Nicholas

Hawking has introduced the mathematics of imaginary time in order to curve the universe back on itself. It is an untestable mathematical model. It might mean something if we could measure it. Where is Stephen Hawking's imaginary clock? He needs to show us or his idea must be relegated to the the status of nonexistence; like some do with the Aether.

Hi El ! Maybe you don't like what I have to say. Go figure.

The structure of matter is all I have taken from string theory. That matter has structure. That one thing alone is of value! Beyond that I say its nonsense.

I offer relativity as evidence of dynamic dimensions. Maybe you don't like it. There is no proving science just disproof of it.

Wrong. Its expansion is accelerating. You can't get contraction out of that!!!

Right time cannot stop. That is what a singularity would be. Wrong that time does not exist. All of physics is geared to timerate. It is a measurable physical quantity. It can slow down. How does something that doesn't exist change? You don't have an answer to that!!!

I say mass cannot because it would be an infinite gravity. Hawking: GR predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities.

Infinity is not a number. It is a concept. The universe is not infinite. Only the future is!

I offer this as the mechanism behind Relativity. Imagine that dimensions are not static. That they somehow "move." What would happen if you caught up to this motion? Time would go slower and space would shrink. I say everything in the universe is moving. You can't even pin down dimensions. With the advent of Einstein we know dimenisons "curve." I say they move! This also explains why the effects of motion are not reciprocal. Only the accelerated(who experience weight) will see the clocks left behind run fast(blueshift).

The problem Sevarian is that space-time goes back to a singularity but mass cannot. So it must be seen that there had to be an energy buildup prior to the existence of matter. Whatever it is is spread out. I say no only to mass singularity.

The universe is not expanding into anything. It is simply growing larger. If it was then where did it start? Where is the universe at anyway?

The universe hasn't existed always. It's a one time thing. Want evidence? How about the accelerating expansion? If there is no crunch ahead there can be nothing behind. Or is that to hard for you guys?

Yes for a system at rest there are no relativistic effects. Take a train and a station; before the train takes off there is an absolute quantity of space between them. Give the train speed; especially alot of speed and relativistic effects come into play; for the train distances have shrunk and the station's clock is running fast. There is no reciprocal effect as some claim. Only one clock goes slower.

From the point of view of who did the accelerating ie who exerienceed weight. They will see those left behind as being blueshifted and when the measure space they will find it is shorter!

Space only varies with motion. Speed up and space-time shrinks.

Choose two objects lets say a train and the station. There is a set distance between them until it accelerates. If the train could approach(accelerate to near) the speed of light it would measure a shorter journey. I call this space variation. But how can you say that the distance between the train and the station in the begining isn't an absolute? Every reference that stayed behind or was at the station waiting would say the train had an absolute space to travel through. As Einstein said Relativity is a thoroughly bad name for the theory. He considered calling it invariance theory!

If that is true how come can succesfuly calculate/measure the amount of space we have traveled through? A speed through that distance is absolute.

As Einstein said: when the station comes to the train. But only the train is moving through space to get closer to the station. Two space ships passing each other could both have there individual motions through space. But if you use the train example then its the train alone that passes the station in space.

No it is both. It is the distance in space to the target object. You can calculate your speed though space to get to it. Moving through space is absolute. Without a reference you couldn't measure it. And you and the reference might be moving through space with respect to something else. But then that is always measurable in practice. If we were on a ship going to andromeda, lets say, we can calculate our motion through space to get there. Show me where I am wrong.

What about the matter/energy being ejected at the poles? Anybody know if it is as great as a supernova or maybe even a hypernova?

We can measure motion of matter through space relative to other matter. This movement through space is an absolute. Let us say a space ship takes off from mars heading toward the Earth.The space ship accelerates toward the Earth. You can't say that the Earth is moving through space to get closer to the space ship. All you can say is that the space ship is moving through space to get closer to the Earth. Not the other way around.

There was nothing before the universe. It only requires God.

He just said we can't measure motion through space. Its easy to do!!! Or don't you like my example? Everything has some kind of motion through space and we can stand back and look at everything moving as a whole within the universe and we see that motion through space is absolute. There is no contradiction in saying that something is moving through space toward or away from something else. How else do we calculate the movements of everything? You can't make me out to be against Relativity. There is something wrong with Relativity. But I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!