Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
25 online now:
caffeine, Faith, kjsimons, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,617 Year: 16,653/19,786 Month: 778/2,598 Week: 24/251 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How is the Universe here?
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 16 of 131 (487078)
10-27-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Straggler
10-27-2008 7:36 AM


Re: Entropy
Hi Straggler,

Interesting point,

Straggler writes:

Is our view of the total entropy of the universe also individual if our view of time is individual? Or can the concept of entropy be used to relight the idea of universal time existing in some sense after all?

Im sure cavediver will straighten out our understanding of it but, just to add to your point, isn't the entropy of the universe only measured as a whole because the entire universe is expanding pushing us further away from equilibrium?


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2008 7:36 AM Straggler has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 17 of 131 (487082)
10-27-2008 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by johnfolton
10-27-2008 11:46 AM


Hi John'

John writes:

The earth is it not moving thru space and time so for an happening to happen before another shared the same happening how is this not placing the cart ahead of the horse?

An easy example would be photons leaving the Sun. It takes 8 minutes for light to reach our planet, if you were 1000ft away from the Sun(hypothetically of course), the light hits you in your present, while it would reach me in your future. 8 minutes later.

For distances in the billions of light years, the future could be 100's of years away. So a Supernova explosion, billions light years away, would be seen by Aliens near it long before us here on Earth see it. Making their present experience, of seeing the Supernova explode, an experience that we'll see 100's of years later.

Relative to the observer present events can be another observes future event.

I hope this helped.

--Oni


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 10-27-2008 11:46 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Huntard, posted 10-27-2008 3:30 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 22 of 131 (487096)
10-27-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Huntard
10-27-2008 3:30 PM


Hi Huntard,

Wouldn't a supernova happening billions of light years away actually take billions of years to be seen here on earth? Since the light that that explosion produces would take billions of years to get here?

I meant to say millions since I said 100's of years to reach us. But, even an event at 1Bly away does not take 1 billion years to reach us since light travels at (c). I believe, if im not mistaken, that 1Bly away would take light 1000 years to reach us.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Huntard, posted 10-27-2008 3:30 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 10-27-2008 5:03 PM onifre has responded
 Message 25 by cavediver, posted 10-27-2008 5:04 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 23 of 131 (487097)
10-27-2008 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by cavediver
10-27-2008 4:35 PM


Re: Entropy
Hi cavediver,

All start in a region of low entropy and entropy increases as time increases.

Is it assumed that it was at low entropy? I believe I've read that the original entropy is not known but assumed to be low. Or did I confuse what I read?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 10-27-2008 4:35 PM cavediver has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 26 of 131 (487100)
10-27-2008 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Huntard
10-27-2008 5:03 PM


But if a light year is the distance travelled by light in one year, then a supernova 1 billion light years away would mean that the light emitted from that explosion takes 1 billion years to get here, right?

Remember its a measure of distance, not time. One light-year is equal to 9,500,000,000,000 kilometers. For example the Andromeda Galaxy, is 21 quintillion km. That's 21,000,000,000,000,000,000 km(or 2.3Mly).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 10-27-2008 5:03 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 10-27-2008 5:16 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 28 of 131 (487103)
10-27-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Huntard
10-27-2008 5:16 PM


But if there would be a supernova in Andromeda, it would take us 2.3 million years to notice, since that's the first time the light gets here.

Yeah I was confusing myself with my original example to John. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 10-27-2008 5:16 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 34 of 131 (487181)
10-28-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Stile
10-28-2008 11:29 AM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Hi Stile'

I think I'm beginning to see the problem with thinking this way. This way kind of includes some implied "standard time" of the universe, which doesn't really exist.

I believe the standard time would be *now*, but now is relative to the observer.

It's not so much that the even happend, and Mecury saw it 'first' and Earth saw it 'second' so much that:

This would depend on who is making the observation. I believe the example was given from an Earth PoV making us second in the timeline from the event. But, of course this would mean that we knew the event took place, which we couldn't until the light reaches us. First and second would be assigned in hindsight after both Mercury and Earth report when they saw the event take place.

*Note: I don't think im having the same brain-fart I did yesterday that forced me to place a Lorentz transformation to my own example when it had nothing to do with my example! My appologies for that yesterday. I believe what im explaining now is accurate, if not im sure I'll be corrected.;)


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Stile, posted 10-28-2008 11:29 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 41 of 131 (487258)
10-29-2008 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by petrophysics1
10-28-2008 4:00 PM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Hi Petrophysics1,

Not to pick on you, but I don't see how your and others explainations are anything other than Newtonian physics. It appears your explaination contains a "universal time" or a "universal now", and then you proceed foward to say it did happen then, but for you and your PoV only when you noticed it.

The example bluecat and I gave about the Sun works fine with Newtonian physics because its within our solar system where space is static. I can't speak for bluecat but my explanation was just so johnfultron understood how one event could be considered past, present and future, without over complicating my explanation.

Cavedivers example of 2 moving references does get us into special relativity where time IS different for the 2 frames of reference.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by petrophysics1, posted 10-28-2008 4:00 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by johnfolton, posted 10-29-2008 9:43 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 58 of 131 (487735)
11-04-2008 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by john6zx
11-03-2008 8:43 PM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Hi john6zx,

V-bird on the other hand said that time and dimensions are just measurements, and both space and time are not things. V-bird did not allude to the idea that time and dimensions are similar concepts or things.

By this measure then would you consider gravity a thing, or the strong nuclear force a thing?

Are you saying that space is NOthing?


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by john6zx, posted 11-03-2008 8:43 PM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 11:31 AM onifre has responded
 Message 76 by john6zx, posted 11-04-2008 9:25 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 63 of 131 (487754)
11-04-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by V-Bird
11-04-2008 11:31 AM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Thanks for the reply V-Bird,

If you travel along with a quantum of energy, where is time?

Wouldn't travel signify distance, and wouldn't distance require time to be affected?

It is not there because time is not an attribute of energy and because time is not an attribute of energy, it can have no physical properties to manipulate.

Wouldn't gravity also not be an attribute of energy? Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, if neither space nor time are 'things' as you say, gravity would not be a 'thing' either. I do agree that gravity isn't a 'thing', it is the effect of an energy density on spacetime, but then so would time also be an effect of spacetime when traveling distances, right?

And since space is curved time is affected when you are stationary, and I am traveling through space, right?

Time ultimately is nothing more or less than an idea for us to use to make measurements, it's a great idea, but it is only an idea.

I don't agree on it being an idea, as I would not think length or width are just ideas. Time, as I understand it, is a unit of measuring, like length. It can measure the duration of events, as a legnth would measure the distance between 2 objects. Also, when we travel through space we notice that time is affected relative to the stationary object and the moving object, so to me it's not just an idea, it is a component of space that we understand.

This does not objectify space or time and turn either into an object.

I never said object, but it is a component of space.

They are useful ideas of measurement, but remain only ideas.

I would say it is a useful tool for measuring, but since it is affected by velocity, it also establishes it as a property of space.

If we fail in distinguishing between 'idea' and 'thing' we can never develop a true insight into the cosmos,we relate to ideas all the time, but treat them as things, but this does not make them objects of reality.

I gotta side with Catholic Sci on this, we didn't fully start to comprehend the cosmos until we made time a property of space.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 11:31 AM V-Bird has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 66 of 131 (487762)
11-04-2008 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by V-Bird
11-04-2008 2:14 PM


Re: Thin Ice.
Well cavedivers title for this thread is 'How is the Universe here', which we havn't gotten past 'time' yet. Nor has he further taken this thread towards that explanation of origin so we seem to be stuck on the time concept. I think your reply would be within the scope of where the thread has gone.

Hopefully the mod. will agree. Unless cavediver would like to further take this thread past 'time' and into the origin of the Universe, which it doesn't seem like he wants to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 2:14 PM V-Bird has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 2:36 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 69 of 131 (487768)
11-04-2008 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by cavediver
11-04-2008 2:36 PM


Re: Thin Ice.
I take it you didn't read my previous post?

I did, but I wasn't referencing that post, I meant the direction that the thread has taken.

I take it you didn't read my previous post? You want to talk crap with V-bird, be my guest

I didn't mean to strike a cord like that, my only intention was to further understand what V-Bird was trying to say. If it is crap that he's talking then that will become evident when he replies.

But the more of that goes on the less likely I will get involved as I have no patience for this.

Point taken...but do be patient with us who are not trying to talk crap, but who do have full intentions on learning.

If word-salads are your thing - go for it...

Im just trying to engage in a conversation for the purpose of understanding, whatever your particular feelings may be towards V-Bird may make you disengage from a conversation with him, but because I am just musing with him for the sake of musing, I don't take what he says so seriously. And again, if he's full of shit it will become evident.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 2:36 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 2:59 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 71 of 131 (487770)
11-04-2008 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye
11-04-2008 2:59 PM


Re: Thin Ice.
It already has.

Point taken...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 96 of 131 (488535)
11-12-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by cavediver
11-12-2008 3:01 PM


Re: No Questions... this time
This is possible for electrons, even atoms, and actually even molecules in the right extreme conditions.

Even atoms and molecules? cool :eek:

I don't want to take you off course but, could you give an example of "the right extreme conditions"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 11-12-2008 3:01 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 11-21-2008 1:05 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1205 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 118 of 131 (502588)
03-12-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 10:41 AM


Re: Back again, and let's first dispense with this nonsense...
Scientifically, nothing comes into being without an intelligent or engineered source, except in this one case of course.

What sort of scientific evidence are you using to support that?

I'm specifically interested in the "intelligent or engineered" source. Has science specifically said an "intelligent" source is needed to create anything?

Are you saying the universe needed a creator to initiate the Big Bang?

If so, why exactly?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 10:41 AM Sky-Writing 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