Cadmus

I think that you have it in reverse. It seems that because you think that space-time is a 4d geometrical structure that you cannot grasp how space can be in motion. Euclidean geometry is a useful model of nature, but it is highly abstract and is not to be taken as reality itself, as you seem to me to be doing. Instead, consider that you yourself are an example of space-time. Your body is composed of space, and your body and all of its atoms are in motion through their time. You are space-time, and as you move relative to the universe, the other space-time in the universe, you are in motion through space-time.

I am serious.

See my response to you in the Location of Big Bang thread.

I think that light is the force of gravity. All objects in space-time, all of space-time, constantly emits light. This acts as the force of gravity, which causes motion through space, and this motion takes time. Everything in space-time constantly emits light, and so causes everything else in the universe to be attracted to it. The attraction is motion through space, over time, motion through space-time. I recognize that the idea of light as the force of gravity is not mainstream. However, scientists do recognize that gravity moves at the speed of light, for a very good reason.

Can you give an example of where it could be possible that there is space that is not in motion through time?

I take time differently. The reason why space is essential to the progression of time, post big bang, is that space can never be divorced from time. All of space is in motion through time, and all of time involves space in motion. There is no such thing now as space or time, there is only space-time.

It is not possible, post big bang, for space not to be in motion through both space and time. As you seem to disagree with this, please provide an example of something that can be devoid of motion through either space or time.

In my opinion, yes.

I recognize that it can sound that way. More specitifically, motion through space-time takes place over time. During the big bang, I think that space was not yet unified with time. Because the unifier of the space and time, light, did not exist in space until after the big bang had completed for a given part of space.

OK, I understand your position.

I agree with your second statement, which I think does not contradict the first. I agree that both had to exist for them to join. I agree. I don't follow this line of reasoning. I agree that the big bang happened in space. I think that your conclusion that it happened over time is a point of disagreement between us. The big bang itself did not take time, because I consider that time was not unified with space until the big bang had completed its bang. Why would they have to have been joined before the big bang? What, then, would have been the effect of the big bang if they were already joined, and what caused the joining, in your opinion?

I suppose that you find this statement meaningful. If you have a question, ask it. If you have a comment, make it. If you look carefully, you will find that your post provides no information except that you disagree with it.

With light.

Post big bang, the words space and time are artifical subdivisions of what is actually integrated into space-time. Everything in the universe that we are aware of is space-time. Everything with mass is space, and all particles or objects of space are always in motion, where such motion is motion through time. I think that space is not a container for objects, the objects are the space. Furthermore, there are no objects in space that can ever be without motion, which requires time. For example, it is meaningless to discuss a subatomic particle as an object frozen in time, where all of its rotation, let alone motion through space, has stilled.

I have only one objection to your statement, and that is the word just. You are free to use these words in this manner, but you are greatly limiting their value with the word just.

I think that this is called the ether theory. I contend that space is not a container, and furthermore that space has no meaning at all in the context that you are using it. Post big bang, there is only space-time. Space-time is not a container for material objects, but rather it is the objects themselves.

I agree. Space-time was created in the big bang. I disagree. On what basis do you make this statement? Thank you for telling me what I mean, but I think that I will stick with the wording that I used.

Please provide an example of some particle or other entity of space that is not bound up inextricably with time.

Your explanation attempts to convert space into time. This is valid as long as there is space-time. However, the question was in post 53 was not limited to post big bang space-time. Does your post take this into account?

Yes. The way that you count dimensions did not exist. Calling time nothing more than the fourth dimension leaves you in this predicament.

This is a religious notion. The big bang did not create the universe, but only the marriage of space and time into space-time.

Oh. In the context of human perception, I see your point.

YOur question is excellent. I will try to respond now. I was caught off guard when you first asked. Now, I believe that my problem in dealing with your question was that I accepted your basic assumption and tried to respond in that context. In order for me to respond to your question, a shfit in premise is required. I recognize that you might well reject this shift, and anyway that it should be difficult to accept as completely valid on the basis of a paragraph introduction. But, here goes... Your premise, which is in line with the topic of the thread, is that time flows in a linear manner. Your question assumes that time is in the form of a Euclidean ray. Even if we reject the false to facts Euclidean assumption that between any two points exist an infinte number of points, and assume time to be in discrete units, this still leaves us with a shell that resembles a ray. This is not valid, in my opinion. Before the big bang, and after the big crunch, time is different. Space is finite, and does not exist always. In the beginning of the cycle of the universe, time is not in the form of a ray, but in the form of a point. The point symbolizes existence, and nothing more. Therefore, time existed. As there are no stages in the cycle before the point, there is nothing before existence, and as time is first, this existence is the existence of time. As the cycle progresses, time gives rise to space, which ultimately leads to the big bang. After the big bang, time is bound up in space, as space-time, and neither has a separate existence. It is in this stage that we now exist, post big bang, and it is in the form of a ray that we understand time. When I say we, I am referring to native speakers of English and other Indo-European languages, which symbolize time in this fashion. For a different point of view, consider Chinese, which does not symbolize time in the form of a ray. YOur analogy of bricks along the ray of time does have a beginning, the big bang, because before that there could be no bricks, no concept of a ray, and no us to ponder the question. However, prior to the big bang, at the begining stage in each cycle of our universe, there is only time, which exists as a point. If we ask what was before the point, we have only the previous cycle, as there is no stage in each cycle of our universe before the stage of the point. You are certainly not required to accept this as a satisfactory explanation, because to do so would require a substantial shift in assumption that you would have to make. However, it is on the basis of the assumtpion that I have presented here that I consider time to be infinite. The point is infinite. It evolves though its cycle, but the cycle ends at the beginning, with the infinite point of time.

There are many uses for time. One way is the way that you suggest. However, there is a much deeper meaning of time, as relativity has now shown. Space is constantly in motion, and this motion requires time. Al of space is bound up in motion, and in time, as space-time.