Mr. Sammi

sigh.

Tron, It is convienent to assess (1) as not being true or false. It is convienent to ignore connotation whenever you wish. That is yours to be. But, you said, yes I agree the universe is expanding, in other words, I believe it is true the universe is expanding. Sorry no kicks because of the but.

For a universe curved in on itself, the balloon analogy is not pertinent. Baloons do not curve in on themselves.

Then the nonsense of a finite universe curved in on itself, but then the imagination extends lines into infinity. Is this finite infinite.

Lastly if every point potentially moves away from each other, the result you describe is inconsistent with rational thinking.

MY argument is there is necessarily a set of states that are undefined the moment a measurement of the universe is taken. A probability function describes these sets of undefined states. This is the line between a coherent universe and the expanding universe.

PLEASE REMEMBER, whenever a measurement is taken, the universe is closed, it is now coherent, it is no longer expanding. It has only seemed to expand because of the relations between sucessive measurements.

Sammi Na Boodie (thanking you in advance)

tronvillain

Sammi:
That the question "Do you agree that the universe seems to be expanding" is neither true nor false is not simply convienient, it is a fact. Obviously you meant to say "If the statement 'the universe seems to be expanding' is false then OK, kick me" but that is not what you said.

Okay. Have you ever seen a balloon? I assume you have, but how you could have seen a balloon and failed to notice the curvature of its surfact escapes me. The surface of a balloon is finite but has no boundary, and whichever direction you travel from a given point eventually you will end up back where you started, hence the analogy to a finite curved universe.

Pardon? I assume this gibberish was originally supposed to convey some sort of message, but apparently that was abandoned at some point.

Exactly how is it inconsistent with rational thinking? A "point" is an useful fiction, an abstract entity and when space expand uniformly any point to you care to specify moves away from any other point you care to specify. Of course, you can specify another point where the one that moved away orginally was - you never run out of abstract entities.

So, you have attempted to apply the language of quantum mechanics to an expanding universe in a vague and undefined way. How very impressive. Now, try presenting an actual argument.

Well, I will remember it as one of your odd unsupported assertions, but not as more than that.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

TRON, simply excuse me...

OUR abstract portfolios simply do not mesh.

Sammi Na Boodie (bye-buy)

tronvillain

Well, I can't say that you and the gibberish you spout will be missed.

Mr. Sammi

The Universe is expanding into INFINITY.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

tronvillain

You know, capitalizing words like that doesn't give your ravings any more authority.

Mr. Sammi

TRON, I know, but CAPITALS does make it stand out a bit from the rest of the crowd.

I could not understand why you deny the idea that there are points in the space-time continuum WHICH are unknowable and infinite in EXTENT and INTENT (the probability function) at the moment the universe is measured. These points so to speak are the incoherent elements of the universe, the moment we take "a snapshot of the universe" (someone else's term), the rest of the universe is "the coherent part of the universe".

Following this, the snapshot of the universe was only identified with the coherent universe, which leaves me to believe outside the universe was the incoherent universe.

The "total universe" then consists of coherent elements and incoherent elements. We approximate the "total universe" into one universe as being only the coherent part of the universe, the universe that can be pinned down.

In conclusion then, into what is the universe expanding, since it is not expanding unto itself?

It follows it must be expanding through the incoherent universe which I have approximated to INFINITY.


I hope this clears things up a bit. I must apologise because I like to use a minimum of words when expressing myself. I am not usually inclined to explain in minute detail, or to be long-winded. Longwindedness usually begats me the name "windbag".

Sammi Na Boodie ()

tronvillain

Well, that does clear things up a bit - you certainly deserve the label "windbag." I will attempt to simplify this this theory of yours:
Now, what exactly do you think is happening at the edge of the expanding coherent region? Do you have any actual mechanisms to propose or do you simply enjoy how your vague theory sounds? This "theory" appears to be nothing more than an effort to apply the language of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics to the macroscopic universe, without any justification whatsoever.

John Page

Starspun:

Maybe the final frontier is mindspace (whatever that is exactly).

For example, we have concepts:

a) A universe defined as containing everything (no exceptions)
b) An expanding universe!!!!
c) Infinity (has no borders!!)

Clearly there are some contradictions in the above. I'm no physicist but can't we just say the universe appears to be expanding and state clearly our reasons for beleiving so?

What I hope is that we'll be able to reconcile how our minds hold and use (the above and other) contradictory concepts.

Once we understand the tools our minds develop to "understand" or make coherent the sense data of our reality then we will better able to state objectively the nature of the universe (relative to our minds).

Cheers, John

Mr. Sammi

TRON,
It does not need justification, if you understand anything at all. The whole world does not need to be justified all over again, words do not need justification, implied theories do not need justification. What else does not need justification is your dedication to philosophy...

IT is just a big bang.

I realise you use the term macroscopic to intend to mean inapplicable, BUT, I took QM, and the macroscopic expansion is infinitely related to the sub-microscopic world, each time a photon sprays your eyes with fashionable and blinding light. How's that for a windbag.

Sammi Na Boodie (thanking you again)

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Sammi ]

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Sammi ]</p>