outhouse
Atheistically
You dont have the education to claim something over your head is in fact a lie.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Infinite time and space.
- Thread starter worsewicked
- Start date
You dont have the education to claim something over your head is in fact a lie.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
... Perhaps I need to abandon the concept of sarcasm altogether seeing as I am unable to convey it effectively in text based mediums such as forums.
I was talking about the post above yours - you managed to beat my reply to the punch and you have no idea what my education level is so your disparaging remarks are poorly informed and as it happens inaccurate.
I was talking about the post above yours - you managed to beat my reply to the punch and you have no idea what my education level is so your disparaging remarks are poorly informed and as it happens inaccurate.
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Actually, it sort of does. The edge of "space" we can see is also the edge of time; this is because the speed of light is finite, and so travelling a distance in space is equivalent to travelling in time. The edge of the universe is equivalent to the beginning of the universe. (apart from the particle horizon being in the way)
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
As I said, I disagree with this position, it simply does not hold that the edge of the detectable 'stuff' in existence (lets incl for the sake of argument the higgs field and so forth) is the edge of space. The 'capacity' if you will of the 'nothingness' into which this area is expanding may be empty of anything detectable thus far, that does not mean it is empty, we may simply be unable to identify the stuff that is out there because of its nature or due to sheer overwhelming distances combined with rules of nature that we do not comprehend.
And though it is less relevant to the matter at hand - simply because light moves at a finite speed as far as we can determine, does not mean that travelling a distance in space is equivalent to travelling in time - it truth that does not even truly necessitate that while we are travelling time will have passed during transit (which would allow for things that seem to be able to change locations without moving), the argument that nothing can move faster than the speed of light is based on the detectable properties of light which is a poor basis indeed to say what is possible for -anything- including things we are not capable of even detecting.
And though it is less relevant to the matter at hand - simply because light moves at a finite speed as far as we can determine, does not mean that travelling a distance in space is equivalent to travelling in time - it truth that does not even truly necessitate that while we are travelling time will have passed during transit (which would allow for things that seem to be able to change locations without moving), the argument that nothing can move faster than the speed of light is based on the detectable properties of light which is a poor basis indeed to say what is possible for -anything- including things we are not capable of even detecting.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Slightly faster than the speed of light? Got a source for this?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Some people just got the nobel peace prize for it.
Space itself, not the matter in it is strechting faster then the speed of light and dragging the matter along with it.
Space-time is what Albert linked together.
The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space?
Acclaimed physicist Brian Greene reveals a mind-boggling reality beneath the surface of our everyday world.
Surprising clues indicate that space is very much something and not nothing.
[youtube]wy9gXKwRpXc[/youtube]
The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space? - YouTube
THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: THE ILLUSION OF TIME
[youtube]Rp3_cPRQSh0[/youtube]
THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: THE ILLUSION OF TIME - YouTube
The age of the universe is 13.7 billion years with a margin of error of 1%.
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second and so far is the cosmic speed limit and you can measure time with it. I am not sure where their at with neutrinos going faster then light yet, I don't think they have totally prove it, but I could be wrong.
So far the speed of light is as fast as you can go and then mass become a big problem.
time can be altered by gravitational effects and is related to space, hence space time
outhouse
Atheistically
if you have the education then why are you argueing over a postition Einstien was very clear about.????
outhouse
Atheistically
Ive had that series on tivo lol fior a long time. that was a pretty good special
had to watch a few times just to make sense of it all
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Because I do not believe that it is CERTAIN, I believe it could quite well be the case, but i do not hold it to be absolutely dogmatically true. Einstein was a genius, he was also human and therefore fallible. Therefore I look at what I understand of existence and say, yes, Einstein could very well be right... however, if abc were so, then perhaps Einstein could be wrong under circumstances xyz.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
It's not a guess.
There is some important research that gravitaion is weaker in this universe because its "seeping in" to this one.
Some of this comes from
Dr. Lisa Randall 2008 Audio
Pioneer in Theoretical Physics
The first female theoretical physicist to gain tenure at Harvard, Lisa Randall is the proponent of a radical new cosmology that may overturn our old conceptions of time, space and the universe. The Standard Model of physics has proved highly accurate in predicting the relative strength of the known forces in verifiable ways, with one exception. The force of gravity appears inexplicably weak in relation to the other forces, such as electromagnetism. When a small magnet picks up a paper clip, it is overcoming the gravitational pull of the entire planet beneath it. After performing a mind-boggling series of calculations, Randall has proposed a solution to this riddle.
She has come to suspect that theres a lot more gravity in the universe, but most of it is concentrated in a dimension that is hidden from us, one in which completely different rules govern the behavior of the elements. Randall suggests that our picture of the universe is distorted because we live in a three-dimensional sinkhole. She outlines these ideas for the general reader in her book, Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universes Hidden Dimensions. She expresses her staggering ideas in remarkably clear colloquial language, replete with vivid images and pop culture references, including song lyrics by Björk and Eminem.
She was marked for greatness early; as a high school student, she won the Westinghouse Science Talent Search and attended the 1980 program of the Academy of Achievement as a student delegate. She continued to excel through college and graduate school, earning her Ph.D. at Harvard. She held professorships at MIT and Princeton before returning to Harvard as full professor in 2001. Even non-physicist friends knew she was entering the inner circle of the science when Stephen Hawking saved her a seat at his table during an international physics conference. Last year, Time magazine named her to its list of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. Experiments now underway may provide support for her ideas in the near future. NASA plans to test the theory with an array of Laser Interferometry Space Antennae, nicknamedwhat else? LISA.
Dr. Lisa Randall 2008, Pioneer in Theoretical Physics - Podcast Center - Academy of Achievement
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Informed ignorance, have you ever read this site or seen these?
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Yes Ive seen it, yes it strongly supports our current understanding of the universe, no it does not contradict my premises. In fact if anything it provides quite limited support of my position due to the increased variety of neutrino-like species - some of those may have preexisted the big bang, though none of these has been shown to have exited prior to the period of time after the big bang.
Last edited:
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
That space may exist outside of the area that is occupied by the debris of the big bang. That it may be occupied by some types of matter or energies, some of which may be similar and some of which dissimilar to those within that area and the proportions of these may be unlike those within any segment of the universe that we have so far modelled.
This would challenge the idea that time starts at the big bang, because if there is some sort of 'space' (which may be different from the space that we know, for example it may lack the higgs field or other such aspects) outside of our own, complete with the potential of (rather than certainty of) matter and energy, we can reasonably reliably state that such a system has the capacity for change in states. As such we can envisage 'time' within that system - a temporal framework that exists without being dependant upon the big bang without our own segment of space.
Such a concept would allow for a universe in which there are other expanding bubbles of matter and energy from other big bangs, perhaps there would be big crunches too - like the surface of bubbling water perhaps, an asynchronous cycle of expansions and contractions of vast amounts of matter and energy - rather than ALL matter and energy, which is an assumption that has no basis, other than to allow physicists to have a nice clean slate when examining the outside of our universe.
This would challenge the idea that time starts at the big bang, because if there is some sort of 'space' (which may be different from the space that we know, for example it may lack the higgs field or other such aspects) outside of our own, complete with the potential of (rather than certainty of) matter and energy, we can reasonably reliably state that such a system has the capacity for change in states. As such we can envisage 'time' within that system - a temporal framework that exists without being dependant upon the big bang without our own segment of space.
Such a concept would allow for a universe in which there are other expanding bubbles of matter and energy from other big bangs, perhaps there would be big crunches too - like the surface of bubbling water perhaps, an asynchronous cycle of expansions and contractions of vast amounts of matter and energy - rather than ALL matter and energy, which is an assumption that has no basis, other than to allow physicists to have a nice clean slate when examining the outside of our universe.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I posted a bunch and lost it.
How long have you been studying cosmology and astronomy?
Have you seen this
[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube
and you should read this although its slightly dated.
Some people dislike the notion that the Universe had a beginning. Why can't it have existed for ever? The answer is simple. There are many physical processes that are irreversible; if the Universe were infinitely old, these processes would all have run their course. The Universe would already have reached its final state.
An example will make this clear. The Sun cannot keep burning for ever. After a few billion years it will run out of fuel and die. So, too, will all stars. Though new stars are still forming, the stock of raw material is finite, and eventually it will be exhausted. So if the present state of the Universe cannot endure for eternity, it cannot have existed for eternity.
Cosmologists are confident they have identified the origin of the Universe in the famous big bang, evidence for which comes from three key observations. In the late 1920s the US astronomer Edwin Hubble found that the Universe is expanding: the galaxies are rushing away from each other. Running the cosmic movie backwards suggests that all matter emerged from the same place between 10 and 20 billion years ago.
By the 1950s scientists realised that, if the Universe began in a highly compressed state, it should have been intensely hot initially. More-over, a relic of this primeval heat ought to survive today, bathing the entire cosmos in a soft glow. This heat radiation was duly detected, in 1965. Sure enough, it is as if the whole Universe is immersed in a gigantic microwave oven.
By scrutinising the cosmic background heat radiation, astronomers are effectively observing the fading glow of the Universe's fiery birth. The radiation provides a snapshot of the Uni-verse about 300,000 years after the big bang. A simple extrapolation enables us to probe back further, and deduce much about the first few minutes and even seconds after the beginning.
The temperature at the end of the first second was a staggering 10 billion degrees - too hot for composite atomic nuclei to exist. The cosmic material would have been reduced to a soup, or plasma, of subatomic particles. Though this condition seems extreme, it is well within the range of laboratory physics to reproduce. Indeed, subatomic particle accelerators can simulate conditions that prevailed at a mere one trillionth of a second after big bang, when the temperature was 10,000 trillion degrees...
"Clearly, if time and space are part of the physical Universe, then any account of the origin of the Universe must include the origin of time and space too...."
Is the Universe a free lunch? - Arts & Entertainment - The Independent
How long have you been studying cosmology and astronomy?
Have you seen this
[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube
and you should read this although its slightly dated.
Some people dislike the notion that the Universe had a beginning. Why can't it have existed for ever? The answer is simple. There are many physical processes that are irreversible; if the Universe were infinitely old, these processes would all have run their course. The Universe would already have reached its final state.
An example will make this clear. The Sun cannot keep burning for ever. After a few billion years it will run out of fuel and die. So, too, will all stars. Though new stars are still forming, the stock of raw material is finite, and eventually it will be exhausted. So if the present state of the Universe cannot endure for eternity, it cannot have existed for eternity.
Cosmologists are confident they have identified the origin of the Universe in the famous big bang, evidence for which comes from three key observations. In the late 1920s the US astronomer Edwin Hubble found that the Universe is expanding: the galaxies are rushing away from each other. Running the cosmic movie backwards suggests that all matter emerged from the same place between 10 and 20 billion years ago.
By the 1950s scientists realised that, if the Universe began in a highly compressed state, it should have been intensely hot initially. More-over, a relic of this primeval heat ought to survive today, bathing the entire cosmos in a soft glow. This heat radiation was duly detected, in 1965. Sure enough, it is as if the whole Universe is immersed in a gigantic microwave oven.
By scrutinising the cosmic background heat radiation, astronomers are effectively observing the fading glow of the Universe's fiery birth. The radiation provides a snapshot of the Uni-verse about 300,000 years after the big bang. A simple extrapolation enables us to probe back further, and deduce much about the first few minutes and even seconds after the beginning.
The temperature at the end of the first second was a staggering 10 billion degrees - too hot for composite atomic nuclei to exist. The cosmic material would have been reduced to a soup, or plasma, of subatomic particles. Though this condition seems extreme, it is well within the range of laboratory physics to reproduce. Indeed, subatomic particle accelerators can simulate conditions that prevailed at a mere one trillionth of a second after big bang, when the temperature was 10,000 trillion degrees...
"Clearly, if time and space are part of the physical Universe, then any account of the origin of the Universe must include the origin of time and space too...."
Is the Universe a free lunch? - Arts & Entertainment - The Independent
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
I am not suggesting a static existence, I am merely suggesting that it is possible that we live in a very small bubble (what we call the universe) which is possibly only a very small segment of that existence, our segment of this existence (what we call the universe) may well have been created by what we call the big bang, but this event was in reality only a small bang compared to the true scale of existence in which similar events may be happening in some sort of asynchronous cycle according to varying distributions of matter and energy at the time.
Outside of what we call our universe is area, capacity, into which we are expanding - that this supports my position that there is something outside of our universe is rather difficult to dispute. I am completely aware that there is nothing thus far to suggest that there is other 'stuff' out there in this area. However, I would contend that there is the possibility that something DOES exist outside of this area, that this is not directly contradictory of any of the general notions of the big bang and our understanding of natural laws (though in both cases it would necessitate some reworking of course).
While OUR bubble may not be infinitely old, existence itself may be.
Outside of what we call our universe is area, capacity, into which we are expanding - that this supports my position that there is something outside of our universe is rather difficult to dispute. I am completely aware that there is nothing thus far to suggest that there is other 'stuff' out there in this area. However, I would contend that there is the possibility that something DOES exist outside of this area, that this is not directly contradictory of any of the general notions of the big bang and our understanding of natural laws (though in both cases it would necessitate some reworking of course).
While OUR bubble may not be infinitely old, existence itself may be.
Last edited:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
The big bang happened and really there is no dispute in that basically, accept some details kindof like evolution.
The universe was hotter and denser in the past and has been expanding ever since. we don't know for sure yet, that there was something before that, but its looking better for be able to test it and it looks like there maybe.
You can also have a big bang and multiverses. Which is what I think your going after here. In string theory there are 11 dimensions and there are quite a few theories on bubble universes and multiverses.
[youtube]grvemUlzUXA[/youtube]
NOVA | THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: Universe or Multiverse - YouTube
The universe was hotter and denser in the past and has been expanding ever since. we don't know for sure yet, that there was something before that, but its looking better for be able to test it and it looks like there maybe.
You can also have a big bang and multiverses. Which is what I think your going after here. In string theory there are 11 dimensions and there are quite a few theories on bubble universes and multiverses.
[youtube]grvemUlzUXA[/youtube]
NOVA | THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: Universe or Multiverse - YouTube
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
That is what I was referring to - however I was referring to the space at the outside of our bubble if you will, in which I believe there is the capacity that there may be some types of matter and or energy, in this perhaps infinite space (which is yes, likely to be different from the space within our bubble due to different types of matter and energy and the proportions thereof) there is likely the capacity for change, as such it is possible to extend a conceptual framework of time which is not dependant on 'the big bang'.
Hence my statement that I disagree with the finite space position and on many aspects of the assumptions made about time (I also disagree quite significantly with the ramifications of the observations of light in their relation to time, I think them a useful tool but limited).
Hence my statement that I disagree with the finite space position and on many aspects of the assumptions made about time (I also disagree quite significantly with the ramifications of the observations of light in their relation to time, I think them a useful tool but limited).