Majestyk

Along similar lines and with the proximity of Mars this August, I try to give myself that feeling of scale. Looking thru my little 6" refractor, I remind myself that the little sphere that I'm peering at is a world nearly the size of what I'm standing on. It's pretty neat for that brief moment that I come close to realizing the interplanetary scale.

gcameron

I went to a "star party" for astronomy class in high school, where we looked at Jupiter, the moon, and a couple other odds and ends through telescopes. Afterward, walking home, I looked up at the sky and for a moment had the sensation that I was not looking "up." Rather, I was looking *out,* across the plane of the solar system, and really understanding that there were solid objects way out there. It seems a simple mental adjustment, but at the time it struck me with the force of an epiphany.

Quantum Ninja

I remember having a similar "revelation" once. It was one of the coolest experiences I can remember. One beautifully clear summer night some years ago, I was lying on my back in a wide, open field starring at the night sky. This was at a summer camp that was so isolated and deep in the forest that light pollution was virtually non-existent (You haven't truly seen the night sky if you haven't seen it under similar conditions... simply breath-taking).

Anyways, lying there on the ground, I eventually came to the "realization" that I wasn't looking "up" but, like you say, "out". It felt like the ground was no longer beneath me, but behind me, like I was pressed up against a wall, staring out into an endless void.

It was similar to those rides at amusement parks where you step into a circular room, you lean up against the wall, the wall starts spinning around horizontally, and once there is a strong enough centripetal force, the floor lowers a few inches, and you're stuck against the wall. Only instead of being stuck on the interior side looking in, I felt like I was on the exterior looking out.

It was a very cool, and very humbling experience. I suggest you try it some time if you haven't.

markfiend

On the scale of 1mm to 1ly: (all measurements approximate)

Earth's orbit is 0.5 nm in diameter
Pluto's orbit is 20 nm in diameter
Our radio signals have propagated 10 cm since the invention of radio
The disk of the Milky Way galaxy is 100 m across and 1 m thick
The large Magellanic Cloud is 180 m away
Andromeda Galaxy is 2.8 km away
Our local group is 10 km across
And the edge of the visible universe is 14000 km away (more than the diameter of the Earth!)

Bob K

By the principle of extrapolation from small scales to large scales, we can observe that for every volume of X dimension (a sphere of X-dimension radius or diameter) we can see the X volume surrounded by/encompassed by a larger volume we can describe as + i , where i = infinity, and where infinity = a condition of having no mathematical or physical limits.

Where infinity is not a finite number (if anyone knows what it is, he is welcome to tell us what it is and what is his reasoning for his claim) it is a condition of having no mathematical or physical limits.

We can use the expression X + i to show that for every volume of X there is a volume of + i that surrounds it.

We can extrapolate all observable X + i's from small scales to larger scales and thereby intuit what is the true volume of space--the spatial reality--which is unbounded, without mathematical or physical limits.

Lobstrosity

No, in general you can't. For example, if the universe had enough mass, it would be closed and thus would possess a finite volume. Space would be a 3-sphere embedded in an abstract 4-D flat Euclidian space. Though WMAP data tells us the universe is flat, this theoretically possible scenario demonstrates the fallacy of your line of reasoning. First and foremost, the unjustified claim is that any volume X can be enclosed in a larger volume. It is not valid to just assume this and in short it could easily be completely wrong depending on the composition of the universe. Perhaps you should take a look at the mathematics involved in the Friedmann model?

Bob K

Lobstrosity

Bob K:L:You are making the classic mistake of equating and therefore confusing space with matter/energy (m/e).

Space is space--the spatial reality of the universe, and matter/energy is matter/energy--the physical reality of the universe.

From thermodynamics we get the concept of a closed m/e system and the three related principles that say (A) from a closed m/e system m/e cannot be taken (where would it go?), (B) to a closed m/e system m/e cannot be added (where would it come from?), and (C) the quantity/sum total of m/e in a closed m/e system is a finite quantity (finite = having mathematical or/and physical limits).

From thermodynamics we also get the principle that (D) m/e is indestructible, convertible from m to e (E = mc2) and e to m (m = E/c2), and (E) that m/e is infinite in duration (infinite = having no mathematical or physical limitations).

The m/e of the universe is a closed m/e system because m/e cannot be taken away from it (where would it go?) and m/e cannot be added to it (where would it come from?).

Because in a closed m/e system the m/e is a finite quantity, and because the m/e of the universe is a closed m/e system, then the m/e of the universe is a finite quantity.

Because the m/e of the universe is a finite quantity, there will be areas of space in which no m/e is present, hence those areas of space will be pure vacuums.

Space is a pure vacuum except for those limited areas in which matter/energy is present.

Rephrased, the true nature of space is a pure vacuum in those areas in which m/e is not present.

We thus develop a concept of space to be a vacuum/void in which m/e is suspended/floating.

You cannot expand indefinitely/infinitely a finite quantity into an infinite volume which is a pure vacuum.

Hence, again, there will be areas of space in which there will be no m/e present and which therefore will be pure vacuums.

You cannot curve a pure vacuum.

Hence space cannot be, and therefore is not, curved.

If you equate space with gravity/a gravitational field, then you will make the classical mistake of equating space with the m/e which creates gravity/a gravitational field.

In physics, the law of inertia says that an object will maintain its inertial state until acted upon by a force.

This is a description of the law of causality, which says that for every effect which is a change of inertial state there is a cause which is a force which changed the inertial state.

Force in physics is described by f = ma wherein f = force, m = mass, and a = acceleration.

The only known source of f the e of m/e is m/e; the only known source of mass = m/e. Thus, f = the e/energy of m/e and m = the m/matter of m/e.

An object traveling through a gravitational field will have a mass which will have an inertial state which includes its velocity (velocity = direction and speed), and if its inertial state is acted upon by a force then its velocity will change (which is how we observe a change of inertial state of an object in a gravitational field).

Because the only cause of the effect of a change of inertial state is a force, and a force can only be created by the e/energy of m/e, gravity is a form of the e of m/e, and a gravitational field is a force field comprised of the e of m/e.

Because gravity/a gravitational field is a form of m/e, and because the m/e of the universe is a closed m/e system and therefore a finite quantity, there are areas of space in which m/e is present and other areas of space in which m/e is not present, hence, the true nature of space is a pure vacuum except for those limited/finite areas in which m/e is present.

You cannot expand indefinitely/infinitely a finite quantity of m/e into an infinite volume. Thus, there will be areas of the infinite volume/space in which m/e is present and there will be areas of of the infinite volume/space m/e is not present.

If you claim that within a finite volume of X dimension (radius/diameter) infinity can be found in the infinite number of geometrical points present within the volume, then you make the classic mistake of equating incompletely-dimensioned points of geometry with the completely-dimensioned physical points necessary for accurate descriptions of the physical reality--the m/e of the universe in any and all of its forms.

Principle: Incompletely-dimensioned geometrical points n= Completely-dimensioned physical points.

[NOTE: n= means ‘not equal to’ or ‘does not equal,’ and is employed because of the fact that some fonts do not recognize/display/print the ‘not equal to’/does not equal’ symbol.]

Hence, geometrical points n= physical points.

Hence, geometrical points = imaginary points having a dimension of l/length but no dimension of w/width in 2D and in 3D along with no dimension of h/height in 3D whereas physical points = real points having specific dimensions for l and w in the l x w of 2D and in l x w x h of 3D.

I.e., as soon as a point is required to have physical dimensions for l and w in the l x w of 2D and for l, w and h in the l x w x h of 3D, then points have a physical reality, and therefore a finite physical spatial quantity, and within a finite volume of X dimension there can only be a finite quantity of physical points and therefore there cannot be an infinite number of physical points, hence within a finite volume of X dimension there cannot be an infinite number/quantity of physical points.

If a spacepilot or a spaceship’s computer is to cause the spaceship to make a left turn completely-dimensioned physical points must be used for describing the precise spatial coordinates wherein the spaceship is to be turned or otherwise the incompleteness of the geometrical points will not permit the pilot/computer to determine where to initiate the left turn. By either the center of mass or the center of volume of a completely-dimensioned point a spacepilot/spaceship’s computer will be able to determine where to initiate the left turn.

If you do not agree that there is a difference between geometrical points, which have a set of incomplete dimensions, such as a dimension for l in 2D and in 3D but not for w in 2D and not for w and h in 3D, and physical points, which have a set of complete dimensions for both l and w in 2D and for l, w and h in 3D, then you will never understand the true nature of the m/e which is the physical reality and can only be comprised of physical points and you will flounder forever in the land of imaginary geometrical points.

Simply, for every mathematical or physical theory theoretically describing any reality by points, physical points are to be required instead of geometrical points.

If the mathematics does not describe the physics, then the mathematics are invalid.

If mathematical points of incomplete dimensions do not describe the physical reality which has physical points of complete and specific dimensions, then the mathematics are invalid, and if invalid mathematics are used as premises for an hypothesis in a theory, then the hypothesis is not confirmed, the conclusion is invalid, and the theory does not describe the physical reality and is therefore useless as well as inaccurate.

You challenge a theory by challenging the theory’s premises which are supposed to provide support/justification/data for the confirmation of the hypothesis and therefore its conclusion that the hypothesis is valid and therefore a description of reality.

Go review each and every mathematical/physical theory which makes the mistake of equating geometrical points--incompletely-dimensioned points--with physical points--completely dimensioned points--and require/demand that each and every point have complete dimensions for l and w in 2D and l, w and h in 3D and see how the theory’s conclusions/mantras change.

Space is thus a pure vacuum of infinite volume; there are areas of space in which finite quantities of m/e is present, or there may be one area in which the sum total/finite quantity of the m/e of the universe is present, but outside/beyond those areas/that area space is a pure vacuum of infinite/limitless dimensions.

Because is has an infinite volume, space is therefore open and cannot possibly be closed.

The m/e--the physical reality--of the universe is a closed m/e system, but because it is not equivalent to the space of the universe it does not/cannot impose a closure/curvature to the spatial reality--space--of the universe.

Thus, in the final analysis, because the spatial reality--space--of the universe is an infinite volume, for an finite X-dimensioned volume there will be a surrounding volume of + i, therefore the expression X + i describes accurately any observable finite volume of X-dimension on a small scale and when extrapolated to larger scales enables us to intuit the true nature of space--the spatial reality of the universe.

Majestyk

It appears you have rejected quantum physics in its entirety. Am I mistaken?

*edit* and some general relativity as well.

Shadowy Man

Well, he couldn't have given it up entirely. He is, after all, typing on a computer.

eh

Just accept that modern physics, quantum mechanics, geometry, math and cosmology are wrong, and it will save you the trouble of debating a creationist in disguise.

After all, cosmology and QM are hard to imagine, therefore they must be false.