DeepSight:


Lets be categorical and honest, its not just counterintuitive, its illogical. If a thing expands, there must be some space into which it is expanding.

PS: There cannot be any "current understanding" to the effect that the universe is not expanding into anything especially as no one has either been, or observed outside the universe, nor has anyone conducted any experiment or locked down any theory which shows just that conclusively.

Once upon a time the thought of people living at the antipodes made some people laugh because their understanding of gravity was crude. No matter how counterintuitive and illogical you find it, it does not mean its untrue. What's the direction of up in space? Is "up" the same direction at the north pole and the south pole?

Human language is limited compared to the complexity of the universe and our need to describe it. The paucity of human language is one of the reasons people assume physical laws are like human laws and it's why it's' difficult to fathom this "expansion".

DeepSight:


Lets be categorical and honest, its not just counterintuitive, its illogical. If a thing expands, there must be some space into which it is expanding.

PS: There cannot be any "current understanding" to the effect that the universe is not expanding into anything especially as no one has either been, or observed outside the universe, nor has anyone conducted any experiment or locked down any theory which shows just that conclusively.

There are somethings that are counterintuitive in the world of physics, doesn't stop it from being the case.

Just google "what is the universe expanding into", you'll get more scientific explanations than what I can muster with my layman terminology.

DeepSight:


I gave reasons for what I stated was obvious. Its obvious that there exists a timeline beyond the universe because the very big bang itself is an event and events can only occur in an timeline. Its obvious that there exists space beyond the universe because the universe is expanding. What could it be expanding into, if not already existent space?

Change is what gives rise to time. Time is an emergent property of a changing universe and not a vacuum where things happen like you seem to think it is. Time is not uniform as explained by relativity and put to practical use in the creation of satellites and the likes. The rate of change that gives rise to time depends on mass and speed. The movie Interstellar sheds a lot of light on how time works.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqKa6qyVYgg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwWKi9sSAA

LordReed:


There are somethings that are counterintuitive in the world of physics, doesn't stop it from being the case.

Just google "what is the universe expanding into", you'll get more scientific explanations than what I can muster with my layman terminology.

I am used to all that. I am not bamboozled by highfalutin scientific jargon, I am not moved by the illogical. The seeming magic of the quantum realm notwithstanding, I stand with logic. There is no magic anywhere, there are only things that are not yet understood. No quantum magic anywhere will miraculously make something emerge from nothing, grant properties to nothingness, make things expand into nothingness and the like. Some of these things really should be better interrogated and in the future I have no doubt that many of these suggestions would be rested. Sadly we live in an age whereby scientists have donned a priestly garb and there is now such a thing as heresy in the scientific world - it consists of disagreeing with anything agreed upon by most mainstream scientists. In this regard, modern academia is not very different from the Roman curia of old, and its witch hunts and burnings for heresy.

KnownUnknown:


Change is what gives rise to time.

Change is what gives rise to the measurement of time, not time itself.

Time is an emergent property of a changing universe

Time is not an emergent property of anything. Time - real time - infinite time - is self existent.

Time is not uniform as explained by relativity and put to practical use in the creation of satellites and the likes. The rate of change that gives rise to time depends on mass and speed. The movie Interstellar sheds a lot of light on how time works.

That which relativity references as time is something else entirely, and I wish they would use a different word for it. Or, better put, time, real time - is not the same sort of thing scientists refer to in these discussions.

And please reflect also that the experience of time and real time, are two altogether different things.
An ant may not experience five minutes the same way you do.

PS: Where have you been?

DeepSight:


I am used to all that. I am not bamboozled by highfalutin scientific jargon, I am not moved by the illogical. The seeming magic of the quantum realm notwithstanding, I stand with logic. There is no magic anywhere, there are only things that are not yet understood. No quantum magic anywhere will miraculously make something emerge from nothing, grant properties to nothingness, make things expand into nothingness and the like. Some of these things really should be better interrogated and in the future I have no doubt that many of these suggestions would be rested. Sadly we live in an age whereby scientists have donned a priestly garb and there is now such a thing as heresy in the scientific world - it consists of disagreeing with anything agreed upon by most mainstream scientists. In this regard, modern academia is not very different from the Roman curia of old, and its witch hunts and burnings for heresy.

Its not nothing that's the point, at least not one that can be assigned any properties.

KnownUnknown:


Once upon a time the thought of people living at the antipodes made some people laugh because their understanding of gravity was crude. No matter how counterintuitive and illogical you find it, it does not mean its untrue. What's the direction of up in space? Is "up" the same direction at the north pole and the south pole?

Human language is limited compared to the complexity of the universe and our need to describe it. The paucity of human language is one of the reasons people assume physical laws are like human laws and it's why it's' difficult to fathom this "expansion".

Look, I absolutely love this, the way you have expressed it is just excellent.
However, this does not then necessarily mean that counter-intuitive ideas are compulsorily true or correct either.
Especially as we agree we understand little as yet.

PS: I love what you say about the direction of "up." Its a thought that never ceases to amaze me. There is in fact no "up." But this is one counterintuitive thing I can relate with because the precept of "up" and "down" springs from our point of view living on the surface of the Earth. It is meaningless in space. Let me add however that it does not present us with a pure and strict illogicality such as things emerging from nothingness, nothingness having properties, or things expanding into nothingness.



_{Nonetheless sometimes I think how all these which we analyze could just be a trick of perception if we are, for instance, in a simulation.}

LordReed:


Its not nothing that's the point, at least not one that can be assigned any properties.

Je ne comprens pas.

DeepSight:


Je ne comprens pas.

The nothing we usually think about describes space with an absence of material but this is also absent of space, it has no properties. We could say it is nothing but that is kinda misleading given the former.

LordReed:


Most fundamentally accept yourself. Accept your strengths and weaknesses, realise that you are you and there is no need to become someone else. Next is to play according to your strengths, find opportunities where your strengths shine. Do everything in your power to minimise the opportunities where your weaknesses can be exploited. In all have fun being you.

Thanks sir!
This hasn't been easy especially when you have no emotional support.
Being surrounded by those who have very different values makes it tough,You watch a lot of people pursue money just for the sake of making money (I really want to create another topic for this), Living in your own small world with very few friends (who I have no close connections with merely because they don't share in my thoughts). Ooh! The one that's more frustrating is being surrounded by religious people especially Christians who constantly present their religion as the only way to find meaning (sh*ts like Jesus is the only way)...

Working on this self discovery and self-education for 2-3 years now, it has been thrilling (the thrill that comes when you discover a lot about yourself and about life that you didn't know) and emotionally draining at the same time.

LordReed:


I console myself by accepting that grief is part of life; cry, feel the pain then wipe your tears and carry on living. Find pleasure where you can and don't let the burdens overwhelm you. It's not a simple process but it's a realistic one.

Not a simple process indeed. Thanks for sharing.

LordReed:


Thanks, appreciate that.

You're welcome sir

DeepSight:


You havent given this quite enough thought. In no event can anything arise from "nothing." If you dwell soberly and properly on the questions here, you should soon enough come to see that the only possible answer is that there is something or the other, or there are somethings or the other, which have always existed.

Such are called self-existent things - philosophers refer to them as fundamentally "necessary" things - as opposed to contingent things. Please take a moment to research "necessary things and contingent things."

Self existent things cannot but exist. They are fundamentally existent by nature and it is with self-existent things that the root of reality can be found.

what do you mean by something cannot come from nothing?
Will this not lead to infinite regress?
You are creating a vicious cycles because you have not applied the occasm razor.

If something created the universe then what created the something that preceded the universe and so on?
If you concluded that there has to be an uncreated creator then you must have committed a fallacy of special pleading.

The final question will now be "if there should an uncreated creator then why can't it be the universe?"

The argument of "something cant come from nothing" always becomes problematic for the proponent because it's impossible to avoid the fallacies it comes with.

Why can't you just stop at "I don't know"? Instead do making stuffs up

Workch:
what do you mean by something cannot come from nothing?

The final question will now be "if there should an uncreated creator then why can't it be the universe?"

Because whatever is self-existent is also therefore immutable. Matter and the universe are mutable and as such cannot be self-existent.

Why can't you just stop at "I don't know"? Instead do making stuffs up

I generally say I dont know. So I dont know what you are on about here. Whatever I put forward is just the limited bit that logic can afford from my humble point of view. I'm generally agnostic.

DeepSight:


Because whatever is self-existent is also therefore immutable. Matter and the universe are mutable and as such cannot be self-existent.

According to the law of conservation of energy, the universe is immutable and energy has always remained constant. Going by the theory of relative, since matter is directly proportional to energy, your statement about matter.
Your statement universe being mutable is also not accurate unless the law of thermodynamics hasn't been falsified. So why can't the universe be the first cause if energy cannot be created nor destroyed and it has always remained constant?
What's wrong with usuing occasm razor sticking to what we know instead of creating more problems from thin air?

generally say I dont know. So I dont know what you are on about here. Whatever I put forward is just the limited bit that logic can afford from my humble point of view. I'm generally agnostic.

You are implying that something must exist outside of a universe without so certainty even when it's obvious that you don't know that and there's absolutely not evidence for that. That's appealing to ignorance

Workch:
According to the law of conservation of energy, the universe is immutable and energy has always remained constant.

mutable
/ˈmjuːtəb(ə)l/

adjective: mutable
Meaning - liable to change.

Can you spot your mistake?

Because, you see, perhaps you dont know the meaning of the word mutable. The universe is constantly evolving. Change is the only constant thing in the universe. Self-existent things do not change. They are absolutely immutable.

When you speak about energy and matter being proportional - this does not render the universe immutable - because this does not mean it is not in a constant state of flux. It self evidently is. Matter, being mutable, cannot be self existent.

Having said that I would not presume even that which you do because it is still an open question as to whether the universe is an open system or closed system, so you are on a slippery slope here. You really have to think carefully. So long as we have not answered the question as to what triggered the big bang - then much of the scientific presumptions of the present day are still skating on thin ice in this regard. And no, it is not science to say that nothing triggered it. That it just happened, abracadabra. That would be the sort of thing you accuse the religionists of believing in.

What's wrong with usuing occasm razor sticking to what we know instead of creating more problems from thin air?

Why are you guys throwing about terms you dont understand. How does Occam's razor help you. It doesnt.

You are implying that something must exist outside of a universe without so certainty even when it's obvious that you don't know that and there's absolutely not evidence for that. That's appealing to ignorance

I am tired of saying it. If there was no time before the universe, how do you have an event - the big bang - outside of time? If there is no space outside the universe, how is the universe expanding and into what is it expanding.

DeepSight:


The first cause would necessarily be self-existent. It would not "come from" anything.



That nothingness by definition does not exist is not the prerogative of scientists to determine. We have of course seen some physicists (such as the renowned iidiot, Lawrence Krauss) try to hijack the word "nothing" and then use it in reference to "something" but that is contradictory and will not wash.

And yes, my position on most of these matters is "I dont know." By the way this is what the word "agnostic" refers to - which I have used a thousand times, but which you insist - on account of your obvious Gnosticism - that I am not.



All else that exists could only arise from self existent things.
Dont worry, I will not get dizzy. I have devoted many years to thought on this already, and I would urge you to do the same.

You're claiming either Creatio ex materia or Creatio ex deo. In either case, where the hell did this "previously existing substance" come from?

Then you go on to say, "1. Something cannot arise from nothing and 2. You cannot have an infinite regress in a causal chain"

One more time, where did this Something come from? If you claim this Something is eternal with no evidence to support your claim then I can just as easily claim the universe is eternal with no supporting evidence. You're just making shit up as you go along and you may not want to admit it but your argument boils down to a magical Something that just popped into existance from....... what else?........nothing.

As it stands now the best answer is "Nobody knows" where everything came from before the Big Bang. Scientists cannot see past the Big Bang so we don't know and frankly, you don't know either. You're wasting everyones time and your argument goes around in dizzying circles.

DeepSight:


mutable
/ˈmjuːtəb(ə)l/

adjective: mutable
Meaning - liable to change.

Can you spot your mistake?

Because, you see, perhaps you dont know the meaning of the word mutable. The universe is constantly evolving. Change is the only constant thing in the universe. Self-existent things do not change. They are absolutely immutable.

Energy is constant, it's immutable and it has always been immutable. Constant means "cannot change". Your argument is flawed in that regard. Whether or not energy is converted to one form or the other, it still remains energy.
Matter is energy in different forms, Energy is immutable and cannot be created.
Stick to that

When you speak about energy and matter being proportional - this does not render the universe immutable - because this does not mean it is not in a constant state of flux. It self evidently is. Matter, being mutable, cannot be self existent.

The universe and everything within is energy and energy is constant, it cannot change. Cannot be "created", that's the law. The universe cannot be created, it's an uncaused cause. Get that

Having said that I would not presume even that which you do because it is still an open question as to whether the universe is an open system or closed system, so you are on a slippery slope here. You really have to think carefully. So long as we have not answered the question as to what triggered the big bang - then much of the scientific presumptions of the present day are still skating on thin ice in this regard. And no, it is not science to say that nothing triggered it. That it just happened, abracadabra. That would be the sort of thing you accuse the religionists of believing in.

The universe is a closed system. I wonder why you have not moved beyond that and still debating it.
Because we have not answered what triggered the hug bang is not the reason why you should make things up from thin air, that's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance. "I don't know yet" is OK for any one who says he's "agnostic".

Why are you guys throwing about terms you dont understand. How does Occam's razor help you. It doesnt.

You are ht person who don't understand occams razor. You manufacture complex answers without evidence to a simple question and then wants everyone to accept your answers. By using occams razor, the universe can equally be the immutable uncaused cause. Since energy cannot be created so why should we created a complicated answer of someone creating the universe when we don't have evidence for that?

I am tired of saying it. If there was no time before the universe, how do you have an event - the big bang - outside of time? If there is no space outside the universe, how is the universe expanding and into what is it expanding.

It's unscientific to say time existed before big bang, it doesn't make sense. Our perception of time within this universe would never have started before the universe. Whether time exist in another universe is still a debate and there's no evidence for that.
Just say "I don't know", we are flinging out. You will be okay rather than making things up

Workch:
Energy is constant, it's immutable and it has always been immutable. Constant means "cannot change". Your argument is flawed in that regard. Whether or not energy is converted to one form or the other, it still remains energy.
Matter is energy in different forms, Energy is immutable and cannot be created.
Stick to that

The universe and everything within is energy and energy is constant, it cannot change. Cannot be "created", that's the law. The universe cannot be created, it's an uncaused cause. Get that

The problem you are having here is you are conflating the nature of something and the quantum of its energy. A certain quantity of two different food items may provide you with exactly the same amount of calories - but this does not make the food items the same. Rice would still be something different from bread even if they provide you with the same units of energy or calories. Likewise solar power and fossil fuels may provide you with the same units of the power of electricity, but they remain different substances at their core. Thus kindly understand that the fact that energy is constant does not mean it does not change form - it does - and this is constantly happening in the material universe, which is subject to constant change - and thus, the material universe is not immutable.

The universe is a closed system.

This is not established for a fact.

Because we have not answered what triggered the hug bang is not the reason why you should make things up from thin air, that's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance. "I don't know yet" is OK for any one who says he's "agnostic".

You are the one making things up from thin air and even contradicting yourself in the process. You cannot say that they universe is a closed system - which you assert as a fact - and at the same time admit that we dont know what triggered the big bang. That is a complete contradiction because if you dont know what triggered the big bang you can never know if the universe is an open or closed system. This is cast in iron.

You are ht person who don't understand occams razor. You manufacture complex answers without evidence to a simple question and then wants everyone to accept your answers.

Occams razor is also known as the law of parsimony - remaining with the simplest supportable reasoning, if you like. Mind you, it must be supportable. It does not urge us to grope into voids and blank states. There must be support for the minimalist reasoning or answer we settle on. Your position lacks support, it lacks rationale, and thus you are not using the razor. Occams razor directs one to settle on the position with the fewest possible assumptions - whereas you have included unnecessary and even absurd assumptions in your position. I have already pointed you to a number of unsupportable assumptions included in your position. You have assumed the universe to be a closed system even while admitting that we do not know what triggered the big bang. You have also done violence to the meaning of "mutable" in your misguided application of the razor by conflating immutability with energy being constant. This is wrong - a thing which changes state may remain constant in terms of energy, and yet it has just "changed" its nature, or mutated if you like. Thats what shows it is mutable. So you use already too many wrong assumptions and thus you are not applying the razor.

By using occams razor, the universe can equally be the immutable uncaused cause.

Stop embarrassing yourself by calling the universe immutable. It is highly mutable since it changes state. All matter is mutable since it changes state. Immutable things are therefore completely immaterial and intangible.

Since energy cannot be created so why should we created a complicated answer of someone creating the universe when we don't have evidence for that?

If you dont know what triggered the big bang you cannot conclude that the universe is an open or closed system - and once you cannot do that, then you cannot rule out the possibility that the energy for the bang came from somewhere else. Especially as the bang is an event which must occur in an already existing timeline.

I sense that your responses will remain the same from this point on and my further responses to your responses will also remain the same, so there will very likely be no point in continuing this conversation.

It's unscientific to say time existed before big bang, it doesn't make sense. Our perception of time within this universe would never have started before the universe.

You have unwittingly answered your own poser with the bold. Perception of time is not the same thing as time. The perception of an ant and that of a human with respect to five minutes would differ greatly, and yet that period of time remains the same.

Near1:


You're claiming either Creatio ex materia or Creatio ex deo. In either case, where the hell did this "previously existing substance" come from?

Then you go on to say, "1. Something cannot arise from nothing and 2. You cannot have an infinite regress in a causal chain"

One more time, where did this Something come from? If you claim this Something is eternal with no evidence to support your claim then I can just as easily claim the universe is eternal with no supporting evidence. You're just making shit up as you go along and you may not want to admit it but your argument boils down to a magical Something that just popped into existance from....... what else?........nothing.

Sigh. How many times do I have to repeat that it could only arise from that which is self-existent. I would have thought by now you would be asking me to elucidate the concept of self-existence or give examples of self-existent things.

As it stands now the best answer is "Nobody knows" where everything came from before the Big Bang. Scientists cannot see past the Big Bang so we don't know and frankly, you don't know either. You're wasting everyones time and your argument goes around in dizzying circles.

I dont deny that nobody knows. That is very much my position as well. The little I have said is what little can be gleaned with a little application of logic, nothing more. In the final analysis the issue is well beyond our pay grade.

DeepSight:


The problem you are having here is you are conflating the nature of something and the quantum of its energy. A certain quantity of two different food items may provide you with exactly the same amount of calories - but this does not make the food items the same. Rice would still be something different from bread even if they provide you with the same units of energy or calories. Likewise solar power and fossil fuels may provide you with the same units of the power of electricity, but they remain different substances at their core. Thus kindly understand that the fact that energy is constant does not mean it does not change form - it does - and this is constantly happening in the material universe, which is subject to constant change - and thus, the material universe is not immutable.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the universe in 100% energy. The universe cannot be created nor destroyed. What's difficult to understand in this? Energy cannot change from energy into something that is not energy.
Do you have problem with sticking to things with evidence rather than conjur stuffs without evidence?

This is not established for a fact.

The evidence before us states that the energy in the universe is constant at times and energy can only be constant in a closed system. It's a well established fact that the universe is a closed system.

You are the one making things up from thin air and even contradicting yourself in the process. You cannot say that they universe is a closed system - which you assert as a fact - and at the same time admit that we dont know what triggered the big bang. That is a complete contradiction because if you dont know what triggered the big bang you can never know if the universe is an open or closed system. This is cast in iron.

The universe is a close system sir. It's not a debate in science. It's only a debate outside of science.
Theres nothing like time before big bang, the perception of time is confined within the laws of our universe which didn't exist before big bang. Think dude

Occams razor is also known as the law of parsimony - remaining with the simplest supportable reasoning, if you like. Mind you, it must be supportable. It does not urge us to grope into voids and blank states. There must be support for the minimalist reasoning or answer we settle on. Your position lacks support, it lacks rationale, and thus you are not using the razor. Occams razor directs one to settle on the position with the fewest possible assumptions - whereas you have included unnecessary and even absurd assumptions in your position. I have already pointed you to a number of unsupportable assumptions included in your position. You have assumed the universe to be a closed system even while admitting that we do not know what triggered the big bang. You have also done violence to the meaning of "mutable" in your misguided application of the razor by conflating immutability with energy being constant. This is wrong - a thing which changes state may remain constant in terms of energy, and yet it has just "changed" its nature, or mutated if you like. Thats what shows it is mutable. So you use already too many wrong assumptions and thus you are not applying the razor.

Energy is not mutable, stop making that uninformed statement. Energy is always energy irrespective in what form it exist. Stop creating stuffs from thin air, stick to what we know and the evidence we have.

Stop embarrassing yourself by calling the universe immutable. It is highly mutable since it changes state. All matter is mutable since it changes state. Immutable things are therefore completely immaterial and intangible.

Energy is energy, it's immuatable but can exist in various forms. Your logic is flawed, energy is alway constant. And because it's constant, it cannot be created nor destroyed, it's a evidence that the universe cannot be created not destroyed as we know for now. Stick to that.

If you dont know what triggered the big bang you cannot conclude that the universe is an open or closed system - and once you cannot do that, then you cannot rule out the possibility that the energy for the bang came from somewhere else. Especially as the bang is an event which must occur in an already existing timeline.

If I don't know what triggered big bang, I will simply say "I don't know". I won go about making stuffs like "something existence outside of space and time" up. It's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance. I will rather wait until we find out.

I sense that your responses will remain the same from this point on and my further responses to your responses will also remain the same, so there will very likely be no point in continuing this conversation.

My response will remain thesem until you stop commiting fallacies and accept the correction that energy is constant, universe cannot be created nor destroy according to the law of thermodynamics and that we don't know is better than making stuffs up.

You have unwittingly answered your own poser with the bold. Perception of time is not the same thing as time. The perception of an ant and that of a human with respect to five minutes would differ greatly, and yet that period of time remains the same.

This is not evidence that time existed or exist outside of the universe. Stop making that up.
Just say you don't know yet

Workch:
energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the universe in 100% energy. The universe cannot be created nor destroyed. What's difficult to understand in this? Energy cannot change from energy into something that is not energy.
Do you have problem with sticking to things with evidence rather than conjur stuffs without evidence?



The evidence before us states that the energy in the universe is constant at times and energy can only be constant in a closed system. It's a well established fact that the universe is a closed system.



The universe is a close system sir. It's not a debate in science. It's only a debate outside of science.
Theres nothing like time before big bang, the perception of time is confined within the laws of our universe which didn't exist before big bang. Think dude



Energy is not mutable, stop making that uninformed statement. Energy is always energy irrespective in what form it exist. Stop creating stuffs from thin air, stick to what we know and the evidence we have.



Energy is energy, it's immuatable but can exist in various forms. Your logic is flawed, energy is alway constant. And because it's constant, it cannot be created nor destroyed, it's a evidence that the universe cannot be created not destroyed as we know for now. Stick to that.



If I don't know what triggered big bang, I will simply say "I don't know". I won go about making stuffs like "something existence outside of space and time" up. It's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance. I will rather wait until we find out.

My response will remain thesem until you stop commiting fallacies and accept the correction that energy is constant, universe cannot be created nor destroy according to the law of thermodynamics and that we don't know is better than making stuffs up.



This is not evidence that time existed or exist outside of the universe. Stop making that up.
Just say you don't know yet

"I sense that your responses will remain the same from this point on and my further responses to your responses will also remain the same, so there will very likely be no point in continuing this conversation."

DeepSight:


"I sense that your responses will remain the same from this point on and my further responses to your responses will also remain the same, so there will very likely be no point in continuing this conversation."

You have been correct by several people on this thread not to commit fallacy from ignorance but you won't stop.

We don't know doesn't mean that you are right. It's as simple as that.

Not evidence is no evidence, don't create stuffs to fill the gap.

Don't be an incorrigible person

Workch:
You have been correct by several people on this thread not to commit fallacy from ignorance but you won't stop.

We don't know doesn't mean that you are right. It's as simple as that.

Not evidence is no evidence, don't create stuffs to fill the gap.

Don't be an incorrigible person

Cool. Enjoy. You have no clue what you are discussing. But enjoy.

DeepSight:


Because whatever is self-existent is also therefore immutable. Matter and the universe are mutable and as such cannot be self-existent.



I generally say I dont know. So I dont know what you are on about here. Whatever I put forward is just the limited bit that logic can afford from my humble point of view. I'm generally agnostic.

If time is self existent then how is it immutable since time is progression?

LordReed:


If time is self existent then how is it immutable since time is progression?

Real time does not move anywhere, only things move in it.

DeepSight:


Real time does not move anywhere, only things move in it.

What is real time?

LordReed:


What is real time?

A long time ago, a wonderful poster on this forum, Justcool, helped me out explaining what I was laboring to put across in this regard.
Please take a look at the way he put it -

https://www.nairaland.com/775552/speed-light-time-einstein-extra-universal#9318086

- in that, as well as his two succeeding posts.

I cant do better than that.

DeepSight:


A long time ago, a wonderful poster on this forum, Justcool, helped me out explaining what I was laboring to put across in this regard.
Please take a look at the way he put it -

https://www.nairaland.com/775552/speed-light-time-einstein-extra-universal#9318086

- in that, as well as his two succeeding posts.

I cant do better than that.

It only seems to define what "real time" is not which is it's not the scientific concept of time. Ok so what is it? You've shown what it's not but not what it is.

LordReed:


It only seems to define what "real time" is not which is it's not the scientific concept of time. Ok so what is it? You've shown what it's not but not what it is.

The infinite immaterial continuum into which events are interpolated. That much is stated on that thread. I stated so and so did Justcool.

DeepSight:


The infinite immaterial continuum into which events are interpolated. That much is stated on that thread. I stated so and so did Justcool.

Almost seems like you are defining space-time. Not seeing the difference.

LordReed:


Almost seems like you are defining space-time. Not seeing the difference.

The differences are primarily (1) that scientists describe their spacetime as being material - actually being a "fabric" of sorts, whereas we say that time is absolutely intangible. (2) that scientists say that time was created at the moment of the big bang, whereas we say that time could not possibly be created at all - much less by the big bang, which, being an event, could only occur in already extant time (3) that scientists describe time as a dimension of motion, whereas we say that motion occurs in time, time being always existent, permanent and eternal regardless of any particular motion.

And all the other differences which derive from the foregoing.

DeepSight:


The differences are primarily (1) that scientists describe their spacetime as being material - actually being a "fabric" of sorts, whereas we say that time is absolutely intangible. (2) that scientists say that time was created at the moment of the big bang, whereas we say that time could not possibly be created at all - much less by the big bang, which, being an event, could only occur in already extant time (3) that scientists describe time as a dimension of motion, whereas we say that motion occurs in time, time being always existent, permanent and eternal regardless of any particular motion.

And all the other differences which derive from the foregoing.

So going by what you said about the universe expanding and this now, it could be taken together to mean that the universe is expanding into time?

LordReed:


So going by what you said about the universe expanding and this now, it could be taken together to mean that the universe is expanding into time?

Events occur within time and things are interpolated within space.
That the universe is expanding into already existent space is logically obvious.
When people say that space and time were created at the moment of the big bang its just preposterous. You could not even have a "moment" (at which the universe expanded) without time nor could you have a "point" (from which the universe expanded) without space.