Evolutionary superiority

We are talking of General Relativity, a mathematical model of the Universe that just so happens to be one of the two most successfully experimentally tested theories ever discovered in all of science (measuring success in terms of number of decimal places of prediction confirmed by experiment) The amazing accuarcy of this same model is what permits GPS systems to work.What is the basis of this theory? It is called Special Relativity. This is the theory that teaches us of the basic nature of space-time, and hints at the possibility that space-time can indeed bend and curve and give rise to what we call 'expansion'. This possibility is made real by the mathematics of General Relativity.Can we trust Special Relativity? Well, every particle accelerator in the world would simply not work if SR were not correct to a staggering degree of accuracy. Special Relativity also forms the basis of another theory: Quantum Field Theory. Remember when I mentioned that GR is one of the two most successful theories ever discovered in all of science? Guess which is the second? Yes, QFT. The principles of QFT are not only utilised in experimental particle physics but also in the development of modern ultra-dense silicon, your Pentiums, Athlons, etc, and other chips likely found in your TIVO box...Special Relativity is thus one of the most solid bedrocks of science, confirmed by evidence every second of every day, by particle physicists, astrophysicists, GPS travellers, computer users, and TV watchers. If you understand SR, then the idea that space can expand is trivial. If GR then tells you that in a cosmological setting, space does indeed expand... well, you better have a pretty good reason to disbelieve it. If we then observe untold evidence for said expansion, then to dispute it is to start to venture towards what can only be described as willful ignorance...Edited by cavediver, : typos and tidying

No, space-time is a static entity. It contains time, and so cannot 'expand' as expansion as we understand it is something that occurs with respect to time. Take a cone. If we imagine time as along the cone, with T=0 at the apex, then the circular cross-sections of the cone can be said to expand as we move through time, away from the apex. The cross-sections are like 'space': the Universe at a particular time. The entire cone is what we call space-time. It just is. The apex can be regarded as a 'beginning' for anything inside this space-time, as that is where T=0, but from the perspective of the cone itself (i.e. space-time itself) the apex is just one end, not much more important than any other point on its surface.To ask 'did the cone come from the apex?' is rather bizarre.
To ask 'so where did the apex come from?' is equally bizarre.
But it is perfectly valid to ask 'why is there a cone here?'To ask 'did the Universe come from the singularity?' is rather bizarre.
To ask 'so where did the singularity come from?' is equally bizarre.
But it is perfectly valid to ask 'why is there a Universe?'
Just don't expect a scientifc answer too soon.Given that this is totally off-topic, I'll stop there...

Bad tense on my part, sorry. Should have said:

quote:

---

the possibility that space-time is bent and curved gives rise to what we call 'expansion'.

---

The cone is 'bent' and 'curved', in the sense that it is obviously not simply flat. And it is this curved shape of our cone space-time that gives rise to the expansion of the circles, as we move along the axis of the cone away from the apex. It is space-time that is static. Time is not space-time. Yes, this is generally true. If you are close to the Earth, it will appear to take 24 hours to rotate. This is longest it will ever appear to rotate. But it can rotate in a much shorter time! All you have to do is go for a quick journey at close to the speed of light and come back, and you will see the Earth has made a complete revolution in less time than 24 hrs. How much less depends on the speeds you experienced on your journey. You can make the time arbitrarily small, assuming you can survive the accelearions and decelerations required to give you that speed.So the time between two events depends upon the path you choose between those events. But the simplest path (i.e. staying with whatever you are measuring) will always give you the longest time. Not quite - if you have point A on the cone at T=4, and event B at T=6, then the maximum time between events A and B is 2, but the actual time you will experience travelling from A to B will depend upon your chosen path across the cone from A to B. The actual curviness of the space-time along your path as you travel between A and B will affect the particular time you measure between A and B. No, they are essentially meaningless, and missing the point. Because 'how it got here' implies time, and 'from where it came' implies space. But space and time are the very things you asking about! The 'beginning' just marks one end of the time dimension. It is not the beginning of space-time. The reason for why the Universe exists is not found by looking further back in time, in the same way as looking for the reason a ship exists is not found by looking back towards the stern, although in both cases, some clues may be discerned in that direction.Space-time is a timeless 4d entity, not a 3d object bound by time with a beginning and end in time, and this is the cause of the confusion.Do we just believe this because we think it sounds cool? No, this is what the mathematics of Special Relativity and General Relativity tell us. As previously mentioned, they have already proved themselves the most successful theories of all time, despite how non-sensical they sound. So when they tell us something just as non-sensical about the nature of existence, we tend to put away our preconceived ideas and listen... they may just be right.