Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
32 online now:
GDR, jar, kjsimons, ringo, ssope, Taq (6 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The expanding Universe and Galactic collisions
Taz
Member (Idle past 1546 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 46 of 76 (430142)
10-23-2007 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Spektical
10-23-2007 1:03 PM


Spektical writes:

Time is not a tangible thing


No, it's a dimension. This is why we say space-time, not just space.

It should be applied to anything.

Yes, because everything that we know of is bounded by space-time.

But if the universe always existed, then time is irrelevant and non-existant.

Can you explain how you arrived at this? I'm having trouble following your logic.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 1:03 PM Spektical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 2:39 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Spektical
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 47 of 76 (430145)
10-23-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by EighteenDelta
10-23-2007 1:43 PM


what is the definition of matter?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-23-2007 1:43 PM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 3:43 PM Spektical has responded

    
Spektical
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 48 of 76 (430148)
10-23-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taz
10-23-2007 2:03 PM


Can you explain how you arrived at this? I'm having trouble following your logic.

You said that time is something that belongs to the universe, just like the north pole belongs to the earth. However time does not denote a location or co-ordinate, it denotes itself really. In other words the north pole exists as opposed to the south pole or the equator or the tropic of cancer. You're also saying that the north pole can only be applied to the earth, which means you're limiting yourself to the confines of the earth itself.

My question considers that if the universe is in fact expanding in a particular direction, an outward one, then this implies a beginning which denotes a point in time (t=0). But t=0 only applies to the UNIVERSE, not anything BEFORE that. Thus time is eternal and there is no beginning.

Edited by Spektical, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taz, posted 10-23-2007 2:03 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 3:59 PM Spektical has responded

    
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 49 of 76 (430155)
10-23-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Spektical
10-23-2007 12:55 PM


Yes I understand. So just as the north pole is a characteristic of the earth, time is a characteristic of 'this' universe.

More like the way length, width, and height are characteristics of the Universe, but yes.

However, this implies that just like the earth, the universe is a quantified closed system of a different quality.

No, it doesn't, because the Earth is not a closed system. If you mean that the similarity is "North/South is to Earth as Time is to the Universe," I suppose that's a good enough approximation, and you could say that those specific directions (North/South/East/West) are "closed in reference to the Earth as time and the other dimensions are closed in reference to the Universe.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "of different quality," or that the system is "quantified," however. The Universe encompasses all that exists - that's it's definition (and of course the Universe is a closed system). Other Universes have been hypothesized, most popularly through Brane Theory, but that particular theory is a mathematical hypothesis only. We lack the technology to test any predictions from the hypothesis, and so the existence of other Universes is more of a thought exercise than anything else.

Is it the same as comparing a hydrogen atom to the earth?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, either. A hydrogen atom can be part of the Earth, but it's not a basic property of the Earth like dimensions are of the Universe.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 12:55 PM Spektical has not yet responded

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2555 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 50 of 76 (430159)
10-23-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rahvin
10-23-2007 11:55 AM


Does that help?

That's beautifully worded. You should be writing textbooks LOL.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 11:55 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 4:01 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 51 of 76 (430165)
10-23-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Spektical
10-23-2007 2:19 PM


what is the definition of matter?

...anything that has mass and takes up space.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 2:19 PM Spektical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 3:44 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Spektical
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 52 of 76 (430167)
10-23-2007 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rahvin
10-23-2007 3:43 PM


so space can exist without matter?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 3:43 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 4:00 PM Spektical has responded

    
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 53 of 76 (430174)
10-23-2007 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Spektical
10-23-2007 2:39 PM


You said that time is something that belongs to the universe, just like the north pole belongs to the earth. However time does not denote a location or co-ordinate, it denotes itself really. In other words the north pole exists as opposed to the south pole or the equator or the tropic of cancer. You're also saying that the north pole can only be applied to the earth, which means you're limiting yourself to the confines of the earth itself.

The North Pole is to direction as the singularity is to Time. Asking "what is North of the North Pole" is just as meaningless as "What was the Universe like before the singularity." Time is not the pole, it's the direction - it's just another dimension like width and height."

And of course we are limiting the North/South comparison to Earth - North/South/East/West are directions that exist solely on a planetary body that possesses a magnetic field, like Earth.

My question considers that if the universe is in fact expanding in a particular direction, an outward one, then this implies a beginning which denotes a point in time (t=0).

Yes. That's exactly how we extrapolate the existence of the singularity.

But t=0 only applies to the UNIVERSE, not anything BEFORE that.
Again, "before the Universe" is inherently contradictory. The Universe is inclusive of time - asking what came "before" is like asking where a circle begins. The question is meaningless, because at T=0, time has no more meaning than the length or width of a single point. Think Geometry. Time is just another one of the lines like height, width, and length that intersect to describe the set of our Universe. It's only difficult to comprehend because we can only move one-way linearly through time, but can move through the spacial dimensions at will.

Thus time is eternal and there is no beginning.

Kind of. This is the sort of thing best described by mathematics, not the English language, and so any description we can offer is base metaphor. The words "always" and "eternal" typically mean "for all of time," which means something that is eternal exists at every point on the line we could use to represent time. Saying "time is eternal" is like saying "length is infinitely long." That's true, but the English language suggests terms like the word "before" that simply don't exist in this case. "What came before T=0" is exactly like asking "What is shorter than a single point?"


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 2:39 PM Spektical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 4:08 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 54 of 76 (430175)
10-23-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Spektical
10-23-2007 3:44 PM


so space can exist without matter?

Of course. Atoms, in fact, are mostly empty space that contains no matter or energy. Simply space.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 3:44 PM Spektical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 4:12 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 55 of 76 (430176)
10-23-2007 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kitsune
10-23-2007 3:24 PM


That's beautifully worded. You should be writing textbooks LOL.

Thanks! :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kitsune, posted 10-23-2007 3:24 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

  
Spektical
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 56 of 76 (430177)
10-23-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Rahvin
10-23-2007 3:59 PM


"What was the Universe like before the singularity."

But I wasn't asking this. I am asking what was before the singularity. Did the singularity itself exist in an environment?

What I am suggesting is infinte largeness as well as infinte smallness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 3:59 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 4:22 PM Spektical has responded

    
Spektical
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 57 of 76 (430178)
10-23-2007 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rahvin
10-23-2007 4:00 PM


So did the singularity take up space? And you do have talent for explaining things :)

Edited by Spektical, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 4:00 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 4:27 PM Spektical has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 58 of 76 (430179)
10-23-2007 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Spektical
10-23-2007 4:08 PM


But I wasn't asking this. I am asking what was before the singularity. Did the singularity itself exist in an environment?

The singularity is the environment. It's the Universe. There is nothing "outside" of the Universe - by definition, it encompasses all that exists, including the whole of the dimensions time, width, height, and length. Asking "what came before the singularity" is asking "what was the Universe like before the singularity."

What I am suggesting is infinte largeness as well as infinte smallness.

Infinite largeness and infinite smallness approaches the problem - as you could guess, math can break down when certain values are either infinite or zero (for speed, for instance, time can be neither). The singularity was an infinitely small point, so small that all four dimensions we are consciously aware of were equal to 0. Think Geometry again. A point is dimensionless, and this is why the singularity is so mysterious and interesting - our math breaks down, and we lose our ability to mathematically model its conditions. At t=0, you could simultaneously say that the singularity existed forever, and for only an infinitely small moment.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 4:08 PM Spektical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 4:32 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 59 of 76 (430180)
10-23-2007 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Spektical
10-23-2007 4:12 PM


So did the singularity take up space? And you do have talent for explaining things

Thanks!

As to your answer, again, think of Geometry. We have lines, which denote one dimension, planes, which denote two...and points, which have zero dimensions. The singularity was a single, dimensionless point, where all dimensions were equal to zero. So no, the singularity had no space - that's the whole point. The expansion of space backwards leads us to the point where space was, essentially, nothing, with all that exists occupying the same, single point at once.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 4:12 PM Spektical has not yet responded

  
Spektical
Member (Idle past 4232 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 60 of 76 (430181)
10-23-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Rahvin
10-23-2007 4:22 PM


So the singularity is, and always was until it decided to expand? How's that?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 4:22 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 4:52 PM Spektical has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Taz, posted 10-23-2007 5:03 PM Spektical has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019