5
   

Understanding time and space

 
 
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 01:58 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

"Truth" is "what works".
"Infinity " is " that beyond which what we cannot picture".
"Time" is "that medium in which prediction and control operate".

These are all parochial by-products of human cognition which has allowed us to emerge as the most successful of adaptive species yet to have evolved.


It is no accident that the words heart and hear are part of the same word.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 06:35 am
@RexRed,
Quote:
It is no accident that the words heart and hear are part of the same word.

Question
If you are referring to etymology, what are your references ?
If not, you are presumably indulging in a bit of "word magic" common to concepts of "holy writ" and hypnosis.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 06:40 am
ignore the numbers, the vote down only affects the voter, anyone can still see the thread or post, i don't get why people obsess over the numbers or thumbs, if one persons vote could make a thread or post disappear for everyone that might be an issue, as it ism they just don't want to see or read your thread, big deal
0 Replies
 
ratta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 06:49 am
im having trouble separating the universe from my own thoughts, before me to me i cannot explain. do i control the universe or the universe control me? or is it a partnership where neither the universe does anything and my mind likewise. why this existence could it have been anyother way it boggles me. but the flood gatse are open there is no return, growing pains through the bones in my body when is enough enough do we not yet diserve the eternal light. any moment now...
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 07:46 am
Cheer up RR... Very Happy I managed a smile the other day.....boy was I sore afterwards . I know where you are coming from...I live in the country and see a lot of the stars and it never ceases to amaze me . Can we even begin to imagine the distances ???

The universe is awesome and we pass through it for such a fleeting moment . Whatever the nature of the micro and macro universes, our universe is this world and the animals and people on it, and you know what ? I think we have our hands full with just that little bit .

Oh, and I marked everyone up because I hate bullies....I usually give them a very sound thumping when I meet them in person....so far I have avoided gaol ! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 08:35 am
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:

Every time I think of time and space it boggles my mind. The universe is believed to be billions of years old, yet the light is traveling to us just now from the beginning of time.

How can this be? If light travels in a straight line it would seem the sky would be a blur of light? What makes the light seem to stand still? Why is the speed of light a constant? Why does the elemental universe of energy and mass dictate this?

Einstein talks about relativity, objects relative to light sources. space/time travel and dimensions seem like fantasy.

How are space and time interlinked?

Is it some sort of equation that has not been discovered yet?

The elements seem so stable to only be constructs of a smaller sub atomic world and that part of an even smaller world of quarks and black holes. Who knows how many magnitudes of order the particles and energy descend down into the vortex of physics.

It is inconceivable to think there was once no time. Will future people laugh at us for thinking such a thing? Like believing there are no microbes and that biology spontaneously comes into existence, like creation.

How many evolutions will the collective human mind go through, will we ever believe in eternity again? World without beginning or end.

It seems there are many beginnings in a long continuum that never starts or stops. Universes come and go but time in it most rudimentary sense never begins or ends. Suns, matter, light, energy etc all seemingly exist within the isness of all that is.

For science to declare such a ridiculous theory that ultimate time has a beginning seems to be the point where science becomes a religion.

Yes there seems to have been a "big bang" where our universe began but it began within a vacuum that had its own existence and reckoning of time and so on.

So the big bang was relative to the empty space it occupied. So the particle that started the big bang must have paled to the immense empty void that surrounded it. Thus our speed of light must be slow compared to the speed of the void. Is our speed of light likened to a piece of matter when it comes to the relative speed of the void?

And where does this get us? One day older and one moment closer to the great beyond.

It seemed science was on the verge of declaring the universe infinite when Einstein came along and through science theorized that time and space had a beginning. This gave credence to the Bible and its view on time also. In doing so it makes science seem somewhat fanciful and unreliably speculative.

Any thoughts? Smile




Well you are wrong on some accounts. Some physicists have been trying to reconcile QM and Relativity theory by denying time completely.

I do not think that the idea of spacetime beginning at the big bang points to God; in fact it points to, if anything, an infinite timeless point. By an inductive process, the notion of a timeless point prior to the big bang is far more appealing than a God who has unnecessary properties to carry out the beginning of the universe.

I do not understand what you mean by 'ultimate time'. If anything, space and time are inextricably bound up together (hence spacetime). But there are varying theories about the Big Bang. Take, for example, the oscillating theory, where the universe expands at some point in time, then contracts, and does so all over again.

Also, where does Einstein say that time and space had a beginning?

And another thing; instead of simply saying that the notions of space and time in physics seem "like fantasy", why not take some physics courses or read up on your physics. Im sure, if you understand Calculus, that you can start of with Newton's Principia Mathematica, and work your way up to Einstein, instead of rambling on about how the subject boggles your mind and you think it seems like some sort of religion. Just a suggestion.
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 08:50 am
@aidan,
Quote:
Quote:
This century will see a return to classical physics.

For those of us uneducated in classical physics - what exactly does it posit in terms of the universe and its origins?

I'd sincerely like to learn something about it.


It means that the universe itself is probably infinite; at least that there is no rational reason at present to think otherwise; also that time probably extends infinitely backwards and forwards behind us and in front of us, or at least that there is no real reason at present to think otherwise. It also means that time is time and space is space and that Einstein's basic idea of trying to describe gravity as some sort of a four-dimensional differential geometry thing is basically fubar.

It also means that the fairytale things you keep reading about, big bangs, black holes, dark energy, dark matter, multiple universes, string theory and the like are basically products of the fevered imaginations of mathematicians who have become excessively disconnected from reality.

It means that GPS companies at present are having to work around relativity and cover up for it, and that Charles Darwin is not the only member of the little club comprising authors of dead science theories from past centuries; Albert Einstein is a member of that club as well.



0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 08:53 am
Big Bang Never Happened:

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 04:52 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Every time I think of time and space it boggles my mind. The universe is believed to be billions of years old, yet the light is traveling to us just now from the beginning of time.

How can this be? If light travels in a straight line it would seem the sky would be a blur of light? What makes the light seem to stand still? Why is the speed of light a constant? Why does the elemental universe of energy and mass dictate this?

Einstein talks about relativity, objects relative to light sources. space/time travel and dimensions seem like fantasy.

How are space and time interlinked?

Is it some sort of equation that has not been discovered yet?

The elements seem so stable to only be constructs of a smaller sub atomic world and that part of an even smaller world of quarks and black holes. Who knows how many magnitudes of order the particles and energy descend down into the vortex of physics.

It is inconceivable to think there was once no time. Will future people laugh at us for thinking such a thing? Like believing there are no microbes and that biology spontaneously comes into existence, like creation.

How many evolutions will the collective human mind go through, will we ever believe in eternity again? World without beginning or end.

It seems there are many beginnings in a long continuum that never starts or stops. Universes come and go but time in it most rudimentary sense never begins or ends. Suns, matter, light, energy etc all seemingly exist within the isness of all that is.

For science to declare such a ridiculous theory that ultimate time has a beginning seems to be the point where science becomes a religion.

Yes there seems to have been a "big bang" where our universe began but it began within a vacuum that had its own existence and reckoning of time and so on.

So the big bang was relative to the empty space it occupied. So the particle that started the big bang must have paled to the immense empty void that surrounded it. Thus our speed of light must be slow compared to the speed of the void. Is our speed of light likened to a piece of matter when it comes to the relative speed of the void?

And where does this get us? One day older and one moment closer to the great beyond.

It seemed science was on the verge of declaring the universe infinite when Einstein came along and through science theorized that time and space had a beginning. This gave credence to the Bible and its view on time also. In doing so it makes science seem somewhat fanciful and unreliably speculative.

Any thoughts? Smile




Well you are wrong on some accounts. Some physicists have been trying to reconcile QM and Relativity theory by denying time completely.

I do not think that the idea of spacetime beginning at the big bang points to God; in fact it points to, if anything, an infinite timeless point. By an inductive process, the notion of a timeless point prior to the big bang is far more appealing than a God who has unnecessary properties to carry out the beginning of the universe.

I do not understand what you mean by 'ultimate time'. If anything, space and time are inextricably bound up together (hence spacetime). But there are varying theories about the Big Bang. Take, for example, the oscillating theory, where the universe expands at some point in time, then contracts, and does so all over again.

Also, where does Einstein say that time and space had a beginning?

And another thing; instead of simply saying that the notions of space and time in physics seem "like fantasy", why not take some physics courses or read up on your physics. Im sure, if you understand Calculus, that you can start of with Newton's Principia Mathematica, and work your way up to Einstein, instead of rambling on about how the subject boggles your mind and you think it seems like some sort of religion. Just a suggestion.


In the beginning god created space and time. In other words zero created one.

I lifted this from a website here

http://www.nickvanderleek.com/2009/05/did-einstein-believe-in-god.html

Anonymous said...

Actually, Eintesin DID believe in God. In fact, his own work could not deny the existence of God.

"In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.

Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past.

So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
12:47 AM

Comment: I know these "above" are not my own words but I am tired of hearing myself reason today.

I will reply with some of my own thoughts.

In the beginning the void of the deep [zero] became the singularity [one].

Seems to agree with both religion and physics, this is what is a bit troubling.

http://business.fortunecity.com/rowling/167/images/AAS_Quasar_smll.jpg

zero and one

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 01:17 am
@RexRed,
Quote:
In the beginning god created space and time. In other words zero created one.


You must realise that as soon as you come up with statements like this, you kill off "debate". We must now assume you are playing the game of "a little boy lost, looking for daddy". Most of us have grown out of that game.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 01:36 am
@fresco,
I think you are n´t getting what he really meant...although I also disagree...if anything one "created" the zero...
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 01:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
What he meant is irrelevant because the phrase "in the beginning" is meaningless once "time" has been deconstructed. What his intentions are in starting this thread appears to be self valediction exercise for deists. He cannot get beyond such magical phrases such as "In the Beginning was the Word".
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 05:16 am
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110228/full/471013a.html
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 06:10 am
@RexRed,
Your link emphasizes my point above..that models are subject to constant revision. What suprises me is that any physicist might think they have arrived at an ultimate model. Godel's incompleteness theorem although "mathematical", suggests that all systems/models must contain at least one unsupported axiom. This does not involve "faith", merely "working hypotheses".
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:13 am
@RexRed,
Quote:
Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past.....



That turns out to be wrong. That's what Halton Arp's research has been about.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 01:03 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Your link emphasizes my point above..that models are subject to constant revision. What suprises me is that any physicist might think they have arrived at an ultimate model. Godel's incompleteness theorem although "mathematical", suggests that all systems/models must contain at least one unsupported axiom. This does not involve "faith", merely "working hypotheses".


Doesn't one need to have "faith" in a working hypothesis to thoroughly and fairly explore its possible merits? The Hadron supercollider was not built purely on scientific doubt and skepticism. Perhaps the same faith that believes in miracles and natural phenomenon.

We were told that there was never a physical flood that covered the entire earth's surface for forty days 6000 years ago. Yet that working hypothesis rules out the supernatural. I don't really believe in the supernatural though the universe is super and natural. Many mysteries await us out there and, where is James T. Kirk when you need him?

Science fiction is resembling science these days and what is exactly the difference between science fiction and religious based faith? They are both mixed cleverly with a bit of truth to make them seem plausible.

Sorry that I am more of a word smith rather than a well studied scientist. I aspire to one day understand but I doubt that will ever really happen. I am too into my art to ever be capable enough to learn such things. I am more speculative than analytical. I drove my science and math teachers nuts in school. Ahhh, how the years have never tamed me. I am capable of learning such loft in little increments only. Smile

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 01:18 am
@RexRed,
You are correct that your aspirations to "understand" are doomed, because you fail to analyse the usage of that word. The child who asks an infinite regress of "why ?" questions is a fair analogy.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 01:41 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

You are correct that your aspirations to "understand" are doomed, because you fail to analyse the usage of that word. The child who asks an infinite regress of "why ?" questions is a fair analogy.
Aren't we all children of time? Out of the mouth of babes...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 01:49 am
@RexRed,
No. That's a bit of "word magic" again. What it might suggest, as one of a multitude of interpretations, is that it has always been a human trait to speculate "child-like", on "the unknown", but you are dressing it up as a heroic or romantic aphorism. You might equally come out with "curiosity killed the cat".
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 04:34 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

No. That's a bit of "word magic" again. What it might suggest, as one of a multitude of interpretations, is that it has always been a human trait to speculate "child-like", on "the unknown", but you are dressing it up as a heroic or romantic aphorism. You might equally come out with "curiosity killed the cat".


It seems better than your view that only a special few speculate and the rest fantasize. I prefer to be open minded and let people's hearts speak and not merely their pedigree. Pedigrees are nice but not an end to all.

We all specialize in various fields from the autistic to the genius. I have just learned not to sell an individual short because of personal bias.

Truth has been known to elude the high and mighty while flourishing in the gutter.

 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 03:02:06