Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The infinite space of the Universe
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 36 of 380 (467360)
05-21-2008 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Marcosll
05-21-2008 7:45 AM


Necessary Consequence
I think the universe must be inifite for practicle purposes, otherwise it would collapse onto itself at some point.
Please explain why a finite universe must collapse upon itself and how you know this one won't.
In laymen terms, please. Not all of us can follow the advanced maths.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Marcosll, posted 05-21-2008 7:45 AM Marcosll has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 163 of 380 (468774)
06-01-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by IamJoseph
06-01-2008 4:54 AM


Re: Time's existence is immaterial
Its like finding a car on Jupiter and concluding there must be a car maker.
Yes, a car on Jupiter is much more convincing then a watch on the moor. Please, Paley has been done to death.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 4:54 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 7:38 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 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

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 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 4716 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

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 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 4716 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

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 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

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 181 of 380 (468900)
06-02-2008 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Buzsaw
06-02-2008 8:38 AM


Re: Is it infinite?
Unless you think I mean the bar will weld its meeting ends into a continuos piece like two rolls of Certs breath mints banged together, which I don't, then the property you seek is called straightness.
AbE: Sorry, that's too glib even for me.
Straight, universally, is a relative term in the same way level is globally. A level brick wall will rejoin itself if built all the way around the Earth. For the bar to be straight it must follow the curvature of the Universe to rejoin itself.
Edited by lyx2no, : To be uncharacteristically less dick-like

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 06-02-2008 8:38 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Buzsaw, posted 06-03-2008 9:03 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 188 of 380 (468992)
06-02-2008 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Agobot
06-02-2008 5:32 PM


All in All Its All Just Bricks in the Wall
Welding was my word. I mentioned it to be certain that “rejoin” was not being taken as a molecular reconnection of the bar at the point where it would meet its opposite end. No, the bar would meet itself as any two bar ends would be expected to meet it touched together.
Buzsaw was talking about an imaginary bar made perfectly “straight” and as long as need be to cross all the way across the Universe (not just the observable universe). His bar was not being bent or stretched by the Universe.
Let me expound upon my earlier level wall. If I use a transit (and non-differential leveling) to construct a straight and level brick wall on an imaginary smooth Earth without taking the curvature of the Earth’s surface into account (while, oddly enough, correcting for refraction) 3.5 km down the road I’ll find my meter tall wall is now two meters tall. A shallow slope, but a slope to be sure. This is because I’m erroneously using light rays as my standard of “level”. And light rays pay no heed to the curvature of the Earth. However, if I use a spirit level to establish level my one meter wall will remain one meter tall. The 40,000 km long cap stone will meet itself at one meter above the ground. This is because I’m now using gravity as my standard of level, and gravity is always perpendicular to the surface of my featureless Earth.
The Universe is a 3 dimensional surface of a 4 dimensional hyper-sphere (hyper-spherish enough). And just like the surface of the Earth it bends back upon itself. If I build my “straight” brick wall right across space it will, without ever deviating from what we measure as straight in the same way as my Earth bound wall never deviated from level, follow the curvature of the 3-D surface to eventually meet itself.
In either case, if you took a walk along the wall you’d return to your starting point in a completely nonstreched out, non-welded end-to-end fashion. It would just be another spot along the wall like any other spot along the wall. All in all, it just another brick in the wall.
If i take on a random journey around the earth .
No one has suggested a random trip around and about. That’s why we used the word straight.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Agobot, posted 06-02-2008 5:32 PM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Libmr2bs, posted 06-02-2008 11:44 PM lyx2no has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 191 of 380 (469018)
06-03-2008 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Libmr2bs
06-02-2008 11:25 PM


A Spherical Horse
Take an irregular potato and cut it in two. Stamp it with an ink pad and press it to a sheet of paper. What are the odds of the perimeter not meeting itself?
As to your post 190: And what causes the gravity on my “featureless Earth” to be nonuniform? I’d more likely have to take into account that I’m using a spirit level to level a line 40,000 km long. Or that the actual gravitational center keeps moving as the Moon moves around. Or that the Earth rotates giving a continually varying Sun angle. Or that I’m just not that good a laying brick. Hint: Spherical horse on a frictionless track.
And the reason light doesn’t follow the curvature of the Earth has nothing to do with the surface gravity being nonuniform, but with the gravity not being nearly intense enough.
AbE: As you like calculations, the Earth would have to be about 1.44 billion times more massive for light to follow its current surface curvature.
Edited by lyx2no, : To be more dick-like.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Libmr2bs, posted 06-02-2008 11:25 PM Libmr2bs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by cavediver, posted 06-03-2008 3:07 AM lyx2no has replied
 Message 194 by Libmr2bs, posted 06-03-2008 1:46 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 197 of 380 (469070)
06-03-2008 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by cavediver
06-03-2008 3:07 AM


Re: A Spherical Horse
I've been contacted by the cabal and have been instructed to capitulate.
I only considered doing the calculation after posting and didn't actually know how to go about it, so I had to devise the method as well as look up the particulars. I'll try again and if I don't get 4.81”109 I'll get back to you. Thanks

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by cavediver, posted 06-03-2008 3:07 AM cavediver has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 200 of 380 (469073)
06-03-2008 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Libmr2bs
06-03-2008 1:46 PM


Re: A Spherical Horse
The one that always gets me is when some Braniac physics guy uses the ants on the surface of an inflating balloon analogy to explain proper motions* in the expansion of space and doesn't take into consideration the possibility of the ants having a latex allergy.
I promise you that I will take chaos theory into account when I get around to building my space wall, but so long as I only intend to use it as a teaching aid specific to the point I am trying to get across I'll simplify the situation to the necessary aspects.
You seem to be doing a very good job of confusing the issue well beyond your understanding, leaving yourself free to more easily accept your crep-crap as the more reasonable explanation. I'll put in a good word for you and see if we can get you promoted to 3bs.
AbE: *Proper motion was a poor choice because it is already used to describe motion perpendicular to ones line of sight. Does anyone have a term more fitting to the motions of the galaxies due to the local environment? I'm drawing a blank. Thanks.
Edited by lyx2no, : To seek the guidance of my peers.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Libmr2bs, posted 06-03-2008 1:46 PM Libmr2bs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Libmr2bs, posted 06-03-2008 11:50 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 205 of 380 (469086)
06-03-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by bluegenes
06-03-2008 6:13 PM


Re: Who's got the best nonsense?
I'm thinking if the two should ever meet in the real world they'd meld together like drops of mercury.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by bluegenes, posted 06-03-2008 6:13 PM bluegenes has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 210 of 380 (469111)
06-03-2008 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Buzsaw
06-03-2008 9:03 PM


Try Hard
My point in all this is to argue for static boundless/infinite space. There are no properties of space which are going to overcome the properties of a straight steel straight edge bar so as to prevent it from going straight out into space into infinity. The bar is used as a model only. Of course we know it's impossible for a bar to keep from bending from the weight etc but even then it wouldn't rejoin to the same location.
For clarity of explanation it is perfectly acceptable to invent super inflexible metals and the forges to produce them. So long as one isn’t using the invented “magic” properties to make the point in question work where it wouldn’t work without them. This is the basic stuff of thought experiments and shouldn’t need to be explained (It’s not to you, Mr. Saw, that I’m explaining this.) He who thinks Schrodinger had nefarious designs on cats may have missed the point.
Anyway, let us make this steel bar: What method will you, Buzsaw, to measure its straightness? I grant you perfect instruments and skills. You need only explain the mechanical activities you exercise to measure the bar. No theory, no philosophy.
This is a real question, and a real attempt to answer it can be instructive. I’d appreciate it if you give it a well thought out try.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Buzsaw, posted 06-03-2008 9:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Buzsaw, posted 06-03-2008 10:52 PM lyx2no has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024