|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The infinite space of the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
quote: If space is not matter, then space does not exist. If we assume that space is not matter and it exists, then it would make sense that space could very well be infinite(since it's not matter). Empty space, devoid of matter and particles is a mind-boggling concept though. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4210 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Energy is the ability to do work
E=mv2 average mass times velocity squared or or W=fd force times distance. Light is the electromagnetic spectrum, from electrical oscillations thru radio, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X & Gamma rays, the wavelength inversely proportional to the average mass time the square of the velocity of light, 2.999 x 105 kilometers/second. Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given. Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given. Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given. Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given. Edited by bluescat48, : script There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If space is not matter, then space does not exist.
So is time matter too?Or does time not exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If space is not matter, then space does not exist.
So is time matter too?Or does time not exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
If space existed the way time "exists", you'd be living in a very virtual world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
No energy w/o mass.
Taking this further, we can say the universe did not get activated by mass energy - because both mass and energy are post-uni products. Further, correct me if I'm wrong on the basis of my own path of reasoning only, at one time there was no mass, or alternatively, there was only one spec of mass [original BB spec]. This means, either the energy came from within that spec - or there was an external triggering: no other alternatives remain. I choose the later, external triggering, because otherwise, we face the situation of mass and matter being infinite [no original source point], that it self-created its own program to foster a host of other universal programs, engineerings and products. Admittedly, we can say the same of an external factor - but this makes more sense than the former. IOW, if we find a car on Jupiter, we can surmise it came of its own - or there was a car maker. We do not have to abandon logic from science, because of a paranoia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
My view of this question, which remains yet outside the realm of our minds' fathoming, is one must agree that at one time - nothing existed. But what the heck does that actually mean?
This definition of nothing is ever enigmatic, unfathomable, brick-wall concluding; the only other answer is, there was a Creator ['In the beginning God'/opening preamble in the first cosmological document]. Notice how it does not make any sense in the absence of that premise - and this applies with the foremost state of art science and minds: everything ends in a brick wall, or becomes cyclical - evidence it is the wrong path. IOW, there is no other definition of nothingness aside from that Genesis premise - try to name one? In the final conclusion, unless a new knowledge from now descends - there is only one possibility: Creationism and Monotheism. This is from an absolute scientific and logical view, devoid of religious theology. Else why even include it in a science thread? I am open to any scientific or logical alternative. 'In the beginning God' - is the only premise which defines nothingness and infinity, and science is its best vindicator. The only correct definition of infinity is also seen exclusively and first in the same source. Infinity = no changes ['I am the Lord I have not CHANGED']; because whatever changes something is transcendent of that which is changed. We see from here that time is also finite, because it is subject to change - agreed to by leading scientists [Hawking's BHT]. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
'In the beginning God' - is the only premise which defines nothingness and infinity, and science is its best vindicator. No, God would be 'something'. And the word 'beginning' would dismise infinity. Which God are you refering to BTW? All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
'SOMETHING' is a post-uni premise. God would not be something, because if we could fathom God, then we would not need this debating. Logic says, God must be - at least - transcendent of his creation, and we cannot pretend to fathom outside of creation.
Which God does not apply or matter either, as long as it is ONE only God - this is not theology but logic vested, because ultimately the buck must stop at and with ONE. Else it all goes cyclical forever. You have countered my position, but you forgot something: you have not presented an alternative? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If space existed the way time "exists", you'd be living in a very virtual world.
If you would stop making unsubstantiated assertions you might actually say something worthwhile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2971 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
God would not be something, because if we could fathom God, then we would not need this debating You are fathoming God. I believe people of faith have always done this. Atheists haven't done it...
You have countered my position, but you forgot something: you have not presented an alternative? An alternative to what? Your ability to postulate anything you want? All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
walterberns  Suspended Member (Idle past 5806 days) Posts: 8 From: Orlando, Florida Joined: |
Details of the Ekpyrotic Universe theory
A new theory of the very early universe that resolves the famous puzzles of the hot Big Bang picture -- the horizon, flatness and monopole problems -- and that generates fluctuations in energy that seed galaxy formation and produce temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background. The model is based on the idea that our hot Big Bang universe was created from the collision of two three-dimensional worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension. The inflationary model of the universe, developed in the 1980's by Alan Guth (MIT), Andre Linde (Stanford), Andreas Albrecht (UC Davis) and Steinhardt, was designed to resolve these very same problems, relying on a period of exponential hyper-expansion, or inflation. Conceptually, the ekpyrotic model is very different. There is no inflation or rapid change happening at all. The approach to collision takes places very slowly over an exceedingly long period of time. It is quite fascinating that rapid change and very slow change can produce nearly the same effects. The difference results in one distinctive observational prediction, though: Inflationary cosmology predicts a spectrum of gravitational waves that may be detectable in the cosmic microwave background. The ekpyrotic model predicts no gravitational wave effects should be observable in the cosmic microwave background. In the ekpyrotic model, when the two three-dimensional worlds collide and "stick," the kinetic energy in the collision is converted to the quarks, electrons, photons, etc. that are confined to move along three dimensions. The resulting temperature is finite, so the hot Big Bang phase begins without a singularity. The universe is homogeneous because the collision and initiation of the Big Bang phase occurs nearly simultaneously everywhere. The energetically preferred geometry for the two worlds is flat, so their collision produces a flat Big Bang universe. According to Einstein's equations, this means that the total energy density of the universe is equal to the critical density. Massive magnetic monopoles, which are over-abundantly produced in the standard Big Bang theory, are not produced at all in this scenario because the temperature after collision is far too small to produce any of these massive particles. Quantum effects cause the incoming three-dimensional world to ripple along the extra-dimension prior to collision so that the collision occurs in some places at slightly different times than others. By the time the collision is complete, the rippling leads to small variations in temperature, which seed temperature fluctuations in the microwave background and the formation of galaxies. We have shown that the spectrum of energy density fluctuations is scale-invariant (the same amplitude on all scales). The production of a scale-invariant spectrum from hyper-expansion was one of the great triumphs of inflationary theory, and here we have repeated the feat using completely different physics. The building blocks of the Ekpyrotic theory are derived from Superstring theory. Superstring theory requires extra dimensions for mathematical consistency. In most formulations, 10 dimensions are required. In the mid 1990s, Petr Horava (Rutgers) and Ed Witten (IAS, Princeton) argued that, under certain conditions, an additional dimension opens up over a finite interval. Six dimensions are presumed to be curled up in a microscopic ball, called a Calabi-Yau manifold. The ball is too small to be noticed in everyday experience, and so our universe appears to be a four-dimensional (three space dimensions and one time dimension) surface embedded in a five-dimensional space-time. This five-dimensional theory, called heterotic M-theory, was formulated by Andre Lukas (Sussex). Ovrut and Dan Waldram (Queen Mary and Westfield College, London). According to Horava-Witten and heterotic M-theory, particles are constrained to move on one of the three-dimensional boundaries on either side of the extra dimensional interval. Our visible universe would be one of these boundaries; the other boundary and the intervening space would be hidden because particles and light cannot travel across the intervening space. Only gravity is able to couple matter on one boundary to the other sides. In addition, there can exist other three-dimensional hyper-surfaces in the interval, which lie parallel to the outer boundaries and which can carry energy. These intervening planes are called "branes," short for membranes. The collision that ignites the hot Big Bang phase of the ekpyrotic model occurs when a three-dimensional brane is attracted to and collides into the boundary corresponding to our visible universe. The term ekpyrosis means "conflagration" in Greek, and refers to an ancient Stoic cosmological model. According to the model, the universe is created in a sudden burst of fire, not unlike the collision between three-dimensional worlds in our model. The current universe evolves from the initial fire. However, in the Stoic notion, the process may repeat itself in the future. This, too, is possible in our scenario in principle if there is more than one brane and, consequently, more than one collision. We plan to discuss this possibility in future work, along with further speculations about what preceded the collision that made our present universe. As a final remark, we feel that it is important to realize that Inflationary theory is based on Quantum Field theory, a well-established theoretical framework, and the model has been carefully studied and vetted for 20 years. Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in String theory and is brand new. While we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest with which the paper has been received, we would suggest some patience before promulgating these ideas in order to leave time for us to produce some follow-up papers that introduce additional elements and to allow fellow theorists time for criticism and sober judgmenContact Justin Khoury, Princeton; Burt Ovrut, UPenn; Paul Steinhardt, Princeton and Neil Turok, Cambridge):
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
quote: quote: quote: quote: Here is something worthwhile - Time is a concept while space has a very material existence. You need proof? Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com Edited by Agobot, : No reason given. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That is a sub-conscious strain, but we know nothing about God in reality.
quote: A scientific alternative to Creationism & Monotheism, in a finite universe. Many try to get around this by presenting an infinite realm, or a back door to that premise, via space, time, energy etc being infinite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I don't see it that way. Time is as much a product as is matter. The time factor does appear to be a precedent and independent force, as opposed a retrospective measurement by man's devices. We 'discovered' the laws of gravity, but we never invented it - here, there is a discernable, purposefull [purpose driven] equation which predates mankind. It also appears, for example, a 9 month pregnancy is an aprox time period out of man's control; it is also pre-determined, and all we did was recognise it. The time periods for all things are varied, different and critical: the universe and all of its workings and products would not be around but for those critical time constraints - making time a force of its own and thus a product of the universe same as energy, mass and space. All of these are intergrated and recipient to each other.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024