Examining Big Bang Location and Visible Object Density in the Night Sky

[hartlw]

Would the average density of visible distant objects in different directions in the night sky give any indication that we are near the center of the "big bang?"

If we were out toward the edge, I would think it would be significantly different.

 

[russ_watters]

The Big Bang was not an explosion the way we normally think of explosions. It was the start of space (as opposed to matter exploding into an already formed void) and therefore happened everywhere. The result we would expect (and that we see) is that the density of space is relatively consistent everywhere. There is no center and no edge.

 

[chemisttree]

Listen to http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-77-where-is-the-centre-of-the-universe/"

 

[hartlw]

If the universe is uniformly dense and bounded, then unless we are at or near the center, the average density of starlight that we see should vary (more stars in one direction than another).

 

[Nabeshin]

If the universe is uniformly dense and bounded, then unless we are at or near the center, the average density of starlight that we see should vary (more stars in one direction than another).

The balloon analogy should easily clear this up for you.

 

[russ_watters]

If the universe is uniformly dense and bounded, then unless we are at or near the center, the average density of starlight that we see should vary (more stars in one direction than another).

It isn't bounded except insofar as it is a finite age and we can only see what has gotten here in that time at the speed of light - which makes us the center of the "observable" universe.

 

[DaveC426913]

If the universe is uniformly dense and bounded, then unless we are at or near the center, the average density of starlight that we see should vary (more stars in one direction than another).

As Nabeshin points out, the balloon analogy solves this well.

An ant standing on the surface of a balloon experiences a "universe" that is finite yet unbounded. And it is consistent in all directions. And it has no centre.

 

[Denton]

That doesn't make sense, there is a clear center of a balloon. The balloon has a particular radius that expands from the centre. Right bang in the middle of 3 dimensions.

 

[Nabeshin]

That doesn't make sense, there is a clear center of a balloon. The balloon has a particular radius that expands from the centre. Right bang in the middle of 3 dimensions.

You misunderstand the analogy. In the balloon analogy, our universe is mapped onto the 2D surface of the balloon. It is basically a way of envisioning our universe, stepped one dimension down because we obviously cannot picture a 3-space embedded on the surface of an object in 4-space (if indeed this even were the correct picture of the universe).

The point here is this: If we consider our universe to be the 2-D surface of the balloon, as the balloon expands (i.e the universe expands), every single point on the surface of the balloon sees the other points rush away with a velocity proportional to its distance. And, assuming that the universe is homogeneous (which is, more or less, a good assumption), this effect is observed identically everywhere. Any point, by your logic, would claim to be at the center of this expansion, but using this analogy we clearly see that this is not the case.

 

[hartlw]

It's like saying the universe is a four dimensional space, (x,y,z,t), which is nonsense because time is a mathematical dimension, not a physical space dimension. You don't see time. You might as well call it a five dimensional universe, (x,y,z,t,c) where c is color.

Mathematical space is not physical space.

 

[Fredrik]

The balloon analogy represents one of the three simplest solutions of Einstein's equation that include a big bang. It's the only one of the three that describes a space that's finite in size. One of the other solutions can be imagined as an infinite plane that's expanding. An infinite plane doesn't have a center either. The distance between two points A and B on this plane is a function of time, so let's call that distance d_t(A,B). The big bang isn't a point in this plane, i.e. it's not an event in spacetime. It's just a name for the limit t→0. In that limit we have d_t(A,B)→0, for all points A and B in space A. (That's the reason why that limit is called "the big bang"). The time t=0 and all times t<0 are not defined by this solution. Note that even though all the distances go to zero in the big bang limit, the plane is still infinite for all t>0.

 

[Fredrik]

It's like saying the universe is a four dimensional space, (x,y,z,t), which is nonsense because time is a mathematical dimension, not a physical space dimension. You don't see time. You might as well call it a five dimensional universe, (x,y,z,t,c) where c is color.

Mathematical space is not physical space.

You might want to make an effort to understand the concept of a theory of physics. The only way that humans can learn anything about the universe is to find a theory, i.e. a set of statements that predicts the results of experiments, and then do experiments to find out how accurate those predictions are. If the best theory describes a 4-dimensional spacetime, then it certainly makes a lot more sense to say that we live in a 4-dimensional spacetime than to say that we live in a 3-dimensional space. Of course, if we want to be completely accurate, we should only use statements of the form "experiment E agrees with prediction P of theory T to an accuracy A", and never say anything about how things really are. It would however get pretty weird to use that kind of language, so scientists choose to be a bit sloppy. They say that things "are" as described by the theory, even though we can't ever really know what things are like. It certainly makes a lot more sense to do that than to say that things are the way we intuitively feel they are, which is what you're doing when you're dismissing the extremely useful and successful concept of 4-dimensional spacetime.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's like saying the universe is a four dimensional space, (x,y,z,t), which is nonsense because time is a mathematical dimension, not a physical space dimension. You don't see time. You might as well call it a five dimensional universe, (x,y,z,t,c) where c is color.

Mathematical space is not physical space.

Yes but don't confuse the 4th physical dimension with time. The 4D universe model does assume a 4th physical dimension.

 

[hartlw]

Frederik,

Are you saying that there are areas of physical space not accessible to matter? Frankly, I can access any point of my living room. If you include time as a "dimension," then I can't "access" a point that occurred three days ago. The problem is still that you are confusing mathematical space with physical space.

x,y,z,t are independent variables. A sequence of events may occurr for which the position of an object is given by x,y,z as a function of time . You can arbitrarily specify the functions (mathematics) or invoke some physical law (phyusics). To do anythiing other than pure mathematics, x,y,z,t must have meaningful definitions. The first step is defining x,y,z and t. Without that, you can still do all the mathematics you want, and talk about MATHEMATICAL space, but it still doesn't mean anything.

Assuming the variables in Einsteins Equatiion are x,y,z,t, what is the definition of x,y,z,t and what is the physical basis for the formulation of the equation?

 

[hartlw]

How about the 5D universe model which assumes a fifth dimension.

But again, without a physical definition of the mathematical dimensions the mathematical model is physically meaningless. You can talk about sub-spaces in n dimensional space, but you are talking pure mathematics.

Step 1

What is the definition of x,y,z,t?

 

[hartlw]

And if we're describing the universe, where does mass enter into x,y,z,t?

 

[cristo]

How about the 5D universe model which assumes a fifth dimension.

What 5 dimensional universe? You need to specify what you mean by this.

What is the definition of x,y,z,t?

I think your confusion is arising because you are still in the mind set that spatial dimensions are real and physical, and that temporal dimensions is somehow different. This is the exact opposite of what relativity proposes: relativity puts spatial and temporal dimensions on an equal footing. Space and time are combined into space-time, and a set of four coordinates (t,x,y,z), say, label our position in space-time.

 

[hartlw]

I think your confusion is arising because you are still in the mind set that spatial dimensions are real and physical, and that temporal dimensions is somehow different. This is the exact opposite of what relativity proposes: relativity puts spatial and temporal dimensions on an equal footing. Space and time are combined into space-time, and a set of four coordinates (t,x,y,z), say, label our position in space-time.

Sounds like mysticism to me. You haven't defined x,y,z,t other than as mathematical coordinates, and you purport to describe the universe without even considering mass as a variable.

True, there is the axiomatic approach. Assume undefined variables, call them what you will, and assume a mathematical relation between them. Then associate the result with a physical reality. Depending on your mathematical creativity, you could explain almost any specific physical event that way and then claim the general truth of your "theory.".

 

[cristo]

You haven't defined x,y,z,t other than as mathematical coordinates, and you purport to describe the universe without even considering mass as a variable.

But that's because that's what they are. One can't write down a theory in mathematics, and expect not to use mathematical coordinates! The theory of relativity says that we live in a four dimensional spacetime. This theory has agreed with experiment to an outstanding accuracy, and is currently our best theory. I don't think that your argument of "mysticism" holds up, because it is a personal opinion. Just because you don't understand something, or you don't think it intuitive doesn't automatically void all experimental evidence, or make the theory incorrect. Finally, I don't see anywhere in my post that I went on to describe the universe at all, and I didn't discuss anything to do with mass. Let's not put words into the mouths of others, please.

 

[hartlw]

Relativity says something about the speed of light without defining either distance or time. With that kind of flexibility, you can explain anything you want.

Classical physics and science has always started with very specific definitions of space and time. The problem with classical physics was that it exposed the theories to intelligent criticism.

I have a 5D model of the universe. I call the dimensions spatial location x,y,z , time, and color, but do not define them. They satisfy hartl's equation.

I would explain it to you but you would have to be well versed in modern algebra, euclidean and affine geometry, algebraic geometry, covariant and contravariant tensors in n-dimensional space, n-dimensional and infinite dimensional vector space, and advanced calculus.

My equation explains all physical phenomena.

 

[hartlw]

And of course, since my equation explains space, time and the physical universe, I am responsible for all material and scientific progress in the twentieth century.

Transistor? me
DNA? me
Space Travel and Satelite Communications? me
Atomic Energy? me
and so on

 

[marcus]

Would the average density of visible distant objects in different directions in the night sky give any indication that we are near the center of the "big bang?"

If we were out toward the edge, I would think it would be significantly different.

Relativity says something about the speed of light without defining either distance or time. With that kind of flexibility, you can explain anything you want.

Classical physics and science has always started with very specific definitions of space and time. The problem with classical physics was that it exposed the theories to intelligent criticism.

I have a 5D model of the universe. I call the dimensions spatial location x,y,z , time, and color, but do not define them. They satisfy hartl's equation.

I would explain it to you but you would have to be well versed in modern algebra, euclidean and affine geometry, algebraic geometry, covariant and contravariant tensors in n-dimensional space, n-dimensional and infinite dimensional vector space, and advanced calculus.

My equation explains all physical phenomena.

Please don't leave us in suspense. What is Hartl's equation? Please write it down for us.

 

[Fredrik]

Are you saying that there are areas of physical space not accessible to matter?

No.

If you include time as a "dimension," then I can't "access" a point that occurred three days ago.

Now you're talking about spacetime, not space, and what you can access in your future is irrelevant to what we're talking about.

The problem is still that you are confusing mathematical space with physical space.

No, it isn't. (And I don't). The problem is that you believe that your intuitive ideas about space and time are somehow "better" than any theory. You don't seem to reallize that your intuitive ideas (which are the same as everyone else's intuitive ideas) is just another theory about the real world, which by the way has been thoroughly disproved by experiments.

x,y,z,t are independent variables. A sequence of events may occurr for which the position of an object is given by x,y,z as a function of time . You can arbitrarily specify the functions (mathematics) or invoke some physical law (phyusics). To do anythiing other than pure mathematics, x,y,z,t must have meaningful definitions. The first step is defining x,y,z and t. Without that, you can still do all the mathematics you want, and talk about MATHEMATICAL space, but it still doesn't mean anything.

Assuming the variables in Einsteins Equatiion are x,y,z,t, what is the definition of x,y,z,t and what is the physical basis for the formulation of the equation?

I can't teach you general relativity here, but I can give you a brief outline of some of the basic ideas. Spacetime is a 4-dimensional manifold M. A coordinate system is a function x:U\rightarrow\mathbb R^4, i.e. the coordinate system is the function that assigns coordinates to events:

x(p)=(x^0(p),x^1(p),x^2(p),x^3(p))

If you'd like, you can use the notation (t,x,y,z) for the thing on the right. These are however not the variables in Einstein's equation. The variables are the components of the metric tensor, which contains all the information about the geometric properties of spacetime. Einstein's equation describes the relationship between the metric tensor and the stress-energy tensor, which represents the properties of matter. You asked specifically about mass. Mass enters the equation through the equivalence between mass and energy (E=mc²) because one of the ten independent components of the stress-energy tensor is energy density.

The relevant solutions of this equation are found by first assuming that spacetime can be "sliced" into a one-parameter family of spacelike hypersurfaces \Sigma_t[/tex] (we can think of each \Sigma_t[/tex] as &amp;quot;space, at time t&amp;quot;), such that each \Sigma_t[/tex] is homogeneous and isotropic (according to a precise mathematical definition of those terms). There are only three solutions of Einstein&amp;amp;#039;s equation that are consistent with that assumption. (&amp;lt;a href=&amp;quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann-Lema%C3%AEtre-Robertson-Walker_metric&amp;quot; target=&amp;quot;_blank&amp;quot; class=&amp;quot;link link--external&amp;quot; rel=&amp;quot;nofollow ugc noopener&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Wikipedia link&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;). These three solutions describe space as a 3-dimensional version of a sphere, a plane and a hyperboloid respectively. Spheres are finite in size. Planes and hyperboloids are not.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; It&amp;amp;#039;s convenient, but not necessary, to define a coordinate system x that assigns time t to all the points in \Sigma_t[/tex]. (I.e. x^0(p)=t when p\in\Sigma_t). If we do, we find that t can&amp;amp;amp;#039;t be defined for all real t. There exists a t&amp;amp;lt;sub&amp;amp;gt;0&amp;amp;lt;/sub&amp;amp;gt; such that t is only defined for t&amp;amp;amp;gt;t&amp;amp;lt;sub&amp;amp;gt;0&amp;amp;lt;/sub&amp;amp;gt;. It&amp;amp;amp;#039;s convenient to choose t&amp;amp;lt;sub&amp;amp;gt;0&amp;amp;lt;/sub&amp;amp;gt;=0.&amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;gt; The fact that each \Sigma_t looks like a sphere, a plane or a hyperboloid means that there&amp;amp;amp;#039;s also a very natural way to assign the spatial coordinates to points on \Sigma_t. This gives us a way to identify a point on \Sigma_t with a point on \Sigma_s when t\neq s, and this allows us to define the distance between any two points in space as a function of time. It can be shown that this distance goes to zero as t goes to zero. That&amp;amp;amp;#039;s why the limit t→0 is called &amp;amp;amp;quot;the big bang&amp;amp;amp;quot;.

 

[DaveC426913]

A point of order if I may.

Your original post was asking where the centre of the universe is. You don't have to delve very far into cosmology to dispose of this misconception. We've shown you that the centre of the universe is everywhere. This was shown in the BB model - without resorting to extra dimensions.


Aside from that, you've asked how a volume can be finite yet unbounded, which we're showing you using the notion of extra dimensions. This is what we are now discussing.

Let's just back up.

Are you satisfied that your idea of a centre of the universe was naive?

I am a bit confused as to how you could have - in the same breath - thought there was a centre to the universe and yet argue with confidence that you know about higher-order dimensional space.

Can you clarify you level of understanding of this science field?

 

[hartlw]

A point of order if I may.

Your original post was asking where the centre of the universe is. You don't have to delve very far into cosmology to dispose of this misconception. We've shown you that the centre of the universe is everywhere. This was shown in the BB model - without resorting to extra dimensions.


Aside from that, you've asked how a volume can be finite yet unbounded, which we're showing you using the notion of extra dimensions. This is what we are now discussing.

Let's just back up.

Are you satisfied that your idea of a centre of the universe was naive?

I am a bit confused as to how you could have - in the same breath - thought there was a centre to the universe and yet argue with confidence that you know about higher-order dimensional space.

Can you clarify you level of understanding of this science field?

Since you haven't identified (defined) what you are talking about, I don't understand a word you are saying. You are simply taking symbols, manipulating them mathematically, and calling the result a proof of something.

How can you say your equation says something about the real world when you don't even define the terms of your equation other than giving them a name, which anybody can do. Let's see, space is really time and time is really space, so your results are wrong.

 

[cristo]

And of course, since my equation explains space, time and the physical universe, I am responsible for all material and scientific progress in the twentieth century.

Transistor? me
DNA? me
Space Travel and Satelite Communications? me
Atomic Energy? me
and so on

Is this "hartl theory" published in a peer-reviewed journal? If so, please give a reference. If not, then note as per PF rules, you may not discuss it here: you must take your discussion to the Independent Research forum.

If, however, you're trying to be funny, you're not succeeding. Pack it in.

 

[hartlw]

A point of order if I may.

Your original post was asking where the centre of the universe is. You don't have to delve very far into cosmology to dispose of this misconception. We've shown you that the centre of the universe is everywhere. This was shown in the BB model - without resorting to extra dimensions.

Are you satisfied that your idea of a centre of the universe was naive?

I am a bit confused as to how you could have - in the same breath - thought there was a centre to the universe and yet argue with confidence that you know about higher-order dimensional space.

You keep confusing physical space with mathematical space and on that basis draw erroneous conclusions about what you say I said. Obviously a conclusion about mathematical space says nothing about physical space without a clear definition of the variables, and the physical source of the equations. Simply naming a variable is meaningless.

Why is it inappropriate in a physics forum to ask for the meaning of the terms used in physics? If you can't define the terms in your equations then this discussion is meaningless.

Perhaps a new thread is in order: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

 

[Fredrik]

You keep confusing physical space with mathematical space and on that basis drawing erroneous conclusions about what you say I said. Obviously a conclusion about mathematical space says nothing about physical space without a clear definition of the variables, and the physical source of the equations. Simply naming a variable is meaningless.

Why is it inappropriate in a physics forum to ask for the meaning of the terms used in physics? If you can't define the terms in your equations then this discussion is meaningless.

Perhaps a new thread is in order: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

You're not just asking about definitions. You're spending a lot of your time insinuating that physics is all nonsense, and that those who claim to understand it are just "confused". People who keep doing that tend to get banned around here, so you might want to tone it down a little.

No one here is confusing "physical space" with "mathematical space". You're right that a mathematical model by itself doesn't make predictions about the real world (if that's what you're trying to say). My personal opinion is that this isn't emphasized often enough. What you need to turn a mathematical model into a theory of physics is a set of postulates that describe how the things we measure are related to things in the model. Those postulates are usually described as "operational definitions". An example is "time is what you measure with a clock". (A more precise statement is that a clock measures the proper time of the curve in spacetime that represents the clock's motion).

We spend a lot more time discussing the model than the details of its relationship with the real world simply because it's the model that's causing most people difficulties.

 

[hartlw]

Frederik,

If it is being said that General Relativity says something about the mathematically defined variables x,y,z,t, or let's say q,r,v,w, fine. I'll accept that. There's really nothing to discuss.

Just saw your latest post. You ascribe to me sweeping statements that I didn't make. But I'll clarify what I was implying: in my opinion, physics without careful definiton of terms is nonsense. I haven't come across any physics books that don't start with a careful definition of what is being discussed. I guess we don't read the same books.

Let's clean this up.
I don't understand General Relativity.
You do.
You win.
Congratulations.

 

[hartlw]

I have the answer. Start a mathematics forum. A typical thread might begin:

I have variables u,r,s,t that satisfy the following tensor equation. The solution to this equation says...

If you don't define u,r,s,t you are not doing physics, in my opinion. So I question the appropriateness of this approach in a physics forum.

 

[hartlw]

If you use the result to define your premise you are engaging in circular reasoning.

 

[DaveC426913]

This thread has gone off the reservation. Higher-order math aside, are you still asking where the centre of the universe is?

You need to witidraw and restate the question you want answered.

 

[Fredrik]

Hartlw,

I really don't understand what you're complaining about. It obviously isn't possible to teach GR from scratch in every thread that has something to do with GR. The definitions you seek are available in any GR book. If you want a definition of some specific thing, then we can probably help you out.

Here's a (partial) definition that you definitely need: A coordinate system is just a function from an open subset of the spacetime manifold into \mathbb R^4. (Yes, there are some technical requirements, but they are irrelevant here).

What else do you feel hasn't been sufficiently defined?

 

[hartlw]

Would the average density of visible distant objects in different directions in the night sky give any indication that we are near the center of the "big bang?"

If we were out toward the edge, I would think it would be significantly different.

In response I get something about the universe being a balloon.

 

[hartlw]

Hartlw,
What else do you feel hasn't been sufficiently defined?

The speed of light.

The speed of light is constant.

By definition, distance and time are such as to make the speed of light constant.

Ergo, the speed of light is constant.

 

[DaveC426913]

In response I get something about the universe being a balloon.

You're faulting us because you're having trouble grasping these concepts? Reading a book on the subject will give you a basis upon which to ask more well-formed questions. Either that, or accept that these questions are too complex to be fully answered in a forum.

 

[the_viewer]

In classical mechanics you can use an euclidean space \mathbb{E}^3 for modelling the world. You choose an origin for your coordinates, let's say P_0, and an euclidean basis, that is, three linear independant vectors \left(e_1,e_2,e_3\right). Then you can reach every point (assigned with a vector \vec{v} pointing on it) in your room with a linear combination of these three vectors:
\vec{v}=x\cdot e_1 + y\cdot e_2 + z\cdot e_3
Now x is the displacement in direction of e_1 and so on...
This is how the coordinates x,y and z can be defined in an euclidean space.
Same for the time: You specify an origin in time, let's say t_0 and then t is the distance in time to this origin (measured with a clock).

When you switch to relativity now, you will encounter that the coordinate in time is not independent from the coordinates in space. (You cannot travel faster then light, so when traveling to Hawaii, you need at least a specific time to reach your destination. So: time and space have something to do with each other.)
Then you define things like Minkowski-Spaces and other things to do elegant math with the above defined numbers (x,y,z,t).

So far for missing definitions...

 

[cristo]

The speed of light.

The speed of light is constant.

By definition, distance and time are such as to make the speed of light constant.

Ergo, the speed of light is constant.

If you wish to discuss other issues, then please start another thread in the appropriate forum (s&gr)

In response I get something about the universe being a balloon.

The balloon analogy is exactly that: an analogy which was thought up to help explain concepts. The balloon analogy shows how a finite universe can be unbounded. The surface of the balloon is analogous with space, and an object "living" on the surface is analogous with us living in the universe. If you are sat on the surface of the balloon, you see that the "universe" is finite, since if you walk in one direction you will end up where you started, but yet it is unbound. If the balloon is inflating, then this is analogous to the universe expanding. Again, if we were sat on the surface of the balloon, we would see our "universe" expanding, but that there is no centre of the expansion: i.e. there is no "centre of the big bang."

Now, let's keep the discussion on this topic only. Any further posts on different matters will be deleted.

 

[hartlw]

Hartlw,

I really don't understand what you're complaining about. It obviously isn't possible to teach GR from scratch in every thread that has something to do with GR. The definitions you seek are available in any GR book. If you want a definition of some specific thing, then we can probably help you out.

Every physics book I have ever seen begins with a definition of the subject.

Force and mass, distance, time, electrical charge etc. All these definitions are intelligible without knowledge of the subject.

It's like saying you can't understand charge without Maxwells equations.

You make it sound like anybody who doesn't understand General Relativity is not a physicist and doesn't belong in physics, or this forum.

Why can't I ask for a definition of the objects dealt with by General Relativity without understanding general relativity?

As a reminder of where this thread started, I asked a simple question about the visible universe and I was told the universe was like a balloon. If nothing can be discussed without knowledge of general relativity, I'd say physics was dead. Or else general relativity winds up in the dust bin of esoteric physics "theories."

 

[DaveC426913]

As a reminder of where this thread started, I asked a simple question about the visible universe and I was told the universe was like a balloon. If nothing can be discussed without knowledge of general relativity, I'd say physics was dead. Or else general relativity winds up in the dust bin of esoteric physics "theories."

It sounds like you're expecting that the nature of the universe is a "simple question" and should be explainable to a layperson, without reference to mathematics. I'd say that's unrealistic and naive.

Have you read anything about Quantum Mechanics? It's going to blow your mind.

 

[hartlw]

It sounds like you're expecting that the nature of the universe is a "simple question" and should be explainable to a layperson, without reference to mathematics. I'd say that's unrealistic and naive.

Have you read anything about Quantum Mechanics? It's going to blow your mind.

I didn't ask for an explanation of the universe. If a particular theory requires mathematics, fine. I was just asking about the ingredients that go into the theory, a not unreasonable request.

I did briefly start Dirac in my youth, very very briefly. I am content with the explanation that energy levels of electrons in atoms are discrete, as are other phenomena on an atomic scale. As I recall, quantum mechanics is very specific as to what it is talking about, though the math may be complex. Also, as it limits itself to phenomena on an atomic scale, I can understand that there is no reason that the laws of macro physics should apply on the atomic level, and if you can come up with a mathematical, interpretable, explanation, fine.

According to classical E&M, an orbiting electron would lose energy by radiation and collapse into the nucleus. So you postulate fixed orbits. Makes sense to me even though I can't manipulate the wave equation.

Yet, results are expressed in understandable physical terms, like electronic orbits, energy levels, and the probability of an object (electron) being somewhere at a particular time in its orbit. SPACE and TIME are involved with a clear agreement about their meaning.
Also, you can't measure something without interfering with it. There is obviously a lot of intense physical thought being applied there.

Now let's apply the general theory of relativity, where the objects of the theory remain undefined until you understand the theory. Space and trime are not what you think they are. I am reminded of the ads for software that never give you the price until you virtually have bought it. Buy it, then we'll tell you the price.

I feel sorry for the people in quantum mechanics if the general relativity people ever get their foot in the door. Scratch one scientific discipline.

 

[Fredrik]

Looks like you're trying to get banned from the forum. I don't see the point, but you can of course do what you want (for a while).

The balloon analogy is actually very good, and so is the infinite plane analogy that I used in #11. The only way to understand why they are good analogies is unfortunately to study general relativity. If you're not going to do that, you're just going to have to take our word for it.

You whine about a lack of definitions, but you didn't specify what you felt wasn't sufficiently defined. You mentioned the speed of light, but I agree that that question belongs in a new thread in the relativity forum or in the philosophy forum. That question and its answer has a lot more to do with what a theory is than with the details of relativity. Edit: I have answered your question about the speed of light in the relativity forum.

 

[cristo]

This thread is no longer on topic, hence it will now be locked.

 

[Mentz114]

Hartlw:
In all your ramblings you ignore a very important thing - the theory you are rubbishing explains observed astronomical and astrophysical data better than any other. If that's not a connection with the real world give me a better one.( No, don't bother.)

What's wrong with you ? Were you frightened as a child by a relativist with a long beard muttering "g mu nu g mu nu .." under his breath ?