Time and teh Big Bang

"Andy Walker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris S wrote:
Well lets just say that your original position is correct.
Why did Einstein not predict this?
Predict what?
Your claim that the time of the BB can be moved arbitrarily early,
including
to "forever"

As his original papers did not mention the BB, it's not very
surprising that he didn't predict in them anything I might say on the
matter.

GR does predict the BB but Einstein, at the time, thought it was wrong.

Oddly enough I was searching the internet on the very subject that you
claimed could happen and I came across the exact same question.

No it wasn't, and the answer that you quoted is irrelevant.

The question is exactly tyhe same as yours.

Since you don't believe me perphaps this will convince you that it can't
occur

It's not a question of not believing you, it's that you clearly
do not understand a basic facet of relativity.

And nor, according to you, does anyone else, including the links.


http://tinyurl.com/5s8ef8
If the Universe was infinitely dense at the Big Bang, why didn't time
stand
still?
"My question is; if time slowes closer to a black hole then at the
beginning
of the Big Bang when the universe was infanitnly dense, wouldn't time move
infanintly slow? Wouldn't one second last for eons? I have a few other
questions related to that, but I will start with this one."

If people ask meaningless questions, it's not surprising that
they get partial and possibly misleading answers. Time doesn't "slow"
or "move".

So which time are you reffering to when you say "the ***time*** of the BB
can be ***moved*** arbitrarily early, including
to "forever"

Did you actually mean to use time and move in the same sentence?

"Ahh, well it's not true to say that time slows down close to a black
hole.
The truth is a bit more subtle. If let's say you and a buddy of yours were
having a conversation close to a black hole, time would appear completely
normal.

In other word, your watches would continue to show much the
same time as each other.

It's only if one of you was close to the black hole and the other
one wasn't that you'd see the time dilation.

In other words, you would see his watch, apparently identical to
yours and previously keeping good time with yours, starting to run slow.
Nothing says that your watch [or his] is better [or worse] than mine.

So even though the universe was
very dense at the beginning, time would still seem to pass normally to all
things in the universe. This is especially true because, at the very
beginning, the universe had pretty much uniform density throughout."

And still nothing prevents your watch from running normally a
lot faster [and increasingly faster] than mine

Only if your weren't, as teh paragraph says, "in the same universe",
correct?

In article ,
Chris S wrote:
GR does predict the BB but Einstein, at the time, thought it was wrong.

No it doesn't; it *permits* a BB solution. Einstein was
looking for, and found, a static solution, which he later thought
was wrong. There are many solutions to the equations.

Oddly enough I was searching the internet on the very subject that you
claimed could happen and I came across the exact same question.
No it wasn't, and the answer that you quoted is irrelevant.
The question is exactly tyhe same as yours.

I didn't ask a question; I merely pointed out a possibility.

Since you don't believe me perphaps this will convince you that it can't
occur
It's not a question of not believing you, it's that you clearly
do not understand a basic facet of relativity.
And nor, according to you, does anyone else, including the links.

??? It's entirely mainstream that the laws of physics are
required, by GR, to be generally covariant. That *should* be
understood by anyone with a degree in either applied mathematics
or theoretical physics [which is quite a lot of people]; and all
of them *should* understand that there is, and can be, no absolute
measure of time in GR.

"My question is; if time slowes closer to a black hole then at the
beginning
of the Big Bang when the universe was infanitnly dense, wouldn't time move
infanintly slow? Wouldn't one second last for eons? I have a few other
questions related to that, but I will start with this one."
If people ask meaningless questions, it's not surprising that
they get partial and possibly misleading answers. Time doesn't "slow"
or "move".
So which time are you reffering to when you say "the ***time*** of the BB
can be ***moved*** arbitrarily early, including
to "forever"
Did you actually mean to use time and move in the same sentence?

Sorry; I was *trying* to avoid technical language so as not to
confuse you, and failed. What I meant was that there is no reason why
the time as shown by my clock should not [correctly] show a very large
negative value [such as -14bn years] at the same event when your clock
[correctly] shows it to be [say] 0.001s after the BB, even if both
clocks are tied together throughout the entire history of the universe
and now [correctly] show the same time. It suffices for this if my
clock shows, apart from a constant factor, the logarithm of the time
that your clock shows. In Newtonian mechanics, there is assumed to
be a universal time that "flows equably"; so only one clock, apart
from a scale factor, can be correct. In Einsteinian mechanics, there
cannot be such a universal time, and my clock is as good as yours.

[...]
So even though the universe was
very dense at the beginning, time would still seem to pass normally to all
things in the universe. This is especially true because, at the very
beginning, the universe had pretty much uniform density throughout."
And still nothing prevents your watch from running normally a
lot faster [and increasingly faster] than mine
Only if your weren't, as teh paragraph says, "in the same universe",
correct?

No. We just have to use different watches. It is also, and
separately, the case that it's hard to understand how a watch meant
for modern conditions would behave in extremes of temperature and
pressure [where quantum effects are important and where the known
laws of physics may be inadequate]; but that's just another reason
why claiming that there was a BB 14bn years ago is a convention
rather than a truth. [And if you looked at the paper I referred you
to a few days ago, you will have noted that, in entirely mainstream
and conventional GR, Dr Wiltshire has a model of our universe in
which the Hubble "constant" is quite different in different places,
so that our universe is a lot older in some places than others,
even as measured by the same convention -- such as an atomic clock
-- at every place.]

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

"Andy Walker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris S wrote:
GR does predict the BB but Einstein, at the time, thought it was wrong.

No it doesn't; it *permits* a BB solution. Einstein was
looking for, and found, a static solution, which he later thought
was wrong. There are many solutions to the equations.

Oddly enough I was searching the internet on the very subject that you
claimed could happen and I came across the exact same question.
No it wasn't, and the answer that you quoted is irrelevant.
The question is exactly tyhe same as yours.

I didn't ask a question; I merely pointed out a possibility.

Your possibilty is the same as that question, and teh answer was that it
isn't possible

Since you don't believe me perphaps this will convince you that it can't
occur
It's not a question of not believing you, it's that you clearly
do not understand a basic facet of relativity.
And nor, according to you, does anyone else, including the links.

??? It's entirely mainstream that the laws of physics are
required, by GR, to be generally covariant. That *should* be
understood by anyone with a degree in either applied mathematics
or theoretical physics [which is quite a lot of people]; and all
of them *should* understand that there is, and can be, no absolute
measure of time in GR.

"My question is; if time slowes closer to a black hole then at the
beginning
of the Big Bang when the universe was infanitnly dense, wouldn't time
move
infanintly slow? Wouldn't one second last for eons? I have a few other
questions related to that, but I will start with this one."
If people ask meaningless questions, it's not surprising that
they get partial and possibly misleading answers. Time doesn't "slow"
or "move".
So which time are you reffering to when you say "the ***time*** of the BB
can be ***moved*** arbitrarily early, including
to "forever"
Did you actually mean to use time and move in the same sentence?

Sorry; I was *trying* to avoid technical language so as not to
confuse you, and failed.

Then you need to keep your refernces the same.
Don't in one part of teh discussion refer to time meaning one thing and then
change it to mean something else later.
Mixing your terms, or their meaning, is a basic error.

What I meant was that there is no reason why
the time as shown by my clock should not [correctly] show a very large
negative value [such as -14bn years] at the same event when your clock
[correctly] shows it to be [say] 0.001s after the BB, even if both
clocks are tied together throughout the entire history of the universe
and now [correctly] show the same time. It suffices for this if my
clock shows, apart from a constant factor, the logarithm of the time
that your clock shows. In Newtonian mechanics, there is assumed to
be a universal time that "flows equably"; so only one clock, apart
from a scale factor, can be correct. In Einsteinian mechanics, there
cannot be such a universal time, and my clock is as good as yours.

I would suggest taht that what your now claiming is very different from your
original claim that
"time of the BB can be moved arbitrarily early, including to "forever"

The implication is that the BB shifted earlier to a point including forever.


[...]
So even though the universe was
very dense at the beginning, time would still seem to pass normally to
all
things in the universe. This is especially true because, at the very
beginning, the universe had pretty much uniform density throughout."
And still nothing prevents your watch from running normally a
lot faster [and increasingly faster] than mine
Only if your weren't, as teh paragraph says, "in the same universe",
correct?

No. We just have to use different watches.

Different watches now, how about we use the same watches in the same
universe?

All this is getting monotonous as any links which I provide, according to
you, are wrong or and the answer to the question which was similar to yours
was, in your view, partial and possibly misleading answers".

So as you seem to be saying I don't understand it, or you don't accept any
of the cites I use, why don't you just provide a couple of cites of yours
that support the claim/theory that "In that case, if time slows down
[whatever that means] nearer to the [hypothesised] Big Bang, then the
time of the BB can be moved arbitrarily early, including to "forever"."

Specifically that the BB can be moved early or to "forever"

I'm sure there must be many articles or papers supporting your position.
So if you can provide some in support of it I will except it and we can end
this discussion now as otherwise it's just going round, not moving on, and
with the odd offensive comment by you.

Care to take me up on it?

According to the concordance model of cosmology, λ-CDM,
the edge of Our horizon is 45 giga light years away,
starting at events that happened 13.7 giga years ago ( z = 1,088 ).

But, objectively, our horizon does Not define the begining of time.

In article ,
Chris S wrote:
Oddly enough I was searching the internet on the very subject that you
claimed could happen and I came across the exact same question.
No it wasn't, and the answer that you quoted is irrelevant.
The question is exactly tyhe same as yours.
I didn't ask a question; I merely pointed out a possibility.
Your possibilty is the same as that question, and teh answer was that it
isn't possible

No, the question [as quoted] was whether at the BB "wouldn't
time move infanintly slow?", and the quoted answer was that "time
would still seem to pass normally". As I was not claiming that time
could "move" infinitely slowly, the question was different and the
answer was irrelevant.

Did you actually mean to use time and move in the same sentence?
Sorry; I was *trying* to avoid technical language so as not to
confuse you, and failed.
Then you need to keep your refernces the same.
Don't in one part of teh discussion refer to time meaning one thing and then
change it to mean something else later.

I didn't. Time itself cannot "move", but the time *of* some
event may be different to different observers [even if they have
correctly functioning clocks that are synchronised at some other event].
By *your* clock, the BB occurs at time zero. By *mine*, it pre-dates
any finite time. I have already apologised -- it's still there above
-- for abusing "move" to mean "differ", but this is not the same
confusion as your quoted question shows in asking about *time* moving
more slowly.

[...] In Newtonian mechanics, there is assumed to
be a universal time that "flows equably"; so only one clock, apart
from a scale factor, can be correct. In Einsteinian mechanics, there
cannot be such a universal time, and my clock is as good as yours.
I would suggest taht that what your now claiming is very different from your
original claim that
"time of the BB can be moved arbitrarily early, including to "forever"

Not *very* different.

The implication is that the BB shifted earlier to a point including forever.

By my clock, the universe has existed forever; by yours it
hasn't. Word that how you please.

And still nothing prevents your watch from running normally a
lot faster [and increasingly faster] than mine
Only if your weren't, as teh paragraph says, "in the same universe",
correct?
No. We just have to use different watches.
Different watches now, how about we use the same watches in the same
universe?

Why should we? We can't choose our universe, but we can
certainly choose our space-time co-ordinate system, and there is
no reason at all why yours should be the same as mine.

All this is getting monotonous as any links which I provide, according to
you, are wrong or and the answer to the question which was similar to yours
was, in your view, partial and possibly misleading answers".

When you find a link that claims that in GR there is a
Universal Time which [to within a linear scaling] we must all use
and which must be shown by a correctly functioning watch, *then*
you will have a relevant link which contradicts my claim, and
*then* I shall certainly tell you that that link is incorrect,
as it contradicts a fundamental axiom of GR.

[...]
I'm sure there must be many articles or papers supporting your position.
So if you can provide some in support of it I will except it and we can end
this discussion now

Well, you could start with either the Wiki article on general
relativity or more directly with the article on "general covariance",
see "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_covariance", noting paras 1
and 3 [and relating those back to the GR article]. Note then that the
transformation (x, y, z, t) - (x, y, z, exp(t)) is certainly a
differentiable co-ordinate transformation; and that under it, my
universe permits events at all times, whereas yours has only times
greater than zero. So I have an everlasting universe, and you have
a Big Bang at time zero. In GR, both views are equally valid, the
laws of physics are exactly the same for both of us, and so there is
no way to tell them apart [as there would be in Newtonian mechanics].

as otherwise it's just going round, not moving on, and
with the odd offensive comment by you.

I'm sorry if you find it offensive to be told that you do not
understand the theory of general relativity, esp as that merely puts
you in the same company as more than 99% of the world's population.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

"Andy Walker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris S wrote:

Did you actually mean to use time and move in the same sentence?
Sorry; I was *trying* to avoid technical language so as not to
confuse you, and failed.
Then you need to keep your refernces the same.
Don't in one part of teh discussion refer to time meaning one thing and
then
change it to mean something else later.

I didn't. Time itself cannot "move", but the time *of* some
event may be different to different observers

Not if they are sharing the same dilated spacetime universe.

[...] In Newtonian mechanics, there is assumed to
be a universal time that "flows equably"; so only one clock, apart
from a scale factor, can be correct. In Einsteinian mechanics, there
cannot be such a universal time, and my clock is as good as yours.
I would suggest taht that what your now claiming is very different from
your
original claim that
"time of the BB can be moved arbitrarily early, including to "forever"

Not *very* different.

The implication is that the BB shifted earlier to a point including
forever.

By my clock, the universe has existed forever; by yours it
hasn't. Word that how you please.

If both clocks exist in the same universe close to the BB then both the
clocks will suffer time dilation so there will be no difference between
them.
The only way if your clock may not be correlated to mine is if your clock is
not part of the time dilated universe.

I'm sure there must be many articles or papers supporting your position.
So if you can provide some in support of it I will except it and we can
end
this discussion now

Well, you could start with either the Wiki article on general
relativity or more directly with the article on "general covariance",
see "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_covariance", noting paras 1
and 3 [and relating those back to the GR article]. Note then that the
transformation (x, y, z, t) - (x, y, z, exp(t)) is certainly a
differentiable co-ordinate transformation; and that under it, my
universe permits events at all times, whereas yours has only times
greater than zero. So I have an everlasting universe, and you have
a Big Bang at time zero. In GR, both views are equally valid, the
laws of physics are exactly the same for both of us, and so there is
no way to tell them apart [as there would be in Newtonian mechanics].

I was expecting a scientific paper not a wikki refernce.

Wikki is notoriously known for showing incorrect info, if fact it's banned
as a refence in HE courses.

Again, a article or paper, peer reviewed backing your claim and saying
"specifically" what you said would suffice.

However I did post your exact statemnt in sci.physics.relativity ng. It may
interest you in their answers, non of which support the view, of course I
expect you to say they are wrong also.

In article ,
Chris S wrote:
[...] Time itself cannot "move", but the time *of* some
event may be different to different observers
Not if they are sharing the same dilated spacetime universe.

Of course it can. Read up on the "Twin Paradox" for a
simple example, even in special relativity.

[...]
By my clock, the universe has existed forever; by yours it
hasn't. Word that how you please.
If both clocks exist in the same universe close to the BB then both the
clocks will suffer time dilation so there will be no difference between
them.

Nothing *at all* to do with time dilation. It is *also*
the case that if you and I move apart and later meet again, then
identical clocks carried by us will show different times, depending
on where we have been, but that has nothing to do with the simple
co-ordinate transformation I have been proposing.

The only way if your clock may not be correlated to mine is if your clock is
not part of the time dilated universe.

See "Twin Paradox" again. But that has nothing to do with
the fact that in GR we are not obliged to use identical clocks, and
there is no universal time, unlike Newtonian mechanics.

[...]
I was expecting a scientific paper not a wikki refernce.

Do you find anything wrong with the Wiki articles I referred
you to? They seem fine to me.

Wikki is notoriously known for showing incorrect info, if fact it's banned
as a refence in HE courses.

It has also been shown to be more accurate than Encyclopaedia
Britannica, and any incorrect information can be corrected very easily.
It also gives references and external links for anyone who doubts the
accuracy of any particular article. No doubt there are some HE courses
that ban Wiki; personally, I never saw any reason to.

Again, a article or paper, peer reviewed backing your claim and saying
"specifically" what you said would suffice.

If you will google for "general covariance", then the third
return is a well-known review by J. D. Norton in Rep.Prog.Phys *56*
(1993), pp 791-858. On page 804, for example, you will find

" If, in the place of the variables x1 ... x4, we introduce functions
" of them, x1', x2', x3', x4' as a new system of co-ordinates, so that
" the system of values are made to corespond to one another without
" ambiguity, the equality of all four co-ordinates in the new system
" will also serve as an expression for the space-time coincidence of
" the two point-events. As all our physical experience can be ultimately
" reduced to such coincidences, there is no immediate reason for
" preferring certain systems of co-ordinates to others, that is to say,
" we arrive at the requirement of general co-variance. "

[and much more in this vein]. IOW, we are free, in GR, to replace the
space-time co-ordinates in use by any diffeomorphism of them; in
particular we can replace "my" time t by "your" time exp(t), so that
"your" Big Bang at time zero is approached only asymptotically as "my"
time becomes large and negative. That *is* [a trivial example of] the
"general principle of relativity" which forms a major part [along with
Einstein's theory of gravitation] of GR.

If you don't yet understand the point, which is not at all
controversial [despite the title of Norton's review], then I don't
think there is much more I can do to help you.

However I did post your exact statemnt in sci.physics.relativity ng. It may
interest you in their answers, non of which support the view, of course I
expect you to say they are wrong also.

Thus far you have four replies. "Spaceman" tells you that the
Big Band is a joke and that Newton thought of time in a way that is
directly contradictory to what Newton himself said [see "Principia",
the "Scholium", p7 in the Motte-Cajori translation]. "Spirit of Truth"
gives you two sentences about the nature of time. "dzlc" [David A.
Smith] tells you that people don't agree on the number of clock ticks
between events, that physics breaks down close to the BB, and asks
"Does it matter?"; all true [AFAIAC], mostly irrelevant, and as far
as it is relevant confirming my statement. "mathkills" agrees with
"dzlc" and adds some irrelevant stuff about the BB and distant
observers. Nothing there that contradicts what I wrote, either
originally or above, and in general pretty much the mixture of good
and bad replies you might expect in an unmoderated newsgroup.

I really don't wish to pursue this much further. You're
not paying for my time, and my original comment was a throwaway
comment, not intended to be in the least controversial, but just
pointing out that in GR we don't all have to use the same space-
time co-ordinates. If it still bothers you, then I suggest you
get your new buddies over in "sci.physics.relativity" to explain
diffeomorphisms, general covariance and the general principle of
relativity to you.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

"Andy Walker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris S wrote:
[...] Time itself cannot "move", but the time *of* some
event may be different to different observers
Not if they are sharing the same dilated spacetime universe.

Of course it can. Read up on the "Twin Paradox" for a
simple example, even in special relativity.

[...]
By my clock, the universe has existed forever; by yours it
hasn't. Word that how you please.
If both clocks exist in the same universe close to the BB then both the
clocks will suffer time dilation so there will be no difference between
them.

Nothing *at all* to do with time dilation. It is *also*
the case that if you and I move apart and later meet again, then
identical clocks carried by us will show different times, depending
on where we have been, but that has nothing to do with the simple
co-ordinate transformation I have been proposing.

The only way if your clock may not be correlated to mine is if your clock
is
not part of the time dilated universe.

See "Twin Paradox" again. But that has nothing to do with
the fact that in GR we are not obliged to use identical clocks, and
there is no universal time, unlike Newtonian mechanics.

[...]
I was expecting a scientific paper not a wikki refernce.

Do you find anything wrong with the Wiki articles I referred
you to? They seem fine to me.

Wikki is notoriously known for showing incorrect info, if fact it's banned
as a refence in HE courses.

It has also been shown to be more accurate than Encyclopaedia
Britannica, and any incorrect information can be corrected very easily.
It also gives references and external links for anyone who doubts the
accuracy of any particular article. No doubt there are some HE courses
that ban Wiki; personally, I never saw any reason to.

Again, a article or paper, peer reviewed backing your claim and saying
"specifically" what you said would suffice.

If you will google for "general covariance", then the third
return is a well-known review by J. D. Norton in Rep.Prog.Phys *56*
(1993), pp 791-858. On page 804, for example, you will find

" If, in the place of the variables x1 ... x4, we introduce functions
" of them, x1', x2', x3', x4' as a new system of co-ordinates, so that
" the system of values are made to corespond to one another without
" ambiguity, the equality of all four co-ordinates in the new system
" will also serve as an expression for the space-time coincidence of
" the two point-events. As all our physical experience can be ultimately
" reduced to such coincidences, there is no immediate reason for
" preferring certain systems of co-ordinates to others, that is to say,
" we arrive at the requirement of general co-variance. "

[and much more in this vein]. IOW, we are free, in GR, to replace the
space-time co-ordinates in use by any diffeomorphism of them; in
particular we can replace "my" time t by "your" time exp(t), so that
"your" Big Bang at time zero is approached only asymptotically as "my"
time becomes large and negative. That *is* [a trivial example of] the
"general principle of relativity" which forms a major part [along with
Einstein's theory of gravitation] of GR.

If you don't yet understand the point, which is not at all
controversial [despite the title of Norton's review], then I don't
think there is much more I can do to help you.

However I did post your exact statemnt in sci.physics.relativity ng. It
may
interest you in their answers, non of which support the view, of course I
expect you to say they are wrong also.

Thus far you have four replies. "Spaceman" tells you that the
Big Band is a joke and that Newton thought of time in a way that is
directly contradictory to what Newton himself said [see "Principia",
the "Scholium", p7 in the Motte-Cajori translation]. "Spirit of Truth"
gives you two sentences about the nature of time. "dzlc" [David A.
Smith] tells you that people don't agree on the number of clock ticks
between events, that physics breaks down close to the BB, and asks
"Does it matter?"; all true [AFAIAC], mostly irrelevant, and as far
as it is relevant confirming my statement. "mathkills" agrees with
"dzlc" and adds some irrelevant stuff about the BB and distant
observers. Nothing there that contradicts what I wrote, either
originally or above, and in general pretty much the mixture of good
and bad replies you might expect in an unmoderated newsgroup.

I really don't wish to pursue this much further. You're
not paying for my time, and my original comment was a throwaway
comment, not intended to be in the least controversial, but just
pointing out that in GR we don't all have to use the same space-
time co-ordinates. If it still bothers you, then I suggest you
get your new buddies over in "sci.physics.relativity" to explain
diffeomorphisms, general covariance and the general principle of
relativity to you.

So everyone's wrong except you and Wikki.

In article ,
Chris S wrote:
So everyone's wrong except you and Wikki.

The *only* people who have been wrong in this thread so far
have been "Spaceman", who claimed something about Newton's view of
time that is *directly* contradicted by Newton himself, and you, for
claiming various things about clocks in GR that are *directly*
contradicted by the "general principle of relativity". Everything
else has either agreed with GPR or been irrelevant to the current
application of it.

You can no doubt still find physicists who dispute GR, but
you can scarcely claim that Wiki and I are the only people who
believe it, at least to the extent of agreeing with GPR. But feel
free to ask "sci.physics.relativity" what, if anything, they think
is wrong with the relevant Wikis. Or, for that matter, with either
the Norton review article or the Wiltshire paper, both of which I
have given you links to.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

Andy Walker wrote:
In article ,
Chris S wrote:
So everyone's wrong except you and Wikki.

The *only* people who have been wrong in this thread so far
have been "Spaceman", who claimed something about Newton's view of
time that is *directly* contradicted by Newton himself, and you, for
claiming various things about clocks in GR that are *directly*
contradicted by the "general principle of relativity". Everything
else has either agreed with GPR or been irrelevant to the current
application of it.

Only the fools that never actually learned classical physics
could ever say such bull**** about "Newton's view" contradicting
"absolute" time that I just explained.
Newton was all for such and apparently you have no clue
about Newtonian physics.
You are lost man!
and you are lost beyond help right now.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman