|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The infinite space of the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Here is something worthwhile - Time is a concept while space has a very material existence. You need proof? Proof? A dictionary definition of a technical word? Are you serious? The predicted empirical results of General Relativity are a much firmer basis on which to base our conception and knowledge of the nature of time. Additionally the increase of entropy, 2nd law of thermodynamics and the "arrow of time" need to be taken into account. Frankly Aqo you are evidently so far out of your depth and so certain in your misapperhensions that I doubt you have anything worthwhile to say on this topic at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Hi Walterberns
Welcome to EvC. We have been discussing the issues you raise and related topics in this thread http://EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe -->EvC Forum: T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe Also relevant is the transcript of an Alan Guth lecture that can be found here - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0101/0101507v1.pdf If you are looking for direct responses to your comments clicking the 'reply' button of the message that you are responding to will notify the person who wrote the message you are responding to. Welcome aboard!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Here is something worthwhile - Time is a concept while space has a very material existence. You need proof? Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com Ah yes - whenever I used to get stuck in my quantum gravity research, I would reach for Chambers or the OED and low-and-behold, it would hold all the answers. There must be some really clever guys compiling those dictionaries. I wonder who they are...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
walterberns  Suspended Member (Idle past 5816 days) Posts: 8 From: Orlando, Florida Joined: |
Thank you so much for the very cordial message, I believe it deserves a beer, a virtual one thats is, anyway thanks for the reply. Infinate big bangs are very intersting to me and I love to discuss the subject. Here is something to think about:
The universe is at least 986 billion years older than physicists thought and is probably much older still, according to a radical new theory. The revolutionary study suggests that time did not begin with the big bang 14 billion years ago. This mammoth explosion which created all the matter we see around us, was just the most recent of many. The standard big bang theory says the universe began with a massive explosion, but the new theory suggests it is a cyclic event that consists of repeating big bangs. "People have inferred that time began then, but there really wasn't any reason for that inference," said Neil Turok, a theoretical physicist at the University of Cambridge, "What we are proposing is very radical. It's saying there was time before the big bang." Under his theory, published today in the journal Science with Paul Steinhardt at Princeton University in New Jersey, the universe must be at least a trillion years old with many big bangs happening before our own. With each bang, the theory predicts that matter keeps on expanding and dissipating into infinite space before another horrendous blast of radiation and matter replenishes it. "I think it is much more likely to be far older than a trillion years though," said Prof Turok. "There doesn't have to be a beginning of time. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinitely large." Today most cosmologists believe the universe will carry on expanding until all the stars burn out, leaving nothing but their cold dead remains. But there is an inherent problem with this picture. The Cosmological Constant - a mysterious force first postulated by Albert Einstein that appears to be driving the galaxies apart - is much too small to fit the theory. Einstein later renounced it as his "biggest blunder". The Cosmological Constant is a mathematical representation of the energy of empty space, also known as "dark energy", which exerts a kind of anti-gravity force pushing galaxies apart at an accelerating rate. It happens to be a googol (1 followed by 100 zeroes) times smaller than would be expected if the universe was created in a single Big Bang. But its value could be explained if the universe was much, much older than most experts believe. Mechanisms exist that would allow the Constant to decrease incrementally through time. But these processes would take so long that, according to the standard theory, all matter in the universe would totally dissipate in the meantime. Turok and Steinhardt's theory is an alternative to another explanation called the "anthropic principle", which argues that the constant can have a range of values in different parts of the universe but that we happen to live in a region conducive to life. "The anthropic explanations are very controversial and many people do not like them," said Alexander Vilenkin a professor of theoretical physics at Tufts University in Massachusetts. Rather than making precise predictions for features of the universe the anthropic principle gives a vague range of values so it is difficult for physicists to test, he added. "It's absolutely terrible, it really is giving up," said Prof Turok, "It's saying that we are never going to understand the state of the universe. It just has to be that way for us to exist." His explanation by contrast is built up from first principles. But if he's right, how long have we got until the next big bang? "We can't predict when it will happen with any precision - all we can say is it won't be within the next 10 billion years." Good job, because if we were around we would instantly disintegrate into massless particles of light. Any comments> Walter B
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Time cannot be a concept of man. A 9 month pregnancy and the earth's rotation periods, was not a concept but a predating construct. Rather than a stray, random measurement, time is an affirmation of a program in action, and that program is purposeful and pre-existant of the contructs it measures. This makes time a real entity, intergrated with the products.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5560 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Anyone who can read a dictionary, a book or a the internet can see that the existence of time is immaterial. Another example of immaterial existence is our imagination. I was saying that if space is completly void of matter and particles, then it cannot exist(unless you want to say that space is just an idea). But drawing comparisons between the physical existence of time and space is utter nonsense, as is bringing in the general relativity theory into the debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
General Relativity is quite important when discussing the reality of time. According to General Relativity time can be physically bent by mass. Also this is a confirmed prediction of General Relativity.
Hence we have evidence that time is a physically real thing. I know of very few man made concepts that can be bent in a physically real sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
That is a sub-conscious strain, but we know nothing about God in reality. That is because the idea of God is subjectively interpreted by the individual who imagines Him; of course you know nothing about God, He lives in the human mind.
A scientific alternative to Creationism & Monotheism, in a finite universe. Many try to get around this by presenting an infinite realm, or a back door to that premise, via space, time, energy etc being infinite. I believe by what I've read from science and the evidence put forth on the subject, the 'alternative', if thats what you want to refer to it as, is infinite spacetime. You seem to want to disagree with it simply because of belief. However, what I would call an 'alternative' would be God, the reality is space, time, energy etc... The 'alternative' to that is a Being that sits outside of it an governs it. Sure you can say that but, you cannot support that statement with any evidence. And of course God would be infinite simply because He would have to be...and you're saying that science is trying to find a backdoor? All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5560 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
quote: Space-time is not the same as time. Space-time is our 3D universe plus time as the 4th dimension. While time is, well, look at your wrist watch. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Agobot writes: where the material universe ends It Does not end. Energy can not be destroyed. It may change shape and form but it will never end. Now this is a religious answer. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5560 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
There has been a lot of misunderstanding, miscommunication and topic drift in this thread because of hard to grasp notions. One of them is space. Let's see what your hypothesis is about it? What exactly is empty space if it's completely void of matter and particles? Nothingness? Something non-material that has no measurable or observable qualities, yet its existence is non-disputed and unquestioned by us? Our lives are very much meaningless in the grand scheme of things - the scales of the universe don't suggest we play more than a trillionth of a percent role for anything out there, so it's quite possible that we might never manage to get the answers we want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5560 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
quote: Have you ever sensed the presence of god? Where and how? All i have felt in my entire life was complete lack of devine guidance and purely random events and occurences everywhere on earth. Which event in earth's history would you label as god's act/bible aside/? Show me one, just one. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Correct, and a good reasoning to dismiss space as an entity when it is non-existent; I see this as a back-door to bring in an infinite aspect to the finite universe. My point here is, that nothingness is outside of our mind's fathoming, and none should resort to it. Nothingness represents a realm where none of the post universe products exist, and there is no way we can identify with it - there is no space, matter or vision, so there is nothing to connect to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This signifies time is an entity like space and light. Because time appears to be intergrated with the universe workings, it appears more than a human construct. IOW, the period of the earth's rotation is not that devised my man, and is not alterable - it is a constant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Time is intergrated with the universe workings; a wrist watch is not so.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024