Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamics

Space isn't a thing. The question of how to create it does not make sense.

Gee, you're not WillowTree, and yet you use precisely the same words! If I only had a nickle for every time WillowTree said, "Show where I've been refuted!" Let me ask you this. How do you personally tell the difference between material you think you understand but don't, and material you think you understand and do? Evidently, multiple people simultaneously telling you you're wrong doesn't count for much. I've seen you do this so many times I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Perhaps this time you actually knew this already, but your modus operandi has been to defend incorrect statements ad nauseum by casting post facto interpretations upon them, another unending source of frustration.Let me propose my recent exchange with Sylas as a possible model for you to follow. I said the universe was finite, Sylas said we don't know that. I gave my reasons for my belief, and Sylas explained it was an artifact of the way cosmology is often reduced to layman's terms. I poked around on the Internet and confirmed that what Sylas said was true (parenthetically, it seems that the level of discussion directed at laypeople has increased in complexity and detail for cosmology since I last looked into this). I now accept that the universe may be infinite.I'm hopeful that you'll eventually stop digging in your heels and come to accept that objects can increase their distance from one another both through motion within space/time and through expansion of space/time.--Percy

Ok, I'll word what I was attempting to convey differently. You cannot add overall dimension to infinite boundless space. You cannot extend perameters of boundless space by expansion. Why? Because there are no bounds to be extended. It's three spatial dimensions are uncountably infinite and those dimensions cannot expand/be extended.Yah, I know you can do the math and add numbers within boundless space, which seems to be going on with your model, but since the term, "universe" includes all existing space, you cannot extend the perameters of the universe's overall infinite boundless space. So you can expand distances between things within the universe. You can even expand that specific area of the universe's space in which things presently exist, but the overall dimension of an infinite universe remains the same, i.e. infinitely boundless.It appears that our problem has been that I've been talking expansion of outer perameters whereas you people have not.

No, I think the problem is that you CAN add to infinity but you get infinity back.It turns out Buz that it gets ugly if you get into what I think are called transfinite mathematics.Boundless means just that. There are no bounds. It can get bigger but is measured, still, as being boundless because the only "measurement" we have for it is infinity. And all infinities of this kind are the same "size". It's just that "size" no longer matches what we usualy think of it as.This is an old problem: Are all infinities of the same size or not?If I remember right the inifinities we are talking about here are the same size.However, Cantor demonstarted in the late 1800's that there are some infinities which are bigger than others.Is this confusing? Yea, if you try to stick to what we normally deal with. But it is how the math works.You can try to describe what being boundless means without this math but if you do you will be forced back to the same kind of conterintuitive things.This is another case where the rough, intuitive, armwaveing approach falls apart once you try to get precise about it.(Warning note: me not being a mathematician or cosmologist there is a chance the above is wrong. What I am pretty sure of is that it is "righter" than what your view is.)

Ned I appreciate your references. It is nice for me to read your post(s) in a positive mood/mode. Although I prefer an experimental philosophy in which transifites DO NEcessarily apply, I do consent the possiblity that they do not, as man futher explores from a known center of the solar system.Seeing as I do, in time, (now about a year after first getting Georgi's email etc) that chromatographic analogies and electrotonic fluxidity can be one in the same soma provided thermal currents DO really move where Feynman discounted gravitational effects ( gravity having more power than brownian motion in adaptive cases across biological change) tangentailly to a geometric tube formations, the analogy between heat and attractions can be not merely formall equivalent but bound by gene accounts in populations. This qualitative positiong that I have gained in the past year would show that physicists have been too narrowly applying math but it might not need to be in the departments that might try to contemplate transfinites (as for instance I have tried with respect to mendel without using this specific kinematics layered by macrothermodyanmics, hierarchic thermodyanmically. As Georgi said, it is required to carefully make the defintions. This is slow and hard work.So given that, as I intend, the infinte need not apply if one directly Deduces this result from WITHIN Maxwell's already written equationing which I would take at least prima facie WOULD apply to the conversation with Buzz, but here I reach a limit in my understanding and sense of physcis which is likely to change in the future.I had started to type in the relavant location in Maxwell that displays this issue. It was in James' article "On Faraday's Line of Force". If this is physically correct IN THE INFINITE SENSE OF MAXWELL, then those physcists whom have said that Maxwell's electrotonic symbols failed were wrong as well as the common physics' saying to biologists (occurred when Cornell's Keton was figuring out how pigeons use magents) that the "line of force" is not real. It would be and it would be the forwording of Georgi Gladyshev's MULTIPLE chromatographic columns. This would change our conception of physics biopysically and might even influence other issues such as Bohr's notion that he had only acutally worked up hydrogen and since we have had but a bomb from it.

The grids in Asgara's first diagram are smaller than those in her second one. The consensus of most here, as I now understand them, is that each small grid of space of diagram one has allegedly expanded (stretched like elastic) into a larger grid of space, as in diagram B, rather than A and/or B moving apart. Correct me if this is a flawed assumption of the majority consensus.The problems I see with that claim is:
1. New space/area is being created in the universe rather than space/nothing/area/void expanding.
2. By definition space couldn't be created/expanded/stretched. Rather space, i.e. nothing/area is static and A and/or B are moving in static space.
3. In the case of a bounded system where there is allegedly no "outside of," not even space, there would be no area "outside of" for space to expand into. This problem would, imo, require space to expand into itself if the universe indeed contains all space.NOTE: HAVING THOUGHT THIS THROUGH, LYING IN BED LAST NIGHT IT BECAME APPARANT TO ME THAT I HAVE BEEN WRONG IN AGREEING THAT SPACE CAN EXPAND WITHIN THE UNIVERSE. What I meant by "expanding" is that distances between things could expand, but that meaning is apparantly obfuscating my position For clarification, my position now has changed to space being static area. Boundless space cannot move, stretch, extend dimensions or expand. The only things able to move are things in space. I know this likely will make me even less popular in the science room but I can't help that, unless someone can substantiate otherwise. I must be forthright and honest as to what I believe, regardless of popularity. It's all in how what is observed is interpreted. As gentleman ( ) Sylas, implicated, some see SPACE EXPANDING. Others think space is static and see things move. For clarification on my position, I'm now solidly with the latter.EDITED to correct "things moving" to SPACE EXPANDING. (Emphasis added for easy notice)This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-22-2005 19:58 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

I find this position much clearer when confronting the popularized view that RATES of FLESH have changed over geological time. They may have but still my herp morphospace is both more diverse and morestatic"" than this other thing in itself as it appeared. This is so hard thing to cause people (unlike Gould etc) to have thougt correctly that it sometimes seems to me to make sense, in pedagogic series,is just what is needed just to say what you just did.

How many times did you or others actually take the time and did indeed substantially refute him? I don't know, as I stayed away from WT after the terrible profane stuff he posted about other Christians and others. 1. Can I substantiate it irrefutably?
2. Have attempts of my counterparts substantially refuted?
3. What do others from other sources, both counterparts and likeminded have to say about it?Those are a few for example.Come now, Percy as to 'simultaneous tellers,' are you serious? Better count up the number of evos to each id creo (scanty few) here in town and go figure. Do you really think my counterparts are going to wrap their ideological arms around ole buz and agree with ole buz's id position? LOL on that'n. I know full well that infinite plus 1 equals infinite. I suppose that depends on what mood you're in. Do you ever laugh? Flat out falsehood, Percy. I would appreciate if you'd do a ballot thread by posting this allegation and see how many of even my counterparts would agree with this statement. That you or I agree or disagree on whether something is correct is a whole lot relative to our widely different ideologies. YOU'RE MEANSPIRITED, NASTY, UNJUST, HIGHLY BIASED AND OUTRIGHT INSOLENT!! .......and had you done your research before Silas's post before belittling me for saying it could be infinite, you'd not have belittled me for saying so myself. You RARELY EVER make any attempt to refute me fair and square. Rather you disregard the tennants of your own forum guidelines by unsubstantiated personal attacks.
That's ALWAYS been your modus operendi with me. Why? Because I raise some hard questions for you people, sometimes difficult for you to refute AND IT GALLS YOU! .......and I'm hopeful you'll get taheck off my back, so we can stick to discussion of the topic. You need to observe some how Silas, Asgara, Kevin and some others debate counterparts like me so as to learn how to be civil and to debate me fair and square as a gentleman like they do and like your own guidelines say we should conduct ourselves.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Yes to the first paragraph. The most natural model for how the universe behaves turns out to be that there is no sensible static frame in which things at rest remain at the same separation.As for your three points.

1. I don’t understand the distinction you perceive between creating space rather than space expanding. I think space expanding or stretching is the more useful mental picture. Part of the reason for this is that the wavelength of photons stretches as they travel through an expanding space; but if you prefer to think of new space (whatever that means) being created, then I can see how that might be another way to think about the same basic phenomenon.
2. The claim that By definition space couldn’t be created/expanded/stretched is wrong at least for the definition used in modern science. Science does not work by making blanket definitions and then sticking to them no matter what. Sometimes we discover something new about the universe, and need to alter our definitions to match. Our definitions don’t define truth. They are merely our attempts to describe models for the universe as best we can manage. When the definitions don’t match reality, we drop them.
3. Final point is correct. Expansion does not involve expanding into anything else. Even saying it expands into itself is a bit odd. You can think of it that way if it helps; but better to just drop the notion of into. It is the nature of space to expand, and this is a surprising discovery about the universe. In the models being used, the universe contains all space, and it expands over time.

I understand that. Let me just emphasize that when you say Others think space is static and see things move, you are correct; but those others are limited to people who don’t know or understand the relevant observational data and physical models that explain them. Put bluntly; no astronomer involved in the study of deep space and able to use and apply the relevant physics of relativity is in the category of think space is static. Many of the deep space galaxies we see are receding faster than the speed of light; and the most distant ones we have seen are receding at about twice the speed of light. The only models that make sense of observations are those in which space expands. Motion does not work, because we know that the speed of light is a limit on motions.Cheers -- Sylas

Sure thing!--Percy

Trying to make sense of this, I'm guessing you're saying that due to the expansion of space, distant galaxies whose light we now see is from billions of years ago are at present receding more quickly than the speed of light. That means they no longer reside within our visible universe, though they used to.Wheter my guess is right or not, on my personal hierarchy of complexity I had quantuum theory above cosmology, but your posts are causing cosmology to rapidly catch up. --Percy

I was confused about this myself for the longest time.Many galaxies we can see are now, and always have been, receding from us substantially faster than light. They are part of the visible universe; and even photons leaving those galaxies now will eventually be able to reach us.The photons are still able to reach us, because over time they keep passing through regions of space where the recession velocity is less and less.Analogy again. Think of a small car moving over a sheet of rubber that is continuously expanding as it stretches. The car moves at a constant velocity relative to the rubber sheet.As the car moves towards you over the sheet, it is initially being carried AWAY from you by the stretching. However, even despite this, it keeps moving into new parts of the sheet where the expansion velocity is less and less. Sooner or later, it reaches a point where the recession due to expansion matches the approaching velocity due to local motions. This is the point of greatest separation distance; after that the local velocity wins out and eventually we see the photon. Other photons leaving such galaxies now will also be able to reach us, but it will take a long long time!Technically, this only works in "normal" expansion. In "inflationary expansion", the photon cannot reach us. It might be for this reason that inflation is described as "expansion faster than light", but that is incorrect. The different is as follows. In inflationary (exponential) expansion, the recession due to expansion is constant at a given separation. Thus as galaxies get carried further away by expansion, they also recede faster and faster. It is thought that our universe had a very short spurt of inflationary expansion at around 10^-30 seconds; long before there were any galaxies or even free photons.The current rate of expansion is such that a given galaxy continues to recede at roughly the same velocity as time passes, even though there is more and more space between us. (There is a minor quibble here of a small acceleration factor, but nothing like the exponential runaway of inflation.) This means, effectively, that things at a given separation distance will be moving away more and more slowly. The current Hubble constant is 71 km/sec/MPsec. But in 10 billion years or so it might be more like 40 km/sec/MPsec. During inflationary expansion, the Hubble constant really is constant.Take care this is one subject which many popular and even technical accounts get wrong! I only sorted it out for myself last month.Best reference: Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universep, by Tamara M. Davis and Charles H. Lineweaver, at astro-ph/0310808. Ned Wright also explains this well, as usual, in the second part of his tutorial. Here is Ned’s spacetime diagram from that page in which the path taken by approaching photons appears in red. Read the diagram showing distance on the horizontal axis, and time on the vertical axis. Here and now is the point at the top where the photons from different direction meet, and the Big Bang singularity is along the bottom of the diagram. The black lines correspond to galaxies. We see galaxies at the point where the red line crosses the black line; and so the galaxies we see moving faster than light are those crossing the red line when the red line is sloping away from the middle rather than towards it. Note that photons initially move further away, but eventually catch up with expansion and overtake it.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 01-24-2005 17:46 AM

This is going to take a while to absorb. If you're correct then I just can't believe how far off my understanding has been.--Percy

Thank you Sylas that is one of the reasons why I hang around here.Actually all of your posts count in that.I get it, I really get it! (I think).

show offIt will take me several readings, probably over several weeks, and still I will only come within shouting distance of even thinking that I might one day understand a small portion of it....like when he says "the" and "car" (I got that word right away)

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com