Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The infinite space of the Universe
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 271 of 380 (469578)
06-06-2008 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Buzsaw
06-05-2008 9:43 PM


Re: Curved
How do we know that forces or other factors occupying space/area are not effecting what is being called space curvature?
If the calculations made on basis of spacetime curvature (e.g. for things like satellaite time adjustments) work out to be exactly as observed are you claiming that this is just some sort of random coincidence?
Can your theory of "forces or other factors" make equally accurate calculations and predictions?
Doesn't this lead you to at least question your rather simplistic assumptions about the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Buzsaw, posted 06-05-2008 9:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 8:38 AM Straggler has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 380 (469579)
06-06-2008 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Buzsaw
06-05-2008 9:43 PM


Re: Curved
I was reading about a space curvature model done by Edwin Shasteen which he sees as a possible explanation for the appearance of space curvature (abe: and which he sees as supportive of infinite unbounded space.) I'm wondering what you or others think about it.
Abe: This was meant for a response to Son Goku's message 269:
Son Goku writes:
Well first of all, it acts exactly like curvature. Secondly, the satellites in a sense directly measure the curvature of space, rather than test the effects we associate with curvature. You see there is a standard way to calculate/measure the curvature of a space/spacetime. The satellites simply carry out that procedure and have found a non-zero curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of Earth.
Edited by Buzsaw, : as indicated in text
Edited by Buzsaw, : Add phrase

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 268 by Buzsaw, posted 06-05-2008 9:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 380 (469581)
06-06-2008 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Straggler
06-06-2008 7:35 AM


Re: Curved
Straggler writes:
If the calculations made on basis of spacetime curvature (e.g. for things like satellaite time adjustments) work out to be exactly as observed are you claiming that this is just some sort of random coincidence?
Can your theory of "forces or other factors" make equally accurate calculations and predictions?
1. I'm not claiming the status of theory for my positions as I understand the requirements for theory.
2. My position on this is that something/force/etc occupying space is responsible for all that is observed. As I have repeatedly needed to remind, imo, the only property of space is existing static unbounded area in which all forces, matter and energy exist.

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 271 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2008 7:35 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2008 9:31 AM Buzsaw has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 274 of 380 (469583)
06-06-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Buzsaw
06-06-2008 8:38 AM


Re: Curved
2. My position on this is that something/force/etc occupying space is responsible for all that is observed. As I have repeatedly needed to remind, imo, the only property of space is existing static unbounded area in which all forces, matter and energy exist.
Yet you seem to discount the full weight of observational evidence that mass is indeed spacetime curvature.
In other words your opinion regarding the properties of space are not only baseless but have actually been empirically refuted.
On what basis do you persist with this model of yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 8:38 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 10:04 AM Straggler has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 380 (469587)
06-06-2008 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Straggler
06-06-2008 9:31 AM


Re: Curved
Straggler writes:
Yet you seem to discount the full weight of observational evidence that mass is indeed spacetime curvature.
Are you alleging that mass as in atomic mass or some other rendition of the term/word is one of the properties of spacetime? If that is the case, I think you're mistaken. I would consider that as substance occupying space/area.

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 274 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2008 9:31 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2008 10:16 AM Buzsaw has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 276 of 380 (469588)
06-06-2008 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Buzsaw
06-06-2008 10:04 AM


Re: Curved
Are you alleging that mass as in atomic mass or some other rendition of the term/word is one of the properties of spacetime? If that is the case, I think you're mistaken. I would consider that as substance occupying space/area.
Any mass. The mass of an atom or the mass of a planet or the mass of a star. All mass.
The issue in this context is curvature of spacetime (do you remember the steel bar converstaion that initiated all of this?)
How can you possibly deny the curvature of spacetime given all of the detailed, specific, measurable empirical evidence in favour of this?
How can you cling onto your flawed and simplistic model of the universe given that it is so evidently inferior in terms of predicting or explaining observed results that are applied in practise to various technologies. Technologies that you yourself may use.
On what basis do you cling to your notion of non-curved space?
It is obviously just wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 10:04 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 1:13 PM Straggler has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 380 (469614)
06-06-2008 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Straggler
06-06-2008 10:16 AM


Re: Curved
Straggler, is mass a property of space?

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 276 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2008 10:16 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2008 2:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 278 of 380 (469619)
06-06-2008 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Buzsaw
06-06-2008 1:13 PM


Re: Curved
Straggler, is mass a property of space?
What does that even mean?
Are you asking if space itself has mass?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 1:13 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 5:22 PM Straggler has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 380 (469646)
06-06-2008 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Straggler
06-06-2008 2:00 PM


Re: Curved
Straggler writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Are you alleging that mass as in atomic mass or some other rendition of the term/word is one of the properties of spacetime?
Straggler writes:
Any mass. The mass of an atom or the mass of a planet or the mass of a star. All mass.
Straggler writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Straggler, is mass a property of space?
Straggler writes:
What does that even mean? Are you asking if space itself has mass?
It means what it says. Is mass a property of space? Your first answer (abe: to) that question was ambiguous. It appeared to say that all mass was a property of spacetime as per my first question and your first answer so I made the question more to the point relative to space itself and mass.
Edited by Buzsaw, : add word for clarification
Edited by Buzsaw, : fix first edit

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 278 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2008 2:00 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by IamJoseph, posted 06-07-2008 12:53 AM Buzsaw has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 280 of 380 (469715)
06-07-2008 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by onifre
06-05-2008 1:24 PM


Re: NATURE is a Brick Wall.
quote:
We know where lots of things come from, including the notion of an intelligent designer.
We know nothing whatsoever about the origin of anything whatsoever. Everything ends in a brick wall. This is why Genesis begins with the second alphabet, and says go forth. The second alphabet, 'B' or bet/beta, is shaped like a square, with only one side open - that of going forward. All other sides are barred. There is nothing wrong with our minds - the origin, the 'A' factor, is barred. This is vindicated.
quote:
Who is Moses? When did he exist? What credentials does he have to make this claim and prove that he got it from the actual source?
Credentials:
1. Moses is the most revered and believed human who ever existed. The laws derived via Moses is what makes the world turn today - exclusively. Not a single law accepted by the world is not contained in the 613 OT laws.
2. Moses is believed in by more humans than any other figure in humanity: 2 B christians, 1.2 B muslims, 15 M Jews. That is a greater sum than for any other figurehead. I would include atheists as well - they abide by the OT's moral, ethical, judiciary laws also.
quote:
'I am the Lord I have not changed'.
Well thats convinient, here I'll give it a try, "I am Oni and I have not changed", boy thast was easy. What do you think, are you convinced?
You have here mis-represented the applicable factor, namely that it is the aspect of 'change' which determines infinity. Never mind the names for a mo - instead, address the factor that change negates infinity, rendering it finite. And this premise is what comes from the OT, and is non-negotiable.
quote:
This is an opinion. If you can't prove the creator and explain his back story(without using a single religions doctrine of course), then your opinion becomes void of evidence and as such is rejected, as have all theological explanations been rejected.
Again, you are mis-repping the applicable criteria. Never mind the aspect of any religion, but consider what criteria is nominated in the OT of the Creator and Creation: Monotheism [One God] and Ex Nihilo [something from nothing], respectively. The ex nihilo is non-negotiable: at one time there were no tools or products to use.
quote:
I know you'll argue that the laws of the Universe are intelligently designed but, this is only your obseved interpretation of the Universe.
.
Its not only my observed interpretation, but pervasive and manifest. You are thereby negating science itself when you say so.
quote:
The actual events leading up to what we can define as order were chaotic
Entropy is first introduced in genesis, namely the second verse, that first the created products were w/o form, then they were given form. This is seen in the seperation of the elements, light from darkness, day from night, land from water, male from female, positive from negative. These are deceptively simple verses, and made that way to apply to all generations of man. Order from dis-order is nothing other than critical seperations.
quote:
Hindsight says its intelligently designed however, the moments after T=O and till about 4 billion years ago were a chaotic mess, in respects to organic life(that we know of). As such the idea of a designer would only point to an incompetent designer. Of course the future of the Universe also points to an incompetent designer(if of course we mean a designer who values humans as His greatest achievement).
Not at all. The metaphor of 'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS' applies. In fact, you are not supporting science but negating it when you posit such ideas. The introduction of life was reliant on billions of critical factors which anticipated life. Here, your talking 100% Genesis - aka science.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by onifre, posted 06-05-2008 1:24 PM onifre has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 281 of 380 (469722)
06-07-2008 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Buzsaw
06-06-2008 5:22 PM


Re: Curved
Mass is the clumping effect of matter, namely its concentrations and compactions, resultant from variances in temps and densities. What this also says, is that the mass which was clumped, was existent somewhere, or in a potential form.
Consider the making of a wooden table from a tree. The wood of the tree is altered, after the tree is grown to size. But this is not sufficient. One also needs a foundation to put the table upon. Else the table nor the wood cutter would not exist - having nowhere to stand. So the wood cutter understands this, and caters to a foundation where he will rest the table.
The issue of space being catered to is logical, but the confusing part is what actually is space, what is it made of, or what is space when it is void of any matter. Here, the first factor is that space cannot be the same as matter - else matter would not be distinquishable. Yet matter only comes from within space, and matter cannot be seen as matter without a space bed. We cannot say that matter exists and space does not, or that space has no meaning - because it critically alligns with space, to such a critical degree that it does this alligning without negating matter.
The critical issue here is, not that space is matter [mass] in another form, or vice versa. IMHO, the most critical issue here is, does matter exist solely by this clumping action, or did this occur by an external impact? IOW, mass it not merely the clumping of space and elements, but the result of an external triggering - this has no alternative even when we say that there was a potential program embedded within space or within the first BB particile: the first action of expansion, which is a dynamic state and varied from its previous non-dynamic state - would still require an external triggering. I reject the notion of space being nothingness, because it is not superfluous - it performs a critical, purposeful requirement as a matrix - without negating anything within it: this challenges the notion of nothingness and a random occurence. We cannot say a floor which houses a table is an unconnected item, when it is in fact indispensible.
The better question relating to space is: did light predate space? I ask this because light is a primodial factor; has a transcendent velosity not equalled by space; it is ageless [thus older than space or mass]; massless [requiring no space foundation]; and the only item which can be a candidate for the triggering factor, acting as an external impact. Its like an explosion of a bomb - the denonator is light, via an external impact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 5:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2008 5:15 PM IamJoseph has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 380 (469797)
06-07-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by IamJoseph
06-07-2008 12:53 AM


Re: Curved
IaJ, like the others, you've said a lot to say nothing to answer my question. You've tiptoed full circle around my question to Straggler.
Is mass a property of space or does mass occupy space?

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 281 by IamJoseph, posted 06-07-2008 12:53 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Son Goku, posted 06-07-2008 6:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 285 by IamJoseph, posted 06-07-2008 8:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 380 (469805)
06-07-2008 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Buzsaw
06-07-2008 5:15 PM


Re: Curved
Matter occupies spacetime. However regions of space and matter can both posses mass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2008 5:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by cavediver, posted 06-07-2008 7:57 PM Son Goku has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 284 of 380 (469816)
06-07-2008 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Son Goku
06-07-2008 6:47 PM


Down the rabbit hole
Matter occupies spacetime.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... I don't really like this concept. It's sort of the standard impression of GR, but it's lopsided with respect to the treatment of gravity cf matter - we have a field theory of gravitation but sill thinking of matter as blobs. Furthermore, it gives the horrific impression that space stops at the boundary of your matter blob, and then starts again on the other side - probably why I never liked the Vaidya metric
The first step to rectifying this is picturing the matter (and gauge) fields stretched over space-time. So matter certainly no longer occupies space-time - the space-time merely provides a background chart that enables the concept of location to be applied to the field excitations (the blobs). This is at the level of my favourite anaology (2d of course to delight Buz and ICANT), where we picture matter as waves on the background of an ocean of space-time.
But this picture is still missing the vital point - there is no 'space' in space-time. This is simply an illusion of the coupling the metric field. Space-time has a fundemental topology but its geometry is purely a derived, *emergent* property of the behaviour of the metric. Andromeda is only .5 million times further away than Proxima C. by virtue of some values in a field. The 'distance' is purely an illusion that we ourselves generate by 'perceiving' the Universe. Not to take anything away from our dear departed Douglas, but space - even if infinite - is really, really small And without conciousness to give it some impression of size, there really isn't that much to it all
Actually, it was my first steps in String Theory that made me realise this. Not that it requires ST but when you interpret the terms of the Polyakov Action from the perspective of it being simply a 2d theory with no *prior* thought of a target space, it becomes obvious.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Son Goku, posted 06-07-2008 6:47 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by IamJoseph, posted 06-07-2008 8:30 PM cavediver has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 285 of 380 (469818)
06-07-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Buzsaw
06-07-2008 5:15 PM


IMHO< space is the ultimate rarified matter [Mass]
quote:
Is mass a property of space or does mass occupy space?
I think there is always much to say of what is percieved as nothingness - because this defies logic. It is an enigma first and foremost, and thus an unknown factor. All we can do is surmise via examples and analogies, based on accumulated logical and scientific criteria.
I think the analogy of a floor bed is a legitimate premise for containing the space bodies, because else the space bodies could not exist - same as a table and a floor, and that these have to be of different attributes - else again none of them can exist. Here, the issue is: what is mass?
Mass = particles of physical matter; according to its densities in variable degrees. Eg. oxygen, water, wood and iron are all mass in variable densities. H2O and Atoms are basically physical matter. When we ask what is space, we are really asking, is space matter - or the absence of matter? We ask this because we cannot grasp space and house it in a bottle - because we have no choice: the space is always pervasive, indicating its prevalence is not an option.
This begs the question, if space is not matter, then what is it? And we end up in a quagmire, because all we can say here is that space is nothingness - which is not a valid description. There is no such thing as nothingness anywhere - so this answer is out. Some 300 years ago, we would call radio waves, which we could not detect, as nothingness - but this is matter, in a rarer density of its particles clumping.
So yes, I would say that space is matter - by virtue of no other alternative available; that space has a purpose and critical attributes - being inert to allow matter to be contained without its negation. IMHO< space is the ultimate rarified matter [aka: mass], perhaps made of the basic, smallest, particles, thus being immeasurable, undeterminable and non-identifiable - but not nothingness. Its base make-up would be far smaller than quarks, and thereby almost non- physical or at the treshold of what is corporeal and non-corporeal.
The bottom line is that space cannot be nothingness - as per the floor bed analogy for a table; nor can we say space is superfluous and serves no purpose. Space is mass holding mass.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Buzsaw, posted 06-07-2008 5:15 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