Donald Palmer 10 November 2022

Two items:
1) What is the basis for treating 'Time' as a dimension? It does not operate as a spatial dimension - we cannot move about this dimension with any freedom. Any measurement of a 'distance' in this dimension (e.g., seconds, years, centuries) depends upon measurements of the other spatial dimensions - there is no direct method of measuring 'distance' in this dimension.
2) How can the spacetime universe change if we have already accounted for 'Time' in spacetime? Spacetime would logically incorporate all time, and therefore all change, in the 4-dimensional spacetime universe. This does not fit any understanding of reality. If gravity 'warps' spacetime, then spacetime has been changed - in what time has this occurred - as we have already accounted fo Time in spacetime.
Both considerations strongly suggest we have mis-interpreted the dimension in equations as 'Time'. Whatever model we have of the universe, Time is always something 'in addition' that allows for change to the model - which we might model as an additional dimension, but this is only an heuristic concept.
The next question would be: What is it that we have mis-interpreted, that is actually being represented as the 4th dimension in the equations?

Matthew Pickard 29 October 2022

I wonder if the author has ever read any of the German Idealists? Kant had some interesting things to say about objects in relation to space and time. And Hegel on the meaning of the simplest "characteristics" of the most basic category - pure being itself.

Pookey9 Garfield 29 October 2022

We weten eigenlijk helemaal niks over ruimtetijd. Wat het is of welk effect het heeft op materie, anders dan dat het de tijd voor materie vertraagd en de entropie verhoogd op de kleinst mogelijke punten.
Ruimtetijd moet dus iets zijn wat overal aanwezig is en als dat zo is, zou het dan niet dwars door alle materie heen kunnen waaien? En dan wel vele malen sneller dan een foton. Einstein suggereerde dat materie de ruimtetijd kromt, maar is dat niet toevallig andersom?
Hoe zou een tornado in de ruimte eruit zien? Aangedreven door turbulentie en wrijving in ruimtetijd, maakt het van materie geen speelbal dan? Stript er enkel de elektronen vanaf en verdeeld de rest via de polen weer over het stelsel. Een oog van de storm in ieder hemellichamen. Waarvan de meeste niet snel genoeg spinnen om de entropie in materie zo te verhogen dat het uitelkaar valt.
Als ruimtetijd materie mee sleurt is het de meest dominante kracht in het universum en zou juist zwaartekracht niet fundamenteel zijn.

Mike Pollock 28 October 2022

Does anyone want all this confusion to go away?

Then just assume the galaxies are expanding in an already existing, static universe. When two cars crash and part go flying everywhere, why are they expanding? Is it the atmosphere causing the expansion or the momentum from the collision? Why pick a theory for the universe that makes it impossible to explain anything. Why does science automatically assume the universe is expanding when there is absolutely no reason to think that?

The Big Bang was simply our universe turning itself into a gargantuan particle collider. That's where all the energy came from. Science can't just pick gravity to do everything when the theory makes this weak force have to do everything. Why else would someone think science hasn't understood quantum gravity yet? Gravity doesn't create energy, energy creates gravity.