Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is our universe stationary ?
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 69 (136718)
08-25-2004 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
08-25-2004 3:25 AM


Re: reply to page 1 replies
Lam, Paul, Tony, et al.
[b]My point for this post was solely for the purpose of tacking those who question the possible infinite nature of the universe based solely because of observations related to the theory of General Relativity. ALL OTHER discussions as to the finite or infinite nature of the universe that are not based on the theory of General Relativity as a reason for their argument are better suited for another thread.[b]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2004 3:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 5:28 AM nipok has not replied
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2004 5:31 AM nipok has replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 69 (136719)
08-25-2004 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by nipok
08-25-2004 5:04 AM


Re: reply to page 1 replies
My point is that many people, "many smart people", feel that our space-time as created from our big bang is all there is.
I am trying to question the likelihood of that being true.
They use space-time properties provided by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity pointing towards a beginning of our time line or time frame as an excuse to say our space-time is all there is.
I am trying to argue that they may be wrong.
Time existed before our big bang and time will exist for an eternity after our speck of dust we call a universe has been gone for an eternity.
If I can more smart people with closed minds that are fixated on a closed space time continuum with no space or time existing outside of our pocket of space time to accept the possibility of at least one other space time continuum then I think most of them would accept the likelihood of an infinite number of other STC’s.
So I am trying to get a bunch of smart people to question the likelihood that space and time most likely exist outside of the pocket of space time created by our big bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 5:04 AM nipok has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 69 (136720)
08-25-2004 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by nipok
08-25-2004 5:04 AM


Re: reply to page 1 replies
The answers you were given directly relate to the subject of the first post. Your idea requires that we can meaningfully assign a velocity to our universe. If we can't even do that then the rest of your post has no relevance to reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 5:04 AM nipok has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 10:32 PM PaulK has replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 69 (136723)
08-25-2004 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
08-24-2004 4:14 PM


But to say that space was moving you would have to define a measure of distance that was independent of space. Want to explain how you could do that ?
Exactly my point. In order to be able to do the above then our pocket of space-time must exist inside a larger pocket of space time. I am not talking about space or time moving. I am talking about our space-time moving. GR. General Relativity. Our frame of reference. Our space-time. AKA The argument against an infinite Universe and time or space outside of the cosmic event we call our big bang.
If the point singularity was moving at the time it began to expand then it must have moved inside a larger frame of reference thus a space time continuum that exists outside our pocket of space time. So there could not be nothingness or an empty void that our point singularity expanded out of.
If however the point singularity was not moving at the time it began to expand outwards and create our pocket of space-time, that does not negate the existence of an infinite Universe. That just leaves us right were we are now, unknowing of the truth.
It is only if there was original velocity and if we can detect it that I submit that to be proof of an infinite universe.
This message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 04:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 4:14 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2004 6:11 AM nipok has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 69 (136725)
08-25-2004 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by nipok
08-25-2004 5:48 AM


You say "exactly my point" - but you don't offer an explanation of how it could be done. Again, how does it make sense to talk of space moving ? It makes no sense to talk of measuring distance independantly of space because distance is a spatial quantity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 5:48 AM nipok has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 69 (136729)
08-25-2004 6:44 AM


well nipok
that is exactly what i have been going on about for a while...
A leading edge of a membrane/bubble, a trailing edge/brane and a universe in between, all expanding at lightspeed so if viewed from a point of reference outside of the universe it would appear to be a bubble 13.7 billion light years thick.
Do you remember my " Wave of Thought" posted in a thread about a month ago ???...well I've been refining it, check this
light/energy remains in a fixed position, is propagated in at least one dimension of string theory and the universe by virtue of the spacetime bubble expanding at lightspeed creates the illusion of light wave movement towards us. I think to check this would require a frame of reference which is outside of the physical universe given we are always observing from within the system and i don't know if that's possible.
Meaning light isn't moving towards us as a wave we are moving towards it, we just have no way of telling because the light source, us, everything, is in motion relative to everything else in the universe.
I see the light ...uh no it sees you
This makes it possible for light to be an effect of a string operating in at least one dimension and a crossover dimension of time. Time being the thing which links our 3d universe to the other dimensions. It also makes it possible for our universe to be embedded in a bubble skin which is equivalent to being trapped between 2 branes and expanding at lightspeed in a higher medium
This brings to mind the classic people interacting on a train scenario. They are moving about to and fro from carriage to carriage appearing to move in relation to each other or remaining stationary yet when viewed from outside the train the whole thing is moving forward meanwhile the sun is shining on the train and thru the windows from a point outside of the moving train...
... But what if the engine pulling it at the front is travelling faster than the later carriages so you get a stretching effect only the people on the train have no real idea just a sense of things moving awkwardly when looking out the window ???
I even posted it on a "string/brane" site to see if it got any feedback but nothing as yet I also posted this which ties in
I was wondering if all variations of string shapes could be made from sections of a figure 8 shaped string which co incidentally or not is an infinity symbol ???
closed loops, open loops, straight sections even X shapes can be made from a figure 8 shape
then imagine that each of the 11 points in the above figure represents a dimension that the string vibrates across but it needs to pass thru the cross over point of time and 3 others to register as a physical object in our universe. A string that vibrates in only one dimension plus time registers as an effect like gravity or light...ie a graviton or photon. Given that a string can change shape it could disappear from our universe and back again by vibrating in and out of any number of points/dimensions in the exact same 4d spacetime co ordinate and change the nature/state of whatever occupied that space previously.
Am I making sense ???...then try this,
ripples in a spherical pond with light,gravity and matter constantly reconstituting itself from it's fundamental string building blocks. A virtual multiverse propagating itself all the time, all around us. We just aren't aware of it because we are trapped in our 3dimensional + 1 dimension of time, universe.
What would be cool is if consciousness/awareness were a hidden dimension of string theory as well ???

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4032 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 22 of 69 (136758)
08-25-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
08-24-2004 4:14 PM


Hi Paul.
Firstly, I must apologize. I don't think I was clear about my intention. I am not arguing that space actually does have absolute locations; I'm just entertaining the possibility based on my, admittedly limited, understanding of relativity. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear about that.
PaulK writes:
I didn't read all of the previous thread - and when I looked again at the first page I didn't see anything of great relevance.
Hmm...well I know I discussed the concept of motion relative to space somewhere in the thread but I don't recall exactly where.
Very briefly, the relevance to my original question (which I think also applies to this topic) was that if space were to have "absolute" locations, it would essentially solve my dilemma regarding the lone system scenario.
I don't remember precisely where that came up, though. I apologize.
PaulK writes:
But no, I don't think that defining movement as a change of spatial location requires defining space as an absolute coordinate system.
Yeah, I don't think my choice of words was very helpful. I'm not sure that "absolute" is really what I'm trying to convey. All I really mean is that, I don't think "a change in spatial location" is really a "complete" (if you wish) definition, in the sense that it can't be applied to space itself.
Obviously, it is complete enough for our everyday purposes, but I don't think it would suffice for the purpose of the topic in question. If we define motion as a change in spatial location, we've effectively rendered the concept of spatial motion meaningless by definition.
PaulK writes:
To take a simple point unless there is an absolute zero point all measurements must be relative. Without an absolute coordinate system with a fixed reference point then we get the same results as Special Relativity - all inertial (non-accelerating) frames of reference are equivalent.
Yes, I know. I didn't mean to suggest that I think there are absolute locations in space. All I meant was that I'm not sure how something can change spatial location if there is nothing inherent in that location to distinguish it from any other. At the risk of drifting back to my old topic, if you were to remove all but one system from the universe, how could you determine whether or not it is moving relative to any arbitrary point in space?
Again, let me emphasize, I'm not arguing that there are absolute locations, I'm just trying to understand. I know that motion is relative and that's what leads to my confusion when referring to motion "through space".
I can't see how a point of reference in space can have any meaning unless there is something about that point that is identifiable. On the Earth, for example, you can determine your motion, relative to the landscape, by selecting a landmark which is fixed relative to the landscape. We can both agree on a location. We can objectively determine that a tree, for instance, is fixed relative to the surrounding landscape. We can perform tests to see if we have a relative motion to it. For the life of me, though, I can't see how to do the equivalent with empty space.
PaulK writes:
But to say that space was moving you would have to define a measure of distance that was independant of space.
Yes, that was my point; I don't think there would be any way to test the idea since we can't detect any "external" frames of reference.
PaulK writes:
Want to explain how you could do that ?
Heh, as I said, I think we got our wires crossed. I was agreeing that we can't do that.
My only real concern was that, for the purpose of this discussion, defining motion in terms of space itself may be somewhat limiting. If we want to ask whether or not the universe, as a whole, is moving then we would have to measure it against something, as you said, independent of it. And I completely agree that we have no way to do this.
I'm only saying that, in principle I don't see any reason that it could not be true. But in practice, I don't think we can ever know, even if it is true. Hmm...Technically, would this be a violation of Occam's razor? There's nothing to discount the possibility, but there is no way we can ever actually know. I know that's not quite the definition of Occam's razor but perhaps it applies, none the less?
Incidentally, I apologize if I've come across the wrong way, Paul. It isn't my intention to argue; I'm only here to learn. I know that you're more knowledgeable of this subject than I am so please forgive any misunderstandings I may have. Some of these concepts have been plaguing my thoughts for years and I'm sure that what you're telling me is correct, it's just that I still have trouble wrapping my mind around some of it.
In any case, I just want to be clear that I'm not being confrontational; my questions are always sincere. Sometimes I feel kind of guilty "arguing" these points with people that do it for a living so I hope you'll forgive (and correct) my ignorance. I want to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 4:14 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2004 12:07 PM Tony650 has replied
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 08-25-2004 3:23 PM Tony650 has replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4032 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 23 of 69 (136761)
08-25-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brad McFall
08-24-2004 4:20 PM


Re: motion is delusional, sometimes!
Oh man...I'm sorry, Brad. I tried to understand, I really did. Well, thanks anyway for the reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 08-24-2004 4:20 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 69 (136774)
08-25-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tony650
08-25-2004 11:10 AM


Don't worry, I'm not lumping you in with the original poster who seems to just want an excuse to avoid discussing the issue.
And I don't claim to fully understand the issues myself - I don't think anybody without a thorough grounding in General Relativity could make that claim, and my education stopped with Special Relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tony650, posted 08-25-2004 11:10 AM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 10:19 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 34 by Tony650, posted 08-26-2004 3:35 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 25 of 69 (136817)
08-25-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tony650
08-25-2004 11:10 AM


I know this wont change what u used todo
Inifinte divisibility can exist even WHILE there is impentrability EVEN if there is not absolute space. I can imagine for instance Kant's "community" of Russell's understanding of space of space without absolute posistion but if the universe IS infintely divisible provided all humans are only seeing a part of it it might practically mean that the reason can always have a transcendetal PLACE to explore even if time travel were not possible.
It is true this Had little relevance to the real world so far. But if nanotechnology wrongly proceeds along Watson's ideas for disease corrections where classical science already provides the equilibria to adjust our man-made designs (whehter during space travel or existence here on earth with diminishing biodiversity) and some nanoecological self-reproducing material destroys a food chain then IF the ecosystem engineers in the connection in nature were bound by infinite divibility THEN by catastrophe we would have learned of, this, a possible real world application of our relative discussion of motion in this universe. I am not a Prophet or a son of a....
The "delusion" had to do with applying some of Russel's ideas without engaging biologically Cantor's organic THOUGHT. Sure one would expect if transfinite thought were to apply in nature it would find its place first in Opticks as Cantor had suggested and thus likely where for instance Bridgeman differed from Enstein but it seems to me that the reason objectively we do not SEE this in science as of yet is only because the motivation for applications of these NUMBERS that Aristotle would have rejected in the formation of them has to do with the organization of organisms but we have not gain said our information transmissions to the point of DISTRIBUTING the code attachements thought a community or guild of species. We are not "validating" our species just because we can not feel the universe moving but we can certainly observe things that are wrong with it.
The illusion has to do as I tried to show in some of my first posts on Gladyshev with entropy misdiscussed which caused Georgi to respond to me a hugely respectful way
quote:
From : ’ ‘
Sent : Wednesday, May 5, 2004 2:35 AM
To : "Brad McFall"
Subject : Re: Brad's ...
| | | Inbox
05.05. 2004
Dear Brad,
This is my quote (from my site and my book) indeed! (Post: 332, berberry).
"During the last decades, an opinion has widely spread that there is . Besides, it is claimed that
this contradiction
living systems by the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics>. The author of
the present work states: if living systems are described in the framework of
hierarchic equilibrium thermodynamics, this contradiction does not exist.
" .
I would like to point out this quote is connected with the statement of I.
Prigogine. The statement one can find in the caver (and in a text) of his
well-known monograph.
I said about the contradictions between classical thermodynamics (as this
believe some scientists) and "biological order and laws of physics -
particularly the second law of thermodynamics". Now, the law of temporal
hierarchies has been discovered and we can use the approaches of the
thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems. Before my works, it was no
possibility to apply the equilibrium thermodynamics (quasi-equilibrium
thermodynamics, thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems) to investigate the
open living systems.
The situation with the thermodynamics is an analog of situation with the
entropy! There are different "types of thermodynamics". Scientists know
about this! I say, as a rule, about classical (equilibrium or
quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics).
Deer Brad,
I consider (I said about this before) it will be very useful if you
recommend to anybody, who would like to have a part in our discussion, to
have a look at any good textbook of physical chemistry.
In this case, there would not be any mistakes and misunderstanding. We will
understand each other very well! For example, there is the excellent
textbook in the USA: Alberty R.A. Physical Chemistry; 7th Ed.; Wiley: New
York, etc.: Wiley, 1987. 934 p. May be there is the next edition?
There are many terms in this book, which we use in chemistry, biochemistry,
biophysical chemistry, and physics, and so on. Some new terms one can find
in my website: http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/sntut/sntut.htm (in:
http://www.endeav.org/evolut ).
Sincerely,
Georgi
Salthe did this in his book "Evolving Hierarchical Structures" and I KNOW THIS becuase I discussed this book with SIMON LEVIN when it first came out. He later wrote about the Wright's landscape but never got the nested issue I was able to raise on reading SOME of it that caused me to think of how temperature was measured. My life later became a mess and I see the whole problem found on ONE PAGE in this book EXACTLY as Georgi Gladyshev had told me was mistaken. On Georgi's vie there is no contradiction and our misperceptions about motion are all bout some thoughts that this contradication in terms might exist. Only for the Artist can this really become an issue and then it is a matter for reception of the perception NOT UNDERSTANDING only.
Seriously, no- I do not speak as much as I write here. Often I am pressed for time so I blurt out faster in print than anything I could say in public. So if you are really interested to hear me in my own voice pick up some issue on the BM thread and dont let me get away with a one response reponse. I am pleased to be at EVC posting and I will take all the time needed to get through to you if that is what you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tony650, posted 08-25-2004 11:10 AM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tony650, posted 08-26-2004 3:42 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 69 (136864)
08-25-2004 8:31 PM


so does anybody...
...want to shred my speculation, feedback on it or whatever so i can redefine it some more ???

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 69 (136878)
08-25-2004 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
08-25-2004 12:07 PM


not avoiding the issue
Aside from Mr. Jack's answer there is an additional problem. In what sense can space be said to move ? Surely movement is a change in spatial location ?
Paulk,
I am not avoiding the discussion of issues raised. Just clarifying the intentions of the original post. Some people think that our space time continuum created from the big bang is all there is. They argue that it is all there is because there is no time or space outside of the big bangs byproducts. They argue that our big bang created all space time. It is that group of people and only that group of people that I am asking a question of.
I answered your question twice already but you buzz right past it in haste.
I am not talking about space moving or time moving. I am talking about our space-time continuum. Please read up a bit on General Relativity and you’ll see that I am using the phrase space-time continuum or STC to refer to the area of our universe we have seen so far. The group of galaxies and stars that demonstrate the properties of having been spawned from a single cosmic event, our big bang.
I am not talking about space moving. I am talking about the space around our planet. Our solar system has an orbit. Our galaxy has an orbit. The local group most likely has an orbit. Our solar system is traveling through space right now in it’s own orbit. The same concept of our solar system and our galaxy having measurable velocities is the concept of moving that I am referring to.
This message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 09:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2004 12:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2004 3:27 AM nipok has replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 69 (136880)
08-25-2004 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
08-25-2004 5:31 AM


Re: reply to page 1 replies
The answers you were given directly relate to the subject of the first post. Your idea requires that we can meaningfully assign a velocity to our universe. If we can't even do that then the rest of your post has no relevance to reality.
Sure does, for those able to read. If at the outermost edge at the end of the trajectory we some day see stars disappering from existence and can not explain it by any other means then I say they are getting left behind thus there is velocity. You are hung up assigning an actual number to this velocity. Nowhere did I say we need to determine what the velocity is. We may never know that. But you don't need to measure the velocity in order to claim that there could be a way to find out if the velocity exists.
This message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 09:34 PM
This message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 09:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2004 5:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2004 3:33 AM nipok has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 69 (136889)
08-25-2004 11:04 PM


OK then I'll make it even simpler...
a universe trapped between a leading edge brane and a trailing edge brane thus resembling a universe embedded in a bubble skin 13.7 billion light years thick...ie, seemingly the time it takes for a photon to travel in a straight line beteween the two branes
and if the leading edge is expanding at lightspeed faster than the trailing edge that would give you your impression of a slow moving photon or time moving faster depending on whether you were looking forward or backward, and the impression of the spacetime hypersphere expanding..ie inflation of the universe
but seeing as how we are trapped in our 3d + 1d(time) bubble universe we can never have an accurate frame of reference to measure anything

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 11:48 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 69 (136906)
08-25-2004 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RingoKid
08-25-2004 11:04 PM


Re: OK then I'll make it even simpler...
but seeing as how we are trapped in our 3d + 1d(time) bubble universe we can never have an accurate frame of reference to measure anything
With enough scientific precision or our ability to watch this from a closer vantage point we might be able to measure the speed with which a star moves away from the edge of the bubble membrane. It would not provide us necessarily with the speed our universe is moving relative to the next larger frame of reference but it might give us a ball park estimate of speed relative to our measured cosmic velocities. So then maybe it could in fact be possible to measure the velocity our bubble is traveling.
I guess one way to look at this is to be on a moving train facing backwards on the last car of the train. If you drop a ball the ball goes down and you move further away from it. To an observer standing off the train on the side of the tracks the ball would go down but also seem to follow the train a little bit in its descent. This is because the ball already had forward momentum at the time it was let go from the train.
So if you are able to watch enough of the descent of this ball to make some calculations you could in theory determine the speed that our universe moves through the unknown. And yes this is all speculative we don’t yet know if we are moving or not. I am not saying we are moving (even though I believe it). I am saying that if we are moving maybe we might see an observable event that could lead us to deduce that the universe is infinite.
This message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 10:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RingoKid, posted 08-25-2004 11:04 PM RingoKid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nipok, posted 08-26-2004 12:06 AM nipok 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