Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The infinite space of the Universe
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 166 of 380 (468829)
06-01-2008 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by IamJoseph
06-01-2008 7:38 PM


Re: Time's existence is immaterial
I see the proof of that premise being vested in why such earthly, complex life is not seen anywhere else in the known universe.
Exactly how much of the Universe have you visited. I'm guessing none; which makes this, yet again, a statement pulled out of your backside. If you have some real information about particles having minds please present it. Otherwise, you're just abusing the English language.
. [elements] do not function by and of theselves to produce a product .
Rust: The effort of true genius.
AbE: You would have fooled me with a bread knife on Deimos, but a lock on Jupiter is still Paley.
Edited by lyx2no, : Not for any good reason,

Kindly
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 7:38 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 9:25 PM lyx2no has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 167 of 380 (468846)
06-01-2008 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by lyx2no
06-01-2008 8:00 PM


Re: Time's existence is immaterial
quote:
Exactly how much of the Universe have you visited. I'm guessing none
How about an actual survey of the universe, via telescopic observations, space missions, views of apollo of 2 billion miles from earth, and no life imprints on this planet for a period of 4.5 Billions years, and some 15 Billion years for the known universe? I believe that good science says a sruvey is a legitimate means for making scientific conclusions.
quote:
Rust: The effort of true genius.
That is an effect of a pre-determined set of traits embedded in elements. Pineapples also have a use-by date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by lyx2no, posted 06-01-2008 8:00 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by lyx2no, posted 06-01-2008 10:50 PM IamJoseph has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 380 (468849)
06-01-2008 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Straggler
05-19-2008 4:06 PM


Re: Is it infinite?
Straggler writes:
I thought current cosmological modls suggested that if you went in one direction fast enough (i.e. >>C), for long enough then you would eventually end up back where you started?
This was my understanding and I am keen to be corrected if this is not the case?
You're right. This the position of conventional science as I understand it.
However, if you were able to take a physical perfectly straight steel bar and extend it without bending it infinitely what properties are in that steel straight edge which would allow it to come back to where it began to extend?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 05-19-2008 4:06 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by lyx2no, posted 06-01-2008 11:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 169 of 380 (468855)
06-01-2008 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by IamJoseph
06-01-2008 9:25 PM


The Survey Mustn't be Imaginary
How about an actual survey of the universe .
An actual survey of the Universe would be nice. Problem is there isn’t one with the resolution required to take notice of extra-solar system elephants less then a few thousand miles across?
. views of apollo of 2 billion miles from earth .
Apollo didn’t make it one five-thousandth of that 2 billion miles you have granted it; yet, 2 billion miles is, for universal purposes, still in our own neck of the woods?
. no life imprints on this planet for a period of 4.5 Billions years, and some 15 Billion years for the known universe?
There are a few indicators that Earth has had life for all but a few hundred million years of its existence. And we don’t have any way of knowing if the Universe has or hasn’t been teaming with life stretching back to the first billion years of its existence.
Yes sir, surveys are a legitimate means of making conclusions, but making surveys isn’t done in the imagination. Science isn’t on your side here either.

Kindly
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 9:25 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 11:34 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 170 of 380 (468856)
06-01-2008 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Buzsaw
06-01-2008 9:54 PM


Re: Is it infinite?
However, if you were able to take a physical perfectly straight steel bar and extend it without bending it .
This assumes an extra-universal standard of "straight". There isn't one. "Straight" means "not deviating in space". Space rejoins itself so the bar, to be straight, must also rejoin itself. If it doesn't, it can not be straight.

Kindly
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Buzsaw, posted 06-01-2008 9:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Buzsaw, posted 06-01-2008 11:26 PM lyx2no has replied

Libmr2bs
Member (Idle past 5726 days)
Posts: 45
Joined: 05-15-2008


Message 171 of 380 (468858)
06-01-2008 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by IamJoseph
06-01-2008 1:55 AM


Re: Big Bang
As I've said before, light emitted at the moment of the big bang would out run any particle if the speed of light is considered the limit. Therefore photons would be traveling out beyond the edge of space about 14 billion light-years. The limit of the reach of these first photons is my definition of the universe versus the furtherest galaxy as the limit of space.
We haven't been able to define the center of space so all measurements are relative.
To measure the distance from galaxies the illumination of light reaching earth is compared to a reference. The relative speeds are determined by measuring the Dopler affect with a spectronmeter. If there is a shift toward red or blue, it can be assumed that the planets are moving relative to each other.
The question is whether we are looking at a sample that represents an unbiased sample. If our planet and the stars of the galaxies are collapsing toward the center of their galaxies and the distances remain constant between the center of the two galaxies, then you will see a shift in the spectrum of light reaching the earth. In looking at this possibility one must also examine the source of light. The light that is most likely to be measured is emitted from the stars on the near side of the galaxy which would be moving away from our planet and would also produce a shift. The further away the more pronounced this last situation would be.
In my view the expansion of the space is questionable and needs to be reexamined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 1:55 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 380 (468859)
06-01-2008 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by lyx2no
06-01-2008 11:01 PM


Re: Is it infinite?
lyx2no writes:
This assumes an extra-universal standard of "straight". There isn't one. "Straight" means "not deviating in space". Space rejoins itself so the bar, to be straight, must also rejoin itself. If it doesn't, it can not be straight.
But we observe that the physical intrauniversal straight bar which we observe has no properties capable of rejoining itself. How does that figure??

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by lyx2no, posted 06-01-2008 11:01 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 11:40 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 175 by lyx2no, posted 06-02-2008 12:07 AM Buzsaw has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 173 of 380 (468862)
06-01-2008 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by lyx2no
06-01-2008 10:50 PM


Re: The Survey Mustn't be Imaginary
quote:
An actual survey of the Universe would be nice. Problem is there isn’t one with the resolution required to take notice of extra-solar system elephants less then a few thousand miles across?
That there is NO sign of life is a reasonable, scientific conclusion, and not dependent on resolution limitations. There is also no sign of life from the pov none out there have reached us. Signs of life are not limited to one or two, but millions if this was potentially plausable. At this current state of art phase, there is no life out there, and if this is the case, or is accepted as such, it poses an anomoly for 80% of the ToE factors, secially survival of the fittest [who says this is limited to surviving only earthly conditions!], and the factors of adaptation.
quote:
Apollo didn’t make it one five-thousandth of that 2 billion miles you have granted it; yet, 2 billion miles is, for universal purposes, still in our own neck of the woods?
Sorry. I should have said 'VOYAGER'. Hello?
quote:
And we don’t have any way of knowing if the Universe has or hasn’t been teaming with life stretching back to the first billion years of its existence.
The time factor does not impact, where evolution is an *on-going* process. Its called proper maths?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by lyx2no, posted 06-01-2008 10:50 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by lyx2no, posted 06-02-2008 12:34 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 174 of 380 (468863)
06-01-2008 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Buzsaw
06-01-2008 11:26 PM


Re: Is it infinite?
We dont know the shape of the universe, namely if it is spherical. A straight line will return to its starting source point only where the trajectors are curved upon its self. However, because the inflation [expansion] is said to be hormonegious, namely equally in all directions, it is reasonable to assume a spherical result. However, the distances forbids any conclusion of this factor. yes/no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Buzsaw, posted 06-01-2008 11:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Buzsaw, posted 06-02-2008 8:59 AM IamJoseph has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 175 of 380 (468865)
06-02-2008 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Buzsaw
06-01-2008 11:26 PM


Re: Is it infinite?
But we observe that the physical intrauniversal straight bar which we observe has no properties capable of rejoining itself.
We have not observed this. The world record for straight steel bars is not likely much over a hundred feet. The curvature of the Universe over that hundred feet is impossible to measure. The bar, which is only straight by a human standard, is nowhere close to straight on a universal scale.
The property of a straight bar giving it the ability to rejoin itself is called straightness. If you sight down the side of the bar with your super vision it will never deviate from the straight line. That is because you are using light as your standard of measure. The photon is following the shape of the Universe, which is curved and rejoins (in the model under discussion) itself.

Kindly
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Buzsaw, posted 06-01-2008 11:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 06-02-2008 8:38 AM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 176 of 380 (468867)
06-02-2008 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by IamJoseph
06-01-2008 11:34 PM


The Survey Mustn't be Delusional
That there is NO sign of life is a reasonable, scientific conclusion, and not dependent on resolution limitations.
Even before Leeuwenhoek it would not have been a reasonable scientific conclusion that there were no animalcules exactly because of the limitation of resolution. I would hope we have learned from our mistakes.
Try this little experiment: Take a tea cup down to the sea shore and dip it into the ocean. Any signs of blue whales in there? I think you've got yourself a resolution problem.
Sorry. I should have said 'VOYAGER'. Hello?
Okay, try the experiment again with a coffee mug.
Its called proper maths?[sic]
Only by you.
BTW, this is no where close to topic anymore.

Kindly
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 11:34 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 7:04 AM lyx2no has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 177 of 380 (468891)
06-02-2008 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by lyx2no
06-02-2008 12:34 AM


MY THEORY FROM THE BB TO NOW.
Try this. You and your coffee mug are part of a program embedded inside the primal BB particle, al biet many trillion times smaller, in prototype mode. Imagine this particle as the entire universe.
Imagine it expanded to its current size, and with it, in proportional relevance, you have now expanded trillion fold to a full grown human, and like you, all other components have also grown and come of age. But you are still embedded within that expanded particle, only your design has changed from a nano size to the current size, and all of this expansion and graduation are part of a program which was contained in that original primal particle.
This is a theory which well accomodates the BBT, while still retaining in tact all of science and logic, but dismissing the non-science of IT JUST HAPPENED OF ITSELF.
IOW, the universe could not have grown to such complexity in the absence of a pre-determined program which caters to the resultant complexity. We see complex maths and science every instant of the universe - which signifies the antithesis of IT JUST HAPPENED [RANDOMLY]. How does one prove such a premise?
One way, is to devise a formula which caters to growth from the micro to the macro realm, so that the macro space-time is in equivalent relation to the micro. Namely, it is plausable that the micro realm is just as vast as the macro - in relative terms. The distance of the earth's diameter may yet be smaller than the diameter of a single cell within a human - in relative terms; equally, the distance of the universe may yet be smaller than the distances within a single atom down to its furtherest boundaries - in relative terms. A relevant question here would be, is the universe expanding only in the macro realm, or also in the micro realms? Why would only one end expand, and how come we equally cannot fathom a boundary in the micro - because a 100 years ago, we thought the atom was the smallest particle; 30 years ago, we thought the quark is the smallest; today, sceintists are pulling at their shock of white hairs in frustration of both vastness - the micro and the macro. Once such a forula is devised, and a linear measuring index is achieved, spanning the micro to macro in a continuous span - we can better determine our position and status in the universe, where we came from and where we are heading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by lyx2no, posted 06-02-2008 12:34 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by lyx2no, posted 06-02-2008 8:59 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 380 (468897)
06-02-2008 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by lyx2no
06-02-2008 12:07 AM


Re: Is it infinite?
lyx2no writes:
We have not observed this. The world record for straight steel bars is not likely much over a hundred feet. The curvature of the Universe over that hundred feet is impossible to measure. The bar, which is only straight by a human standard, is nowhere close to straight on a universal scale.
The property of a straight bar giving it the ability to rejoin itself is called straightness. If you sight down the side of the bar with your super vision it will never deviate from the straight line. That is because you are using light as your standard of measure. The photon is following the shape of the Universe, which is curved and rejoins (in the model under discussion) itself.
Well then let's assume the bar is perfectly straight as it extends infinitely. You still haven't identified the properties of a straight rigid bar which render it capable of rejoining itself.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by lyx2no, posted 06-02-2008 12:07 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by lyx2no, posted 06-02-2008 9:04 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 182 by cavediver, posted 06-02-2008 2:10 PM Buzsaw has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 179 of 380 (468898)
06-02-2008 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by IamJoseph
06-02-2008 7:04 AM


YOUR SILLY INSISTENCE FROM THE BB TO NOW.
Imagine it expanded to its current size, and with it, in proportional relevance, you have now expanded trillion fold to a full grown human, and like you, all other components have also grown and come of age.
Are you saying that you believe the current “components” of the Universe are expanded visions of scrunched up “components” of the pre-inflation Universe? Is your universe one of those children’s pop-up books: you open the cover and there stands Baker Tom with his tray of his fancy pastries outside his shop window?
. but dismissing the non-science of IT JUST HAPPENED OF ITSELF.
Who is satisfied with the explanation “IT JUST HAPPENED OF ITSELF”? Scientist aren’t standing around with their hands in the air saying “ Beats me. Wanna watch The New Price is Right? Drew Carry’s a howl.” Only folks trying to sweep away the current model of the Universe to replace it with their own half-baked idea raise the “IT JUST HAPPENED OF ITSELF” explanation.
IOW
These aren’t other words. This second is an entirely different statement. The first statement was “This [a self fabricated straw man that I attribute to scientists generally even if they are biologists] is a theory which well accomodates [sic] the BBT, while still retaining in tact [sic] all of science and logic, but dismissing the non-science of IT JUST HAPPENED OF ITSELF [a straw man that I attribute to scientists generally even if they are biologists]”. This new statement is “the universe could not have grown to such complexity in the absence of a pre-determined [sic] program which caters to the resultant complexity.”.
An assertion too grand to support with only:
We see complex maths and science every instant of the universe - which signifies the antithesis of IT JUST HAPPENED [RANDOMLY].
And even then:
No we don’t. Your strangely phrased premise does not signify your strangely phrased conclusion. Your failure to understand how localized complexity leads to a more efficient generalized entropy is not the best foundation for a new model of the Universe.
One way, is to devise a formula which caters to growth from the micro to the macro realm, so that the macro space-time is in equivalent relation to the micro. Namely, it is plausable that the micro realm is just as vast as the macro - in relative terms. The distance of the earth's diameter may yet be smaller than the diameter of a single cell within a human - in relative terms; equally, the distance of the universe may yet be smaller than the distances within a single atom down to its furtherest boundaries - in relative terms. A relevant question here would be, is the universe expanding only in the macro realm, or also in the micro realms? Why would only one end expand, and how come we equally cannot fathom a boundary in the micro - because a 100 years ago, we thought the atom was the smallest particle; 30 years ago, we thought the quark is the smallest; today, sceintists are pulling at their shock of white hairs in frustration of both vastness - the micro and the macro. Once such a forula is devised, and a linear measuring index is achieved, spanning the micro to macro in a continuous span - we can better determine our position and status in the universe, where we came from and where we are heading.
Only on the scale of one or two words at a time is this not babble, and some of the words are suspect.

Kindly
A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 7:04 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 380 (468899)
06-02-2008 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by IamJoseph
06-01-2008 11:40 PM


Re: Is it infinite?
IamJoseph writes:
We dont know the shape of the universe, namely if it is spherical. A straight line will return to its starting source point only where the trajectors are curved upon its self. However, because the inflation [expansion] is said to be hormonegious, namely equally in all directions, it is reasonable to assume a spherical result. However, the distances forbids any conclusion of this factor. yes/no?
The distances should make no difference if the rigid bar is indeed perfectly straight projecting vertically perpendicular from the surface of the earth/globe.
My question pertains to the properties of the rigid perfectly straight bar itself. What properties of it renders it capable of rejoining itself
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 11:40 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Libmr2bs, posted 06-02-2008 11:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024