I need a scientific "dressing down" if you will..

a reply to: onequestion
Well, he showed up. If you want interesting conversation, there you go.

a reply to: Phage

I remember listening to a science based podcast where the podcasters mentioned a saying by a scientist that went something like...


I'm in Manhattan, on fourth street, on the 3rd floor...

But I can't find the quote and I forgot what podcast it was damnit...

a reply to: onequestion

Umm...ok

That's not much of a clue.

a reply to: onequestion

I don't have time right now to listen to it maybe later.

But it's this one.

carasantamaria.com... episode 37 with Teagen Wall.

Basically what came before earth in the Big Bang is light from the past...

But because of light years even what came after is past light because it had to travel back in our direction...

So even looking into the future, you're still seeing the past.


No matter the direction you're facing.



Edit: barring some live feed from a super telescope, and even then it would still be the present at best.

a reply to: onequestion
Well I'm not going to listen to it either.
Let me know when you have something more specific and I'll offer my opinion if you'd like.

a reply to: Phage

I will.

a reply to: onequestion
Here's something you might find interesting.

And something for further thought:

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: chr0naut

What about looking in the other direction?

Can we only look out at the same perimeter, does it exist in a circle that we are somehow near the c enter of or does it move I to a specific direction more linear like outwards from a starting point?

The time dimension is shown to be linear and can be measured in meters by Einstein's equations. (1 second = 299 792 458 meters). However, mass can distort time (and space).

If time were the way some people conceive it, you could reverse time and in the case of the diffusion of a gas, it would go back into the container it came from. However, if you use a negative for a time value in most physics equations, the gas actually continues to diffuse. The genie won't go back into the bottle.

It is this divergence between the perceptual and physical concepts of time that causes the most confusion.

If we could see the future, then nothing in the universe could ever change. It would be a static monolithic block.

As it stands, things in the future are indeterminant and although we know the gas will diffuse, we cannot say precisely how each atom will end up. It is random and stochastic, to us.

I've always had a very strong instinct that nature is deterministic. In other words I think if you had the right equation and data, you could play things backwards on your computer simulation and watch the smoke go back into the container. The observations I make of the universe just don't look like they were generated at random. I suspect the increase in entropy observed over time has a resemblance to what happens as you calculate successive digits in say, the square root of two. In a sense the digits become more 'random' as you calculate each one. Probably best to take that up on another thread though.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

Is it the same measure of time looking in all directions?

(How close are we to the center?)

The center is whatever point you choose.

No matter what direction you look from that point, everything that is "seen" comes from the past. You can determine how far back in the past by determining how far away it is.

Think of really long distance phone calls.

From your point of view the person on the other end speaks and you immediately respond. They then wait a second or two before they respond back.

From their point of view they spoke, you waited a second or two to respond, and then they immediately responded back.

That's the same event, with two different views on the same event. Both are equally true, depends on the reference point.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

Is it the same measure of time looking in all directions?

(How close are we to the center?)

Think of the universe as being without an edge (maybe not infinite, but a shape without and edge, nevertheless).

Now, consider the fabric of the universe being these circles in the graphic below. The graphic below has an edge, but consider this being just a tiny part of the universe, and that universe itself is a shape that has no edge. Put yourself (your point of view/reference point) on one of those circles -- any of them:




Then, consider what would happen if the universe expanded, such as in this second graphic below. No matter which circle you used as a reference point, all of the other circles around you would be moving away from you. There is not one specific point that seems to be the center of expansion.



Every circle in that second graphic was farther away from every other circle compared to the first, no matter what circle you were calling your reference point. The universe (represented by the circles) expands away from every point, not any one particular point.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
That's fairly good. But it doesn't get close to a spacetime representation (impossible, visually)

And it hurts my eyes.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I see.

So it's stretching or growing?

how well does this fit in with an expanding earth hypothesis?

Seems reasonable that if the universe was growing so is the earth...

a reply to: onequestion

The Earth, along with all of spacetime, is expanding.

But until you get to a very large scale (intergalactic and beyond) the rate of expansion is not measurable. Over very, very large distance the expansion can be measured. On the scale of Earth, or even the solar system and galaxy, it can't.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Like an O growing larger...

A three (or "four") dimensional O. It's a hard thing to grasp intuitively, like the bending of spacetime by mass. And there is no way to draw a picture of it.

Spacetime itself is getting bigger. Everywhere. And the further you are from here (and everywhere else) the faster it is doing so, it depends on your point of view.

But to put a bit of a twist on what has already been stated. Everything we see actually occurred in the past. The closer it is, the more recent past but we do not see the "present". Ever. Which makes calling it that a bit tricky.


Would an ever expending sphere be a good example of this?

a reply to: Gravelbone

Would an ever expending sphere be a good example of this?

Not really. At a simple level, a sphere has a center of expansion. The center of a sphere does not get larger. That is not the case with the Universe, on several levels (because it also involves time and the Universe cannot be said to have a center).

Honestly, I can't really grasp the concept myself. It's not intuitive in any sense of the word. But I can sort of reword it in various ways. It's just plain weird. Weirder than any thing that anyone could just make up.

a reply to: onequestion
I need a scientific "dressing down" if you will..

Good, you came too the right place...
- there is a general overwhelming consensus that NASA and their associates,have colluded in various nefarious deceptive schemes upon which inevitable reverberations have accumulated towards an unavoidable linear progression in relation too innumerable anomalies in the apollo record. Ergo, concordantly exposing the hoax of the deliberately absurd moon landing ...

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: onequestion
That's an interesting question. There's a guy on here that knows a lot who could give you a good discussion on the topic. I'm not calling him out by name because I don't want to embarrass him and it irritates him when people do so. So, I'll give you a hint. This person's name starts with a P and ends with an E. That could be anybody really

Oh and OP kudos to you wanting to learn and starting off this discussion.

a reply to: Phage

The closest I have heard is like a raisin cake in the oven, all the raisins (points) are getting further away from each other, not from the center.

Having said that, I was wondering: if space time is expanding, then why do we get red shift, if the space time that the light is travelling in/through is expanding?

As a layperson who can only begin to grasp such ideas conceptually, I always have the same questions and I've never received a truly satisfactory answer (possibly because there isn't one yet, and possibly because I'm simply, literally, too unintelligent to understand the answers.)

• Is the "time" component of spacetime ontologically real in and of itself, or is it just a way of mathematically representing and measuring different kinds of relative movement? E.g. is there really a thing called "time" that "passes" and dilates, or is it just another facet of space and movement therein? (I know time dilation has been proved, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking whether said dilation really represents the classical mental conceptualization of "time," or just another kind of spatial movement.)
  
• Likewise, is the "membrane" described as being at the base of everything (in the sense that fundamental particles can apparently be described/thought of merely as coherent pertubations of said membrane) ontologically real, or is it just a mathematical construct describing something otherwise indescribable to us? E.g. is there really a substance or a thing that is "the membrane" that is being pertubed to constitute particles, or is it just mathematically correct? (Sort of how spacetime isn't really accurately described as a "rubber sheet" that bends because it's not two dimensional, but people still describe it that way because in its simplest form it can be mathematically represented as a warpable sort of graph right? Or is that wrong, too? Lol.)
  
• This is the one we can't really answer, I know, because any attempt to measure or perceive the "substance" of the membrane would be predicated upon particles and forces which are "part of" the same membrane, so we can't ever really "look at" it. But is there any burgeoning, early reasoning yet on what the membrane actually IS? What it could be comprised of? (It can't be particles as in our own universe right, since they're all just ripples in said membrane?)
  

As I said... just a layperson seeking answers to things that tease my simple monkey brain.

Peace.