Space the now point in time

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1205
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Present awareness » October 15th, 2016, 11:48 pm

I hate to break it to you Mercury, but my lack of research doesnt give any more credibility to your own theories.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

Gordon975
Posts: 84
Joined: December 9th, 2014, 6:51 am
Contact:

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Gordon975 » October 17th, 2016, 4:44 am

Present Awareness Wrote:
I don't agree that space has dimensions, for how could one
measure something that isn't there? The concept of time, does not apply to space either,
because that which isn't there is timeless, in the sense that space has always not been
there. The time concept applies to matter, moving thru space or anything else humans
may observe. Since space isn't there, it may not be observed but only implied by the
presence of matter.
If I implied that space had dimensions or time I didn't mean to, I agree with you and the
concept that time only applies to matter this topic is here to explore
the idea that space exists at a fixed time "the present or now point" and never
moves from it. There is no physical dimension associated with time and space as part of
this topics concept as the now or present state of time only has distance associated with it
between material things which are themselves comprised of time perhaps moving from a future to
a past state through the atomic particles of which they are made.

Mercury Wrote:
What is the point of trying to prove the rightness or wrongness of a
statement based on theory, speculation or blind faith?
Perhaps we have to start somewhere perhaps first an idea then a theory for criticism and
then proof through argument but best through experiment.

Mercury Wrote:
THE MYSTERY OF THE MISSING MASS
[159] Most of the mass in the universe is missing. Or is it merely hidden in some exotic,
as yet undetectable form? No one is sure which. One thing is sure, though. The problem
of the missing mass has gotten to the point where it is more than just a problem. It is an
embarrassment, an obstacle to understanding such things as the structure of galaxies, the
evolution of clusters of galaxies, and the ultimate fate of the universe.
Thanks Mercury for providing the Link to the NASA site it really does confirm there are perhaps
many more questions and uncertainties within physics than there are answers.

Within this topic I have been trying to explore an alternative approach perhaps to the
conventional as to the nature of space and its relationship with matter. My suggestion for
the missing matter outlined in my previous post is part of a search for a different avenue
of thought. Missing matter or at least the extra gravity that should exist somewhere, I am
arguing may be the result of a "super particle" or "white hole" created at the centre of a
galaxy in its black hole, this I speculate happens as the result of the creation of an atomic
super particle created by the compression of ordinary atomic particles together creating a
particle through which time flows many times faster than through the sum of its
constituent parts. If the galaxy were moving then I speculate it would experience acceleration in the
direction of that movement as the result of the increased time flow. A super particle if
alone would be quite able to exceed the speed of light and carry on, if its mass were to
continue growing in this way, so it is just possible that a galaxy with enough matter in it
could find itself accelerated very close to the speed of light at which point its conventional matter
would disintegrate and the super particle no longer be contained within its "black hole"
and the "big bang" and the effects of what we have witnessed in the clues to the "big bang"
be created.

Mercury
Posts: 55
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Mercury » October 17th, 2016, 7:06 am

Gordon: In the post above you attribute a quote to me that isn't mine. This rhetorical question, if it is such - was posted by Present Awareness:

What is the point of trying to prove the rightness or wrongness of a
statement based on theory, speculation or blind faith?

I agree with your response, but for the purposes of general information would like to describe the important difference between two senses of the word theory. The first, in common use - suggests uncertainty - i.e. it's just a theory, whereas in science the term theory refers to the underlying logical rationale in terms of which various facts are explained. This is distinct again from the term hypothesis - which is, more akin to the common usage of the term theory - describing a proposed theoretical explanation that has yet to be tested.

I am inclined to agree with you assertion that the missing matter exists, and as it exerts a gravitational effect we know where it is. My 'hypothesis' is that matter is displaced in time - before and ahead of us, by the faster than light inflation of the early universe. Although we cannot see, or otherwise detect it, it is present here - only not now, yet continues to exert a gravitational effect.

Considering your idea - it occurs to me that a 'particle through which time flows many times faster than through the sum of its
constituent parts' would be a particle that suffers from an increased rate of entropy, and it's therefore questionable how long such a particle could exist. Surely, not as long as the ordinary matter upon which it has an effect.

Gordon975
Posts: 84
Joined: December 9th, 2014, 6:51 am
Contact:

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Gordon975 » October 24th, 2016, 3:24 am

I am approaching the explanation for the universe and everything in it from the starting
point of space and by imagining it at the now point in time and then exploring how other
elements of the apparently complex jigsaw that physics uses to define the environment
around us fits with this idea. I believe that although what we perceive as the various
particles and forces at play, governing the way all the things we perceive in the cosmos
act and behave, there must be an underlying simplicity that has caused it to come into
existence in the way that is has for it to be sustainable here and everywhere else.

Mercury Wrote:
My 'hypothesis' is that matter is displaced in time - before and ahead of
us, by the faster than light inflation of the early universe. Although we cannot see, or
otherwise detect it, it is present here - only not now, yet continues to exert a gravitational
effect.
The displacement theory you describe resulting from the big bang makes perfect sense in
the context of the big bang creation theory, the problem and the argument I have is with
the big bang theory itself.

Why was there a big bang, why is the speed of light the speed that it is, why is an atomic
particle the size that it is, why does "space" exist, why does gravity exist, why does light
exist, lets face it the list could be almost endless.

Mercury Wrote:
Considering your idea - it occurs to me that a 'particle through which
time flows many times faster than through the sum of its constituent parts' would be a
particle that suffers from an increased rate of entropy, and it's therefore questionable how
long such a particle could exist. Surely, not as long as the ordinary matter upon which it
has an effect.
I am speculating that the conventional material around the super particle that I describe
experiences more pressure as the black hole consumes material to the point where the
normal distance existing between particles in space reduces to zero, at this point the flow
of time in the model that I am imagining could exceed the rate experienced by normal
particles. Everything in the model I describe here exists in the "present time" including
black holes and the super particle; time therefore exists as past and future on every side of
the present everywhere. A super particle would be held together by the conventional
particles around it and its size increase as the black hole consumed more material.

I'm not sure how "entropy" acting on a super particle would cause its collapse it infers
that the super particle would experience disorder in some way and I can't see why.

Mercury
Posts: 55
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Mercury » October 24th, 2016, 8:29 am

Gordon,

I'm having a problem with your answer - or my understanding of it, perhaps you can help me with. You say:
The displacement theory you describe resulting from the big bang makes perfect sense in
the context of the big bang creation theory, the problem and the argument I have is with
the big bang theory itself.
Why was there a big bang, why is the speed of light the speed that it is, why is an atomic
particle the size that it is, why does "space" exist, why does gravity exist, why does light
exist, lets face it the list could be almost endless.
My first question is - how does this answer the why question?
I am speculating that the conventional material around the super particle that I describe
experiences more pressure as the black hole consumes material to the point where the
normal distance existing between particles in space reduces to zero, at this point the flow
of time in the model that I am imagining could exceed the rate experienced by normal
particles. Everything in the model I describe here exists in the "present time" including
black holes and the super particle; time therefore exists as past and future on every side of
the present everywhere. A super particle would be held together by the conventional
particles around it and its size increase as the black hole consumed more material.
Leading to my problem, which is that 'why' isn't a scientific question. What and how are scientific questions. Why is a philosophical question - to which the answer seems to be, first we must know what and how - and then maybe we'll have some idea. So maybe, there is some argument you have in mind that says, if this super-particle exists, therefore it infers that... God exists, or time is a loop, or something - with a implication as to why, anything exists, but it's not immediately obvious to me what that implication might be.

Rainman
Posts: 99
Joined: August 16th, 2013, 5:23 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Rainman » November 1st, 2016, 5:40 pm

Time is merely a concept. Time does not exist in the Observable Universe. Past, present, future are all merely useful concepts. They don't exist. "Good times", "high times", being "late" or "early" are all concepts. They are not made of Matter/energy. Time is simply useful in modelling our universe. A rock exists but a minute does not but both are useful. I hate it when science confuses utility with existence. You can travel along a road made of rocks but you can't travel "through time".

Mercury
Posts: 55
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Mercury » November 1st, 2016, 10:03 pm

Rainman wrote:Time is merely a concept. Time does not exist in the Observable Universe. Past, present, future are all merely useful concepts. They don't exist. "Good times", "high times", being "late" or "early" are all concepts. They are not made of Matter/energy. Time is simply useful in modelling our universe. A rock exists but a minute does not but both are useful. I hate it when science confuses utility with existence. You can travel along a road made of rocks but you can't travel "through time".
I think time does exist. My hypothesis suggests the faster than light inflation of the early universe dispersed energy across a range of time - and we, and the mass we see in the universe, occupy a present slice that is merely a fraction of that range. The whole universe exists before and after us, and what we observe to be dark matter - is temporally displaced mass, invisible to us, but having a gravitational effect - with an inverse relationship to distance in time.

Otherwise, except at a location in space where by coincidence there was mass in the past, present and future - creating a powerful gravitational effect, I believe it's impossible to explain the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. It's inconceivable that gas particles in a vacuum exerted sufficient gravitational force to attract other particles of gas. It does not happen in nature. Gas particles naturally achieve an even distribution throughout a given space. Heat variations in the cosmic microwave background are an effect, rather than a cause - of the disappearance of mass from the visible universe, as the past, present and future gravitated into distinct universes.

Felix
Posts: 1786
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Felix » November 2nd, 2016, 1:43 pm

Mercury, Your thesis assumes that the Universe had a Big Bang like beginning. We do not know if the Big Bang marked it's beginning or was only an intermission - a break between movies. But certainly time exists, because a timeless universe would be static.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Rainman
Posts: 99
Joined: August 16th, 2013, 5:23 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Rainman » November 2nd, 2016, 1:49 pm

If the Observable Universe has always existed and is infinite in size then a lot of questions get answered. If there is no "early universe" because the universe has always been in existence, and the big bang/expansion is just a local event, then matter/energy particles have always been moving around and banging into each other. They have always been clumping because of gravity and exploding forever. You don't need Time to "exist" for that to happen. It just happens when "stuff" is in motion...and always will.

The proof of an infinite-sized universe will come when we see fully formed galaxies and stars at the so-called "limit" of the Observable Universe. With the new telescopes soon to come online, that should happen within a few years. When there is evidence of an infinite universe, and the big bang/expansion is just a local event, physics won't change. Just a few theories.

-- Updated November 2nd, 2016, 1:56 pm to add the following --
Felix wrote:Mercury, Your thesis assumes that the Universe had a Big Bang like beginning. We do not know if the Big Bang marked it's beginning or was only an intermission - a break between movies. But certainly time exists, because a timeless universe would be static.
I think you can have objects in motion without time. They move but no one measures the movement. I don't think you have to observe a tree falling in a forest and measure the fall to be able to say "a tree fell". In the same way, matter/energy moves in the Observable Universe with...or without...a clock. It just moves. It's convenient to invent the concept of "time" in order to measure movement...but it isn't necessary. Movement comes first...then the invention of the concept of time comes after.

Mercury
Posts: 55
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Mercury » November 2nd, 2016, 3:52 pm

Felix wrote:Mercury, Your thesis assumes that the Universe had a Big Bang like beginning. We do not know if the Big Bang marked it's beginning or was only an intermission - a break between movies. But certainly time exists, because a timeless universe would be static.

Perhaps Rainman will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what he is alluding to is that the past and future do not exist - they are not places we can visit. The universe we inhabit exists as an ever present now, wherein the appearance of time is the consequence of memory, and ongoing causal/entropic effects. Time exists as a dimension of space - the difference between here and there, but not as the psychological experience we have of time.

I accept, and refute this. I suggest Rainman merely describes our present universe, a slice of the whole universe - with other universes existing before and after us in the same space. You are correct to say that my hypothesis assumes a big bang - and that I cannot know this was the absolute beginning - or merely the culmination of a cyclical process.

Rainman
Posts: 99
Joined: August 16th, 2013, 5:23 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Rainman » November 2nd, 2016, 5:05 pm

OMG Mercury...so few people see the universe as existing in an "ever present now". It's nice to read someone else saying this. The concept of a "river of time" just never made sense to me. I can understand it when you say Time exists as a dimension of space. That way time is merely a concept like length and width...useful concepts but not existing in any way. I do have trouble when you talk about other "universes". So far, I can only comprehend this Observable Universe. But I am willing to think about multiple universes. I just don't know how I could even know of their existence.

Mercury
Posts: 55
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Mercury » November 3rd, 2016, 12:01 am

Rainman wrote:OMG Mercury...so few people see the universe as existing in an "ever present now". It's nice to read someone else saying this. The concept of a "river of time" just never made sense to me. I can understand it when you say Time exists as a dimension of space. That way time is merely a concept like length and width...useful concepts but not existing in any way. I do have trouble when you talk about other "universes". So far, I can only comprehend this Observable Universe. But I am willing to think about multiple universes. I just don't know how I could even know of their existence.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I have a normal psychological experience of time. I speak and think and act as if the past, present and future were all real and relevant. I have a keen but amateur interest in science generally - and the ideas you express are not unfamiliar. I've read a few books on time, and seen numerous documentaries. There's quite probably some very good reason why I'm mistaken in my hypothesis - but it does seem to fit quite a few pieces of my layman's understanding of physics together. Not least, dark matter. The observation that gas in a vacuum will disperse - not gravitate together to form stars and planets, I would argue speaks to Vera Rubin's observation that galaxies do not contain enough mass to maintain structural integrity. The so called missing mass problem. My thought was, what if the mass is here, only not now? And I related this to the faster than light expansion of the early universe.

I suggest that the big bang threw energy outward faster than the speed of light, and only after this period of expansion - was the physical limit established by the formation of spacetime. So energy was dispersed across a range of time - before and after the slice of universe we occupy. Mass formed from energy, in the form of helium and hydrogen, but only where (in space) another helium or hydrogen atom had formed was there sufficient gravitational resonance to attract other atoms of gas. As a consequence - galaxies exist in much the same space - across a range of time. They exert a gravitational effect - but are not here-now. They are here earlier and later, in their ever present now, at the same rate.

It's just a conjecture. I wouldn't put much faith in it - unless someone much more qualified than me thinks it has merit. But it's enjoyable to me, to play around with these huge ideas. To imagine the unimaginable forces at play, and to attempt to reconcile the available facts to solve a problem - in this case, the missing mass problem. I'm glad you liked my idea. But I'm not certain. Indeed, certainty is for politicians, not scientists.

Felix
Posts: 1786
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Felix » November 3rd, 2016, 1:28 pm

Well, these are all metaphysical speculations and this is supposedly a science forum.

Sure, time doesn't exist in an absolute sense, nor do any of the dimensions of space, but it does exist in a relative sense as a coordinate of space.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Rainman
Posts: 99
Joined: August 16th, 2013, 5:23 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Rainman » November 3rd, 2016, 4:25 pm

When you say time exists in a relative sense as a coordinate of space then you must mean time exists only as a construct of a model. Models of the universe do not exist in and of themselves. So, is it safe to say that a phyisical object that exists in an absolute sense can not even be imagined as "traveling through time"? Nothing that exists in an absolute sense can interact in any manner whatsoever with time. That can only happen in a model...not in the Observable Universe. True this?

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1205
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Space the now point in time

Post by Present awareness » January 18th, 2017, 12:23 am

If space is the now point in time, that would explain why it is always "now". No matter where you are in space, it would still be now. All matter could ever do is move "within the now" never outside of the present moment like in the future or past.

Walking down the street, you may consider where you were, to be in the past and where you are going, to be in the future, but it's clear that they both exist in the now, because you can look back at the house you just came from or forward to the end of the block in front of you, and they are still in the present. And there is no point, during your entire walk, where you aren't in the present moment.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

Post Reply