Expansion isn't happening with time, Time is happening due to Expansion -True or False?

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, just the first para has me worried:

"Time is the result of changes in the universe’s volume."

Changes take place in time, as in before . . . . . . and after . . . . . .

How can time be the result of changes, which are in time order?

Surely changes take place in time.
State A occurs at time 1.
State A is changed to State B at time 2., obviously after State A existed.
Hence the change takes place in time. The change happens during a time interval.
Something happens to cause a change. Opening a door . . . . . . . closing a window. The change is not initiated by the movement of a minute hand on aa clock. The change is caused by some person opening the door. Opening the door is the decision of the person - not the decision of the minute hand of a clock.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Now you are quoting only case 1., doing just what you accuse me of.
I am sure that you were not intending to be devious. It is so easy to just make points quickly.

Case 2 you say "That the spherical surface represents spacetime. Any significance of the radius, here, would be impervious to the flatlander.

I interpreted this as you saying that someone living on the 3D surface (represented in the analogy by a 2D surface) would not appreciate that the radius represented past time (age of the universe). I agree with this so made no comment and I ignored the wording "spacetime" (a 4D model)as not an issue simply because it models local environments successfully and does not conflict mathematically with the Hyperspheric model - at least there is no evidence I am aware of that this statement is untrue rather the reverse.

Is this the issue you are discussing - I am not too sure, please be specific. Maybe I have missed something (?)

In 5., you refer to the radius. In my post I state (2.) that the radius does not represent time in this case, as the circle represents spacetime

Ah I did get it right. Or did I , I need to reopen the post and check what 5 is !!

 

[Gibsense]

The fact that it is movement that causes time is indicated by the radius (age of the universe) closely predicts the observed Hubble Constant by using the simple relationship of a radius to a circle

I still do not understand the problem. My basis is a hypersphere. The circle represents the surface of a cross section of a hypersphere. The surface of a hypersphere is 3D not spacetime. I thought you recognised this. relativity copes with this by adding time to 3D space as an add-on. Mathematically it works. The Mathematics of Relativity are unchallenged - just the understanding behind it. Have I finally understood the problem?

 

[Gibsense]

"Time is the result of changes in the universe’s volume."

You say this worries you and then go on to describe every day activity as if this proved something. Time happens. Change happens in time. Yes. So?

Surely changes take place in time.
State A occurs at time 1.
State A is changed to State B at time 2., obviously after State A existed.
Hence the change takes place in time. The change happens during a time interval.
Something happens to cause a change. Opening a door . . . . . . . closing a window. The change is not initiated by the movement of a minute hand on aa clock. The change is caused by some person opening the door. Opening the door is the decision of the person - not the decision of the minute hand of a clock.

Does this show/prove something? Change takes place in time yes and can be recorded and plotted as such. What has that got to do with it? I am not being rude. I would engage your logic if I could detect any relevance.

I notice COLGeek has applied a "Like" maybe he can explain why a spatially increasing volume is such a problem given that the surface of a hypersphere - our universe - is directly related to its ball's radius.

That is the age of the universe expressed in light years acts to specify the size of the circle (the universe) and therefore an expansion of the radius by 1 second increases the circle circumference (increasing the space of our universe by a specific amount) to give an accurate match to Hubble's Constant as determined by observation.
C=2Pi.r it couldn't be much simpler

Reduced to simplicity: Time needs change and change needs time. The change is a Global change as explained as best I can without diagrams. The thing is it is difficult to come up with a reason why time should happen but it is easy to theorise as to why space expansion may happen hence my chosen cause /effect is space expands causing us to experience time as an cause originating in the boundary extension in a closed universe.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Expansion isn't happening with time, Time is happening due to Expansion -True or False?​

Expansion takes time to happen.

If expansion "caused" time, what would contraction cause?

Cat

If time is happening due to expansion, how can time happen due to the opposite?

It is like saying temperature rise is due to the addition of both heat and cold.
Or white is due to the total presence and total absence of light.

The causes of expansion and contraction must oppose each other.

Cat

Time, or as I prefer to call it, temporal progression, by its very nature can only progress. If it and and its equivalent quantity of distance progresses outward from a point, it results in an instance of expanding space-time;
If the expansion of that space-time is halted, it cannot simply stop altogether, it must continue progressing, but in the other direction, ie back toward its point of origin. What happens when a volume of space-time is compressed... I suggest it would reach a point at which it could no longer contract, and would once again progress outward. Hmmm, sounds like a big bang

If you visit your local bar/coffee shop you don't grow older on the outbound leg of the journey and younger on the return leg , progression through space-time is always onward.

 

[Catastrophe]

The title of this thread (#1 by Gibsense) is

Expansion isn't happening with time, Time is happening due to Expansion -True or False?​

I did not SAY this, I quoted the thread title.

Thus your thread post #30 is confusing.

If you Google "temporal progression" you will find:
"Temporal progression refers to the way something changes over time. It describes the sequence of events or the development of a phenomenon as it unfolds through time."

You say:
"If the expansion of that space-time is halted, it cannot simply stop altogether, it must continue progressing, but in the other direction, ie back toward its point of origin."

You say space-time is halted . . . . . . "it must continue progressing, but in the other direction, ie back toward its point of origin."

Is there not a contradiction here? I really cannot understand this.

Cat

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

The title of this thread (#1 by Gibsense) is

Expansion isn't happening with time, Time is happening due to Expansion -True or False?​

I did not SAY this, I quoted the thread title.

Thus your thread post #30 is confusing.

If you Google "temporal progression" you will find:
"Temporal progression refers to the way something changes over time. It describes the sequence of events or the development of a phenomenon as it unfolds through time."

You say:
"If the expansion of that space-time is halted, it cannot simply stop altogether, it must continue progressing, but in the other direction, ie back toward its point of origin."

You say space-time is halted . . . . . . "it must continue progressing, but in the other direction, ie back toward its point of origin."

Is there not a contradiction here? I really cannot understand this.

Cat

I should have said if the outward expansion cannot continue progression in one direction, it must change tack and continue in the only forward option open to it. which is toward its point of origin. ( A pseudo reflection.) In any discussion about the nature of space time, we need to heed the words of both Einstein and Minkowski Time is not a stand alone phenomenon, so googles reference to temporal progression is imprecise. Distance and time constitute a single phenomenon. Distance and time are equivalent, so if the scale of a length of time changes the scale of its equivalent in distance also changes. It is this principle which makes the speed of light a constant, and allows us to use the term light year to determine either a passage of time or its equivalent in distance by using c as a common denominator.

I, have a busy day ahead of me tomorrow, so as much as I would like to continue with this exchange of views, I must go to bed.

 

[Classical Motion]

The reason light has a constant velocity is NOT because time is related to space. Time is not related to, nor does it come from space. Time is independent of space.

The reason light has a constant velocity from all, different velocity emitters, is because the emission is instant, and does not share any time with the emitter velocity.

The scale of time is fixed. It does not change.

Time comes from the motion of matter. Just like all other properties.

Emission is the instant change in direction of an EM field. It’s instant because the change has no inertia. It’s not a change in the direction of mass. It’s a conversion of an angular EM field into a separated linear self repulsive EM field.

The emitted field has the same velocity as the angular fields. Those angular fields are at c.

If those angular fields were other than c, the light would be that other velocity.

All emissions are instant and all emissions come from angular c. Therefore all emissions are at c.

Hayseed physics.

Space never needed to be created. It’s always been here. The absence of creation. Space is what was here, when nothing was here. Space will be here, when all else is not.

 

[jhixon]

The universe shows time does move forward in a "field" created by matter. When antimatter creates a "field", time moves in reverse. These two directions of time are not looped. I know your saying that GR doesn't have two fields, and that's why GR is incorrect. Time works from the strength of the magnetic field and motion both. The two support articles below talk about putting a .5 volt field across a wound, and blood vessels skin etc. all grew 3 times faster than normal healing. How does blood vessels grow 3 times faster if time is not affected, and the only change is the electrical field?

https://interestingengineering.com/health/water-powered-bandage-heals-chronic-wounds

Smart bandage improves wound healing in mice​

A smart bandage used wireless power to protect and monitor wounds, provide feedback on tissue health, and encourage healing using electrical current.

www.nih.gov

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

The reason light has a constant velocity is NOT because time is related to space. Time is not related to, nor does it come from space. Time is independent of space.

The reason light has a constant velocity from all, different velocity emitters, is because the emission is instant, and does not share any time with the emitter velocity.

The scale of time is fixed. It does not change.

Time comes from the motion of matter. Just like all other properties.

Emission is the instant change in direction of an EM field. It’s instant because the change has no inertia. It’s not a change in the direction of mass. It’s a conversion of an angular EM field into a separated linear self repulsive EM field.

The emitted field has the same velocity as the angular fields. Those angular fields are at c.

If those angular fields were other than c, the light would be that other velocity.

All emissions are instant and all emissions come from angular c. Therefore all emissions are at c.

Hayseed physics.

Space never needed to be created. It’s always been here. The absence of creation. Space is what was here, when nothing was here. Space will be here, when all else is not.

The reason light has a constant velocity is NOT because time is related to space. Time is not related to, nor does it come from space. Time is independent of space.

If that is true, you have debunked the work of both Einstein and Minkowski. I am certainly not convinced that your theorem is correct.

 

[jhixon]

The reason light has a constant velocity is NOT because time is related to space. Time is not related to, nor does it come from space. Time is independent of space.

If that is true, you have debunked the work of both Einstein and Minkowski. I am certainly not convinced that your theorem is correct.

First, light does not have a constant velocity because it's motion is based on the magnetic field. Each magnetic field of any mass/planet is different, thus the magnetic field is different and photons travel based on the strength of the field and in our solar system the Sun is the field dictating photons motions, so while in our solar system your statement is true, it is not true for all of space. Antimatter creates a different field, so two fields, two different directions. . Second, time is based on the strength of the magnetic field and motion, and not motion alone (see support above). Lastly, the 1919 experiment showed photons going around a planet or curving. This is NOT due to space being curved, as we didn't know any better then. We currently manipulate photons in a field with computers and get the same result, so the photon was following the magnetic field lines of the planet and that made the photon curve. Yes, Einstein is incorrect as space is not curved. Matter captures the three forces and uses them, and thus is gravity of all matter. Please feel free to take two stop watches and put one in a high field like an induction coil, and one leave sit out. You will find that both will have different times. The watch in the high field will be faster. Prove me wrong....

 

[Classical Motion]

The reason light has a constant velocity is NOT because time is related to space. Time is not related to, nor does it come from space. Time is independent of space.

If that is true, you have debunked the work of both Einstein and Minkowski. I am certainly not convinced that your theorem is correct.

And don't forget Maxwell, he started all of this.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

And don't forget Maxwell, he started all of this.

There were also several other greats who contributed to Einstein's understanding of relativity, but for some reason their input has been attributed to Einstein.

 

[jhixon]

There were also several other greats who contributed to Einstein's understanding of relativity, but for some reason their input has been attributed to Einstein.

The only thing that matters is the correct answer, and I have given you the right answer and a way to prove it. The theory of GR is incorrect. Why are there 3 quarks to a proton, 3 quarks to a neutron, 3 electrons? The number three is the smallest system in physics with "two functions" and three phases of matter by energy level a solid, a liquid and a gas is "ATOMS". This is the physics definitions for atoms. What are the two functions? A function and it's inverse function. A function is matter and it's inverse function is antimatter. A function is the field matter creates. It's inverse function is the field antimatter creates. Two fields, two directions of movement. So is the definition for atoms wrong or is GR wrong with a unified field?
Your move....