Expanding time?

You're welcome.What I've read on the Big Bang is that the evidence suggests that space is expanding, not that spacetime is expanding.But, could the way we experience time progressing, as a series of instinces, actually just be time "expanding" in a similiar way to that which space expands?I dunno. The answer prolly comes down to the maths.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : added "be"

As the circles of latitude expand, does the magnitude of the time dimension get relatively smaller comapared to the magnitudes of the spacial dimensions? I mean, since the longitude line stays the same "size" as the latitude lines expand, is time shirinking relative to the expanding spacial dimensions?

Just use different analogies.Think of the topology as that of a horn, like a tuba, instead of a sphere. That can help explain further expansion versus a "collapse" at the end.And if you think of the topology as like a telescope, in the sense that it is telescopic (extendable), you can acually have the time deminsion expanding with the spacial dimensions.You just gotta make sure the analogy conforms to what you are trying to perceive, keeping in mind the limitations of the analogy.But for reality, it all depends on what he actual topology of the universe looks like. And I don't think that we have it totally nailed down yet, but cavediver can correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah good luck with that one

Huh?Try using punctuation, proper spelling, and proper grammer...Here, let me help:

quote:

---

Are you saying that if we could have a superstring, that could not be stretched, connecting the galaxies, then the galaxies would prove to be not moving though space? However, it appears you're all saying that its only space time, that part of nothing that is being stretched by some force, thats giving us the illusion that the galaxies have moved when its only space time between them that has stretched.

---

Is that closer to what youre trying to ask? Still, I'm having trouble understanding the question...The galaxies are not flying through space away from each other, the distance between them is increasing because the spacial dimensions are expanding. The lititude lines, one dimension, represent all three spatial dimensions of the universe. The longitude line represents time.As you move along the longitude line, the latitude lines become larger, and this represents the expanding of the spacial dimensions. The expansion that the sphere "sees" as you move along a longitude line represents the expansion of the universe but the sphere, itself, is not expanding like the balloon does in the balloon analogy.That is the point of the point that the sphere, itself, is not getting any bigger.

I think you are confusing the analogy with reality.The universe is expanding. When using a globe as an analogy of the expansion, the globe itself, is not expanding.The expansion is analogous to the increase in the size of the latitude lines as you move along a longitude line. A raisin's relative position inside the cake does not change, ie it is not moving. But as the volume of the cake increases, the raisins get farther apart. Similarly, the galaxies in the universe are getting farther apart, but they aren't necessarily moving through space.Make sense? Just don't let the Bible get in the way of your understanding of reality. If we determine that the universe is not eternal, would you reject that determination in favor of your belief? On a quantum level, things zip in and out of existence all the time.

First off: Huh!?Are you saying that you think that there is some force between the galaxies that is causing time, which is also between the galaxies, to expand, which is the force that causes space to expand?What are you looking at that makes it seem that way?You think that time is causing the force that is causing the expansion?Post hoc ergo porpter hoc?I honestly don't understand what you are trying to get across. Time is not expanding. What do you mean by bled into our universe? Time is another dimension like the three spatial dimensions are. Time is a component of our universe so I don't think it is being bled in, whatever that means.

Okay, I think I can now see the picture you're painting....The above analogy helped the most combined the whole bleeding through description and: So, in this picture, we have space emerging, not from somewhere but, from somewhen.I don't really have any information to provide to suggest any error or accuracy in that.Thanks for sharing it with me, though. I think its a cool picture

False.Maybe this will help:The value of f(x)=1/x at x=0 is not zero, it is undefined.The size of an amoeba's nose is not zero, its a non-sensical question.

In the same way, it is impossible for an amoeba to have a nose. It does not have a nose of size zero. You need to understand the difference between "being impossible" and "having a value of zero" in order to understand this discussion.

But you were saying that it does have a size from the outside and that its size is zero.A better answer is that the universe having a size from the outside is impossible. I've read the discussion. I was just trying to help you correct your misunderstanding. Where did I say that you said that impossible and zero were the same? I said that you were misunderstanding the difference, not that you were saying they were the same.But anyways, here is where you, by extension, make a similiar claim:In Message 103 you wrote:

quote:

---

I equate zero with non-existence

---

In Message 107 you wrote:

quote:

---

Catholic scientist writes:

​

The value of f(x)=1/x at x=0 is not zero, it is undefined.

At x=0 the result is not undefined but is impossible,

---

You equate zero with non-existence and undefined (which also means non-existent) with impossible. It sure seems from what you wrote that you think, by extension, that zero and impossible are the same. But again, I never really claimed that you said that.

Oh.. well in that case you're just plain wrong.1/0 is undefined.From here:

quote:

---

So, 10/0 at least in elementary arithmetic, is said to be meaningless, or undefined.

---

From here:

quote:

---

Undefined forms that are not indeterminate:

​

The expression 1/0 is not an indeterminate form because there is no range of distinct values that f/g could approach.

---

You can read all about that kind of stuff at the wiki page on Defined and undefinedBut the wording is important. Especially in these cosmological discussions. If you word it wrong then you are wrong. You can't just say "Oh, that's what I meant but I just worded it differently". See? Saying that its size is zero is not the same thing as saying there is no size. You may very well have meant something other than what you said, but that doesn't change that what you said was wrong. That concepts is obvious simply from the definition of Universe as containing everything. Well that's contradictory. If it isn't expanding into anything then it cannot be expanding into something (i.e. itself). You may find the same meaning but the well established definitions of words makes it so that you are just plain wrong, regardless of what you understand yourself to be saying.