Agnostic.com

26 3

"Einstein and Hawking: Unlocking The Universe" produced by the BBC for the Science Channel.

i watched this last night, these guys should have been science fiction writers. They both produced silly theories that many accept as true. neither understood the true nature of time and space.

the truth about the universe is that time and space are infinite - there was no beginning of time - and there is no end of space.

time is a constant, it does not slow or stop.
space extends forever and it does not expand or bend.

there is so much misconception in the scientific community that as a human - it embarrasses me.

gater 7 Mar 11
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

26 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

5

Those are some nice assertions. Look, I can assert things too. Space is shrinking. Time is two dimensional. Cats love water.

Don’t forget The Kremlin hates Bananas!!!

Brilliant!

2

Why do you think that space and time are infinite?

Our observations are over only a finite amount of both space and time. The observable part of our Universe has approximately flat space, meaning that we have no hint of a boundary or an antipode. Time, however, is another story. The oldest nontrivial effect that we observe is primordial density fluctuations, and those were likely generated in a phase of "inflation" or exponential expansion some 13.7 billion years. It had a timescale of around 10^(-36) seconds and to produce the observed flattening, it needed some 60 e-foldings. So our Universe had some sort of beginning.

you learn about the universe with logic, you learn about galaxies with a telescope

Why does one use logic to learn about the Universe? That's an empirical question, like the nature of galaxies.

3

Space and time are closely related, and their combination is called space-time. Time is relative as is space, though time relativity is a very tiny effect in ordinary circumstances. Space-time is also curved, and that curvature is apparent as gravity. Time relativity makes GPS clocks a bit slower than ground ones, and gravity makes GPS clocks a bit faster, though not as big as the time-relativity effect. So GPS clocks are run a tiny bit fast to stay in sync with their observers' clocks.

there is no spacetime - there is space, and there is time.

6

Wow. Just wow. There's so much wrong with this... brain fart that I don't know where to start.
Did you know that without allowing for Einsteinian time dilation, satnav becomes wildly inaccurate within hours?
These guys didn't just pluck these ideas out of the sky. They are the most accurate theoretical descriptions of the evidence that they could come up with at the time.

time dilation is not time

@gater you genuinely don't know what you're talking about.

3

You seem to have the opinion that you are smarter, more intelligent, no more about cosmology than Einstein and Hawking together. That is some arrogance showing there.

not smarter - but a greater ability to reason abstractly.

4

You probably think he world is flat don't you.

Apply the right frame of reference and it's flatter than a pancake.

4

I mean, I personally don't disagree with you that there was no beginning and that space is infinite.. but you offer no explanation or argument to back up your claim other than a dickhead-ish tantrum. You need to form a logical argument. I have one for an infinite universe that basically revolves around it being the theory with the least assumptions. That's really all we can do because we are limited in the amount of the universe we can observe.

I disagree that space isn't expanding. We know it is based on how galaxies are appearing to move away from us. The further they are, the faster they're moving away from us. If their observed movement were simply due to momentum, redshift wouldn't increase exponentially with distance.

Also disagree about time. Space and time are linked.. and we know that moving through space at different velocities changes how time effects you. If you took 2 atomic clocks and put on at the lowest point possible on Earth and the other at the highest point, over the years the time they kept would change from one another.

Bottom line, don't be a science denier just because you want to be.. and if you can't help yourself, at least provide an argument backing up your claims.

You’re response is moronic because ‘effect’ is a noun, not a verb.

Naw, that was a brilliant response.

@indirect76 We can't all be Stephen fucking Hawkinsons..

@FatherOfNyx hey, i want to be nikola fucking tesla!

the path to understanding comes from logic

@gater And observation.. You seem to disregard observations made in light of your theory.

@FatherOfNyx how do you apply observation to time?

@gater As I stated earlier, atomic clocks are one way. You can observe differences in atomic clocks that were once synced. Those differences come from the differences in the rate which they travel through space.

@FatherOfNyx you bring up clocks - clocks are not time - they are just an attempt to measure time.

@gater They're not attempting, they are. The measurement of time is like language. When we look at a tree, we see a tree. When a German looks at it, they see a baum. When a Swede looks at it, they see a träd. All different words for the same thing. It's the same with time. We base our time off of the movements of our planet, our moon, our view of the solar system. If we lived and evolved on Mars, our measurements would be different as they are based on different celestial movements.. but it would be describing the same thing, the passage of time. If Martians were to perform the atomic clock experiment, they would have different measurements that show the same results.

It's pretty silly to say that you can't measure or observe time while making the claim that it's infinite. I mean really, does that not sound fucking stupid? Time is infinite, but you can't observe or measure it.. kind of makes it hard to prove it's infinite.

If you don't want this forum to reject you just so you can whine about it, put some effort into your claims. All you're doing is spouting a philosophical stance with no evidence.. or even a damn logical argument. That's pretty much what theists do.

@Piece2YourPuzzle. It's not just objects moving. At the very edge of our observable universe, galaxies are moving away from us at near light speed. They aren't actually traveling at near light speed, if they were, they would disintegrate.

Another piece to your puzzle, if we see a galaxy moving away from us at near light speed, that means when they look at us, our galaxy is moving away from them at near light speed. Obviously we know our galaxy isn't traveling at near light speed. The only way to get this effect is if the space between galaxies is expanding.

Space isn't expanding. The objects in space are moving. The universe is a container like a soup is contained within a pot with all the ingredients moving around in the pot. The universe is just most likely an "infinite" "pot". The moving objects leave proof that they are moving (redshift measurements), not that the pot is expanding. To say the container is expanding is to say you see the entire container and can measure it expanding. We can only observe what we can observe and we don't see the entire universe. As far as we know, the "entire" universe is only that which we see.

@FatherOfNyx Nothing you said leads to any sense of the theory of space actually expanding. The DISTANCE between galaxies is expanding.

@Piece2YourPuzzle And what encompasses the distance between galaxies? Space. You can say the distance between galaxies, the area between galaxies, the region between galaxies, the realm between galaxies.. but in the end, it's still space. If you could view the fabric of space like a sea of virtual particles, those particles aren't literally expanding.. but the amount between galaxies is increasing, causing expansion.

2

Let me get this straight, you watched a two hour documentary and discovered, hitherto unknown, flaws by two of the top scientists of the last century. My you are some genius, I wish I had that kind of insight, if I did I would be putting it to good use and not on here making rash statements that makes one look stoopid.

no - ive known for years that time and space are infinite.

0

This is just about what i expected from this group - infinite time and space is an abstract concept that is absolutely true. to understand this you 1st must understand the true nature of time and space.
this is where the scientific community fails.

gater Level 7 Mar 11, 2019

@powder Yep and time is an illusion - lunchtimes doubly so 😉

0

What is its nature? to understand something you must understand its nature.

time has its own nature, space has its own nature. the fact that time passes in space is incidental.

gater Level 7 Mar 11, 2019
0

Read "A brief History of Time" It puts much of what you eschew in layman's terms. Einstein's original brilliant deduction on space/time (E=MC2) changed physics and the world we live in. Hawking expanded our understand of the relationship of building blocks of the universe. Both made errors, Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics and Hawking made early mathematical errors, most he corrected himself.

the Big Bang Theory is flawed and inaccurate.

0

How do you know this? Did it come to you in a dream? Who else knows this?

I analyzed all the data available to me, and I constructed an accurate model of the Universe. anyone that thinks space expands or bends does understand what space is.

@gater I think that you're trying to "pull everyone's leg". Good one.

@Jay1313132018 lol no - im trying to share what I know is true. I was raised a Christian, it took years of analysis to understand that evolution is true. since then I learned that everything needs to be questioned and analyzed. In a college physics course the professor tried to teach something that was mathematically impossible, I called him on it and proved he was wrong. question everything - don't accept the BBT - its wrong.

@gater your arguments are "religious like". You're expecting others to believe you on "faith". You offer no rational, let alone scientific, justification other than "I've figured it out. Take my word for it". Maybe, you've not quite outgrown religion.

@Jay1313132018 maybe everything I said is true but you lack the ability to comprehend infinite concepts - isn't that a possibility?

@gater Now, you're trying the "I'm rubber you're glue defence". How funny and a little sad.

@Jay1313132018 no - im asking you if you believe theres a possibility that im right.

@gater you haven't provided enough (any) detail in order to access your proposition.

At first, I really thought you were trying to "pull our leg" by arguing about space-time in a similar way that a religious person might argue about the existence of God. You argue that it's true because you have special knowledge that is apparently beyond explanation and that we should believe you on your word. Also, that one day everyone will know it and it's best that we jump on board now.

Now, from what you've posted it seems that you do not have any higher level training, either informal or formal, in science. Therefore, it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation, on this topic, with you. I don't say this to disparage you. I'm trying to explain why, in my opinion, are getting such push back on this post.

2

Where is this trend coming from? Did I just miss it before? Is this just a part of agnostic I've (thankfully) missed?

People making basic assertions and disparaging great minds because they think it makes them look profound? I mean, just look at this Youtube video! Complete with more basic assertions pronounced like a Confucian monk passing on the mystic arts in the comments:

You learn about time from clocks, and about ants with a magnifying glass.

PLEASE LISTEN TO THE FOLLOWING:

You have nothing to prove here. We do not measure IQ points. You don't get Agnostic karma from trying to look like the smartest atheist. If you get to Level 8, you can get a T-shirt. However, you can do that just by commenting "lol" on a lot of posts, probably.

These types of posts aren't making you look like a genius science-man with a big ol' brain. They make you look like someone who thinks they're smarter than they really are.

you learn about time from clocks??? lol wrong

0

@gater -- You have not presented a theory. You have made a posit. Show your work.

theories are necessary when you're not sure of something - like the Big Bang Theory, or Special Theory of Relativity. I am sure time and space are infinite.

@gater If you are sure, then you should at least be able to explain it. That's what a scientific theory is, it's a model of explanation. All you're doing is making claims with no explanation. Come on man, if you're able to put this much effort in.. take it one step more and actually explain yourself. That's why you're getting so much push back, you're not doing shit other than making claims. Claims with no explanation are empty.

@FatherOfNyx alright that's fair, but its kind of like taking a test and you have the right answer but the teacher won't accept it because you didn't show your work. I wish I had the words to make it clear for everyone.

@gater -- No, it's not like taking a test, having the right answer, but being marked down because you didn't show your work. It is apparent you don't truly understand what the word theory means when used in science. What you have done here is more like this:

A young man was working away in the patent office one day when a brilliant idea popped into his brain. Immediately he raced out into the street shouting the German equivalent of eureka.

A policeman, upon seeing the wild-eyed young lad accosting people at random, stopped him and said, "Young man, why are you running about and shouting at the townspeople?"

"Because I've found it."

"Found what?"

"Space-time. It's ... it's a continuum, you see? Light is constant and time and space must comply with local acceleration."

"What on earth are you babbling about? Explain yourself."

"Well ... damn it man ... it's logic. Don't you see it? We've missed it all these years. All those great men of science haven't seen it and it was dangling there in plain sight for all to see."

"No, I don't see it, nor shall I see it until you explain yourself. What I can tell you is this, if you continue bothering people, I shall be forced to take you in until you calm down. I hear there is a man in Vienna who might be able to help you. I believe his name is Sigmund ... uh ... Sigmund Freud."

"Bah! That blathering baboon wouldn't -- couldn't understand. He doesn't see it either. Why are all of you so ... so dense?"

''''''''''''''''''''''''''

A theory describes a phenomenon, describes it thoroughly, and shows all the work used in the process. If a theory works, it can make predictions based on the description presented therein about future effects of a given phenomenon.

@Bobby9 no - theist depend on faith

@Bobby9 no - that's why its called faith - faith is believing in something that you have no evidence or proof of.

@gater -- And you, Sir, have given no evidence or explanation for your posit. You have made the assertion, now provide the support for the assertion.

0

Puzzling.

0

Even Athiests and Agnostics can have irrational beliefs like infinite or that Time is real.

Are you saying there is nothing that is infinite? Cause pi would beg to differ.

@Bobby9 Pi has been proven to be an infinite number. Well, proven to the best of our ability. Even if we calculate it to the trillion trillion billion trillion million decimal place, anyone can say "well that doesn't prove that it doesn't end beyond that". At that point, it's just willful ignorance.

@Bobby9 numbers are infinite

@Bobby9 I was responding to his implication that there is no such thing as infinite. It's impossible to prove the universe is infinite, or even finite for that matter. Have to rely on logic at that point.

@FatherOfNyx PI is an irrational number and finite as it is definitely smaller than 22/7.

@Biosteelman It's an infinite decimal.. There's no way to twist it to make yourself right, the digits go on forever.

@FatherOfNyx
PI is the mathematical expression of a circles corner. In other words the same place infinity exists your imagination.

@Biosteelman Mankind didn't invent or imagine math, we discovered it. It's values to describe reality. We can keep going round n round so you can keep trying to not be wrong, but the rest of the world knows that pi is an infinite number. Whether you want to cop out and say it's simply your imagination or not, it's still infinite. While the term pi might not continue, it will exist long after humanity is gone. Any intelligent species in this universe that discovers math will discover pi.

@FatherOfNyx You're wrong on so many levels it's just amazing.
But you're right if an intelligent species decides to use base 10 to describe the corner of a circle they will find it never has a definitive corner. Which isn't the same thing as infinite but I guess in this day in age where nuance is gone it's the same.

@Bobby9 Like I said, it can't be proven. There's an observational limit to the universe.. and even if we could travel at light speed, everything beyond the observational limit is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. Even if we could instantly warp to any distance, no matter how far we go, no matter if we see an end, anyone can deny it and say that you can't prove that there is or isn't anything beyond. Granted at some point, most reasonable people will accept the evidence of what they're seeing, anyone can reject it in light of the possibility of what's beyond.

@Bobby9 Kind of sucks really, but that's the nature of the universe. All we can do is try to form a logical argument. For me, I apply Occam's razor and come to the conclusion that it's infinite. That ends up being the theory with the least assumptions.

1

The only time I have ever seen the word, "silly" used is as a derogatory term. I would not characterize either Einstein or Hawking as "silly". If you disagree with their theories, perhaps you should say, "I disagree with their theories in the matter of..."

1

You're right, but you need to back your assertions with some kind of argument.

The Twins Paradox is the main tool you need to analyse this. Here's a version of it using a speed of 86.6% the speed of light for the trip and a pair of twins aged four. One twin stays at home while her brother goes off at 0.866c (c being the speed of light) for a year as measured by a clock that he takes with him. He then turns round and comes back again at 0.866c. By the time the twins are reunited, the girl is 8 years old and her brother is six. The speed of travel that I chose leads to the moving clock running at half the rate of the stationary clock. The functionality of the travelling twin is also slowed to half the rate of the stay-at-home twin. Speed of movement through space slows functionality, and we can see this in action with particle accelerators where short-lived particles last much longer before decaying as a result of their functionality being slowed by their high speed of movement through space.

The big argument is about how or why this should happen. The simple answer is the one provided in the way I worded the paragraph above; that moving fast through space slows functionality. Time is not slowed by this movement, but clocks merely run slow. You can see the simple mechanism for this by imagining a light clock which functions by sending out a pulse of light to a mirror and back to a detector next to the emitter. Every time a pulse of light returns, a new pulse is sent out and the clock registers a tick. If you align this clock perpendicular to its direction of travel through space, the light pulses aren't going to and fro between two points, but are following a zig-zag path, and the faster the movement, the further the light has to travel through space to complete each tick. If the clock is moving at 0.866c, then the light has to travel at 60 degrees to the alignment of the clock. Sin 60 = 0.866. Cos 60 = 0.5. The clock ticks 0.5 times as often at this speed as it does at rest.

So, we have a simple explanation that works fine. Why do we need an alternative one? Well, we don't. Everything fits fine. There is a complication called length contraction, and you can see this issue if you align the light clock with its direction of travel instead of perpendicular to it. At 0.866c, the length of the clock has to contract to 0.5 times its rest length. Is this a problem? No. It simply contracts in length. Why should it contract in length? Well, relativistic velocity addition provides the answer. I'm going to use unrealistic numbers here, but the principle is valid. Imagine a star moving through space at 0.866c while a planet orbits it at 0.866c. During part of the orbit, the planet will be stationary in space. At the opposite part of the orbit, it would be doing 2 x 0.866c, which is a lot faster than the speed of light. Velocities don't add like that though - its real speed through space at that part of its orbit would be 0.99c. The reason for this is the amount of energy that needs to be added to increase speed by a given amount, and the closer to c you go, the more energy you have to add in for the same speed increase. To reach c, you have to put infinite energy in. Our orbiting planet in the system moving at 0.866 must follow an elliptical path, and it will slow down and speed up as it goes round its star, it's maximum speed and its minimum speed being at opposite points on its orbit where it's furthest away from its star. The orbit is length contracted. When you apply the rules for this at all scales, you find that you must get length contraction on light clocks too. There is no mystery here.

Einstein never understood the mechanism behind length contraction. He called it "ad hoc". The result of this gap in the picture for him was that he was keen to find an alternative view of what was going on. His initial attempt was awful - it generated an infinite number of contradictions. Lorentz stuck to the old mechanism in which there's an absolute frame of reference - a way of putting a coordinate grid to space relative to which light is travelling at c in all directions. The trouble was that this frame couldn't be identified - an infinite number of differently moving coordinate grids could be imagined which light could be travelling at c relative to in all directions and there was no way of measuring which of these was the absolute frame. Einstein decided that because the absolute frame couldn't be identified, it didn't exist. In simple terms, he decided that if object A and object B are moving relative to each other, you can sit on object A and declare that light is moving relative to it at c in all directions, and then you can go and sit on object B and declare that light is moving relative to it at c in all directions, and both of these claims would be equally valid. Minkowski thought he was mad, and he was right. However, Minkowski then rescued Einstein by coming up with a mathematical abstraction using 4D Spacetime which hid the problem by getting rid of the speed of light altogether. In this non-Euclidean geometry, light reduces all of its paths to zero length and takes zero time to cover them (although it doesn't really cover them, because it never moves at all). Many people dispute that this is a property of 4D Spacetime, but it's easy to prove them wrong. They agree that a particle with mass which moves at nearly c will reduce what appear to be great distances to near zero length and can cover those distances in next to zero time, and all we need to do is look at particles moving closer and closer to c to see the path lengths and times tend to zero. At c, the paths are always zero length. We can then show by the simple application of mathematics that every point in Spacetime is zero distance away from every other point in Spacetime, and this reveals just how contrived an abstraction we're dealing with.

But let's get back to the twins paradox. Lorentz said that the functionality of the moving clock and twin was slowed down by their movement through space. Einstein, once he'd moved to a 4D model to avoid the contradictions of his original model, asserted that the travelling twin travelled through less time than the stay-at-home twin, but here again we have a mechanism that depends on an absolute frame to decide which twin is taking a shortcut into the future and which isn't. This can be hidden though by moving to a static block universe model (still 4D). Once you get to this, the most extreme model of all, time no longer runs, but you have genuinely got rid of the need for an absolute frame. The trouble is though that with this model there is no longer any causality - all the apparent causality written through the block is necessarily fake because the future was never generated out of the past and nothing in the block caused the shape of anything else in the block. The only way to create a block universe rationally is to generate it in order of causation, and when you do that you find that causality and time are tightly locked together - run one of them and you are necessarily running the other. When you run them in order to generate the block, either you will get event-meshing failures that disprove the model, or you have to put back an absolute frame of reference whose time governs the unfolding of events on different paths, and that time is quite additional to the "time" of the time dimension. Einstein's models simply don't work as claimed on the tin - no one has ever simulated them without cheating by smuggling in an undeclared kind of time to coordinate the unfolding of events on different paths which is explicitly banned in the models.

It's shocking that such a fraud still has the backing of the scientific establishment when it has been torn to pieces by mathematicians.

Well you geniuses better tell NASA it's fake because
[science.nasa.gov]

I agree - there is no evidence - none, to make the claim that you don't age travelling at the speed of light, approx. 670,000,000 mph. if you are on a space ship traveling at that speed, it will feel like you are standing still.
just another silly theory.

@Biosteelman Every time an experiment "confirms" Einstein's theories, it also "confirms" LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) which makes the exact same predictions, covering the same ground as STR and GTR but with a rational explanation instead of an impossible one.

1

Einstein’s theoeries made prediction that we’re later proven true by experiments. Relativistic effects have to be taken into account for the calculations used to maneuver space probes that have been sent out across our solar system. An atomic clock on the ground compared with the same type of clock that travels around the globe on a jet then is returned to the same earthbound location as the ground click shows a difference in time. What is your explanation?

you are referring to the effects of time dilation - which is the effect gravity has on clocks

@gater Sorry no. Gravity does not affect atomic clocks. Time dilation is a relativistic effect predicted by Einstein’s theories.

1

"Silly theories"???

So you, with your intuition and common sense, and perhaps some YouTube videos, have disproved Einstein's theories. Congratulations.

Krueger/Dunning at work ?

Einstein and Hawking both had theories that should be categorized as science fiction.

2

So cool that you are a better scientist than Einstein and Hawking. Where do you have your academic appointment? Where do you publish?

Im not a scientist - im a philosopher.

@TheAstroChuck Right - I deal with truth - you deal with theories.

@gater The question still applies. Philosophers also publish and have academic appointments when they are recognized as legitimate.

@Stephanie99 Philosophers have the highest level of understanding. I posted the truth about time and space - the BBT is a ridiculous joke - they think time can stop - it can't - they think space isn't infinite - it is.

@gater Just because you say so?

@Stephanie99 no - because its true.

2

Yep, and guess what. The world is flat and only six thousand years old, and he sun goes across the sky in a small boat each day and spends the night in a cave.

It may well be that the ideas of Einstein and Hawkins will need to be corrected in the future, that is the way both science and human progress work, but it is unlikely now that they will be turned over completely and they will never be valueless. And to answer one of your questions with one piece of evidence. (Only one because I do not have the time to waste on all of them , not because they can't be answered. )

The reason we know that space bends is because. When objects like planets pass behind other large objects with big gravity, the apparent speed of them can be observed to slow down and speed up as they go in and out of transit. If you wish to obtain your own instruments and make the measurements again, you are welcome. Until then it is best to remember that. "I can't understand it." Is not the same as. Its not true.

@johnprytz True, but it is not the planet which speeds up and slows down, only the appearance, the photons follow a curved path, and photons have no or next to no mass.

Important to remember your words :"I can't understand it" is not necessarily TRUTH. Example: when I ask a question a sales clerk can't answer, I tell them "It's OK if you don't know" ! I wish folks would stop thinking they have to answer questions for which they don't have knowledge. Krueger/Dunning, or social pressure ??!

@johnprytz Yes but that only accounts for about half of it.

1

Wow! Excellent "points generating" post!!!!
I salute you! 😉

lol thanks 🙂

0

to clarify, there are only 3 things in the universe - time, space, and matter - of course matter can take many forms. time does not slow or stop, it moves at a constant rate, and it always has - there was no beginning of time. space continues forever, because that is the nature of space.
time and space are independent - time has no effect on space, and space has no effect on time.

gater Level 7 Mar 13, 2019

disagree with your over simplified explanation ! There is much more unknown than known !

@JackNewman When you discover something that isn't time space or matter - let me know about it.

1

Having read the entire thread, I have come to the conclusions that, a), you’re insane, and, b), you’re insane.

maybe - or maybe im right and you are clueless

infinite concepts are clearly beyond your ability to understand

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:308468
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.