Laws of Conservation?

Time is not a real and perceptible object. It is infered by presence of change/motion. Even biological change. In an absolute stasis, time would not be observed.Space too is an infered object. An observer needs the presence of material objects to be concious of space.Suppose you are the only entity in the otherwise a completely empty universe. You would even know if there is a space or time.

But I support civil unions for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transvestites, polygamists, necrophiliacs, and navel lint collectors. Edited by Fosdick, : No reason given.

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

That is simply not true. You are espousing out-of-date ideas. We know this because of Time Dilation.You need to catch up to the times. I suggest starting here or here.Come back with any questions you have after you catch up to the fact that time is real and perceptable and not just infered from the presence of motion. Absolute stasis does not exist. Again, you are just plain wrong. These are outdated ideas that have been refuted. You need to catch up.Again, wikipedia is going ot be your best starting point. Look here too.Here's some images that I feel help conceptualize the idead:Space as a real something: The grid is space ans it is something. See how mass can bend space, itself?Time as a real something:

quote:

---

Evolution of a world line of an accelerated massive particle. This worldline is restricted to the timelike top and bottom sections of this spacetime figure and can not cross the top (future) nor the bottom (past) light cone. The left and right sections, outside the light cones are spacelike.

---

See how the time 'expands' and 'collapses'?

Except for a photon at (c).I don't know if that's what he was refering to, but at (c) this statement of his is correct,

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Got a link where I can read up on that?At first glance, it simply having a velocity seems to suggest that it really isn't absolute stasis. Seriously!? I think you're just being nice.He said that time is inferred from motion and then that in an absolute stasis there wouldn't be time. He was obviously talking about massive objects and them stopping from moving.And I don't even think he's talking about 0 Kelvin... Maybe I don't know what absolute stasis is....Does time not being observed even imply absolute stasis? I can see absolute stasis implying time not being observed but visa versa I'm not seeing it.

Let me back track a bit, since I didn't properly take into consideration the word "absolute".Also, the definition of stasis I am refering to is: a state of static balance or equilibrium.With that said, at light speed(c), the time dilation is infinite, so the photon does not age any or experience time. In the photon's own frame of reference, it has zero time with us, so it cannot evolve in any sense in its own experience while it interacts with the universe we see. I would call this stasis, as per the definition I provided above.Now, as far as "absolute" goes, it is almost impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photons rest mass to be exactly zero, so "absolute", if that is what we are refering to, its rest mass(M rest), cannot be stated so they are considered to have no M rest. There's a bit more to that but that should be good for now.I have no reference for this other than school notes, perhaps cavediver can explain it better, or give us both a reference. Correct, but to a photon at the speed of light, time dilation is infinte. So it's not that there wouldn't be time, it just doesn't experience the effects of time. *nod* As per the definition I provided for stasis, it only means that the photon does not age or evolve or experience any time.If he was refering to some other form of stasis then I would be curious as to what he's even talking about. I tried to piece his post together the best I could.Edited by onifre, : clearify Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I see a lot of certainty in people's views that time began with the universe - but what is the evidence for that? Don't say GR because it breaks down at singularities.

Sure, but first can you tell me what is meant by "GR breaks down at the singularity"...? In your own words, please.Also, can you show me a time when there was no universe...?Just trying to get a few specifics out of the way before we engage in conversation, if you don't mind.- Oni

So does the polar coordinate system of latitude and longitude - does that mean that North and South have meaning off the planet? Do lines of longitude meet at the North Pole and rather than simply terminating, they then slink off into the polar skies? I'm sorry but I just cannot get my head around what you are suggesting - some concept of time without a "universe"? I think you may have the cart before the horse.Oh, and the singularities are the results of the fields equations and some (not-as-reasonable as we once thought) energy conditions - they have nothing to do with the space-time concept itself, which came to prominence with SR and Minkowski.

Yes - as I understand it, singularities are events where, according to classical physics, the energy density and hence spacetime curvature become infinite. GR doesn't work in these circumstances. The expectation is that quantum gravity will help us resolve this.Can I show you a time when there was no universe? No, but I see the following logical possibilities.- The universe may have begun without time, which emerged 'subsequently'.
- Time may have come into existence before the big bang, in some kind of precursor to our universe.These are a bit mischievous - but my point really is that we don't understand how time arises and therefore it's not a foregone conclusion that it began with the universe.

.That's a good challenge - and I think it's probable that time did arise with the universe - but I'm wary of using logic to say that such a thing is necessarily the case. Something would have to exist for time to exist, but it might not be the universe as we mean it today. Likewise it is possible that time was not an initial property of the universe but appeared at some point. yes, I agree

Hi Robert, thanks for the reply.First, I am by no means the expert cavediver is in this subject so my responses will be to the best of my knowledge. The problem as I see it with your statement is the word "event".Let me try to work the answers backwards and then arrive at why "event" is not conceptually right. Using general relativity is how they arrive at the conclusion that the universe at T = 0 is infinitely dense and curved. GR does not stop working, it simply does not equate at sub-atomic levels, therefore the geometry of spacetime stops making sense to us. This is refered to as a singularity, but keep in mind that it does NOT mean that the singularity itself is a "thing" that takes place at a moment in 'time'.The BB/cosmological expansion is what spacetime is, therefore at levels where space, as we understand it, stops making sense, it cannot be said that space exists. If there is no space then there is no place for an "event" - which must invoke cause first, and time - can take place. So, the singularity, first isn't a 'thing', and more imporatantly, is not an event. It is the result of an equation that goes to infinum. What is expected is a unifying theory that incorporates relativity to QM. GR does not go away, it must still be valid if a theory is going to explain both micro and macro states. This is beyond my level of knowledge though and is simply what I've gathered from reading various books on the subject. First, time is a property of our 3D space. It however, is NOT a 'thing' either. It is a unit of measurement used by those who have the ability to measure. Outside of that time is meaningless. Problem. Nothing can begin without time. "To begin" is a reference to time itself, therefore, how can you have an event take place in space without invoking a time for it to start? - logically impossible The BB is also not an 'event', just to get that concept out of the way. The BB is simply the moment of expansion into 3D space, and time.Also, your statements are getting a bit nonsensical - no offense.Time cannot "come into existance" since time itself is the essence of things come into existance. Time does not arise. Just as length does not arise. Nor does width arise. Time, length and width are all units of measuring, they are not things - they are simply abstract concepts.And again: How can you begin something without a time for it to start...?- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

OniYes, it's very hard to talk about things happening without time - so any statement of that kind looks nonsensical. But I'd like to challenge you on saying time, length and width do not arise - I think they do. The number of dimensions of the universe is a property that it has - that theoretically could be different from what we observe. The concept of length can only arise from the existence of a such a space dimension. I think time is a similar concept.

BTW, I was being a smartypants when I used the word event - an event is the name for a point in space time. I may have misused it.

I think we'll end up in a semantical debate about the word 'arise' but lets go with it nonetheless.Time is an emergent property of the 3D space we experience. I think 'arise' can replace 'emerge' and we'd be on the same page, so to speak. That it is relevant to us is the only way time, as a function, exists. How else do you see time functioning other than as a unit of measurement used by those who can actually measure?What I do not agree with, if this is what you're driving at, is that 'time' is introduced somehow into our universe, considering the universe to be 3D space, from some other location or - lest we go there - entity. From what I've read, yes. Apparently so, but I wouldn't be able to give an educated answer on that. Speculating aside, we really have no other understanding of time other than what has been observed. I wouldn't go as far as to say that length and time are properties of only our spacial dimension, but if I tried to explain that any further I would just be talking out my ass - or arse - for the UK folks.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky