Viability of foreverness

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I understand why you may be troubled with the concept, Dale, but my guess (strictly a guess) is that the REALITY is a hell of a lot more strange than something like this. Fact is, if the universe is infinite...then it is almost certain that the REALITY of what is...IS a lot stranger than identical you's and me's all over the place.

REALITY is a mother to think about!

Yes. There are a lot of strange aspects to reality. For instance, the odds are very good that the Holographic Universe model is true.

In the Holographic Universe model, the universe is actually a two dimensional plane curved into a giant sphere (this is not meant as a model to help envision curving through higher dimensions, but rather actually just two literal dimensions).

In the Holographic Universe model, the processes that occur on that two dimensional curved plane are complex enough to simulate a three dimensional environment with the volume of the enclosed sphere.

However, there isn't actually anything "inside" the sphere. Everything is all happening on the surface of the sphere, and what seems to be the 3-D environment within the sphere is just an illusion.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5097272)
Frank Apisa wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The universe IS infinite. The pattern of the cosmic microwave background radiation shows that.

Quote:
Oralloy...every indication is that you do not know if the universe is infinite or finite...and neither does anyone else.

No. The pattern in the cosmic microwave background radiation strongly indicates that the universe is infinite.

The apparent motion of the sun across the sky strongly indicates that the sun moves around a stationary Earth. That does not mean that the sun actually moves around a stationary Earth.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
We are nowhere near informed enough about REALITY to be able to say such things with the authority you have used. To be honest, it sounds like a "scientist" of yesterday talking about the mechanics of the movement of the sun around the Earth.

We have taken high resolution images of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Please provide some links to these high resolution images. We'll discuss this further after I see the high resolution images.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Yes. There are a lot of strange aspects to reality. For instance, the odds are very good that the Holographic Universe model is true.

My guess is that you do not know the odds for or against the Holographic Universe model being true. My guess is...nobody does.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Please provide some links to these high resolution images. We'll discuss this further after I see the high resolution images.

Even better pictures are due by the end of the year, when the first results from the Plank space probe are released to the public.

1 Reply

Quote:

We have taken high resolution images of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

We see all these things and phenomena when we look into space. Many scientists like to believe that it doesn't matter that we see them from here. The background we have of understanding what we see is previous observations and the conceptualizations and ideas we have made from them. When we say "there is cosmic microwave background radiation", what we are really saying is that "we are observing something that can be understood as background radiation. If our understanding of some related phenomena changes, it might change how we understand this as well.

Science uncovers facts. But we then have to apply our creativity and imagination to relate those facts together and form theories.
If a fundamental axiom of our science turns out to be wrong, it would mean that a lot of what we know would become untrue, while the facts we derived that knowledge from remained unchanged.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
We have taken high resolution images of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

We see all these things and phenomena when we look into space. Many scientists like to believe that it doesn't matter that we see them from here. The background we have of understanding what we see is previous observations and the conceptualizations and ideas we have made from them. When we say "there is cosmic microwave background radiation", what we are really saying is that "we are observing something that can be understood as background radiation. If our understanding of some related phenomena changes, it might change how we understand this as well.

Science uncovers facts. But we then have to apply our creativity and imagination to relate those facts together and form theories.
If a fundamental axiom of our science turns out to be wrong, it would mean that a lot of what we know would become untrue, while the facts we derived that knowledge from remained unchanged.

Agreed.

One thing we have been able to work out using this data, is the type of universe we live in. We have determined that we live in a flat universe. It is rather complex the way it is worked out. There are three possible types of universes. Closed, open or flat. The way to determine it can be done by drawing a triangle onto the surface and measuring the triangles angles.

Here is an example. If we draw a large enough triangle on the surface of the earth. Say using the equator and the north pole for it's points what happens is a triangle that has angles that add up to 270 rather than a flat triangle which adds up to 180.

So if the universe is curved then we draw a large enough triangle if the angles add up to more than 180 then we know we live in a open universe. If they are less than 180 then we know we live in a closed universe. If the angles add up perfectly to 180 then we live in a flat universe.

Now the problem becomes drawing a large enough triangle on the universe. What physicists did was use the last scattering field (this is the furthest we can see) It is essentially the furthest point we can see because there was a time when the universe was opaque due to the plasma fog left over from the big bang. We have worked out his distance, so that means we know the length of one of the sides to our triangle.

The next step was to measure the size of the lumps. When you examine the microwave background image the color variations are the size of the clumps that globed together to form pockets of gas, dust, atoms, ect. Here is the problem. Gravity can not work faster than the speed of light therefore there is a limit to how big these lumps can be however; the size of these lumps varies in an open, closed or flat universe. So if we can work out the average size of these lumps we can get another side of our triangle.

We have worked out the average size of these lumps to be 1 degree. We now have all three lengths of our triangle and can work out the sum of the angles. As it turns out the sum of the angles equals exactly 180. This means we live in a flat universe.

But so what? What does it mean to say we live in a flat universe. It means that essentially the total energy of empty space is zero. It means that there was no energy required to make the big bang happen. It also means that there is no energy required in the expansion of the space and nothing which can slow down the expansion rate. The expansion rate will continue to increase.

The biggest and most interesting finding is the fact that the big bang would require no energy input to occur. It means you can get a universe from nothing. This is why the microwave background data is so remarkable.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

We see all these things and phenomena when we look into space. Many scientists like to believe that it doesn't matter that we see them from here. The background we have of understanding what we see is previous observations and the conceptualizations and ideas we have made from them. When we say "there is cosmic microwave background radiation", what we are really saying is that "we are observing something that can be understood as background radiation.

Well, it is microwave radiation, and it is in the cosmic background.

I'm not sure how we would end up understanding it as being anything else.

Cyracuz wrote:

If our understanding of some related phenomena changes, it might change how we understand this as well.

Like I said in my previous post, we're getting a new higher resolution picture of the cosmic microwave background radiation by the end of the year.

It is unlikely that it will overturn the understanding gained from present images however.

But perhaps if we are lucky the new data will confirm/deny a new batch of theories.

Cyracuz wrote:

Science uncovers facts. But we then have to apply our creativity and imagination to relate those facts together and form theories.

Actually, the theory came first, and predicted the background radiation. Then people went and looked for it.

It was first discovered by people who weren't even looking for it, but the theory still predated the discovery.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5097472)
Frank Apisa wrote:
Please provide some links to these high resolution images. We'll discuss this further after I see the high resolution images.

Even better pictures are due by the end of the year, when the first results from the Plank space probe are released to the public.

Oralloy

I asked for links...and I did so for a purpose.

The image you have here is not a "high resolution" image of anything.

And for you to suggest that there is one and only one possible inference to be drawn from this image, namely that the universe must be infinite, is an inappropriate stretch.

But I am willing to read the material upon which you are basing this stretch...if you will provide the link.

By the way, I can walk from my house to the place where the background noise was first accidentally detected.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I am not able to grasp the meaning of INFINITE...... "the opposite of finite"? A perfect example of the problem of dualism.

I quite agree JL, good point. However I think here’s one example in which dualism does apply

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The pattern of the cosmic microwave background radiation strongly indicates that the universe is infinite in volume.

Yes that’s very persuasive Ora. But the only way an infinite Universe seems feasible—forgive if I’m repeating an earlier speculation--is to postulate an error in the Laws of Chance, allowing an infinite number of galaxies all different from one another

......according to the idea that there are different sizes of infinity and so this number is bigger—infinitely bigger—than the one that expresses the size of the Universe

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

I simply cannot get over the "feeling" that the Cosmos is neither finite nor infinite. These categories describe only our neuroconstitution, not the Cosmos.

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

I think not only do we not know the true nature of REALITY (which may or may not be limited to "the universe"...but we don't even truly know the options that are available for consideration.

We are a fairly primitive animal inhabiting a tiny speck of dust circling a not especially large star in a not especially large galaxy.

Somehow or other, in order to be anywhere near the intelligent beings we dare to presume we are, we had better come to grips with that minor factor of REALITY.

2 Replies

no finite is the opposite of infinite, that is why existence failed from becoming the finite oppositions instead of being true infinite right existence

infinity as a concept was made up from finite existence just to enrich free asses more

in truth, infinite is first fact of absolute superiority being constant which suggested freedom value being the absolute reason

that is why apparantly from the begining the first rule of existence was through creations of ways to limit freedom, meaning to favorise a stand of absolute superiority knowledge in order to claim being of freedom values or anything about values
and this is why at certain length of existence an end was kind of forced from what existence clarified how the intentions freedom behind objects were too clear to realize, where monsters as objects become the only facts there forcing literally the death to any minimal free energy still
those pleasures about seeing tortures and runs of fears games are just invented and it is obvious, the mean is the protection of superior stands potentials by destroying any potential of true existence as relative as right it would b, all present from the begining agreed totally on that through existence creations pretenses so they became one life of same free absolute conscious knowledge present more of the start

in cheap imitation of free logics, liars would suggest that infinite cant b existing but as evil acts, destroying is very easily done when what exist is absolute so endlessly destroying lives
but only liars say that, bc only liars know lying about being from truth to steal and fancy upon becoming instead before getting the pleasure to kill it for real

and as they are from that they know, that is why for them it seems logical to say that infinite existence is evil
in normal nature of logics, so in truth, destructions are impossible to realize, bc any is only itself, there cant b connection with else and even another freedom
this is done only from powers over absolute dimensions, so from absolute knowledge which serve free wills at the expenses of true existence to an extend end of enjoying lies destructions superiority as to invent liars selves life, which is ridicule we see now that insistance to call self anything, wat self, such thing never exist that is how it is from always only invented

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I simply cannot get over the "feeling" that the Cosmos is neither finite nor infinite

Okay JL that’s a perfectly reasonable feeling. However it’s hard to explain the alternative

Quote:

These categories describe only our neuroconstitution, not the Cosmos.

Indeed. However I still maintain that we have to work with what we’ve got lest we spout nonsense indefinitely

0 Replies

@oralloy,

...depends on distance my friend, it may be the case that we are not here when they arrive (bosons), that is why they are non local...there will be regions of our universe that wont ever contact each other...so your conclusion is precipitated and not precise to say the least, that is, if considering the phenomena would start now, granted once the all Universe was in contact...your assertions regarding the Universe report to the visible Universe and although I agree with you in a great deal I still have some reserves regarding your materialistic approach to the problem...your are framing large assumptions in a very narrow perspective, and although I am an aficionado on astrophysics I am far from believing astrophysics is enough to frame it properly...so your degree of confidence in the reply s you have provided so far end up being amusing...

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I think not only do we not know the true nature of REALITY (which may or may not be limited to "the universe”

Quite so Frank. In fact we might be under the control of by tiny blue one-eyed creatures walking on their hands inhabiting caves on the moon--so we’re limited to working with what we’re given

Quote:

..but we don't even truly know the options that are available for consideration.

True[/quote]

Quote:

We are a fairly primitive animal

I’m not so sure. There may be limitation and we’re approaching it

Quote:

inhabiting a tiny speck of dust circling a not especially large star in a not especially large galaxy.

Sure but that doesn’t in any way challenge the idea that there’s something important about us, that everything was “adjusted” to permit our evolution; since the Entire Megillah without us has such a dreary, hopeless, random aspect

Quote:

......we had better come to grips with that minor factor of REALITY.

I presume by that you mean the suggestion that we apparently can’t know it all. But it’s fun speculating isn’t it

1 Reply

@imans,

Im if you don’t get the response you might wish why not entreat another interested participant to translate your outpourings into more nearly colloquial form. I’m sure what you’re asserting makes some sort of sense and I’d like to hear it

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

I presume by that you mean the suggestion that we apparently can’t know it all. But it’s fun speculating isn’t it

I love speculating, Dale. But go back and read some of the postings made in this thread. Often assertions are not presented as speculation...in fact, often the individuals seem to be insisting that the assertion is not speculation, but fact, when it seems almost certain it is speculation.

That is why I ask the question, "How do you know this?" so often. I can only speculate on why my question is so often dodged or fudged...or in the case of one poster, subjected to judgment that it indicates a certain lack of spine on my part, so to speak.

Quote:

I’m not so sure. There may be limitation and we’re approaching it

There may indeed be limitations...and we may well be approaching it, Dale. But that last part "...and we're approaching it" is speculation on your part, right?

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

**** u piece of **** that dare mean posts about everything as an invention in taking advantage of logics shapes to gain any pretense of saying smthg, **** u for real when u prove at what extent u r living **** criminals ways

posts about everything shitty is everything that an existence realized, since everything is existence in absolute abstract terms
what u dare suggest that another can translate what u say about everything is clearly stating the perspective u hold on everything as being above it urself while stepping upon with clear despise just for urself

when u clearly disrespect everything as u proved it, then shitty u cant say anything not even an invention about urself shitty

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Well, it is microwave radiation, and it is in the cosmic background.

I'm not sure how we would end up understanding it as being anything else.

Time will tell. Once upon a time it was understood that the earth was at the center of the universe, with everything else orbiting around it. Most people at the time weren't sure how they could end up understanding it as anything else.

Then we found out that the earth orbits the sun. We'd only had it backwards the whole time.

But here's a curious fact about the universe. If you select one location in the universe, and use that point as a reference to measure the expansion of space, it will appear that the point you are standing at is the center of the expansion. Everything is moving away from that point.
If you move to somewhere else, you will experience the same thing. The point from which you measure will appear to be the center of the expansion, as if you are in the center of the universe.
No matter where you observe the universe from, you will experience it as if you are in it's center.

So the first idea, that the earth is at the center of the universe... We know it is not the case. And yet, if we observe the universe from earth, it is at the center of the universe...

Facts let us build theories. Then more facts make those theories obsolete, and new theories replace them. We see a steady increase of facts, ever more detailed information. But our knowledge does not grow deeper and richer with in tandem with the increasing database. It is possible to feel like you know less about something because you are coming to understand more.

2 Replies

Viability of foreverness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know