NASA has said the big bang is a misnomer

Originally posted by humy

I would say mass causes time dilation.

Directly or indirectly? Based on what exactly? I ask you again: Are you a physicist?
Do you understand all Einstein equations of general relativity?
You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
I have already shown physics links that logically contradict some of your assertions.

And ...[text shortened]... nderstand physics better than us scientists. We understand a lot more about physics than you do.

Do you have a better theory? It is easy to criticize and present nothing for others to judge. General Relativity was not your field of study was it? Do you have anything to offer other than condescension without justification.

I once had a mentally handicapped man tell me I didn't know what I was talking about when I was just trying to help him out. He was as wrong as he could be, but he believed it because he had been cutting firewood longer than I had. He was still wrong and resented me for trying to help him avoid wasting time even when he found out I was right. I was as nice about it as I possibly could too. He responded by being very rude.

Even if you are right and I am wrong you are being excessively rude. Should I ask you if you meant to write "insulting" instead of "assaulting" like you did and be very condescending to you? Normally I don't do that sort of thing because it is petty, but you would do it. Why is that? Does it make you feel better? Is somebody kicking you down and you want to do it to others to feel a little better than you do when you are assaulted....I mean insulted by others? Are you trying to make up for some insecurities like small genital size or social ineptness?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Here is my theory:

Space and time are unequivocally linked. Space cannot expand unless time expands with it. Space expanding explains why the universe is expanding. Time expanding explains why the universe is accelerating.

Now, tell me. What is wrong with my theory?

Space and time are both functions of mass. Simply put space is defined as area between objects and time is defined as movement of objects. And movement can be defined as objects changing relative position to one another...if objects remain in a fixed position relative to other objects then there is no movement.

Space can exist without time (motion) but time cannot exist without space, because (even in the presence of mass) without space there can be no motion. Space can expand as evidenced by increasing distance between objects, but strictly speaking time does not expand because time is not a physical dimension... time can be described as moving faster or slower, but not bigger or smaller.

I know how tedious and unnecessary all this may sound, but I'm a firm believer in starting with clear definitions before moving on to discussing things like space and time.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Space and time are both functions of mass. Simply put space is defined as area between objects and time is defined as movement of objects. And movement can be defined as objects changing relative position to one another...if objects remain in a fixed position relative to other objects then there is no movement.\

You are confusing objects with mass. Not all objects have mass, and not all massive objects have equal masses. Space exists even for massless objects.
Space can be measured as as the distances between objects, but how do you measure that distance? Answer: There are certain physical interactions that happen over certain specific distances.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Do you have a better theory? It is easy to criticize and present nothing for others to judge. General Relativity was not your field of study was it? Do you have anything to offer other than condescension without justification.

I once had a mentally handicapped man tell me I didn't know what I was talking about when I was just trying to help him out. ...[text shortened]... rs? Are you trying to make up for some insecurities like small genital size or social ineptness?

I know it's annoying but don't let it get to you. The logic around here can sound a bit skewed sometimes. Such as for example, someone saying that because they are captain of a football team they are qualified to be captain of an ocean liner, because both are captains.

Or worse, if I underwent two weeks of training to become a certified nurses aid who spends most of his days changing bedpans, I could say I was a member of the medical community and medicine is a branch of science, therefore by virtue of my training and experience in changing bedpans I can call myself a scientist. LOL

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Then present your own theory. One that makes sense of course.

I'm not capable of coming up with new cosmological theories, because I am not a trained cosmologist. But I'm sure you can find out more about current theories, if you like.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are confusing objects with mass. Not all objects have mass, and not all massive objects have equal masses. Space exists even for massless objects.
Space can be measured as as the distances between objects, but how do you measure that distance? Answer: There are certain physical interactions that happen over certain specific distances.

No, I'm not confusing the two, although I probably should have said mass instead of objects.

You can measure distance between two objects having mass by simply measuring the objects (having mass) and using the diameter of one or both of them as yardsticks for measuring the distance between them. Or as you said, take advantage of certain physical interactions that happen over certain specific distances.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Do you have a better theory? It is easy to criticize and present nothing for others to judge. General Relativity was not your field of study was it? Do you have anything to offer other than condescension without justification.

I once had a mentally handicapped man tell me I didn't know what I was talking about when I was just trying to help him out. ...[text shortened]... rs? Are you trying to make up for some insecurities like small genital size or social ineptness?

Do you have a better theory?

No. This is because general relativity is outside my area of expertise and it is even more outside your area because at least I have some university physics courses (and got qualifications ) . What I am criticizing here is not so much you 'theory' (although it really doesn't make sense ) but you delusion in thinking you can actually came up with a valid theory when, like me, you have very far from complete understanding of the relevant physics. Not even I have nearly enough understanding of it but at least I admit that to myself and others.

I ask you yet again; Are you a physicist? Yes or no?
why don't you answer?

Sorry! -you really don't know what you talking about with your 'theory'!
Far better to, like me, have no theory than one based on ignorance I think.
There are people a lot cleverer than either us that know and understand one hell a lot more about general relativity than either of us -what makes you think you can know better about it than them? I don't!

Originally posted by lemon lime
Space and time are both functions of mass. Simply put space is defined as area between objects and time is defined as movement of objects. And movement can be defined as objects changing relative position to one another...if objects remain in a fixed position relative to other objects then there is no movement.

Space can exist without time (motion) but ...[text shortened]... i]starting[/i] with clear definitions before moving on to discussing things like space and time.

Space and time are both functions of mass.

No, space and time are independent of mass. If this wasn't true, there would be no quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space and no zero point energy.
Also, if space and time are not independent of mass, there would have been no Big Bang because the expansion was caused by space itself expanding and independent of particles. In fact, in the extremely early stages of the Big Bang but just after the singularity stage, there were no particles nor rest mass; just pure energy and quantum fluctuations. So how did the expansion happen at that stage if that expansion required mass?

No doubt mass is associated with gravity that warps space and time -but that is a different matter

Originally posted by humy

Space and time are both functions of mass.

No, space and time are independent of mass. If this wasn't true, there would be no quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space and no zero point energy.
Also, if space and time are not independent of mass, there would have been no Big Bang because the expansion was caused by space itself expandi ...[text shortened]... doubt mass is associated with gravity that warps space and time -but that is a different matter

there were no particles

correction; that should have been “there was no particles with mass”

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, I'm not confusing the two, although I probably should have said mass instead of objects.

Well in that case, you are wrong. Objects do not require mass for them to have physical distances between them. Photons for example have a physical location in space just as much as electrons do.

Originally posted by humy

Space and time are both functions of mass.

No, space and time are independent of mass. If this wasn't true, there would be no quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space and no zero point energy.
Also, if space and time are not independent of mass, there would have been no Big Bang because the expansion was caused by space itself expandi ...[text shortened]... doubt mass is associated with gravity that warps space and time -but that is a different matter

Before the big bang there was no space. Space itself was created along with everything else. And as I'm sure you already know, the laws of physics did not start out fully formed as they appear to us today. I was defining space and time according to conditions as they exist today. I was not defining space or time as it may have looked then, during the formative phase shortly after the initial expansion began.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well in that case, you are wrong. Objects do not require mass for them to have physical distances between them. Photons for example have a physical location in space just as much as electrons do.

I don't know what your point is or what it is you are objecting to. First you say I'm wrong about distances between objects because objects don't necessarily have mass, then you say I'm wrong about mass-less objects not having distance between them. Either you didn't understand what I was saying or I'm having trouble understanding you. I never said objects (whether they have mass or not) cannot be separated by distance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are confusing objects with mass. Not all objects have mass, and not all massive objects have equal masses. Space exists even for massless objects.
Space can be measured as as the distances between objects, but how do you measure that distance? Answer: There are certain physical interactions that happen over certain specific distances.

You are confusing objects with mass. Not all objects have mass, and not all massive objects have equal masses. Space exists even for massless objects.

I assumed you were saying something about distance when your point was apparently about objects, the difference between objects having mass and objects that don't. It doesn't matter because I was only talking about distance, not about the objects themselves... but I'm still wondering, why did you assume I was confused about objects when I was only talking about distance?

...not all massive objects have equal masses.

Really? Does this mean for example a massive object made of wood does not have the same mass as an equally massive object made of iron? Well how about that, I learn something new every day...

So what is this, a physics lesson for 1st graders?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Before the big bang there was no space. Space itself was created along with everything else. And as I'm sure you already know, the laws of physics did not start out fully formed as they appear to us today. I was defining space and time according to conditions as they exist today. I was not defining space or time as it may have looked then, during the formative phase shortly after the initial expansion began.

Before the big bang ...

we currently don't know if there was a 'before' the big bang (I am assuming the semantics here that the singularity before the expansion being defined as part of the big bang else, being pedantic, there was a “before” but I assume that is not what you meant? ) . That is currently one of the big unanswered questions in cosmology and, until if and when we know the answer to that, we cannot rationally assume there must have been a 'before' the big bang and so cannot rationally make exertions that assume there must be such a 'before'. There is certainly currently no known contradiction of there being no 'before' because, for all we know, the singularity that lead to the expansion of the big bang may have simply been completely causeless. Not everything must logically have a cause.

I was defining space and time according to conditions as they exist today. I was not defining space or time as it may have looked then,

You said:

“Space and time are both functions of mass“

And then I pointed out that this logically must be wrong because there was a short period during the very early part of the big bang where there was no rest mass nor particles with mass and yet space was still expanding (although there are other reasons why your assertion is wrong ) .
If space is a “functions of mass“ then how can you have the existence of space and that space expanding while there exists no mass? That makes no sense unless you are now saying (in your last post ) that space is a function of mass in the present day but wasn't back then? If so, how do you explain why this must be so? If space existed independently of mass back then, then why couldn't space exist independently of mass right now? Your unnecessarily complex hypothesis has no premise and Occam's razor tells us we should dump the unnecessary assumption that space needs mass to have meaning and thus reject your hypothesis in favour for the much simpler one that simply states that space exists independently of mass (which doesn't in anyway contradict the exertion that space is affected by mass due to gravitational affects. Note how “affected” doesn't logically equate with “caused” ) .

Originally posted by humy

Do you have a better theory?

No. This is because general relativity is outside my area of expertise and it is even more outside your area because at least I have some university physics courses (and got qualifications ) . What I am criticizing here is not so much you 'theory' (although it really doesn't make sense ) but you delusion in th ...[text shortened]... ativity than either of us -what makes you think you can know better about it than them? I don't!

You have never shown that my theory makes no sense. You just say it and that is all. You can't even explain why space is expanding. You don't even know if (so called) dark energy exists and can't prove it does, so by your own criteria is not real science.

You just have a strong herd instinct with regard to theories. If the majority accepts that dark energy exists you accept it. It is not real science by your own criteria but you accept it anyway because popular means acceptable in your mind.