Expanding time?

False.Maybe this will help:The value of f(x)=1/x at x=0 is not zero, it is undefined.The size of an amoeba's nose is not zero, its a non-sensical question.

At x=0 the result is not undefined but is impossible, as x.0 can never equal one. But what does this have to do with the discussion?

In the same way, it is impossible for an amoeba to have a nose. It does not have a nose of size zero. You need to understand the difference between "being impossible" and "having a value of zero" in order to understand this discussion.

Yes, the amoeba doesn't have a nose and the universe doesn't have a size(from the outisde). That was the whole point i was trying to make from the beginning. This is also confirmed by Bell's theorem and the recent developments in string theory. If you want to understand this discussion you have to first understand that we(I and cavediver) were not talking about an amoeba(read the whole discussion), where you could easily see that there is no nose. We were talking about the universe as it unfolded and its change in size that happens only within itself, without expanding into anything.
Where did i say impossible and zero were the same thing? You are putting words into my mouth.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

But you were saying that it does have a size from the outside and that its size is zero.A better answer is that the universe having a size from the outside is impossible. I've read the discussion. I was just trying to help you correct your misunderstanding. Where did I say that you said that impossible and zero were the same? I said that you were misunderstanding the difference, not that you were saying they were the same.But anyways, here is where you, by extension, make a similiar claim:In Message 103 you wrote:

quote:

---

I equate zero with non-existence

---

In Message 107 you wrote:

quote:

---

Catholic scientist writes:

​

The value of f(x)=1/x at x=0 is not zero, it is undefined.

At x=0 the result is not undefined but is impossible,

---

You equate zero with non-existence and undefined (which also means non-existent) with impossible. It sure seems from what you wrote that you think, by extension, that zero and impossible are the same. But again, I never really claimed that you said that.

No i am not equating undefined with impossible, that why i specifically said that your example of f(x)=1/x at x=0, is not undefined but impossible.But that's drifting too much offtopic, it was a matter of different ways of wording the same thing as evident from cavediver's last post: There is simply no outsize size, i initially said it was zero but i really meant the same thing. Size and the perception of it is a construct of the mind that is applicable only from within the universe, and if we applied the metric expansion back to the beginning of the universe, we'd see that the universe hasn't been growing into anything, but into itself. This gave me a reason to conclude that the outside size would be zero, but I find the same meaning in "there is simply no outside size".Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Oh.. well in that case you're just plain wrong.1/0 is undefined.From here:

quote:

---

So, 10/0 at least in elementary arithmetic, is said to be meaningless, or undefined.

---

From here:

quote:

---

Undefined forms that are not indeterminate:

​

The expression 1/0 is not an indeterminate form because there is no range of distinct values that f/g could approach.

---

You can read all about that kind of stuff at the wiki page on Defined and undefinedBut the wording is important. Especially in these cosmological discussions. If you word it wrong then you are wrong. You can't just say "Oh, that's what I meant but I just worded it differently". See? Saying that its size is zero is not the same thing as saying there is no size. You may very well have meant something other than what you said, but that doesn't change that what you said was wrong. That concepts is obvious simply from the definition of Universe as containing everything. Well that's contradictory. If it isn't expanding into anything then it cannot be expanding into something (i.e. itself). You may find the same meaning but the well established definitions of words makes it so that you are just plain wrong, regardless of what you understand yourself to be saying.

No it's you who are wrong, we never used that definition that you brought up. We used a definition where the word "size" itself was not defined(not mathematical impossibilities), meaning there is no outside size for the universe(and we already settled this, before your late arrival).
About the rest of your comments - well you are simply not following our discussion and what we mean in it, so you'll be on my ignore list on this thread.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

How about Bell's theorem non-locality(the non-local nature of QM)?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Thief here
Coincidentally, I've been thinking on this topic all day.
Found this thread and the lengthy discussion, but may have overlooked the word...singularity
Perhaps one divided by zero is possible

It is possible: it equals one.

Isn't one divided by zero undefined?
I have some recall this is not allowed when performing calculations
As for the singularity...does it not lack all points of comprehension?

Yes. 1/0 is undefined, anything divided by zero is undefined. The only point is as the denominator approaches zero the quotient gets higher without limit. It is like asking "what is the secant of 90^o?"
It is 1/(cos 90^o) which is 1/0

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

The title of this thread is expanding time as a question
More than 100 replies came and went...and maybe I failed to see it.
But last I heard... time is a measure of movement.
As such, it is a tool... made by man... to serve man.
It is not a force, such as gravity.
It is only a means by which we cope with our everyday efforts and observations of movement, large or small.
To say time and space are relative terms is correct...in math.
But physically...space and mass are relative, and their relationship is measured by gravitational effects
Time is cognitive construct. An intellectual appliance.
thief

To see if I am following you guys about what it means for space to expand..If there were a giant tape measure between two galaxies and I made a reading at one moment.
Then I take a vacation and read it again, does it now measure greater than previously?
Or does the tape measure expand with space and read the same as before?Also what book might be a good choice to learn about current cosmology for someone with about 5 years of science/engineering background, but no previous coursework in cosmology?Thanks in advance if anyone fields an answer..