My comment above is not facetious, although I will admit I was trying to be funny. It is the matter of the universe which is expanding, a consequence of the Big Bang. But the curious thing is that no matter where in the universe one might be, it would seem to the observer that the universe was receding from them equally as from any other observer. This is not to say space itself is expanding, for that would entail that space itself was inside space in which it could expand. (Owl- I believe this is just another version of the third man problem). Anyway the notion leads to contradiction, which should warn us that something is wrong here.
What curves/warps space is the presence of mass; the greater the mass the greater the warp-which is what makes black holes/quasars so interesting.
Oh, one last thing, Bishop Berkeley was wrong, the past and the future are not mental constructs. I think there was a philosopher who threw a fossil at some fool who was arguing “you can’t prove there was a past.”
Forum > owl
|
Posted July 06, 2009 (12:10AM)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 06, 2009 (01:15AM)
I think it's odd that quantum physics finally conjures the M theory, 11 dimensions worth to finally offset the two major conflicting schools of quantum theory into one, but can't explain what 95% pf the mass of the physical universe is, beyond knowing it's there.
It's human nature to get ahead of ourselves, often to point of fault, but very occasionally not. Here's an interesting thought, the universe, from inceptioon at the big bang is moving faster on the exterior..or is it? If red shift is the basis for that conclusion, who's considered the possibility that the inner portion of the universe hasn't just begun to slow, or even reverse it's momentum as the outer portions experience a latent assimilation of the same change in momentum? If this is the case, I suggest you boys make peace with your maker, kiss the wives, hug the kids and do all those things you've always put off in life...my math tells me we may only have twelve billion years or less. |
|
Posted July 06, 2009 (01:20AM)
SP - you are assuming that we occupy a portion of space that is typical. A recent article of Scientific American questions this. This is not to say you are wrong, it just suggests alternatives.
Owl - I'm the guy that Inky (I think) warned you about. I'm currently drunk, which will explain my typoes and rambling. I have read some of your previous posts and I must say I respect you. About infintity.... While I'm sure you are very aware of the various levels of infinity (linear - points on a line, Planar, areas of a plane, spacial - points that exist in the 3rd dimension, etc.). Have you considered infinity within the negative exponents of reality (the infintesimally small)? Quantum Mechanics seems to belie this possibility. There might be a paper here (as per the true meaning of metaphysics). I've thought of this while on multiple hits of acid, and am interested in your thoughts on this matter. About me - I'm a Shaman, as a Ph.D. of Philoshopy I expect you know what this means. I do not believe anything just because it's in some book, it's because I have experienced it (and have actively sought the Sacred). I do not dismiss the existance of the Sacred, just any individual's interpretation of it. Just give me the Facts. I'll decide for myself. ~~Weird Uncle Jesse~~ PS The lowest my IQ has been measured at is 135. And that is the first time - in High School (1974). It's been measured higher. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 06, 2009 (01:31AM)
Weird J., I'm afraid you'll have to go back to school, the forums quota for phd's in philosophy is ridiculously over-filled.
I'm being funny of course, but maybe you weren't ware that Owl is a philosphy professor. As for mentioning specific numbers for IQ's, never a great idea, someone else in the room will always coincidentally have an IQ that just so happens to be one or two points higher. |
|
Posted July 06, 2009 (01:52AM)
Inky, I'm aware. I'm just too damned drunk to care. My IQ is genuine. I just wanted to balance my lack of formal education. I am largly selfeducated, though I have made an AS of myself (in CS). And I do respect Owl, as I have read several of his previous posts. I mean no disrespect. Lots of those posted IQ results (as do mine) mean nothing as they are not verified. Also IQ is not everything. Much more is entailed when measuring one's full intelligence (EQ?). I just wanted to qualify myself as I do not have the official credentials as does Dr. Owl. Vain on my part, yes. But I am also sincere.
~~Weird Uncle Jesse~~ |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 06, 2009 (01:53AM)
I must not fail to mention that a theoretical argument can be adduced in favor of the hypothesis of a finite universe. The general theory of relativity teaches that the inertial mass of a given body is greater as there are more ponderable masses in proximity to it; thus it seems very natural to reduce the total inertia (mass) of a body to interactions between it and the other bodies in the universe, as indeed, ever since Newton's time, gravity has been completely reduced to interaction between bodies. The results of calculation also indicate that the universe would necessarily be spherical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 06, 2009 (02:09AM)
oh my physics and IQ scores...... a few qoutes I like......... "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." ~Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi, 1883 "Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition. " ~Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 06, 2009 (02:09AM)
That seems to be a physical application of phemoninolgy, verified by no less an authority than Einstien. Way to go El D!
~~Weird Uncle Jesse~~ |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 06, 2009 (02:18AM)
I wouldn’t worry about formal education or lack of, Owl is above that, He will debate on the merit, I remember a thread awhile back him commenting about education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 07, 2009 (12:38AM)
Phenomenology, heck of a word, and seems to be a mater of perception. If I said the sun rises in the east and sets in the west would that be correct? Or would philosophy dictate that the sun never moved in relation to the earth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 07, 2009 (01:02AM)
El D, philosophy doesn't dictate anything, that's left to the Hitlers of the world. If you are just going to argue a point for the sake of it (and you don't have to live your life by it) then it is possible to hold to the strangest positions. Why you could even argue that the world began and will end with yourself; that is known as "solipsism". And if you were to live it, life would truly be "short, brutish and nasty." But if you were just arguing the point , I guess you could hold on to it, although there is a story that two philosophers were arguing this and one of them picked up a rock and threw it at the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 07, 2009 (01:08AM)
No SP, I really can’t understand any of it, just trying to catch up. But I find it interesting, and I like debates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 07, 2009 (05:49AM)
Philosophy means literally in the original Greek "Love of Wisdom". I find this a beautiful feild of study. When I was in college in search of a degree just to actualy finish one, I chose computer science as I had a fair bit of knowlege of the subject. I needed a humanity for a prereq. Of course, I chose philosophy 101. This class was filled to overflowing. A Professor offered a class, Metaphysics, as a substitute that would statisfy the requirement. As I had (at that time) no idea what it was I accepted. After about a week I discovered that I had been studying the topic for 10 years on my own.
One note the professor passed to me at the end of class was that she was glad that I had taken the class as it was like having an assistant professor in the class with her. I did help answering some very difficult questions regarding the situation surrounding David Koresh (the wacko from waco) which was a major topic of conversation. I got an A+ for the course. ~~Weird Uncle Jesse~~ |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (03:05PM)
Thanks for your thoughts, Stoic. - When astrophysicists say that the universe is expanding, they actually mean that the material (that we can see) is expanding (or the region of nonzero mass/energy density). This is consistent with the fact that the space (or space-time) itself that it is expanding into is infinite. Some people would say that spacetime itself is expanding, but this seems to me to be nonsensical. - What is meant by calling the past and the future "mental constructs"? Does it mean that the things I remember happening yesterday didn't really happen, that it's just all in my mind? If so, that seems very unlikely. Likewise, do you mean that the events I expect to happen tomorrow won't really happen? If we really have no future, then perhaps we should stop planning for it. - That points don't really exist is much more plausible. Perhaps they don't; perhaps only (nonzero) regions exist. But you can still divide any nonzero region into infinitely many nonzero parts (divide in half, divide the halves in half, etc.), so you still get an actual infinity even if you reject geometric points. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (03:24PM)
I might stand corrected, but if memory serves, space/time is non-existent in the absence of gravity.
With the likelyhood that even photons, light itself, has some measure of gravity (with the fact that it interacts with gravity)..it might be a good way to gauge the rough size of the physical (space/time) universe by figuring the number of light years traveled by the very first blast of light since the inception (big bank) of the universe about 13 to 15 billion years ago. |
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (03:25PM)
It's worse than you think. Astrophysicists think that the sun will burn out in 10 billion years, even if the rest of the universe survives. And yeah, I think the inability to explain dark matter is a fair indication that there is something wrong with our theories. Maybe something big. I am beginning to understand where your name comes from. ;) Anyway: In my view, there are three important alleged kinds of infinity: Infinite cardinal numbers, infinite extensive magnitudes, and infinite intensive magnitudes. Only the third, in my view, is impossible. Infinite cardinal numbers, by the way, divide into a hierarchy (as established by Cantor), where the number of natural numbers is the "smallest" infinity, and the number of points on a line is widely thought to be next larger one. The # of points on a plane or in a 3d-region is the same as the number of points on a line. I don't have time to explain all this right now, though. Yes, I have considered the infinitesimal. There is a theory (developed by Robinson) of infinitesimal numbers, but I do not think they exist. There is zero, and there are the (other) real numbers; there isn't anything in between zero and the positive real numbers. Quantum mechanics also does not support infinitesimals (sorry!). QM only uses standard complex numbers in the formalism, and it represents space and time as continuous, just as in the standard conception. Energy levels are discrete, which was a big surprise to people, but space is still continuous. That just depends on what you mean. If you mean that the sun is "rising" *relative to the horizon*, then you're correct: at one time it is at the horizon, later it is above it. But if you mean that the sun is rising in an absolute sense, then that would be wrong. Thanks for your comments, everyone. See, this is the best thread we've ever had, isn't it?? |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (03:41PM)
Inc, You're correct that photons contribute to gravitational effects. They have energy, so they contribute to the spacetime curvature postulated by general relativity. However, it's not true that spacetime does not exist in the absence of gravity. Concentrations of mass-energy contribute to the "curvature" of spacetime (n.b., "curvature" does not mean what you probably think it does), but you can have spacetime with zero mass-energy density: it would just be flat (zero curvature). This is, at any rate, a perfectly consistent model of general relativity. (That doesn't mean there actually *is* any perfectly flat region of spacetime, just that it's consistent with the theory that there be some such region.) Relativity is often misunderstood as a theory that in some way denies the independent reality of space, making it all dependent on matter. This is partly due to Einstein's unfortunate name for the theory. In fact, the theory is philosophically much closer to Newton's 'absolute' view of space than it is to the traditional 'relational' theory of Leibniz. I say this because spacetime is treated as if it is a thing that has its own properties and that affects material objects. There are even models of general relativity in which self-propagating gravitational waves can exist in the absence of matter. (Again, not to say there are any such things, just that it's consistent with the theory.) Lastly, despite what I said, some astrophysicists would really say that "spacetime is expanding". However, I think they are confused and/or misspeaking. They should be saying that *the stuff that occupies spacetime* is expanding. There are various philosophical reasons why people tend to confuse the two statements. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (03:59PM)
Wow, when did we jump in the realm of modern physics. What does a monkey know about physics baybe we should bring dark matter, black holes and string theory into the discussion. Or just ask TK to lock the thread as they did with the political ones, after all we are way of the topic for this Forum :-)
Just FYI if you are interested in physics, here is a link to the public outreach lectures of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics- http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Outreach/Public_Lectures/View_Past_Public_Lectures/ |
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (04:11PM)
Actually Owl, I completly understand the context of space/time curvature...astrononauts experience a different passge of time in space than we do on solid ground, closer to gravity.
This premise also makes black holes extremely interesting in coneptual terms regarding what goes on inside them. As for my mention of space being nonexistent ion a lack of gravity, it isn't something I conjured, it's something I was taught. I personally think time is nothing more than a relative measure of the exertion of energy vs it's concetration...likely in the form of gravitiational energy, which would explain why space/time becomes increasingly curved in more densly packed area's of mater..as gravity increases. Without time, there is no space, without gravity there is no time. Relativity is a fantastic theory for the universe we live in, but quantum, or "M" theorists have some very different rules once matter, time or space are no longer existent in the sense that we understand it....Einstein couldn't correlate the two, it was his greatest problem. I see it like trying to use aviation engineering to dream up a good way to travel underwater without a good knowledge of fluid dynamics, they each have similar principles, but different dynamics. |
|
Posted July 08, 2009 (04:17PM)
There's a HUGE difference between name calling over idealogical belief, and exchanging real world lessons & idea's...THIS right here is probably the best example of why everyone missed Owl so much. Meaningful debate, as opposed to pointless argument for the sole purpose of angry name calling. |
|
You must Log In to post to this forum.
|