NASA has said the big bang is a misnomer

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"1, "time expands" makes no sense. What does "time expands" mean? "expands" in what sense? why don't you elaborate on that and just tell us?"

Space without time? How can that be possible? If that were true 2 objects could be at the same place in space. Time prevents that from happening.

It is as if you are not thinking of time as being relative as you should.

Space without time? How can that be possible?

I didn't say/imply “space without time” but “time expands”.
How does either one logically imply the other?
They are nothing to do with each other because “time expands” doesn't even make sense.

If that were true 2 objects could be at the same place in space.

False inference: that doesn't logically follow from there being “space without time”. If you refute that, explain how one deductively follows from the other...
In addition, basic quantum mechanics tells us that two particles of a generic type called “bosons” can be at the same space at the same time:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59929/what-prevents-bosons-from-occupying-the-same-location
“...The Pauli exclusion principle states that no two fermions can share identical quantum states. Bosons, one the other hand, face no such prohibition. This allows multiple bosons to essentially occupy the same space ...”

We also have measurements that confirm this. This has been observed.

also:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24389/why-cant-two-or-more-objects-exist-at-the-same-place-at-the-same-time
"...Particles that have integer spin are called bosons and can occupy the same space at the same time ..."

also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle for a more thorough explanation.


I ask you again, what exactly do you mean by “time expands”? Time “expands” in what sense? Exactly what part/aspect of time 'gets bigger' when it 'expands'?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
My point is that something is not just dragging the matter along, but accelerating it.

No, matter isn't dragged along at all. It doesn't move. It doesn't accelerate. It is space itself that is expanding.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, matter isn't dragged along at all. It doesn't move. It doesn't accelerate. It is space itself that is expanding.

Maybe dragged is not the best term to use. Matter does move though. It is called gravity.

You are not getting what I am trying to explain. I think the best way to get my point across is by asking you this: What causes gravity?

Originally posted by humy

Space without time? How can that be possible?

I didn't say/imply “space without time” but “time expands”.
How does either one logically imply the other?
They are nothing to do with each other because “time expands” doesn't even make sense.

If that were true 2 objects could be at the same place in space.

False i ...[text shortened]... Time “expands” in what sense? Exactly what part/aspect of time 'gets bigger' when it 'expands'?

The bosons are interesting. How do they know bosons occupy the same space? How did they determine that?

Do you have a good understanding of General Relativity and how Einstein explained gravity?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Maybe dragged is not the best term to use. Matter does move though. It is called gravity.

Yes matter moves, and quite often matter moves under the influence of gravity. However, the apparent movement of matter during the big bang, was not actually movement of matter, but rather space itself expanding.

You are not getting what I am trying to explain. I think the best way to get my point across is by asking you this: What causes gravity?
I am told, the Higgs Boson, but I do not know too much about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes matter moves, and quite often matter moves under the influence of gravity. However, the apparent movement of matter during the big bang, was not actually movement of matter, but rather space itself expanding.

[b]You are not getting what I am trying to explain. I think the best way to get my point across is by asking you this: What causes gravity?
I am told, the Higgs Boson, but I do not know too much about it.[/b]

Matter doesn't just move, it can accelerate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration


"I am told, the Higgs Boson, but I do not know too much about it."

You are talking about Quantum Gravity. That is more of a mystery that we would all like to know the answer to. I don't claim to know what causes quantum gravity. I assume that you were told a theory as to what causes gravity at the quantum level.

Einstein said it bends space-time and that is what causes gravity. That leaves us with the unanswered question of why matter bends space-time. You heard it was the higgs boson and I would like to know why, but that is better left for another time.

I am saying that when space expands it bends space-time at the outer part of the universe and that causes matter to accelerate towards the outer part as it expands.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The bosons are interesting. How do they know bosons occupy the same space? How did they determine that?

Do you have a good understanding of General Relativity and how Einstein explained gravity?

How do they know bosons occupy the same space? How did they determine that?

They measure the location of each by measuring the location of at least one property of each.
Exactly which property and how they do that varies greatly and depends on exactly what type of boson is used, the experimental setup and the strategy used.
An example might be to measure the location of the electric charges of two Cooper pairs (involving 4 electrons ) on a quantum dot consisting of a superconductor nanoparticle on a semiconducting substrate.

Do you have a good understanding of General Relativity and how Einstein explained gravity?

I did some limited relativity at university. I haven't studied the more mathematical aspects of it and I am certainly not an expert on relativity (horticulture plus computer science plus java programming plus AI is more in my fields of expertise but I have good general understanding of basic physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and, although I have no formal qualified in this, I consider myself to be a self-educated expert in epistemology ) but I do understand how Einstein deduced what he did about gravity -it is all about extending what he deduced about none accelerating frames of reference from his work on special relativity to accelerating frames of reference for general relativity + his observation that a person in free-fall feels no weight which enabled him to deduce the gravity-acceleration equivalence ( "gravity-acceleration equivalence" isn't a recognized technical term ) .

Originally posted by Metal Brain
True, but any rapid expansion can be described as an explosion, even space. My point is that something is not just dragging the matter along, but accelerating it. I am saying the acceleration is time expanding with the space.

Just as time is passing at a slight difference here on earth than in space above it so is the outer part of space because time is relative. Do you see where I am coming from?

Physicists like to use mathematics to describe nature. That's not because maths is so cool, but because it allows a clear, consistent and non-ambiguous way to clarify what you mean.

Originally posted by humy

How do they know bosons occupy the same space? How did they determine that?

They measure the location of each by measuring the location of at least one property of each.
Exactly which property and how they do that varies greatly and depends on the experimental setup and strategy used.
[quote] Do you have a good understanding of Gener ...[text shortened]... eleration equivalence ( "gravity-acceleration equivalence" isn't a recognized technical term ) .

To measure a sub-atomic particle you have to bombard it with another sub-atomic particle and for that reason I tend to be skeptical of the results.

According to Einstein matter bends space-time and that discrepancy in time causes the force of gravity. Time on the surface of the Earth measured by an atomic clock is slightly different than an atomic clock measuring time in Earth's orbit in a satellite, right?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Physicists like to use mathematics to describe nature. That's not because maths is so cool, but because it allows a clear, consistent and non-ambiguous way to clarify what you mean.

According to Einstein matter bends space-time and that discrepancy in time causes the force of gravity. Time on the surface of the Earth measured by an atomic clock is slightly different than an atomic clock measuring time in Earth's orbit in a satellite, right?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
To measure a sub-atomic particle you have to bombard it with another sub-atomic particle and for that reason I tend to be skeptical of the results.

According to Einstein matter bends space-time and that discrepancy in time causes the force of gravity. Time on the surface of the Earth measured by an atomic clock is slightly different than an atomic clock measuring time in Earth's orbit in a satellite, right?

To measure a sub-atomic particle you have to bombard it with another sub-atomic particle

Not true. That is one way but there are some other ways and a variety of them are regularly used in laboratories. You don't need to smash something into something to measure, for example, the location of the electric charge of an electron and therefore the likely location of the electron.

Time on the surface of the Earth measured by an atomic clock is slightly different than an atomic clock measuring time in Earth's orbit in a satellite, right?

That is a slightly confused question at least in terms of how you stated it.
Replace the vague “...is slightly different...” with “...runs at a different relative rate...” and replace “..than an atomic clock measuring time ...” with “... than time as measured by an atomic clock...” (because you started that sentence with "Time..." and not "An atomic clock measuring time..." ) and the answer is yes.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I am saying that when space expands it bends space-time at the outer part of the universe and that causes matter to accelerate towards the outer part as it expands.

There is no outer part, and no, matter is not accelerated by the expansion of space. As soon as you stop thinking of it as an explosion, you will realise your error.
If we look at galaxies around us, apart from the very closest ones that are gravitationally bound to our own, they all appear to be moving away from us. However, they are not moving through space away from us, instead, the space between us and them is expanding.

Originally posted by humy

To measure a sub-atomic particle you [b]have to bombard it with another sub-atomic particle

Not true. That is one way but there are some other ways and a variety of them are regularly used in laboratories. You don't need to smash something into something to measure, for example, the location of the electric charge of an electron and t ...[text shortened]... tence with "Time..." and not "An atomic clock measuring time..." ) and the answer is yes.[/b]

Would an atomic clock measure time slower on Earth than on the satellite? I think that is the way I remember it. I could be wrong though.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is no outer part, and no, matter is not accelerated by the expansion of space.

If space is expanding there has to be an outer part or it is not an expansion.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If space is expanding there has to be an outer part or it is not an expansion.

You are thinking about it wrongly. Space itself is expanding. It is not expanding into something. (also don't miss my edit in my previous post).