advice, use other aspects attributed to other people, in putting together the two probable greatest theories of the 20th century.
Thanks for asking.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

O.K. But why?

I am not threatened with perturbation.

Id est, I'm sober and feel free to ponder.

 

[OnlyMe]

Time exists of that we can be sure. Like matter, it evolved along with space from the BB, and each is as real as the other.
The rest is mere details.

Time is as real as consciousness. It is an abstraction.., an awareness of how we track and measure change. Apart from consciousness and awareness there is no time, just change.

 

[paddoboy]

wtf are you talking about? Stop trolling. What have I made up?

It's you who can't grasp simple concepts.

Getting touchy are we?
And in light of the following one must ask why.....

Yes it does matter if there was matter. You sound like a creationist, ''just because we can't see him, doesn't mean he isn't there!''
.

Time exists, and always will in any cosmological model.
.

 

[OnlyMe]

That's why space and time break down as fundamental properties of the universe. Remember, BB hasn't ended, BB is still happening. But space and time was not a fundamental part of it, in fact the universe has to cool down first to allow a notion of dimensions and symmetry breaking to allow moving clocks so we can even define time.

Wrong. As soon as we became aware and conscious, time became a real and necessary concept, for communication of the sequence of events. It would be really difficult to discuss any sequence of change without the abstract concept of time.