Freethought & Rationalism Archive

strubenuff · 07-24-2002, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Measurements of the amount of matter and dark matter in the universe have shown that there is not enough mass in the universe to cause big crunch- even when we are generous with our estimations. So it is unlikely that oscillating universe theory is true.

Could you point me to these studies? I was under the impression that, especially with our generous estimations, there was enough dark matter for the oscillating universe.

Writer@Large · 07-24-2002, 09:11 AM

Hi, Thiaoouba!

I'm a bit surprised that you're back again, especially since you promised to go away for good. But I'll resist with the usual history lesson, as this seems like a civil thread. But the moment you push that online cult manual ...

--W@L

Mr. Sammi · 07-24-2002, 09:47 AM

You may ar may not agree with me. Infinity is not a measurement. Infinity has an undisclosed intrinsic quality which makes it elusive to the measured eye.

The future in theory is infinite, it resides at infinity, no determinist can show the future as having finite qualities since the future is not known, determinists can only show the NOW moment, as being deterministic.

The future will continue to exist as an infinite apparition until the world collapses and continuity fails us - The finite end of the universe.

Until then the measured universe is finite as we hurtle towards infinity.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

rainbow walking · 07-24-2002, 06:16 PM

Let's have some good philosophical battle on whether "the universe is infinite or finite" (i.e. made at some point or "always there").

rw: Then you are primarily speaking of time and existence.

the arguments below are easy to follow and very difficult to argue against.

rw: Let�s test this, shall we?

Have you seen anything in nature that's "infinite"?? Please give me ONE example.

rw: Space

has anything been measured as being infinite? Please give ANY example.

rw: Uh, if it were assigned a measurement it would cease to be infinite.

Saying that "something" has infinite properties (such as the length of its existence) does not make any sense - because the actual concept of "length" is finite.

rw: Only AFTER you assign a finite number to it which is arbitrarily human. Who decided a foot was twelve inches, how long an inch is or a centimeter? Linear time lengths are determined by the motion of planets. All such explanations are only attempts to reduce infinity.

"A piece of string is 5 metres long" or perhaps the "the length that the solar system passes while circling the center of the galaxy is..." etc.

rw: Now you�ve strayed from �time�.

The word "length" was invented to signify exactly what it means: a "length" between two points or moments in "passing" or "time".

rw: So? That doesn�t negate infinity in the least.

From an online dictionary:
" Length: "distance or extent in space b : the length of something taken as a unit of measure, eg. <his horse led by a length> " "

rw: Want to really struggle with infinity? Define space.

The only reason the word "infinity" exists is because of WRONG laws of mathematics as currently exist on Earth.

rw: Uh�no. Infinity exists because it represents the un-known, not the mis-known or wrongly held as known.

Any correct law of mathematics will never lead to an infinity in any calculation.

rw: uh, two follows one and three follows two in conventional counting. Now start at zero and count forward until you run out of numbers. When you get there see if you can use your imagination to add one more and then another etc. so on into infinity or you run out of names to designate as numbers. And then, someone with a bigger vocabulary will come along a count even higher.

Laws of reality that lead to infinities in calculations while these infinities themselves cannot be observed in that reality - are easily incorrect laws - how can you have a "law of reality" that predicts something not part of that reality???

rw: See above.

Saying that infinities exist in nature is like saying that atoms have always existed. However, this does not make sense since an "atom" is a "physical" thing, much like my calculator (many atoms at once) and your computer screen (also many atoms at once).

rw: Then you know how many atoms are in your calculator? Their trajectory, atomic weights at any given time in proximity to one another? There are an infinite number of immeasurable events involved in your calculator alone. And what would you multiply that with to arrive at the actual number of events occurring through-out the universe at any given nanosecond?

If atoms always existed (such as would be the case in an "infinite" universe), then it should actually be impossible to "split" the atom - by doing so, we would infact be breaking the "infinitiveness" of the existence of an atom - and this would immediately mean that atoms were not always as they appear - hence not infinite. Since the universe is made of atoms and similar particles - it logically follows that it too is not infinite.

rw: Now you have switched completely from a reference of time to a reference of substance. There are an infinite number of atomic and sub-atomic particles in this universe. The universe itself is always changing and in conflict. Time is infinite and so is existence. This universe is not. It will be a different universe by the time you take your next breath.

Finally, if the Universe was "always there", then it would not be expanding (as it is observed). Indeed, this expansion is the best proof of a finite universe:

rw: Expanding into what? Property shifting is part and parcel of change and creates conflict which creates further change ad infinitum. If you are referring to a beginning to this universe, along with the properties that it currently exhibits you are correct, but that in no way means it wasn�t something else prior to becoming this universe.

Simple logical statement: " something that "expands" must have "started expanding" ".

rw: Yes, expansion, or growth is necessary before division.

And the fact that its "expanding" gives us a definite proof of the fact that it had "an initial state" and "initial boundary conditions" - just like a dynamic excitation of an aircraft wing.

rw: A beginning of the expansion�yes, but this doesn�t eliminate infinity in reference to time and existence. It only demonstrates change. Time and existence are the infinite corollaries and consequently axiomatic to everything, regardless of what you ascribe the beginning of this universe to.

Without an initial state - no expansion is possible. Hence, since the Universe is expanding, it therefore had an initial state. So very simple, it's not really extraordinary, when you think about it. The extraordinary part comes when you accept these facts and focus on the next questions AFTER these facts: "who" or "what" gave the universe its initial conditions, so that it started expanding from some intial positions? AND WHY?

rw: That is not the correct next question. The correct question is: What were the properties of time and existence prior to this universe.

One last thing: ANything that expands from an initial state has a REASON to expand: this REASON is encompassed by the initial conditions that propel this expansion. The initial conditions are the reasons for expansion.

rw: And what would you like to propose those initial conditions were�God?

But what are the reasons for the initial conditions? Intriguing question, isn't it?

rw: Not really, there are no initial conditions outside of an infinite supply of time and existence. Even if you postulate a god it had to exist and have the time to do so to initiate the conditions of this universe. Now, a more intriguing question you might want to focus some of that mental energy on is defining SPACE.

Kharakov · 07-24-2002, 07:00 PM

Space: the gravitational distortion of matter that all known energy and matter reside in

-k

YHWH666 · 07-24-2002, 09:02 PM

Quote:

THIAOOUBA: Have you seen anything in nature that's "infinite"?? Please give me ONE example.

RAINBOW WALKING: Space

Actually space is not infinte. Stephen hawking explains <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/ask.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>

Quote:

Q) How can the Universe be both infinite and expanding? An infinite universe would, by definition, be everywhere, and would have no other place into which it could expand. Can you give me an answer that will help me grasp this concept? Thank you.

I have read that the universe has no center, but also that the shape of the universe is a hypersphere, which—if I remember my topology correctly—has a center. So what is meant by a center-less universe?

Also, in structures througout the universe, some residual angular momentum seems to cause a disk shape preference over a spherical shape. Is there any reason to believe that the universe itself has angular momentum and thus exhibits a disk shape?

A) Think of Columbus back in 1492. Back then, in two dimensions, the earth certainly looked flat. But Columbus showed that, sailing in one direction, the earth was actually curved slightly in the third dimension. So, in two dimensions, the earth was infinite, but in three dimensions the earth was finite (i.e. a ball). So an object can be both finite and infinite at the same time (depending on the dimension one is talking about).

But where was the center of the earth? Clearly, the center of the earth was located off the surface of the earth. Thus, the center of the earth was not on the surface of the earth at all, but was located in its interior (i.e., in hyperspace). By pointing a finger north, south, east, or west, one cannot locate the center of the earth. You have to point “down,” in the direction of hyperspace.

Similarly, Einstein's theory said that, locally, our universe appears to be flat and infinite in 3 dimensions. But it’s actually curved slightly in four dimensions. If we “sail” in a starship in one direction, we might eventually wind up where we began. But where is the center of the universe? It is located in hyperspace, off the surface of the universe. Therefore the center of the universe does not exist in our three-dimensional universe at all.

Now assume that our universe is expanding. The center of expansion does not exist in our universe. You cannot point a finger north, east, south, west, up, or down, and point to the center of the expansion. The universe is expanding in hyperspace. What is the universe expanding into? The answer: It is expanding in the fourth dimension, hyperspace, which is not visible, and exists off the surface of our hyper-bubble. In other words, hyperspace does not exist in our universe at all.

(Observationally, our universe does not seem to rotate, it expands. However, there are cosmological models—proposed by Kurt G�del—in which the universe does rotate, and in which time travel seems to be possible. Einstein was disturbed by these rotating solutions of G�del, but, in his memoirs, Einstein confidently ruled out such time travel solutions by stating that the universe expands, but does not rotate.)

There is still debate among cosmologists whether our universe is a hyper-bubble or if it is truly infinite even in the fourth dimension. But the fact that our universe is expanding and that space is curved has been verified by a number of experiments, both on the earth and in space. — M.K.

It might seem a bit weird and counterintuitive, but it’s the truth.

YHWH666 · 07-24-2002, 09:13 PM

Quote:

strubenuff quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurements of the amount of matter and dark matter in the universe have shown that there is not enough mass in the universe to cause big crunch- even when we are generous with our estimations. So it is unlikely that oscillating universe theory is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you point me to these studies? I was under the impression that, especially with our generous estimations, there was enough dark matter for the oscillating universe.

i have read it in a couple of places... i'll have to look up the exact site. maybe bill knows of a link? i'm intrested in hearing more about this "heat death" thing.

Jonesy · 07-25-2002, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Writer@Large:
<strong>Hi, Thiaoouba!

I'm a bit surprised that you're back again, especially since you promised to go away for good. But I'll resist with the usual history lesson, as this seems like a civil thread. But the moment you push that online cult manual ...

--W@L</strong>

I never pushed an online cult manual... and I would be most grateful if you could FILL ME IN on my deep lack of information regarding which cult manual exactly you are talking about... espacially since I know what my past posts contained and that they were no cult manual... (but no, other than the above question just to you, I don't want to push anything of those past posts here)

Shadowy Man · 07-25-2002, 09:15 AM

Certainly Aristotle proved the Earth was round before Columbus. Besides, Columbus didn't make it all the way around, like Magellan's crew did.

Writer@Large · 07-25-2002, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
<strong>I never pushed an online cult manual... and I would be most grateful if you could FILL ME IN on my deep lack of information regarding which cult manual exactly you are talking about...</strong>

I'm sorry; one man's cult manual is another man's science fiction ... or whatever you think "Abduction to the 9th Planet" truly is. Play ignorant all you want; there hasn't been a single thread you've started in all your time here at II that didn't end up being a plug for that poorly written piece of new-age UFOlogy claptrap.

Prove to me I'm wrong; start a conversation--ANY conversation--that doesn't end up with you pointing to that ridiculous story.

--W@L

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2002, 09:11 AM	#12
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	Hi, Thiaoouba! I'm a bit surprised that you're back again, especially since you promised to go away for good. But I'll resist with the usual history lesson, as this seems like a civil thread. But the moment you push that online cult manual ... --W@L

07-24-2002, 09:47 AM	#13
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	You may ar may not agree with me. Infinity is not a measurement. Infinity has an undisclosed intrinsic quality which makes it elusive to the measured eye. The future in theory is infinite, it resides at infinity, no determinist can show the future as having finite qualities since the future is not known, determinists can only show the NOW moment, as being deterministic. The future will continue to exist as an infinite apparition until the world collapses and continuity fails us - The finite end of the universe. Until then the measured universe is finite as we hurtle towards infinity. Sammi Na Boodie ()

07-24-2002, 06:16 PM	#14
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Let's have some good philosophical battle on whether "the universe is infinite or finite" (i.e. made at some point or "always there"). rw: Then you are primarily speaking of time and existence. the arguments below are easy to follow and very difficult to argue against. rw: Let�s test this, shall we? Have you seen anything in nature that's "infinite"?? Please give me ONE example. rw: Space has anything been measured as being infinite? Please give ANY example. rw: Uh, if it were assigned a measurement it would cease to be infinite. Saying that "something" has infinite properties (such as the length of its existence) does not make any sense - because the actual concept of "length" is finite. rw: Only AFTER you assign a finite number to it which is arbitrarily human. Who decided a foot was twelve inches, how long an inch is or a centimeter? Linear time lengths are determined by the motion of planets. All such explanations are only attempts to reduce infinity. "A piece of string is 5 metres long" or perhaps the "the length that the solar system passes while circling the center of the galaxy is..." etc. rw: Now you�ve strayed from �time�. The word "length" was invented to signify exactly what it means: a "length" between two points or moments in "passing" or "time". rw: So? That doesn�t negate infinity in the least. From an online dictionary: " Length: "distance or extent in space b : the length of something taken as a unit of measure, eg. <his horse led by a length> " " rw: Want to really struggle with infinity? Define space. The only reason the word "infinity" exists is because of WRONG laws of mathematics as currently exist on Earth. rw: Uh�no. Infinity exists because it represents the un-known, not the mis-known or wrongly held as known. Any correct law of mathematics will never lead to an infinity in any calculation. rw: uh, two follows one and three follows two in conventional counting. Now start at zero and count forward until you run out of numbers. When you get there see if you can use your imagination to add one more and then another etc. so on into infinity or you run out of names to designate as numbers. And then, someone with a bigger vocabulary will come along a count even higher. Laws of reality that lead to infinities in calculations while these infinities themselves cannot be observed in that reality - are easily incorrect laws - how can you have a "law of reality" that predicts something not part of that reality??? rw: See above. Saying that infinities exist in nature is like saying that atoms have always existed. However, this does not make sense since an "atom" is a "physical" thing, much like my calculator (many atoms at once) and your computer screen (also many atoms at once). rw: Then you know how many atoms are in your calculator? Their trajectory, atomic weights at any given time in proximity to one another? There are an infinite number of immeasurable events involved in your calculator alone. And what would you multiply that with to arrive at the actual number of events occurring through-out the universe at any given nanosecond? If atoms always existed (such as would be the case in an "infinite" universe), then it should actually be impossible to "split" the atom - by doing so, we would infact be breaking the "infinitiveness" of the existence of an atom - and this would immediately mean that atoms were not always as they appear - hence not infinite. Since the universe is made of atoms and similar particles - it logically follows that it too is not infinite. rw: Now you have switched completely from a reference of time to a reference of substance. There are an infinite number of atomic and sub-atomic particles in this universe. The universe itself is always changing and in conflict. Time is infinite and so is existence. This universe is not. It will be a different universe by the time you take your next breath. Finally, if the Universe was "always there", then it would not be expanding (as it is observed). Indeed, this expansion is the best proof of a finite universe: rw: Expanding into what? Property shifting is part and parcel of change and creates conflict which creates further change ad infinitum. If you are referring to a beginning to this universe, along with the properties that it currently exhibits you are correct, but that in no way means it wasn�t something else prior to becoming this universe. Simple logical statement: " something that "expands" must have "started expanding" ". rw: Yes, expansion, or growth is necessary before division. And the fact that its "expanding" gives us a definite proof of the fact that it had "an initial state" and "initial boundary conditions" - just like a dynamic excitation of an aircraft wing. rw: A beginning of the expansion�yes, but this doesn�t eliminate infinity in reference to time and existence. It only demonstrates change. Time and existence are the infinite corollaries and consequently axiomatic to everything, regardless of what you ascribe the beginning of this universe to. Without an initial state - no expansion is possible. Hence, since the Universe is expanding, it therefore had an initial state. So very simple, it's not really extraordinary, when you think about it. The extraordinary part comes when you accept these facts and focus on the next questions AFTER these facts: "who" or "what" gave the universe its initial conditions, so that it started expanding from some intial positions? AND WHY? rw: That is not the correct next question. The correct question is: What were the properties of time and existence prior to this universe. One last thing: ANything that expands from an initial state has a REASON to expand: this REASON is encompassed by the initial conditions that propel this expansion. The initial conditions are the reasons for expansion. rw: And what would you like to propose those initial conditions were�God? But what are the reasons for the initial conditions? Intriguing question, isn't it? rw: Not really, there are no initial conditions outside of an infinite supply of time and existence. Even if you postulate a god it had to exist and have the time to do so to initiate the conditions of this universe. Now, a more intriguing question you might want to focus some of that mental energy on is defining SPACE.

07-24-2002, 07:00 PM	#15
Kharakov Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Fidel Posts: 3,383	Space: the gravitational distortion of matter that all known energy and matter reside in -k

07-25-2002, 09:15 AM	#19
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Certainly Aristotle proved the Earth was round before Columbus. Besides, Columbus didn't make it all the way around, like Magellan's crew did.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.