Infinite time and space.

[4consideration]

Relativity changed the rules quite extensively, which forbids that kind of thing. All objects look like they travel at less than lightspeed, regardless of where you look at them from.

_______________________________________

I think that you (and relativity) are probably completely correct as it relates to particles containing mass. This information is completely valid for our understanding of mass. Lots of great and useful applications.

The tendency to limit perception to mass is understandable, but incapable of addressing a concept of infinity or a field of reference for a particle of infinity that creates mass, instead of being a result of the creation of mass.

(I, unintentionally, allowed for misunderstanding of my point, by simply using the word particle, rather than specifically stating either particle of mass or particle of infinity.)

I think that we can see the limitation of the application of the speed of light as a constant by simply recognizing that it is a valid constant in relation to mass.

 

[PolyHedral]

I think that we can see the limitation of the applicatin of the speed of light as a constant by simply recognizing that it is a valid constant in relation to mass.

Not really; we know that massless things travel at precisely light-speed.

(There is nothing in the universe that has infinite mass.)

 

[shawn001]

There is always the question what's beyond "our Universe" and then there is "our" space, beyond our space in our universe, could be other universes with their own space.

which is why there are cosmologists and astronomers.

But you can't have space without time or time without space.

 

[4consideration]

Not really; we know that massless things travel at precisely light-speed.

(There is nothing in the universe that has infinite mass.)

___________________________________________

Am I to interpret that as Na-Nee Na-Nee Boo Boo? If so, :blowkiss:

I really wasn't considering infinite mass to be a possibility or impossibility. The idea never really occurred to me. I wasn't thinking about mass at all, except to be curious about what precedes what we recognize as mass -- sort of like the birthing chamber of mass.

I will concede that it is most likely, most definitely likely, that you have a much better understanding of the current level of scientific understanding of particles and physics in general than I do. And, I would not wish to make any inquiry into any subject of understanding by denying what is so. I also think that any context for understanding (for example, science) will tend to have a certain limited perspective that is particular to the applications of that science.

To me, the question is how do we get past our current level of understanding in this situation?

I think that there are times when, in order to achieve a greater understanding, we have to suspend the boundaries of our current understanding in order to have permission to see a bigger picture. Once we see a bigger picture, we can take that understanding back to an area of science for application of that understanding in the real world. Of course, we cannot effectively use principles that do not actually work.

The point that I am trying to make here, is that it seems like we could very easily make the same error in science that religon made -- by allowing the limitations (remaining locked within a fixed context) of the current level of understanding to forbid considering that which may be outside of that science's realm of current understanding. If we consent to limitations placed on thought it causes stagnation, or at least limitation of understanding to what we currently know.

There are lots of really intelligent people with a really mind boggling level of detailed knowledge regarding what is aleady known or considered to be true. I do not discount the value in that.

When you mentioned that relativity "forbids" viewing particles as an integrated whole for the purpose of considering their combined activity to be exceeding the speed of light -- the very notion that science could take a position of forbidding anything really tickled me. I tend to be somewhat of a smart aleck at times, but I really wanted to ask, "If I did it anyway, would that mean that I would have to be kicked out of the Garden?" I mean no disrepect here. It just seemed like a similar scenario.

It just seems to me that in this area, science could possibly be making the very same error that the experts in religon made. Wisdom about what is may be wisdom, but it is secondary to what is. The same goes for scientific Knowledge.

One approach can limit understanding to what is written and the connections made between what is written and reality. The other approach can limit understanding to what is currently known (and defined as already having been shown) and the connections made between what is known and reality.

I think that both sacred texts and science have value if understood that they, in and of themselves, are closed systems -- which have rules that apply to those systems but are part of a much bigger picture that cannot be limited unless we consent to confine our understanding to the limits of that closed system.

But either approach is going to limit one's perspective at some point in order for the context to survive as a contained context. I think that a context, as a contained entity, has an illusionary boundary that will dissolve once the boundaries are breached. And, it's a great thing -- because we can simply create new contexts for more experience.

 

[PolyHedral]

I really wasn't considering infinite mass to be a possibility or impossibility. The idea never really occurred to me. I wasn't thinking about mass at all, except to be curious about what precedes what we recognize as mass -- sort of like the birthing chamber of mass.

In most models of particle physics, that's what the Higgs particle does; other particles interact with it to gain mass. As to whether the Higgs itself has mass (which it might) you'd have to ask someone cleverer than me.

To me, the question is how do we get past our current level of understanding in this situation?

More observation.

I think that there are times when, in order to achieve a greater understanding, we have to suspend the boundaries of our current understanding in order to have permission to see a bigger picture. Once we see a bigger picture, we can take that understanding back to an area of science for application of that understanding in the real world. Of course, we cannot effectively use principles that do not actually work.

But science doesn't work anything like philosophy. Anything crazy enough to work is, de facto, right, especially if nobody else can come up with a better idea. Because of this, some pretty crazy ideas have been tried, and we haven't been able to say that all of them are wrong.

The point that I am trying to make here, is that it seems like we could very easily make the same error in science that religon made -- by allowing the limitations (remaining locked within a fixed context) of the current level of understanding to forbid considering that which may be outside of that science's realm of current understanding. If we consent to limitations placed on thought it causes stagnation, or at least limitation of understanding to what we currently know.

To use the specific example of the speed of light, it's not forbidden because we don't understand it; it is forbidden because we understand perfectly well that it is impossible.

When you mentioned that relativity "forbids" viewing particles as an integrated whole for the purpose of considering their combined activity to be exceeding the speed of light -- the very notion that science could take a position of forbidding anything really tickled me. I tend to be somewhat of a smart aleck at times, but I really wanted to ask, "If I did it anyway, would that mean that I would have to be kicked out of the Garden?" I mean no disrepect here. It just seemed like a similar scenario.

That is why it is forbidden; there is no possible way to do it. Physics doesn't forbid things like eating the fruit, it forbids things like teleportation. If God had said, "Do not teleport whilst in the Garden!" we would still be there, because there is no mechanism with which one could possibly violate that order.

 

[muhammad_isa]

___________________________________________

There are lots of really intelligent people with a really mind boggling level of detailed knowledge regarding what is aleady known or considered to be true. I do not discount the value in that.

Nor do I ! It doesn't have to be "science versus religion" .. they can exist very well together.
Religious belief is not a hindrance to gaining knowledge of all persuasions.
It's true that ignorance can often be a problem in 'the third world' , yet that problem exists in the west as well!

 

[muhammad_isa]

To use the specific example of the speed of light, it's not forbidden because we don't understand it; it is forbidden because we understand perfectly well that it is impossible.

You are very naive! The higher you study, the more you realise that our theories are not complete ..
.. or, they only hold true as long as the bascic axioms hold true. Our convenient physical definitions can lead to circular reasoning.

I think you'll find that Einstein did NOT rule out anything .. it takes lateral thinking to make progress in our understanding of the universe ..
.. if you think in a box, you can't get out of it

 

[PolyHedral]

You are very naive! The higher you study, the more you realise that our theories are not complete ..
.. or, they only hold true as long as the bascic axioms hold true. Our convenient physical definitions can lead to circular reasoning.

I think you'll find that Einstein did NOT rule out anything .. it takes lateral thinking to make progress in our understanding of the universe ..
.. if you think in a box, you can't get out of it

He outlawed massive objects travelling at the speed of light. Experiment backs him up on this.

 

[4consideration]

Nor do I ! It doesn't have to be "science versus religion" .. they can exist very well together.
Religious belief is not a hindrance to gaining knowledge of all persuasions.
It's true that ignorance can often be a problem in 'the third world' , yet that problem exists in the west as well!

_________________________________

I think we are on the same page!

 

[4consideration]

In most models of particle physics, that's what the Higgs particle does; other particles interact with it to gain mass. As to whether the Higgs itself has mass (which it might) you'd have to ask someone cleverer than me.

More observation.

But science doesn't work anything like philosophy. Anything crazy enough to work is, de facto, right, especially if nobody else can come up with a better idea. Because of this, some pretty crazy ideas have been tried, and we haven't been able to say that all of them are wrong.

To use the specific example of the speed of light, it's not forbidden because we don't understand it; it is forbidden because we understand perfectly well that it is impossible.

That is why it is forbidden; there is no possible way to do it. Physics doesn't forbid things like eating the fruit, it forbids things like teleportation. If God had said, "Do not teleport whilst in the Garden!" we would still be there, because there is no mechanism with which one could possibly violate that order.

_______________________________________

This is fun.

I would like to continue playing, but will probably not be on RF much, if at all, until sometime around the New Year.

I will be back. I promise not to teleport. Or do I?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

One wonders where the "bang" of the "big bang" came from. Super large black holes exist that hold
a million solar masses, and they don't "explode", they merely gradually lose their mass thru radiation leakage. The question is under what circumstance a "singularity" will explode into a universe.

Perhaps there was a collision between singularities or perhaps they become unstable when they get to a certain density (the black holes within our universe may be insufficiently massive for this to occur) such as the collapse of the entity generating sufficient force to lead to an explosion, I would assume that such collapses involve an enormous amount of energy, perhaps the instability resulting from such implosions increase in proportion to the density of the entity... it is an interesting question,

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps there was a collision between singularities or perhaps they become unstable when they get to a certain density (the black holes within our universe may be insufficiently massive for this to occur) such as the collapse of the entity generating sufficient force to lead to an explosion, I would assume that such collapses involve an enormous amount of energy, perhaps the instability resulting from such implosions increase in proportion to the density of the entity... it is an interesting question,

super massive black hole going off. I ove it and have thought about it myself.


But im not sure the content of the universe right after the singularuty backs up this thought

 

[PolyHedral]

Perhaps there was a collision between singularities or perhaps they become unstable when they get to a certain density (the black holes within our universe may be insufficiently massive for this to occur) such as the collapse of the entity generating sufficient force to lead to an explosion, I would assume that such collapses involve an enormous amount of energy, perhaps the instability resulting from such implosions increase in proportion to the density of the entity... it is an interesting question,

The density of a black hole actually decreases as you add mass to it.

 

[Photonic]

The density of a black hole actually decreases as you add mass to it.

If you are referring to the singularity, that is not true.

However, I think I know what you are trying to say. The effects of the black hole are lessened as it grows larger.

 

[PolyHedral]

The density of a black hole is customarily defined as the ratio of mass to event horizon volume. This decreases as its mass increases.

 

[Photonic]

The density of a black hole is customarily defined as the ratio of mass to event horizon volume. This decreases as its mass increases.

Depends, are you referring to the singularity?

Density increases in proportion to the distance from the singularity. Where it approaches infinity.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

you sure about that.

space and time is only limited to our universe, it is not infinite.

Proof?

 

[Photonic]

Proof?

You mean evidence? There is no proof.

2+3=5 is proof.

There is no known limit to the expansion of space, but 3-space is usually defined as limited.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You mean evidence? There is no proof.

2+3=5 is proof.

Yes

 

[outhouse]

Proof?

mathmatically speaking there is evidence that space and time were created at the same time.

Reading Einstien will clear up any questions you might have.

we are a creature that have a hard time grasping the dimensions involved but they are there and yes mathmatically proven.