|
Author
|
Topic: The infinite space of the Universe
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
Message 28 of 380 (467217)
05-20-2008 8:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by cavediver
05-20-2008 5:55 AM
|
|
and the ball happens to be the size of the Milky way, we are going to conclude that our patch of balloon is flat. Is this the same analogy as just standing at any point on our planet and believing it to be flat, as was once thought long ago? Also, is spacetime considered to be flat and it is gravity that curves it? This is what GR says right?
All great truths begin as blasphemies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by cavediver, posted 05-20-2008 5:55 AM | | cavediver has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 30 of 380 (467280)
05-20-2008 6:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by cavediver
05-20-2008 9:11 AM
|
|
Yes, except the Universe is far flatter than the Earth. Got it.
GR says that the matter/energy content of the Universe curves space-time - the natural motion of an object following this curvature is what we perceive as a "force" pulling the object towards mass, and we call this "force" gravity. So it is mass that curves spacetime through the percieved forces of gravity. Got that too. Now, just for my understanding, if you don't mind answering, if we traveled in one direction of spacetime we could technically end up in the same place we started from however, do to the universe expanding at a rate faster that the speed of light this is impossible because we could never reach that speed? Is this what is meant by infinite spacetime? The fact that it could never be caught up with so its basically an infinite journey? Also, this maybe off topic but, how exactly is the expantion rate measured, and what is it in terms of matter(?) in the space that grows? This is what I read,
quote:
space can expand with no intrinsic limit on its rate; thus, two galaxies can separate more quickly than the speed of light if the space between them grows.
Would you mind giving a clearer explanation on it if you don't mind?
All great truths begin as blasphemies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by cavediver, posted 05-20-2008 9:11 AM | | cavediver has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 38 of 380 (467368)
05-21-2008 9:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by cavediver
05-21-2008 7:20 AM
|
|
Common misconception. "Gravity" is a perceived effect of the curved space-time. It has nothing to do with the generation of the curvature itself. That is a completely local effect: the curvature at a point in space-time is a function of the energy density at that point and the immediately surrounding space-time curvature. So the energy density is the 'known' so to speak, and the effects of gravity is whats perceived, Ok. Yeah I should have read your origin responce properly. Now, you said 'immediately surrounding space-time', is that 'immediatelty surrounding' area relative to the amount of mass on the object? In other words, well I think im wording the question properly, every object generates its own curvature however, when we look at a galaxy, is it the total amount of mass in the galaxy that curves space-time or each individual piece of matter within the galaxy that curves it individually and it gives the effect that the entire galaxy is doing it? Or is it both?
extra distance generated per unit distance per unit time So basically its measured by the Doppler effect? Does this mean that the galaxies will eventually collapse in like a reverse Big Bang? I hope that kinda made sense...
All great truths begin as blasphemies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by cavediver, posted 05-21-2008 7:20 AM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Have you heard of the Big Crunch? I have heard of it but I didn't know it dealt with this issue, thanks for the link. What is you opinion on The Big Crunch thoery if you don't mind answering? This suggest the universe is finite, or at least our universe.
The mass of an object creates the curvature. Each individual piece of matter curves it individually and it all adds up together (probably in some kind of superposition or something) so to answer your question... it is both. Cool. So it is both but, its relative to the mass of the object and the total mass within the galaxy, so each galaxy curves gravity differently. How does this, or rather does this, difference in curvature, if there is one, effect the speed of 2 galaxies seperating from one another? Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
I think its becomming a consensus that the universe is not cyclical. Dang that was the idea I thought sounded most plausable.
And if it is just "our" Universe, then we're not using the right word because the Uni- part is saying that there is just one. Maybe its just one Verse in the Multiverse I always f'k that up. Thanks for all the info.
All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
But how is the expansion rate, which itself is increasing, going to slow down and reverse? Well, as I understand it, if there is enough matter in the Universe eventually the Universe will collapse into a super dense state, and ultimatly into a super massive blackhole. When I said it seemed most plausable, I should specify that it seemed most plausable conceptually, and mostly just the cyclical part about it. The Big Crunch, as I understand it, would ultimatly end as a blackhole singularity, the Big Bang is a singularity...it just seemed to fit the cyclical model I was imagining.
You can type 'fuck' Well fuck, I didn't know that.
You're welcome. Pay it forward. I'll try but im very humbled by the level of education on this site so I may just sit on the bench for a while and learn some more.
All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 64 of 380 (467620)
05-22-2008 10:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by Perdition
05-22-2008 5:37 PM
|
|
If the universe were going to reach a point and start collapsing again, the expansion would have to be slowing down, ultimately to come to a zero point before it starts accelerating back the other way. But isn't that to premature to say that it won't do that since dark energy is not fully known yet?
All great truths begin as blasphemies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by Perdition, posted 05-22-2008 5:37 PM | | Perdition has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by Perdition, posted 05-22-2008 11:55 PM | | onifre has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 83 of 380 (467843)
05-24-2008 9:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by IamJoseph
05-24-2008 8:56 PM
|
|
Re: SPACE IS NOT INFINITE NOR WAS IT ALWAYS PRESENT.
'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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by IamJoseph, posted 05-24-2008 8:56 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 84 by IamJoseph, posted 05-24-2008 11:44 PM | | onifre has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 86 of 380 (467893)
05-25-2008 11:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by IamJoseph
05-24-2008 11:44 PM
|
|
Re: SPACE IS NOT INFINITE NOR WAS IT ALWAYS PRESENT.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by IamJoseph, posted 05-24-2008 11:44 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 98 of 380 (468016)
05-26-2008 11:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by IamJoseph
05-25-2008 4:09 PM
|
|
Re: SPACE IS NOT INFINITE NOR WAS IT ALWAYS PRESENT.
That is a sub-conscious strain, but we know nothing about God in reality. That is because the idea of God is subjectively interpreted by the individual who imagines Him; of course you know nothing about God, He lives in the human mind.
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. I believe by what I've read from science and the evidence put forth on the subject, the 'alternative', if thats what you want to refer to it as, is infinite spacetime. You seem to want to disagree with it simply because of belief. However, what I would call an 'alternative' would be God, the reality is space, time, energy etc... The 'alternative' to that is a Being that sits outside of it an governs it. Sure you can say that but, you cannot support that statement with any evidence. And of course God would be infinite simply because He would have to be...and you're saying that science is trying to find a backdoor?
All great truths begin as blasphemies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by IamJoseph, posted 05-25-2008 4:09 PM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 135 of 380 (468252)
05-28-2008 4:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by GDR
05-28-2008 4:30 PM
|
|
If they are able to find the Higg's bosun with the LHC will it move us very much closer to the TOE? Is it likely that they will find anything else that might help as well? No, not in relation to the Theory of Everything. The Higgs, as I understand it, came after T=O. It will however, help us better understand the expantion.
All great truths begin as blasphemies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by GDR, posted 05-28-2008 4:30 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 138 of 380 (468267)
05-28-2008 6:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by ICANT
05-28-2008 2:58 PM
|
|
Re: What is space?
So are saying two branes are an absence of anything? So how did they collide? Do you understand the theory or are you arguing semantics just for arguements sake?
All great truths begin as blasphemies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2008 2:58 PM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 139 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2008 9:12 PM | | onifre has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 146 of 380 (468500)
05-29-2008 6:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 139 by ICANT
05-28-2008 9:12 PM
|
|
Re: What is space?
I believe you are trying to conceptualize something that is a mathematical equation, this may be the issue for your misunderstanding of the theory. When a term such as 'absolute' or 'infinite' is given its not always so literally taken as you are putting it. Its numbers and equations remember? Infinity or absolute is just the predicted answer when the equation breaksdown or things get too small to measure. At least this is my understanding of it, if im mistaken im sure I'll be corrected with all the nerds on this site  Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
All great truths begin as blasphemies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 139 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2008 9:12 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 162 of 380 (468762)
06-01-2008 12:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by IamJoseph
06-01-2008 4:54 AM
|
|
Re: Time's existence is immaterial
Maybe not of any theological God, but surely, by absence and logic factors, a Creator scenario How would you know about a 'Creator' if not for theology? You are looking for a devine Creator, thats based off of theolgical ideals and you wouldn't be thinking as such had it not been for religion. You would be in a Physics class trying to figure it out mathematically. Your search for the Creator is motivated by your belief and not based off of evidence.
Its like finding a car on Jupiter and concluding there must be a car maker. Cars don't reproduce so its NOT like that at all. If I found a car, yes, i'd think someone made it but, if I found plant, or a bug, or algae on Jupiter I would NOT conclude there must be a plant maker, or a bug maker, or an algae maker...I would conclude that it went through a natural process of evolution and try to find out how. The same goes for a naturally fuctioning Universe that reproduces and is self sustaining. I would not conclude there was a Universe maker, thats the part thats completely illogical. Thats just a simple answer given to possibly the biggest question humanity has, your saying you are satisfied with 'Goddidit'? Yet you yourself said theres no proof for any theological Gods, so basically we are left with just the concept of a thing that just creates Universes. How is this good?
All great truths begin as blasphemies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 4:54 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2973 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 193 of 380 (469056)
06-03-2008 11:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 164 by IamJoseph
06-01-2008 7:24 PM
|
|
Re: Time's existence is immaterial
That conclusion is wrong - logically and scientifically. If a car has a maker, than any other complex construct must be equally validated - unless anti-thetical proof is put forward. Cars dont reproduce, this is not an arguement for your position at all. Its ridiculous to compare an automobile to a living organism.
Evolution is also not a natural [?] process - it shows a complex engineering every instant, inherent of intergration, cross-reciprocity and its conclusion being anticipatedn in its processes: there is nothing 'natural' about it, and if this term is applied, it can only be applied for an evolution designers and maker. This is just an ID arguemnet which lacks all of the evidence that is needed for a good theory, you have a belief that guilds your understnding of nature thats all.
All great truths begin as blasphemies
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 164 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 7:24 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2