₦airaland Forum

.

shymmex: Nah, can you post a link?

That's the thing, all the book sources one can find online (or at least which I have found online so far) seem to just be one or two sentence summaries about Songhai having a fleet of large war canoes or ships on the river(s). Anyone can find these modern sources with enough searching online. But I would like to read the original source for this information, not some modern scholar's summary.

I remember a while back, when Ivan van Sertima, in a bid to support his false hyperdiffusionist theory of some black African seafarers reaching the Americas and inspiring some or all of Mesoamerican civilizations or impacting heavily on them, put forward a claim about a Malian fleet sailing to the Americas, one of the objections from a scholar to his claim about that Malian ruler sending out an expeditionary fleet across the Atlantic to the Americas was that (black) Africans didn't build ships big enough to do that - which of course, sounds ludicrous in light of the fact that the Vikings reached the Americas using what are essentially large canoes, and also in light of Thor Heyerdahl's voyage.

I don't care for van Sertima's theory on Mesoamerica, which I regard as false, but this notion of all African ships being too small for those kind of voyages is something which I view with skepticism.

For the record, the reason why I want a primary source, or at least centuries old historical description second hand from knowledgeable informants, is because sometimes African boats that would necessarily have to have been much larger than say, Viking longboats (which for whatever reason, are not often called canoes), just going off of the description of them, are called war canoes. Now I know they were said to have had a fleet of "huge war canoes" (that's how one modern historical book described it) on the Niger river, but I want to see an actual original description (not someone else's summary/paraphrase) to see whether the "canoe" appellation is justified. If it is, no big deal - after all, both triremes and Viking longboats were really large war canoes - but I want to know if the boats might actually have been bigger.

Bringing the thread back into focus on Songhai itself. . .

Has anyone come across any description of the fleet of ships (apparently) employed by one or more of the Songhai rulers?

tpia@:
yes, there were.

nl propaganda paints a false picture.

What I mean is, which other groups specifically were there (from Nigeria) that were there in appreciable numbers?

I know the Hausas were there, but were they even there in significant numbers?

They are termed the Jews of Western Africa

Shalom aleichem to all the Akus on nairaland.

tpia@:
what about hausas, middle belt, south southerners?

Would there have been many people from Nigeria in Sierra Leone (or at least enough to form a recognizable/distinct group) besides the Yorubas and Igbos though?

lol, interesting. I have to admit that Burton (if this was indeed written by Burton and not Cameron) always has an interesting way of putting things, as much as I dislike him.

There's also a "Yoruba and Igbo contrasted/compared" excerpt from one of Edward Wilmot Blyden's writings that I've read, for anyone interested in tracking down and reading these perceptions by outsiders.

Jarus: He has always proposed both parties(Berom and Fulani elders) coming together and working out a way to underplay the indigene-settler dichotomy. He specifically opines that the earlier the issue of settlership is dropped the better - that the Berom should not see the Fulanis and others as settlers again, while the Fulani should replicate same in teh states they dominate. Of course, it will alter much the political power, as the 'indigenes' can always rely on their numerical strenght to get the larger share of political power, democratically. For example, it will be easier for Berrom to produce a LG Chairman via election in an area occupied by both, while a sensitive elected Chairman can consider appointing a Fulani Vice Chair. And where the Fulanis are more, if any, they can bank on their size to achieve political power too.

Thanks for the info.

I disagree with his idea.

It sounds like the perfect way to set the stage for future controversies and disputes.

And anyway, until there is an actual Nigerian nationalism such as that which exists in a few other multicultural countries this will not actually work.


Also, has he ever answered this question, that he put forward himself, in any of his other articles?:

the Urhobo, Yoruba and Igbo were living here long before the Fulani, yet they are not laying any claim to Jos—so why are the Fulani different?

antitpiah: rofl. You expect too much from Nigerian writers. The fact that he actually can write is more than enough for me. I'd take that. He is no David Brooks or Ezra Klein or Rachel maddow. He is a Nigerian . . . Nuff said.

He can definitely write. There's no taking that away from him.

But after putting forward the supposed positions/perspectives of the two parties, I thought he would at least attempt to weigh in on which point of view had more merit, since that's the actual hard part.

Maybe he didn't want to come off as biased, being a southerner.

.

Are there some compromise positions we can negotiate?

If he thinks there are compromises, why not propose some?

O.D.B.:
Lyrics to the jam

"Man, phúck y’all with the sickest semi automatic
No click click we don’t feel you like an elephant
Getting, with a tick tick
Little little with a thick b1tch
And before I phúck this b1tch
I gotta put that patch over my third eye, Slick Rick
Truckfit, T-Shirt, talk second skeet first
Boy your girl a jump off
I hope she land feet first
She give me brain, research
And I prefer refer
But if you want some, want some
That’s cool cause my homies still"

James Holmes is a Neuroscientist who suddenly dropped out of his PHD programe to commit mass murder.

MK ULTRA Candidate?

lol, "she give me brain" is a reference to oral s.ex

"research" is his attempt at wordplay because of the double meaning in the "giving brain" phrase

jantavanta: King George III (reign 25 October 1760 – 29 January 1820) of United Kingdom and of Hanover and Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

These are the great-great-great grandparents of the present Queen Elizabeth II

All the nobility of Europe are intermarried across different countries. Beware of the white fantasy paintings of George III. The French Revolution was a revolution against the ruling Black Nobility.

From http://freemuur./2011/02/18/his-most-sacred-majesty-king-george-iii/

[img]http://freemuur.files./2011/02/king-george-iii.jpg[/img]

This is freaking hilarious

That's a photograph. Now look at the photograph and look at the dates you gave for the reign of King George III. When were the first photographs taken?

Get over the Europe obsession bro. The world doesn't start and end in Europe.

ROSSIKE: You can take your ignorant and stu.pid prejudice and stick it up your DUMB asssss. When you finally grow a brain and realise you cannot describe your fellow human beings as 'rats' and 'breeding like rabbits' etc etc, let us know. Stupi.d CRETIN.

It is wrong to refer to the actual people as rats, but the choice to lock them out was wise.

They'll probably undo the ban in a few decades when Somalia gets its act together.

lmao

How did I miss this?

This is brilliant

Nigeria's GDP per capita is pretty unimpressive though.

wesley80: He doesn't need your attention Sir. He's got millions of loyal followers and a certain PhysicsQED is just an obscure and non existent name to him.

His followers should probably seek psychiatric help as well.

This guy again? Doesn't he have any shame?

If he constantly has anxiety and bad feelings about potential future tragedies or deaths, it may be a sign of some obscure mental disorder.

He should be studied by a team of psychologists and psychiatrists and then diagnosed. The condition can be called joshuaphrenia and he could be given medication and put into a special facility for it - whatever it takes to get him to shut up and stop desperately seeking attention.

Deep Sight: You mean to say events and not time per se.

No. I definitely mean to say time. Time needs to be measured in a direction relative to some thing or event, after all. Like Einstein said, if there is nothing being referenced, there is no meaning in the time of an event.

I hope you realize that this knocks off both your position and that of thehomer completely.
It simply implies that every reference body must have its own timeline: and as such we cannot claim that there was no time prior to the big ban.g, given that we refer to a body existing prior: the self same singularity.

Well I don't know what thehomer's position is exactly, although I gleamed some of it from that thread you posted a link to.

But the quote doesn't conflict with my position at all.

The quote states in different terms that there is no Newtonian time ever. There is not some real larger "time continuum" of existence into which events fall along a line. Our spatio-temporal positions within the universe are only defined relative to some actual thing, not within some sort of Newtonian external absolute time frame. We can define our time relative to the singularity's expansion but we can also define the singularity's expansion relative to our particular time. I could claim that time = 0 begins when I eat a sandwich tomorrow, and that the singularity is an event that occurred at a set time from when I ate the sandwich.

The apparent irreversibility of time on a macroscopic scale does not change the fact that the time at which something happens is still relative to something. The time at which the singularity expands can still be defined for me as relative to the day that I decide to eat my sandwich and the time at which I eat my sandwich can still be defined for me as relative to the singularity's expansion. I might say that I ate my sandwich 14 billion years in time from when the singularity expanded, but I might also say that the singularity expanded 14 billion years in time from when I ate my sandwich. Since time is not reversible for me and for everyone else, I and everyone else will always prefer to say that I ate my sandwich 14 billion years from when the singularity expanded. That I would prefer to state that this is how things are repeatedly and constantly is not the same as that actually being an absolutely correct statement about the real situation. It is a preference that is adhered to in order to make things more intelligible, not to be absolutely correct.

In the last part you make the same mistake that I advised against earlier of referring to the singularity and the big b.ang as separate.

The big b.ang is merely a descriptive term. As I have already stated, the singularity is the source of spacetime.

I suppose my careless use of the unfortunate phrases "when time began" or "the beginning of time" could be a source of confusion. Additionally, I should not have designated the singularity as "t=0" earlier as if to imply that this was really set or fixed or something.. That was a mistake from old habits and it gives the possible wrong impression that there is an absolute time frame. I think this is why you believe my position was contradicted by that quote.

Certainly my position is that there was no time "prior to" the singularity - using ourselves and our time as a reference when extrapolating "backward" through time - because the question of a "time prior to the existence of time" makes no sense since it presupposes the existence of an pre-existing absolute time frame to begin with (the part in bold). One cannot talk of a time that "existed in time" prior to the existence of time.

We would be speaking of the expansion of the universe as something that happened after the death of the universe (if the universe does end), if, as macroscopic objects for which time is irreversible, we could only experience going "backward" in time and never "forward". Since our bias is toward "forward" movement through time, we naturally speak of the big b.ang as though it were really an event in the "past" when it would equally be an event in the "future" for objects that would experience time running "backward" (some physicists believe that anti-particles are just particles moving "backward" through time, so for these antiparticles, "future" and "past" would be switched if that held true).

As a matter of fact, the sort of time being propounded by yourself and current scientific notions, has nothing whatever to do with time.
And this is obvious from the unshakeable contradictions inherent therein.

I think the problem here is that you repeatedly make certain assumptions/assertions, and insist upon their actual correspondence to reality without strong justifications.

I want to remind you that trying to figure out how the world works using only ordinary language is an inherently weak approach. Mathematics and visual representation are used for a reason. These are indispensable tools. There are some things which come out of mathematics so clearly and unambiguously that allow us to describe the natural world that we can't get as easily using plain language like we have been doing in this thread.

Please read these two articles from two different geniuses ("The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" by Eugene Wigner and "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics" by R.W. Hamming) and try to see why people describe the universe mathematically:

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Wigner/Wigner.html

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Hamming/Hamming.html

After reading these articles you might see why I said you should become a physicist in order to express your ideas about the world's behavior more concretely.

Deep Sight: Real nothingness, by its very definition, does not exist.

I don't think that is in doubt, but if you are attempting here to use the definition of nothingness to rule it out as a legitimate concept I would strongly advise against that. Similar faulty lines of thinking are what led mathematicians to reject the legitimacy or correctness of the number 0 for centuries until one brilliant Indian guy figured out that zero was definitely a legitimate number.

Nothingness is an absolutely valid concept, however the non-existence of nothingness in our reality was part of why I emphasized repeatedly in my earlier posts that it would be somewhat difficult to imagine real nothingness and what nothingness would imply, but that one would have to conceive of it in order to understand why time is not something that absolutely has to exist.

Yes, the infinite void is NOT nothing, but please note that at no point did I ascribe a size to such a void.

As for ascribing a size to it, you definitely did. You called it infinite and claimed it can contain things - it therefore has a size.

Are voids divisible?

Are intangible things divisible?

The issue here is that you haven't said exactly what this void is in clear terms or now seem to be contradicting your description of it by describing it with terms that contradict the original description of it.

As far as I can tell, this void that you mentioned is "space" (and you even used the word space in describing it above), and is therefore corporeal - in fact you've given it a size and claimed it contains physical things within it.

How then it can possibly be "intangible" to you I don't know. Your description of it clearly makes it corporeal, but you're now claiming it's intangible and implying that it's indivisible. It is spatial and therefore necessarily corporeal.

This would apply also to a self-existent universe, or a self existent singularity.

In case you doubt this, please attempt this question -

Wherefore, why and how, did the singularity exist in the first place?

You see, once you attempt this question, you will recognize immediately the philosophical conundrum THAT FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST AT ALL: SOMETHING OR THE OTHER MUST BE SELF-EXISTENT.

I reject matter as self-existent because of it's obvious mutability.

This would only mean that that which must be self-existent can only be immaterial.

First, there's nothing I've posted that has really objected to things just existing from nothing (after all, basically every atheist (which I am not) scientist believes in something existing independently of an external or previous cause if they believe in the Big B.ang). Rather, I was pointing out that your arguments earlier were unconvincing because of their circular or tautological character and also pointing out that existence doesn't necessarily have to be. There can be nothingness.

Second, this argument seems to be based on the premise that the singularity - not an ordinary physical object by the way - would be subject to the same constraints at all times as ordinary objects, which may or may not be the case.

An interesting incidental fact is that the big b.ang theory was proposed by a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist, Georges Lemaitre, and he saw it as a vindication of the idea that the universe was created which is popular with some religions. Then of course, being a Catholic, he made the reasonable assumption that anything that is created has a Creator and does not self-create - but that assumption is of course, influenced by thinking based on our current experience/reality in this universe after the fact. We don't know under what exact conditions the ordinary laws of physics can be bypassed or what would make something self-create.

Scientists do, in my opinion, subscribe to the classic "prime mover" or "first cause" argument of philosophers and theologians, just usually (with the exception of people like Lemaitre) not in the way that religious people would like since they don't go further than can be proven and assert the existence of a person-like entity or God that is the prime mover.

For more on the prime mover/first cause/self-existence problem, this wikipedia page actually gives a pretty good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments

Deep Sight: I don't recalled ever using the term "self-contained". I have rather always said that the universe being material/ physical cannot be self existent: as such would defy basic logically on mutable things being self-existent. Any thing mutable cannot be self existent.

Well, I am using the term self-contained to describe what you keep asserting - that the universe cannot be self-contained, an assumption nobody has any reason at the moment to favor over other assumptions.

As far as physical vs. non-physical, as much as I want for there to be something other than the physical, I honestly have to ask, what strong proof do you have that there is anything "non-physical"? Given that those things that we call "physical" seem to be self-evident, while those that would be considered "non-physical" do not seem to be self-evident, what evidence is there for asserting the existence of this dichotomy of physical and non-physical?

Some people would tell you that concepts only exist in our brains (which are physical objects) and nowhere else. Some others might even claim that only mathematical concepts exist and that everything is just a series of mathematical interactions.

For me, I'm not sure that there is anything "non-physical" with no proof, but I also have seen no convincing disproof of the existence of some sort of higher physical entity setting things in motion or setting the "guidelines/rules" for existence.

It is not based on my definition alone: it is a self evident fact of reality. What do you understand by something that is said to be self-existent?

I don't agree with the definition of physical as something "existing in space and time" because as far as I am concerned, space and time are themselves physical.

I don't see how it's "self-evident" that a physical thing cannot be self-existent. It just seems to be the case that in our universe energy creation is not violated (energy conservation is enforced, so energy is not created or destroyed) in places where the regular laws of physics hold true.

Can you tell me in that case into WHAT it is expanding?

No. As stated above, it is totally unnecessary to posit that the universe is expanding into something else to establish that it is expanding.

What would exist, into which the material expanding from the big ba.ng would expand into?

If I may even say, how can such a space be understood to be finite, divided or limited?

First, as stated previously, this question requires the existence of something else which the universe is expanding into, which is totally unnecessary.

Second, I am not making any claims about the space being finite, divided, or limited. That's not relevant to my objection to the arbitrary nature of asserting that the hypothetical void would have to be self-existent while the universe contained in it would not be.

Deep Sight: If you read the thread in reference you will see that it is not me who made this insistence or created this contradiction.

Certainly, it's not from you. But their idea is not correct or logically consistent and I don't intend to argue along their lines. You are attacking their idea, and using it to construct your arguments, but as I said earlier, I am not necessarily making their claims when countering your arguments.

If space and time did not already exist with the so called singularity, then in what context could it have existed ab initio?

As such it is and remains wrong for you to say that space and time only came with the singularity - for if this is the case you will have to answer the eternal question - into WHAT is the said spacetime expanding?

There was no time "before" the singularity. That question automatically asserts the pre-existence of time without the singularity by asking "what happened before the singularity"? If you look at it carefully, you see that the question contains an unproven assertion - that there was time without the singularity. That's not an assertion that I would be inclined to accept without strong evidence.

And again, no it does not logically follow that because something is said to be expanding it has to necessarily be expanding into something else. That is just incorrect.

Deep Sight: Please sir, I am not sure that this statement has any cognitive meaning.

If indeed space "began" with the singularity, I ask the eternal question yet again - into what is space expanding?

Who says it has to expand into something? If objects within space are getting further and further apart more than can be explained simply by the actual momentum of both objects, then the space they are in is itself expanding. The idea that space is expanding is not based on any assumption about it expanding into something because that is totally unnecessary to support the idea.

You keep asserting that there is something that has to contain the universe without giving any evidence for why it would have to be contained within something else.

We see containment everywhere in our universe so we assume everything has to be contained, but I don't see why that's the case at all.

Even if the universe were expanding into some kind of alternate universe or some kind of different structure I don't see how we could confirm/prove that it was actually doing so without experimental evidence, so the question of what - if anything - that it's expanding into seems pointless right now.

Why you think the space has to be expanding into something I don't know but I suspect this confusion may be based on the notion that the idea that the universe is expanding is based on claims about there being something external to it that we can't see or experience. This isn't the case. The claim about the expansion of space is simply based on the fact that the objects within it are getting pulled further and further apart over time more than can be explained by their actual motion.

Now if space were contracting over time rather than expanding, objects getting further and further apart over time would be perceived as going "backward" in time and designated as such. Since time is not reversible for macroscopic physical objects (for entropic reasons), and they move "forward" through time but cannot go "backward" through time, we can conclude that the macroscopic objects in space that are getting further and further apart more than can be explained by their motion are not going "backward" through time in a contracting universe, but going "forward" through time in an expanding universe.

Is space something that can "begin?"

Why does space have to exist?

It simply does not. As I said before, try and really imagine the concept of nothingness and you'll understand that space is corporeal and definitely something that need not necessarily exist.

And in light of the foregoing, how can it be said with any measure of coherence that time either, "expands" - or much less expands from matter?

If neither of the foregoing is coherent, how is it coherent to say that spacetime commenced - at all - much less with matter.

In all of this I need to yet point out the central fact that so long as you say that the singularity existed prior to the event of its expansion, then you cannot also say that there was no time prior to the big slam

For if there wasn't then in what state did the singularity exist - for, as conceived by those discussants, nothing could exist outside a timeline.

To say that time expands makes no sense because as I said earlier, it's like asking "does time vary spatially with respect to time"? To see why that makes no sense, ask yourself a question like does height vary temporally with respect to height? Does [non-spatial dimension x] vary spatially with respect to [non-spatial dimension x]? These are clearly nonsensical questions.

Spacetime originated with the singularity, space expanded relative to time, and time does not expand.

Deep Sight: As you yourself pointed out, the singularity was a concentrated point of unified mass and energy: the ba.ng was an event - the expansion of said singularity. It is important to maintain this distinction because of the very nature of the questions being asked here: to wit: [x] Why the expansion? [y]Why the expansion at that point and not prior of after? [z] Wherefore the singularity in the first place? [zz] Why did it not eternally remain in its primordial singular state? What was the impetus for expansion?

Asking these questions go to the root of the matter and show exactly why we must make the subtle distinction between the state of the singularity, and the initiations of the (or it's) expansion.

[x] This question is honestly a bit beyond my understanding of cosmology at this point in time (that's really not even my area of interest in physics, though I do have an interest in it), but my understanding is basically this:

Gravity would cause an extremely massive object to collapse in on itself to an extremely compact volume of high mass/energy. However, the four forces were originally one force at the extremely high temperatures that existed originally, and so there was no gravity.

Now note that no space or volume of the expanding singularity was actually empty (just as space is not empty today in the universe) but was instead filled with matter and radiation and that this matter and radiation were initially coupled (always interacting), forming a kind of "cosmological fluid". The density of this cosmological fluid decreasing is equivalent to the expansion of space. Now since the mass of this cosmological fluid would have been propelled outwards due to the strength of the initial expansion, the inertia of this matter would have ensured that it kept on going outwards without stopping unless acted on by an external force, making the cosmological fluid decrease in density (which is the expansion). As it expanded, it would naturally cool. As this cooling occurred, the decrease in temperature allowed for the first separation of forces to occur and gravity emerged as the first unique/distinct force from the original force. Gravity should have then quickly compressed the universe back into a point due to mutual attraction of matter, but gravity was too weak.

Basically we can see the expansion as a mere consequence of the attractive force (gravitation) that diverged from the original force being far weaker than the other forces that diverged from the original force and not strong enough to compress the expanding "cosmological fluid" back onto itself to an infinitesimally small point. While the other forces can be attractive or repulsive, gravity is always attractive. Presumably, if it had been the other way around (if gravity were the strongest force), there would have been little to no expansion.

Additionally, the later divergence of the strong nuclear force from the electroweak (electromagnetic + weak) force as the universe cooled even more is held to have triggered an even more rapid period of expansion, called cosmic inflation.

So cosmologists hold that the separation of the forces with gravity coming out as the weakest force is the reason for the expansion, as far as I can tell. The first separation (of gravity) of a force would have been during the Planck epoch, and the exact reasons for why this separation occurred and how it occurred are obscure at present because no successful quantum theory of gravity has been developed.

The period where there was only one force is the most mysterious period of the big b.ang, and the exact mechanisms for what happened cannot be known until there is a successful "theory of everything".

[y]You say "why the expansion at that point and not prior or after"?

This is a bit like asking why the earth is the third planet from the sun or why we don't have two moons - that's just how things turned out to be from chance - unless you have the exact equations that determined the probabilities of how each event in a series of events would turn out, you can't say for sure why one event would happen and not another event.

Also by saying "prior" or "after", I think you are muddying up the waters a little because the question presupposes that the expansion did happen "after" or "prior" to something along a fixed absolute universal Newtonian timeline.

It could have indeed happened "after" or "prior" to anything else that has ever happened depending on how one is viewing it. From the perspective of the expanding universe, the singularity may be something that happened "after" the expanding universe's current time when one goes in a certain direction (which we would 'arbitrarily' designate as 'backward') through time. From the point of view of the singularity, the expanding universe happened "after" the expanding singularity when one goes in a certain direction (which we would 'arbitrarily' call 'forward') through time. Both points of view would be correct. I hope that makes things clearer.

[z]I don't think this is really a physics question as of right now, but more of a philosophical question. This is like asking "why could it exist in the first place?" or "why is there existence?", because as things currently stand, the only thing we can answer is whether it should have existed according to calculations on what the universe should have been like when going "backward" in time - and the answer would be yes.

[zz] See my answer to [x] above.

(edited)

@ Deep Sight. I'll respond in pieces to your response.

Deepsight: Please tell me what exactly this statement means, for I do not understand it.

Does it mean -

1. The singularity is itself spacetime - and such expanded in the initial expansion called the big b.ang.

2. Spacetime is the inflation that took place originating from the singularity but not synonymous with the singularity.

3. Spacetime is an incorporeal element tangential to the expansion of the singularity.

In answering these questions i would like you to bear these further questions at the back of your mind -

[x] Does Time (as distinct from OR the same as the universe - you tell me) expand in any way whatsoever

[y] Does space (as distinct from OR the same as the universe - you tell me) expand in anyway whatsoever

1. If one wants to say that what we are in right now (the universe) is causally connected to the singularity, then I guess that's fine.

But it is incorrect to say that "spacetime" expanded. Space expanded over time.

2. Spacetime is the universe, which is causally connected to the singularity, but no it's not synonymous with the singularity. By inflation, I was referring to an actual phase of the big b.ang during which spatial expansion became more rapid and more significant.

3. No I am not saying spacetime is incorporeal. Spacetime is definitely corporeal - we're in it, in fact.

[x] Does time "expand"? No.

The three dimensions (assuming three spatial dimensions, rather than say, ten) of spacetime are varying relative to the fourth dimension (time) of spacetime, and we know that they are expanding over time.

There really is only spacetime - a certain number of spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Now the question of whether time expands is not coherent because the word expand has spatial meaning and for something to have expanded (relative to its original spatial extent) also implies the passage of time. It would be like asking whether time changes spatially with respect to time as you vary space or asking "as you vary space does time change with respect to time"?. It's merely playing around with words and has no real logical meaning.

[y]Yes space does expand. Space is expanding over time.