Singularity in infinite space-time

[Kristiandhd]

in an empty infinite space time, there lies the possibility that something came from nothing, since infinity encompasses everything. yes? no? i assume that the matter that appear out of thin air, without any external intervention in my belief. was Hydrogen. the simplest element in the table. coincidentally having 1 proton and 1 electron. (singularity) for when pressurized and heated create the rest of the elements we know now.
with that conclusion, I must ask. if space-time was at equilibrium before matter appear. when it did, did it only disturb space directly, and indirectly time? or did it affect both equally?

i assume not, I reason that, if they had been affected equally, then there would be no need for the expansion of space. since it would have stayed at equilibrium. which brings me to my next point, maybe the explanation of time progression.
since space can not exist within matter but time can, which is where the disturbance appears.
to try and find equilibrium, more space-time is created to account for where time exist but space does not. also maybe creating the progression of time in the process. and since space-time are one, only more space time can be created never being able to reach equilibrium, it expands at an increasing rate because the time it wasn't able to match in the last time gets added to the next time. thus creating and exponential expansion. space tries to affect matter the only way it can by pushing it, but since it is all around the matter we get the shape of most celestial objects.
this is as far as i have developed the idea if you could break this apart and nit pick it it would be most welcomed :)

 

[Khashishi]

Infinity doesn't imply that everything is possible.There are infinite odd numbers. That doesn't mean that there must be an odd number which is even, somewhere out there.

 

[Kristiandhd]

Infinity doesn't imply that everything is possible.There are infinite odd numbers. That doesn't mean that there must be an odd number which is even, somewhere out there.

with numbers is a bit hard to use that expression, since number which we created follow rules set up on them by us.
but does infinity encompass every possibility? if it does then my argument would hold true.
plus your asking for something that meets one of two states, so its a contradiction since it has to be one or the other, if an even number was odd then its odd, it can't as far as i see it be both.

 

[krd]

Infinity doesn't imply that everything is possible.There are infinite odd numbers. That doesn't mean that there must be an odd number which is even, somewhere out there.

And I suppose you counted them all?

 

[krd]

since space can not exist within matter but time can, which is where the disturbance appears.

No, space can exist without matter - a vacuum has nothing in it. When a vacuum tries to suck stuff into it, it's not sucking - it has no energy - matter is trying to push it's way into empty space. There are vacuum fluctuations but for most of the time space is empty.

Space time usually refers to the dimensions of our world. We have 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. All the matter in our universe appears to fit in 3 dimensions, and we notice time. Those are the dimensional rules of our universe.

I have an idea about the vacuum - true empty space. That it has infinite dimensions, and allows you to put whatever you'd like in it. Because it simultaneously has no dimensions and infinite dimensions.

I'm too tired to think about it right now. But in my idea the vacuum allows all kinds of contradictions to happen, and at the same time forbids things. That it might allow two completely different universes to exist in the same place - or that our dimensions might mean we're curled up tightly in another universe.

 

[mikeph]

I think you have a contradiction in your opening sentence. If your spacetime is empty, then the probability of there being something anywhere in it must, by definition, be zero. So I agree with Khashishi's analogy- having lots of room for things to happen in doesn't mean that things will actually happen, especially if you define the room specifically as one in which things cannot happen.

"infinite" and "everything" are far from synonymous.

 

[Kristiandhd]

sorry misread, i stated that space can not exist inside of matter, which is how celestial bodies curve space.

 

[Kristiandhd]

I think you have a contradiction in your opening sentence. If your spacetime is empty, then the probability of there being something anywhere in it must, by definition, be zero. So I agree with Khashishi's analogy- having lots of room for things to happen in doesn't mean that things will actually happen, especially if you define the room specifically as one in which things cannot happen.

"infinite" and "everything" are far from synonymous.

well if space-time existed before matter, which is my starting statement, if you throw a dice with infinite amount of sides, with one side stating that matter appears. after and infinite amount of throws, eventually it will land on matter appearing.
and if space-time is infinite, it encompasses all possibilities, how can something lie outside of infinity, when it comes to possibilities?
even the fact that the laws of nature can breakdown as they do in black wholes.

 

[mikeph]

But there are no dice in empty space- so there cannot be any throws in the first place. I don't know what makes you think an infinite space implies infinite possibilities, but I'm very sure that this assertion is wrong.

 

[Kristiandhd]

But there are no dice in empty space- so there cannot be any throws in the first place. I don't know what makes you think an infinite space implies infinite possibilities, but I'm very sure that this assertion is wrong.

ok well now that there is matter in the infinite space-time that we live in that actually does imply that if matter is infinite all possibilities with the matter will occur, I'm just thinking of before matter started if it wasn't always there.
also its impossible for anyone to know whether empty space-time isn't going through possibilities at all time. that why this are called theories. its to see if something is possible and or probable.
we can't know for sure that if space-time was empty. maybe it wasn't i DONT know its an idea. don't be so negative in the forums and just state no. explain so the other person can have a better view of your train of though and how you came to your conclusion. its a learing process not a trial of right and wrong.
i'm not saying your wrong because i don't know, I'm giving my opinion and thoughts for discussion. since nothing is certain in out universe you can't say for certainty that your statement is any more valid than mine.

if you hold yourself to close to your opinion, without knowing that you could be possibly wrong, you leave room for hatred and unkindness.
have a awesome day bro.

 

[jbriggs444]

ok well now that there is matter in the infinite space-time that we live in that actually does imply that if matter is infinite all possibilities with the matter will occur, I'm just thinking of before matter started if it wasn't always there.
also its impossible for anyone to know whether empty space-time isn't going through possibilities at all time. that why this are called theories. its to see if something is possible and or probable.

If you defined your terms and stated your premises carefully enough then you might be able to take the above and convert it into something mathematically precise enough to be refuted.

As it stands, I cannot make coherent sense of it.

Let me try to flesh out a particular version of what you might mean.

Suppose that the universe were infinite and discrete and arranged in a three-dimensional grid. Suppose that each cell in this grid could either contain or not contain a unit of mass.

Suppose that you could try and try again, as many times as you like to lay this universe out in various random or non-random patterns.

There was a fellow named Cantor who proved long ago that in such a setup there are always patterns that are possible but which do not actually occur.

[There are technical details about the number of tries you get as compared to the number of locations in the universe in order for Cantor's proof to apply]

A discussion of this does not belong on the "General Physics" forum. Possibly it could go into General Mathematics, but I doubt that Cantor bashing is good grist for that mill either.

 

[DennisN]

since nothing is certain in out universe you can't say for certainty that your statement is any more valid than mine.

That's stretching it to the limit, and wrong. Science relies on theory AND evidence. This does not mean that anything is possible. So this does not help your argument at all. I'd also recommend reading the forum rules:

"Generally, in the science discussion forums we do not allow the following:
[...]

• Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science

[...]
"

When a member posts in PF, he/she must be prepared to be challenged scientifically. Threads may also eventually be moved/closed. No need to get upset by any of this.

 

[Vorde]

The problem here I think is that you don't understand what you mean (or what other people mean) when they say 'infinite universe' (I'm substituting universe for space-time here).

 

[Kristiandhd]

If you defined your terms and stated your premises carefully enough then you might be able to take the above and convert it into something mathematically precise enough to be refuted.

As it stands, I cannot make coherent sense of it.

Let me try to flesh out a particular version of what you might mean.

Suppose that the universe were infinite and discrete and arranged in a three-dimensional grid. Suppose that each cell in this grid could either contain or not contain a unit of mass.

Suppose that you could try and try again, as many times as you like to lay this universe out in various random or non-random patterns.

There was a fellow named Cantor who proved long ago that in such a setup there are always patterns that are possible but which do not actually occur.

[There are technical details about the number of tries you get as compared to the number of locations in the universe in order for Cantor's proof to apply]

A discussion of this does not belong on the "General Physics" forum. Possibly it could go into General Mathematics, but I doubt that Cantor bashing is good grist for that mill either.

ok i know that i can not fully express in a coherent manner what my idea is. I'm no where near an expert.
but in your statement, yes i know you are quoting a proven statement. but it doesn't make sense when you have an infinite amount of possibilities, infinity is hard to grasp. synonyms of infinity help understand it a bit better. it is incalculable, never ending and without number.
we have a hard time conceiving something that never stops but it doesn't mean that it has limits. it is limitless we can't calculate what and infinite amount of matter in an infinite amount of space can conjure up. so like you stated [There are technical details about the number of tries you get as compared to the number of locations in the universe in order for Cantor's proof to apply]. but here we are talking about infinity, so cantors proof doesn't apply in this case.

thanks for critisism, I'm going to try and better explain my point and see if i can conjure up some type of formula, but I'm not the brightest kid. so don't expect much.

 

[Kristiandhd]

That's stretching it to the limit, and wrong. Science relies on theory AND evidence. This does not mean that anything is possible. So this does not help your argument at all. I'd also recommend reading the forum rules:

"Generally, in the science discussion forums we do not allow the following:
[...]

• Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science

[...]
"

When a member posts in PF, he/she must be prepared to be challenged scientifically. Threads may also eventually be moved/closed. No need to get upset by any of this.

Ok, umm well before proof of something can be put forward an idea has to be developed, like Einstein general relativity theory. it sat in the patent office for 10 years before he realized how to prove or back up his theory by realizing that if space time is being bent, then looking beside a massive object would show light curving.

my theory would be proven if we could observe matter appearing from no where. unlikely but maybe. because if it happened in the beginning of the universe as a possibility, then that possibility would be repeated and infinite amount of times, also giving us infinite matter. after that it gets twisted and hard to grasp but it is not going against any generally accepted rules. most current theories are based after the big bang and the structure of the universe. I'm asking about the possibility of space appearing from nothing in an empty infinite space-time (IF space-time existed before matter did) and its consequences and results.

and i wasn't being scientifically challenged when told "But there are no dice in empty space- so there cannot be any throws in the first place. I don't know what makes you think an infinite space implies infinite possibilities, but I'm very sure that this assertion is wrong."
how does he know there were no possibilities in empty space? why doesn't infinite space and time not equal infinite possibilities, who stated that and what is their reasoning?

i'm not expecting people to search for me I'm also looking but the amount of information out there is too much to sift through so in a forum of physics (and maybe i should have put it under cosmology but fine its my first post) i though people would read my post and say ohh hey take a look at this it might help answer your confusion, or ask me questions about why i think this.

jbriggs444 made a scientifically challenging statement so i thanked him and will try and better explain myself. mikeW didn't have any source nor train of though in his statement.

and not mad just bro just would like smart responses, though hopefully in lay man terms since if you can't explain something simply, you do not understand it well enough hahaha

it learning man, don't be so up tight, if you disagree with my post, then ignore or report me. but give a thorough reason why.

and also we actually don't know whether something is 100% true, what we have is the best explanation given at the time, that's how science progresses. Newton was proven wrong by Einstein, which at the time before it was proven it was seen as foolish and outrageous.
now I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong just asking about a though that from what I've seen other people have had but with no proper counter argument given.

anything else you want to add sir? : ) if not then i wish you the best in this learning experince we call life. Peace

 

[Kristiandhd]

The problem here I think is that you don't understand what you mean (or what other people mean) when they say 'infinite universe' (I'm substituting universe for space-time here).

i've done my best to grasp the infinity of space-time, i believe everything is possible. though not probable but that why i ask. i won't state your wrong in your assumption. i know i don't understand infinity well enough since it is incalculable and measureless and unimaginable.
but my best though would be the everything is possible since if we can't imagine nor calculate the amount of thing that exist out there then, most likely all is possible, we don't know what happens inside a black hole, we just assume by the laws we think it has from what we can observe. maybe instead of being densely packed and curving space time to an extreme, maybe it is just the opposite of my idea. instead of matter appearing from nothing it is matter disappearing into nothing, though that breaks a rule of matter/energy not being able to be destroyed. but if matter did appear from nothing then I'm sure the opposite would also be possible.
don't you think? just try and follow my train of though so you can give me some constructive criticism.
don't just state I'm wrong and don't understand, if i thought i understood then i wouldn't have asked for others opinions' i would have just made a statement with a closed thread
thanks though hopefully people can get a better understanding from this. as i have.

 

[Kristiandhd]

I think you have a contradiction in your opening sentence. If your spacetime is empty, then the probability of there being something anywhere in it must, by definition, be zero. So I agree with Khashishi's analogy- having lots of room for things to happen in doesn't mean that things will actually happen, especially if you define the room specifically as one in which things cannot happen.

"infinite" and "everything" are far from synonymous.

can 1 thing be outside of infinite space-time? if it can then yes infinite doesn't include everything.
now it is possible that everything doesn't include infinite, as the observable universe which is all we know is not the extend of the universe. everything is all the known things infinite is that plus the unknown? maybe?

 

[DennisN]

anything else you want to add sir? : )

Yes. I was trying to help you, bro. Peace.

 

[Kristiandhd]

a bit of some more info, matter curves space because they can not exist in the same place, therefore curving space. but does matter curve time? now i know that time seems to progess faster at higher altitudes. i just wonder that if time and space are one, and matter only affects space directly by curving it, and time indirectly by its affect on space.
so when a planet bend the space does the space get more condense therefore making it seem as if time is traveling slower closer to the matter.
imagine instead of how most of the time space time is represented on pics as a flat space bending below an object.
imagine a spider web. the closer to the center(matter) the less distance between each grid line, when you exit the web, that is where space time are at equilibrium, and not being affected by matter making time travel at its normal speed. but close to matter, space is more condense making time seem to move slower.

 

[Kristiandhd]

Yes. I was trying to help you, bro. Peace.

i know, and i thank you. though i know i sound sarcastic in my statement, which i was a little bit i do thank you.
do you still think my post and theory violates the rules and that my response to mikew was wrong in my part?

 

[DennisN]

Hi Kristiandhd, I will try to write a good reply in a while, I'll just have to eat first.

 

[Vorde]

Okay let me try to comment on a couple things, I apologize if my previous comment felt sassy :)

but here we are talking about infinity, so cantors proof doesn't apply in this case.

Yes it still does.

but in your statement, yes i know you are quoting a proven statement. but it doesn't make sense when you have an infinite amount of possibilities

It still does.
First of all, we don't know that the universe is infinite in volume (I in fact believe the opposite, but for the sake of discussion let's assume that the universe is infinite). Second, just because the universe is infinite doesn't mean that anything can happen. In a infinite universe things that are considered impossible (like random molecules flying together to create a working watch) are possible, but things that are against the laws of physics are not.

More specifically, if something is infinitely improbable, it will happen in an infinite universe. If something is impossible, it will never happen in an infinite universe.

my theory would be proven if we could observe matter appearing from no where. unlikely but maybe. because if it happened in the beginning of the universe as a possibility, then that possibility would be repeated and infinite amount of times, also giving us infinite matter. after that it gets twisted and hard to grasp but it is not going against any generally accepted rules. most current theories are based after the big bang and the structure of the universe. I'm asking about the possibility of space appearing from nothing in an empty infinite space-time (IF space-time existed before matter did) and its consequences and results.

We don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe (If there was a beginning, but that's a confusing topic).
The big key here though is I believe you think that before the big bang there was a vast swath of empty space. This is incorrect.
Spacetime did not exist before the big bang. The question of the big bang is not 'where did the energy that inhabits the universe come from' but 'where did the universe come from'.

and also we actually don't know whether something is 100% true, what we have is the best explanation given at the time, that's how science progresses. Newton was proven wrong by Einstein, which at the time before it was proven it was seen as foolish and outrageous.
now I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong just asking about a though that from what I've seen other people have had but with no proper counter argument given.

Actually Newton wasn't proved wrong, he was proven incomplete. All science is correct to a degree, or else there couldn't have been any evidence towards it. Another way of putting this (I think it was Dirac that I am quoting) is that all old scientific theories are included as special cases of the theories that replace them.

if we can't imagine nor calculate the amount of thing that exist out there then

We can do both of those things, that's the whole point of science.

everything is all the known things infinite is that plus the unknown? maybe?

Here you need to be really careful with your terminology. Let me explain what infinite/finite universes mean to help you understand.

If you walk in a straight line forever you can make the general assumption that either you are going to keep going forever or you are going to hit a wall. At first glance these are the only two options and they correspond to the path you have taken being either finite or infinite. But there is a third possibility.The third possibility is you end up where you started. Like if you would walk straight in the middle of New York eventually you're going to walk around the world and end up where you started.

Now even though in this third option you could keep walking for as long as you like, the path is not infinite in length (if the Earth was perfectly smooth you could keep walking in a straight line forever but the surface of the Earth has a finite area).

Scientists generally make the logical assumption that there is no 'wall at the end of the universe'. So basically you are left with the other two possibilities: either you go on forever or you loop back on yourself.

Generally, if you say the universe is infinite you mean that a straight line goes on infinitely in one direction and if you say the universe is finite you mean that eventually a straight line loops back around itself.

Does this clear up the terminology?

 

[DennisN]

Hi again, Kristiandhd, first I just want to say that I'm just an ordinary member of this forum. And I can't speak for mikew, I can only speak for myself.

Well, you said in your first post that

"this is as far as i have developed the idea if you could break this apart and nit pick it it would be most welcomed :)"

If you meant what you said then you should welcome people breaking it apart and nitpicking, right? Because that's what people have tried to do here.

The idea of this forum is to help, guide and discuss science in a polite manner. The policies of this forum are further to as much as possible stay within the realm of established mainstream science, and within the realm of emerging science that is being published in peer-reviewed literature/journals.

So, in this respect, everything is NOT possible. Here are some examples of things that are not possible:

1) Faster than light travel
2) Faster than light communication
3) Free energy machines/perpetual motion
4) Anything that violates physical laws/theories like e.g.

1) The laws of thermodynamics
2) Special relativity
3) Quantum mechanics, e.g. Uncertainty principle
4) Etc, etc.

The objective of science is to build models which represents the real world more or less accurately. This is done with the help of known science, theories, mathematics and
experiments. An established model then in turn put constraints on what is possible or not.

So yes, your assertion that anything is possible is NOT correct from a scientific viewpoint.

Regarding members of this forum; there are many very talented people here who know a lot about their particular fields of science. So, if I post in a thread, I would personally be thankful for every reply, short or long, supporting or challenging what I write. And last, but not least, people participate here voluntarily.

Concerning the scientific topic discussed (yours), I know one thing from reading in the Astronomy & Cosmology forums; people tend not to like to discuss things that happened at T=0 (that is, at the very start of the Big Bang) and they like even less to talk about things that happened "before" (since there was no "before" according to standard cosmology; T=0 is the start of time itself).

There is however (very) theoretical science which tries to address pre-Big Bang stuff (e.g. Brane cosmology). Such things are meant to be discussed in the subforum "Beyond the Standard Model".

I myself will not participate in this thread, it's too speculative for my taste. And everything I've written, has been written in good faith.

EDIT: Wtf, Vorde managed to sneak in some Big Bang stuff while I was writing my reply!

 

[Kristiandhd]

for cantor, jbriggs stated that "There are technical details about the number of tries you get as compared to the number of locations in the universe in order for Cantor's proof to apply"
but if we are talking about and infinite amount of space and and infinite amount of tries then its likely that it won't hold true in this terms. I am only going by what I'm provided, tried to search for this but couldn't find, as i also have responsibilities so can't look for ever.

me - "if we can't imagine nor calculate the amount of thing that exist out there then"
you -"We can do both of those things, that's the whole point of science."

but we can't calculate how big the universe nor imagine it. all we can do is guess and assume that the rest of the universe looks and behaves as the small speck of space that our observable universe is.
since we can both agree that there is most likely not a wall, since you would have to ask, Where does the wall reside?.
I believe it is infinite and that it would be that the line would go on for ever, i don't find it probable for it to curve in on itself because then you would be able to eventually look far enough to take a picture of the back of your head. or look into the past of the Earth since the light would be the one from how ever long the light would take to travel the extent of the universe. yes? no? but if that is how the universe works then that would be pretty f*ing awesome to look at the past of our planet. but makes no sense to me. though it is a theory that has to be consider. in another thread as this is dealing with the assumption that space is infinite.

An atomic clock is a clock that uses an electronic transition frequency in the microwave, optical, or ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element.
most thing keep their own time we just can't read their time without the help of machines. its a bit of a joke but kind of a serious statement as well.
(we tend to have a narrow view of things because of our mental capabilities and or our attachments to a certain view and or belief.) or own solar system is a watch in it self.

i'm not questioning the big expansion, (i hate the big bang term because it confuses people)
i believe in the mathematics and observability of it. but there isn't just one question that arises from the big bang, you might like to focus on where the universe come from, but i believe that it has always been, but MAYBE not the matter. there is no consensus on this
either space-time and matter always have existed
space-time existed before matter
space-time and matter appeared at the same time.
matter came from fluctuation or collision of waves in space time
(i'm just deciding to try and develop the second option to its full extent it's not wrong nor right but for it to be a theory it has to be taken apart and studied, which i thank you guys for helping me with. this are the type of comments i was looking for so i can explain myself and you can get an idea of what i mean, maybe even convince you of the possibility. as i believe some of the thing you guys state could be possible but not in the scenario that we are studying.)

ok your right on Newton i knew that actually just used the wrong statement, though i do think that instead of gravity pulling us it is space pushing us down as it tries to vacate the space being occupied by matter, and since it is all around matter, that is why we have roundish celestial bodies.

 

[Kristiandhd]

DennisN

well what i am trying to prove is not that everything is possible though i believe it it would be a purposeless conversation.
my topic which from what i have search is a theory that people are trying to develop, it includes matter appearing from nothing and the space portion of space-time having a pushing force to try and reclaim the space take over (or occupied if it has always been) by matter.
though if it is proven that matter can not come from nothing then there is likely a finite amount of matter. unless of course the theory about space-time waves creating matter or something like that which i read not too long ago.

this points are probable, and are debatable so i think that I'm not breaking the forum rules though maybe just posted it under the wrong class. (though like i said my first post so chill)
thanks for the thorough explanation though :)

and i do thank for every comment, just have a hard time trying to reason with some one that doesn't try and explain and just states no it's not that way it's this way. with nothing else.

 

[Kristiandhd]

ok when it comes to everything vs. infinite
everything for us right now is the observable universe anything that lies beyond that is unknown right? so outside what we can see now, could be an infinite amount of galaxies or none at all and after that it is just empty space-time, but if we can't pin point what is outside of what we know it is not a thing it is and assumption. so there is an infinite amount of possibilities of what lies outside of what we know.
now i believe there are infinite amount of matter but that's just me and I'm developing the theory on that. i also think that everything is unique there is no two of one thing, as for the molecules I'm not sure how they differ though i think they might .
another thing is let's say you have cloud formations that continue for eternity that never repeat, if you look long enough you'll see your face in the clouds. not with fine detail probably, but you will see and say hey that looks just like me.
do you agree?

 

[Vorde]

Two things.

First, you have this idea that space and matter cannot coexist at the same point

and the space portion of space-time having a pushing force to try and reclaim the space take over (or occupied if it has always been) by matter.

This is blatantly untrue, I'd research general relativity to find out the correct alternatives.

Second, the assumption is that the entire universe should look like our observable universe. Firstly because the same laws of physics apply everywhere, and second because of the Copernican principle.

You still aren't getting the idea that infinite does not equal anything. In your cloud example there is a tiny chance that a cloud will look like your face so of course in an infinite sequence of clouds you will see your face. There is a 0% matter will appear from nowhere. So it doesn't matter how infinite the universe is, that will never happen.

 

[Kristiandhd]

Two things.

First, you have this idea that space and matter cannot coexist at the same point

This is blatantly untrue, I'd research general relativity to find out the correct alternatives.

Second, the assumption is that the entire universe should look like our observable universe. Firstly because the same laws of physics apply everywhere, and second because of the Copernican principle.

You still aren't getting the idea that infinite does not equal anything. In your cloud example there is a tiny chance that a cloud will look like your face so of course in an infinite sequence of clouds you will see your face. There is a 0% matter will appear from nowhere. So it doesn't matter how infinite the universe is, that will never happen.

i'm not so worried about whether matter came from nothing though it would help make the point of infinite matter, since if it happened once it will happen an infinite amount of times.
but aside from that ( not that it is not important but its hard determine its validity as it would be, to prove that matter has always been around,you can't prove that nor can't i)
it is stated that matter bends space but i actually think that space cannot be inside of matter at its most basic state, and that it compresses space by the matter having pushed the space out by its existence. which is why time seem to travel slower the closer you are to the surface of the earth, because space is condense and time is not. does this make sense. I'm not saying it is right but assume that space and matter can not occupy that same area and that space tries to reoccoupy (or occoupy if it has always been there) the space by excerting a force into it

like i stated before "a bit of some more info, matter curves space because they can not exist in the same place, therefore curving space. but does matter curve time? now i know that time seems to progess faster at higher altitudes. i just wonder that if time and space are one, and matter only affects space directly by curving it, and time indirectly by its affect on space.
so when a planet bend the space does the space get more condense therefore making it seem as if time is traveling slower closer to the matter.
imagine instead of how most of the time space time is represented on pics as a flat space bending below an object.
imagine a spider web. the closer to the center(matter) the less distance between each grid (space) line, when you exit the web, that is where space time are at equilibrium, and not being affected by matter making time travel at its normal speed. but close to matter, space is more condense making time seem to move slower."

this could explain the stars that travel faster on the outside of the universe because it is not that they are traveling faster, but that all the matter in the center of the galaxy condenses the space, making time seem to move slower thus we seem to move slower in comparison to the outside of the galaxy where less matter exist therefore a less condense space makes it seem that objects are traveling faster, but just because time is traveling faster there

and don't the laws of physics break down in a black hole?

and thank for taking the time to talk this out with me.

 

[Vorde]

I see why you think what you do, and I can definitely relate. But I really feel like what you are lacking is a good knowledge of general relativity. It seems like you have heard a few things and from there you attempted to construct the rest for yourself. This is commendable, but unfortunately in this case you have gone in the wrong direction.

The idea you have that matter pushes space out of the way is wrong. I see your arguments and why you think what you do, but you are wrong. Matter does not curve space because they cannot exist in the same place. I could try to explain to you what happens but it would be far better if you just read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity

It is a long article, and there is some stuff you can skip over (though only further knowledge will come if you don't).

I think the reason you are having trouble seeing your faults is because you are making logical connections from an incorrect start.

I hope this helps :)

 

[Kristiandhd]

I see why you think what you do, and I can definitely relate. But I really feel like what you are lacking is a good knowledge of general relativity. It seems like you have heard a few things and from there you attempted to construct the rest for yourself. This is commendable, but unfortunately in this case you have gone in the wrong direction.

The idea you have that matter pushes space out of the way is wrong. I see your arguments and why you think what you do, but you are wrong. Matter does not curve space because they cannot exist in the same place. I could try to explain to you what happens but it would be far better if you just read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity

It is a long article, and there is some stuff you can skip over (though only further knowledge will come if you don't).

I think the reason you are having trouble seeing your faults is because you are making logical connections from an incorrect start.

I hope this helps :)

ok if the universe hasn't always been around'like you said before, that the question is "where did the universe come from?"
well if the universe originated from somewhere and matter can not exist outside of space-time they couldn't have appeared simultaneously, even though it might have been a thousandth of nano second, it still came after space since it can not exist outside of it. or how do you see it happening? it appeared in nothing since if they appeared simultaneously the space wasn't there where matter was appearing.
that leaves that it has always been around or matter came after space-time.

as for general relativity, it is know that it is incomplete, now that we've talked it through I'm thinking that maybe matter both bends and condenses space. i think that would maybe account for the difference in time at different altitude and the faster the expected stars at the edge of a spiral galaxy.
not that time is actually passing faster but that it seems to be, because space is condense.

what do you think?