Two weeks ago I was interested in the doughnut of space/time and god, and how it curved in on itself with ends but no ends, because you can't draw a circle from the middle, and now I think I prefer to just eat a doughnut , because there is no way for me to do that math or figure it all out. I mean the gamma rays that were shooting out at the speed of light at 360 degrees forever, into "what" I don't know, but then it curves and.......is it a bigger doughnut? Compared to WHAT? OK so it is the same size doughnut, so let's just eat a doughnut, even though they are not good for you, because I just can't do anything else with all this. Fat, dumb and comparatively happy may not be a good way to go through life son, as has been said, but in a way it is easier to digest.
On Aug 26, 5:16 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a fine point MB, but I don't think you can equate a vacuum with > nothing. A vacuum is a vacuum, the absence of atmosphere, but clearly > matter can exist in a vacuum as can light waves and radio waves. But > nothing is just that. Nothing. No thing. The absence of > everything. > > Regards the big bang (which is also a tv sitcom I enjoy), if that was > the singularity from which all we consider to be in our universe > emerged, within what did that singularity exist prior to going bang. > > Nor do I think my statements preclude the usefulness of anything we > have discovered regardless the errors we assume about it. We are a > very resourceful species and made much of what we have discovered so > far, right wrong or indifferent. I just hope we mature out of > adolescence before we discover something we could really hurt > ourselves with. > > /e > > On Aug 26, 11:09 am, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You also mention that pursuant to current observations the universe is > > > expanding which leads me to ask expanding into what. For the universe > > > to expand it has to have boundaries beyond which it is expanding > > > therefore postulating something else outside the boundaries of our > > > universe. > > > I think the "universe" refers to the space-time continuum. Outside the > > universe is a vacuum - just as before the universe emerged from the > > Big Bang, there was a vacuum, i.e., nothing. > > > As far as we know from the current state of scientific knowledge, the > > universe is expanding in the sense that it began from a single point, > > and that the things furthest away from us appear to be getting even > > further away. The fact that it doesn't make linguistic sense to > > postulate "boundaries" to the universe is (at least according to > > modern physics) more a function of deficiencies in our language and > > understanding than it is a knock on the theory that the universe is > > expanding. > > > While I can't pretend to intuitively understand what it would mean for > > the universe to simultaneously be "all that there is" yet to be able > > to expand into something else, we can still talk about it > > analogically. "Outside" the universe is a vacuum, and the reason the > > universe is able to expand is because it is made of real "stuff," > > i.e., space-time. The picture that conjures is of a giant fabric > > expanding into infinite blackness. Clearly, this picture is not > > "accurate," any more than it was accurate to think of electrons going > > around the nucleus as shiny balls of energy smoothly orbiting in > > perfect circles. But it's a model that presumably has some truth to > > it, just as the electron orbital model does. By not being perfectly > > accurate, it leaves lots of stuff out, but that doesn't make it > > useless. Newtonian physics was quite useful for 300 years before being > > updated. Unlike some other things in science, it seems that Newtonian > > physics needed to be modified rather than thrown out entirely - > > hopefully, the same is true for the well-established concepts in > > modern physics. > > > On Aug 26, 9:40 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Justin, I do think there is a difference between the universe and > > > infinity. We have no idea whether or not the universe we seem to be a > > > part of is all there is unless you are assigning infinity to our > > > universe, but there is no evidence for it. As an example, we have no > > > idea where black holes might lead, if they lead anywhere at all, but > > > if they do lead somewhere it just might be another universe. As such > > > I find it difficult to consider the universe we know as being all > > > inclusive. > > > > You also mention that pursuant to current observations the universe is > > > expanding which leads me to ask expanding into what. For the universe > > > to expand it has to have boundaries beyond which it is expanding > > > therefore postulating something else outside the boundaries of our > > > universe. > > > > Just as infinity, a concept created by human beings, is unprovable and > > > unknowable -- at least in our current state of awareness and being. > > > Ideas and theories such as this are for us nothing more than mental > > > playtoys. Such as it is with your statement that nothing can go > > > faster than light. According to the theories and postulations we > > > currently possess it appears that nothing can go faster than light, > > > but even that is a very narrow statement because we know so little > > > about the universe. > > > > On Aug 26, 2:53 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > According to relativity spacetime is a continuum. A set can be be > > > > infinite, finite and unbounded, or finite and bounded. The case of > > > > finite and bounded is excluded for current theory, and maybe > > > > necessarily so since the term "universe" is all inclusive so it would > > > > include whatever was on the other side of the boundary. That leaves > > > > the cases of infinite or finite and unbounded. > > > > > The idea of finite and unbounded is like a basketball surface. It has > > > > no edge even though it is not infinite like a plane. If the universe > > > > were finite and unbounded and spherical then no matter which direction > > > > in space you went you would end up back where we are. Something like > > > > that may in fact be the case. > > > > > Whether the universe is finite and unbounded or infinite is a question > > > > the answer to which is not currently scientifically known. My > > > > understanding is that the recent observations include a universe that > > > > is expanding at an increasing rate. If that is true then the universe > > > > is no longer behaving like current scientific theories predict and the > > > > theoretical physicists have work to do. > > > > > If you want to know what a continuum is consider this... Imagine a > > > > point on a plane. Now imagine a small disc around that point. Now > > > > imagine a smaller disc. For every disc size you give me, if there is a > > > > continuum, I can find a smaller disc that is made up of points in the > > > > continuum. So if you draw a 1 inch circle then I can draw a 1/2 inch > > > > circle and if you draw a 1/2 circle I can draw a 1/4 inch circle etc. > > > > If that is true for every point then the set of points is continuous. > > > > The only problem with this idea is if there is a boundary point. If > > > > you choose a point on the boundary you cannot draw a circle all the > > > > way around but you could draw something like a half circle. But we are > > > > excluding bound sets so no problem! There are better more formal > > > > definitions on the internet in the wiki. > > > > > Now imagine a line segment with a start and endpoint ... say the > > > > points on a line from zero to one. Then that set has a boundary. The > > > > points zero is one boundary and the point one is another. But if you > > > > take the line segment from zero to one and then exclude the point zero > > > > and the point one you now have an unbounded set! > > > > > The numbers 1, 2, 3 etc are not a continuum because if you take the > > > > number 2 for example and I give you the number 1 for example you can't > > > > find a neighborhood around 2 that is closer to 2 than 1 but contains 2 > > > > and other numbers. But fractions are a continuum because if you give > > > > the number 2 for example and I give you the number 1 for example then > > > > you can say "all the points from 1 and 1/2 to the 2" All those points > > > > are closer to 2 than 1. If I give you 1 1/2 then you give me 1 3/4. > > > > Now try to find a number that that doesn't work for.... If I give you > > > > 1.9you give me 1.99. If I give you 1.99 you give me 1.999 etc. If I > > > > give you 1.999999999 you give 1.9999999999! > > > > > In fact there was some theoretical work in physics that postulated > > > > that time and space were not continuous but were discreet or > > > > quantized. As far as I know the work never gelled into an acceptable > > > > theory. > > > > > What is interesting is the relationship between time and space. > > > > Spacetime was a 4 dimensional continuum before Einstiein. What he > > > > found was that what is for one person two points or events imagined at > > > > the same time but separated by a distance and that therefore determine > > > > a length become two points that are not at the same time for the > > > > other person and so the points no longer are a length (which is an > > > > interval of space) but are now an interval of space and an interval of > > > > time. So a purely spatial interval becomes a space and time interval. > > > > So for example today now here a gun goes off and in Washington DC at > > > > the same time a gun goes off. That now becomes today here and now a > > > > gun goes off and then latter in Washington DC a gun goes off. > > > > Actually, it was a man named Minkowski who sort of summarized Einstein > > > > this way. > > > > > It does not mean that time and space are really the same thing > > > > however. Locally, for any given observer they are very different. > > > > > Also, time is related to material causality, so you can have a circle > > > > in space but not one in time. The universe may be spherical spatially > > > > but not in time because it causes problems with causality. (However, > > > > you can imagine a universe that repeats and in a sense that is a > > > > circle in time! Its just that if you are to preserve causality you > > > > describe it as a line that just repeats. How subtle the ideas of > > > > physics!) Relativity does preserve the ability to have material > > > > causality since no signal can go "faster than light" meaning that > > > > nothing here can cause something over there before light could reach > > > > it. If such an effect were discovered then the center of relativity > > > > theory would be destroyed. It is all based on that assumption. > > > > Therefore the future need not be determined in relativity. Causality > > > > can exist but > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
