Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,139 Year: 5,396/9,624 Month: 421/323 Week: 61/204 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Size of the universe
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
(1)
Message 29 of 248 (583277)
09-25-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
09-25-2010 10:15 AM


Re: WOW!!!
cavediver says;
very true - but us cosmologists don't give a shit about problems and discrepancies in our theories. We just like to make up shit to demonstrate how much more clever we are than plebs like you.
and
Oh, don't forget that us cosmologists are a bunch of pseudo-scientific wankers. We're not going to explain this to you - we *want* you to be confused
Ha...I knew it!
I am going back to my flat earth where the scientists either go to church or jail and all the dragons are clearly marked on the map.
Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 10:15 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 74 of 248 (598556)
01-01-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
01-01-2011 8:56 AM


Re: Young or old universe
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 01-01-2011 8:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 79 of 248 (599082)
01-04-2011 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
01-02-2011 7:35 AM


Re: Young or old universe
Iblis already provided the correct answer that space/time, being neither matter or energy, is not constrained by the speed of light (c).
I don't mean this to be a flippant question. How can something that is neither matter nor energy have any effect on matter or energy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 01-02-2011 7:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by cavediver, posted 01-05-2011 5:29 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 01-05-2011 8:00 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 82 of 248 (599228)
01-05-2011 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Percy
01-05-2011 8:00 AM


Re: Young or old universe
Matter and energy exist within space/time, which means every photon and particle has a 4-dimensional position within space/time (3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension) and a 4-dimensional velocity vector. Both the position and the velocity vector will have values that are relative to the observer (that's why they call it relativity).
No problem.
It turns out that space/time is not fixed,...
Whoa up there just for a moment. Space/time is neither matter nor energy, as per your words and my own understanding of it. It is not a thing until it is defined by other things that really are things like moons and molecules. I have always considered space to be a sort of ‘not a thing’. Fixed or moving or expanding are qualities that belong to things that are subject to relativity. Are they not?
This recession velocity is due to the creation of new space in the intervening space.
I understand that this is indicated by the model. I am stumbling because it requires me to consider space as a thing. Does space have a dual nature similar to light? Or is it just a failure of language? Is ‘the fabric of space/time’ more than just a figure of speech?
Light is also affected by the expansion of space - it becomes drawn out and lengthened into longer (redder) wave lengths, we observe it as the red shift.
Why does the red shift that we observe require the expansion of space? Is it because a galaxy that is 13.7 billion light yrs away appears to be receding at a rate greater than c?
Cavediver has warned me off of considering the BB to be like an explosion but I am finding that difficult to do. Is the nature of the universe, on a universal scale, fundamentally different from what I see around me?
These would be my definitions taken from Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary and edited ;
Matter - a. Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.
b. Physics Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
Energy - 1. The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power.
a. Usable heat or power:
4. Physics The capacity of a physical system to do work.
Effect - 1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence:
Thing - 1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.
2.
a. The real or concrete substance of an entity.
b. An entity existing in space and time.
c. An inanimate object.
And I sincerely appreciate your replies. Ignorance sucks like a vacuum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 01-05-2011 8:00 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 01-06-2011 9:38 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 84 by Iblis, posted 01-06-2011 4:09 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 01-06-2011 6:23 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 86 by cavediver, posted 01-06-2011 7:06 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 87 of 248 (599609)
01-09-2011 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by cavediver
01-06-2011 7:06 PM


Re: Young or old universe
I just want to make it clear that I am not trying to refute anything you guys are saying. I am trying to understand it.
So the geometry that applies to an eccentric spiral staircase here on earth does not apply to big space. Geometry is not universal.
I find it interesting that the language of mathematics defies translation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by cavediver, posted 01-06-2011 7:06 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by cavediver, posted 01-09-2011 9:56 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 93 of 248 (600362)
01-14-2011 6:25 AM


The void
So, then, is the concept of a 'void' only a concept? An impossible one at that. Can we logically conceive a 'place' where no 'thing' exists?
Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2011 7:01 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 95 of 248 (600367)
01-14-2011 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by cavediver
01-14-2011 7:01 AM


Re: The void
Can I conclude, then, that space must be infinite?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2011 7:01 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2011 1:20 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 98 of 248 (600673)
01-16-2011 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by cavediver
01-14-2011 7:01 AM


Re: The void
As we have seen, space-time is itself a thing, and can quite happily exist with nothing else in it.
OK I have successfully cajoled the little grey cells into accepting this. Having done so, I can no longer imagine a 'place' where there is no space.
...the surface of the earth has no boundary but is finite.
I think I get what you mean by no boundary along the surface. Regardless of it's shape does the word 'surface' not denote a boundary? On the surface or not on the surface. Above or below the surface.
So we exist in a universe that can have a finite space surrounded by an infinite border and infinite space surrounded by a finite border. Am I the only one who has trouble with this?
I am not trying to be obtuse .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2011 7:01 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2011 8:45 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 01-16-2011 9:41 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 101 by cavediver, posted 01-16-2011 12:27 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 107 of 248 (604447)
02-12-2011 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by thewordofgod
02-12-2011 6:55 AM


There is no end to the universe because there wasn't any big bang.
Well thank goodness that is finally settled.
We are living exactly the way he planned it.
What a relief. None of this is my fault.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by thewordofgod, posted 02-12-2011 6:55 AM thewordofgod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by thewordofgod, posted 02-12-2011 9:50 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 111 of 248 (610842)
04-02-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-02-2011 4:47 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Can you describe Mozart's violin concerto #5 in English? Communication requires a shared experience and common reference points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-02-2011 4:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-03-2011 6:32 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 113 of 248 (610848)
04-02-2011 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-02-2011 4:47 PM


Re: Young or old universe
I should also say that I think your post illuminates a valid issue.
How do you reconcile a logically and mathematically derived theoretical conclusion with a physical impossibility?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-02-2011 4:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 115 of 248 (610872)
04-03-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-03-2011 6:32 AM


Penguin's Milk
Sure, and I imagine that Mozart would appreciate the subtleties of your description. What would a tone deaf person think of it? Or a child who had never seen or heard a violin?
I know people who refuse to believe that we have walked on the moon. Who does the nonsense belong to?
I take it that you have a fair understanding of the actual math used to defend the Standard Model and you disagree with the conclusions. I do not understand all of the math. Can you describe for me why it is wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-03-2011 6:32 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-04-2011 8:09 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 117 of 248 (611054)
04-04-2011 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-04-2011 8:09 AM


Re: Penguin's Milk
... that may not still mean there is no way for me to find a good analogy to render the pleasurable effect of Mozart's piece...
Of course you might achieve some measure of success but if you failed it wouldn’t mean that Mozart’s concerto was nonsense. My point is simply that not all ideas are easy to convey to all people. Also, I would imagine that one mathematician could describe the concerto to another mathematician using math with greater success and accuracy.
You are asking me what is the mathematical error in the Standard Model.
Thanks for the reply but I should withdraw the question as I am in no way qualified to debate it with you and your answer raises many more questions. I will leave the discussion to others more capable of examining your argument.
I will ask you why you think that all of those who are building the floating cathedrals of genius are doing so? I mean wouldn’t you rather spend your life figuring out the ‘real’ answers? Isn’t it easier to put your buildings on the ground?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-04-2011 8:09 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-05-2011 2:49 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 124 of 248 (611159)
04-05-2011 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-05-2011 2:49 PM


Re: Penguin's Milk
I thought the music analogy was a good one in relation to the nature of communication. Also as an example of something that can be translated precisely through mathematics and not precisely with language.
Comparing Mozart’s inspiration with a logical mathematical conclusion seems to fall a little short of the ground itself. Seeing a shadow and assuming that something is blocking the light is not the same thing as seeing a ghost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-05-2011 2:49 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 125 of 248 (614422)
05-04-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by cavediver
01-14-2011 7:01 AM


Re: The void
cavediver writes:
So, then, is the concept of a 'void' only a concept? An impossible one at that. Can we logically conceive a 'place' where no 'thing' exists?
As we have seen, space-time is itself a thing, and can quite happily exist with nothing else in it.
So there I was, merrily hacking away at my Lucasfilm perception of the universe, when it occurred to me.
If it is true that no thing actually 'touches' anything else, what is left between two things that are not touching? Does the alpha field or Higgs field or space/time occupy this space? Does this field occupy the space between electrons and their nucleus? Does this field make contact with anything?
Do you see where I am going with this? If nothing makes contact with anything else there must be some kind of unoccupied space. No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2011 7:01 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by cavediver, posted 05-04-2011 6:16 PM Dogmafood 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