Ah the big crunch now I remember......
Remember time is merely in the eye of the beholder. It is what we make of it.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
Quote:
Keeper, now it's getting a little too phylosophical. I will not accept that just because I'm not aware of someone that they don't exist, even if it only on my timeline. It's just a little too egocentric for my tastes. You could take it back to the classical "I think therefore I am" debate in which you can only be sure of your own existence and everything around you is just a construct of your imagination. Anyway, I can't even come to common grounds with your beliefs on this as it's just too far from mine.
But isn't everything that we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt philisophical? A lot about what science--and religion says about the universe around us is only conjecture. Thus, we have to be a bit philisophical. But still, everyone has their ideas about how the universe works, and how it works for them--so if we have to agree to disagree, then i have no problem with that. Just look at my take on it as how i see things.
However, I believe the "I think therefore I am" was debunked a long time ago--the average person doesn't really think, but they still are. On a lot of this, it's all subjective--I see it as that everything is only viewable from your own frame of reference--everything else is conjecture. While it seems a bit philisophical and not riveted in fact, can any of this be proven? No. As such, I just say tak your pick and go with it. This being an open debate, i'm just giving my $.02 on why time travel will be infinitely complicated.
Quote:
And the prevailing theory today is that the universe is expanding, even if it's just for this instance. And while I'll accept your argument about the validity of the data sample (even though we have some pretty accurate instruments) I'll not just throw it out either. You're analogy of the cross country trip doesn't work because of external forces acting on the traveler, unless you think that the forces working on the universe are changing. Gravity may not be a constant. It doesn't act the same on the quantum level and I believe that it was differen't during the first few nanoseconds of the universe after the big bang. Gravity may have a distance limit like the nuclear force (very strong up to 1.8 x 10^-15 but non existant after that. It's what keeps atoms together until they get too large and the relatively weak electromagnic repulsion force overcomes it (the heavier elements like uranium and plutonium).
I'm not arguing that the universe is expanding, but not accellerating. The red-shift is proof enough that it's expandig, but there's not enough of an accurate sample to say that it's been speeding up. Like i said, the only way they could accurately say that the universe was speeding up was to trace a significant amount of red-shift increase in the same galaxy/star/object. Considerign the speeds that Galaxies travel and the distances involved, uit would be very hard to track that over, at the most, 100 years. This is especially true when you consider that the orbital period of our solar system within the Milky Way is about 226 million years. To wit; it means that within the past 100 years, the entire solar system has only revolved around the center of the milky way approx. .00000039823 degrees. As such, i see there little way for anyone to say that we've been accellerateng. Expanding yes, but there's no way to know if we've picked up speed.
The problem with gravity is just that---we don't know much about it. Further, we don't know the total amount of dimensions the universe occupies--which could be limited to 3, or could be infinite (my money is on infionite, BTW). However, taking that gravity is a warp in space/time (which may or may not be correct--again, this is how I see it), then gravity could not be held a constant because we don't know it's effect on time--something that we can't measure because of it's relativity to our methods of measuring. Further, if we assume that the big bang was the beginning (even if it was just the beginning of this cycle), it would have been different because space and time were different and it's effect on them would be different. However, The question has to be asked--how accurate is our measuring? Does the Nuclear force totally eliminate? or does it become so small it's negligable and the other forces at that distance are stronger? After all, a paper clip has a gravitational field--it's just so small that we focus on the forces of larger objects--specifically the earth.
But, supposing that there was no energy and just matter. The the weaker forces *would* come into play (along my train of thought) because there's nothing to constrain them. A paperclip could slow down a planet a bit--because there's no force pushing the planet out--only inertia. The thing we're talking about is degree--the force would be drawn out over such a distance that it would probably take the universe as much time as it took to expend its energy as it would for gravity to halt the outward expansion.
Again, it's my theory
Quote:
What is gravity anyway? No one knows. It may have to do with the spin of subatomic particles like charge does. If this is the case then when the energy of the universe is expended then the spin has ceased and there would be no gravity. Maybe it's something entirely different. Point is, no one knows what causes it or could cause it to cease, so to say that the universe will definitely end in a big crunch would be discounting some thories by the greatest minds. Stephen Hawking weighed in on the issue and stated that until we understand things like gravity, dark energy and even the shape of the universe, we cannot know what will happen.
Of course we can't--it's all theory. So why not wax philisophical about it because sometimes it can be crazy enough to be correct.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Keeper, is your name referencing the Wheel of Time character?
Nope. I'm plumbed wrong to be Aes Sedai.
I love that series of books though.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
this is too deep...all of this is just theory. you cant say that some one doesnt exist because your time lines werent close enough because if thats the case they every time you became aware of someone by seeing them on tv (by what you guys are saying by seeing them your time lines are close enough to realize each other) then they should become aware of you also automatically. it doesnt happen. and as far as the universe goes, if its still expanding what is beyond the already formed area i mean for the universe to expand it has to have room to expand right.. its like a soda, as long as its in the can its fine but as soon as you freeze it, it expands until it runs out of room then the can bursted...so if your theory is the universe is still expanding it HAS to be something beyond the edge of the universe (and i dont think its limbo).....ALSO have you guys maybe thought that time was just a loop and everything comes back around at some point...if time travel were real then when the first person went back it would cause a perament loop in time. how you ask well think of this, if it were the year 2090 and some guy came back to today and didnt change anything once the year 2090 came back in current time the same guy would come back and do the same thing again. and it would keep looping...and he would always do the same thing he did the first time and because of this loop the day that he arrived in the past would continue to be recreated and that would techanellybe the "start of time"
Sinister Ambitions
when your girl is getting on your last nerve f*#k her dont fight her
euric dinkins wrote:this is too deep...all of this is just theory. you cant say that some one doesnt exist because your time lines werent close enough because if thats the case they every time you became aware of someone by seeing them on tv (by what you guys are saying by seeing them your time lines are close enough to realize each other) then they should become aware of you also automatically. it doesnt happen.
Read Keepers post again. You'll find that this is not what he is saying. Took me a couple of times to realize it also.
euric dinkins wrote:and as far as the universe goes, if its still expanding what is beyond the already formed area i mean for the universe to expand it has to have room to expand right.. its like a soda, as long as its in the can its fine but as soon as you freeze it, it expands until it runs out of room then the can bursted...so if your theory is the universe is still expanding it HAS to be something beyond the edge of the universe (and i dont think its limbo).....ALSO have you guys maybe thought that time was just a loop and everything comes back around at some point...if time travel were real then when the first person went back it would cause a perament loop in time. how you ask well think of this, if it were the year 2090 and some guy came back to today and didnt change anything once the year 2090 came back in current time the same guy would come back and do the same thing again. and it would keep looping...and he would always do the same thing he did the first time and because of this loop the day that he arrived in the past would continue to be recreated and that would techanellybe the "start of time"
I don't think there is a theory out there that people don't take issue with. No matter what the theory or the answer (when and if we find it)
prior to the big bang the universe was just a single point. after the big bang the universe expanded into it's current form...all that time it had to expand into the area "beyond the edge of the universe" as you put it. It's just continuing what it started so long ago.
And if you don't subscribe to the big bang theory and think that the universe has been in it's current shape and size for all time then there's many questions about that scenario to be asked (how did it get that way? even if it's always been that way, what was it like before? What caused it?).
I'm not picking on you, but just because you can't visualize it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. There is no one alive who knows these answers and I don't think I'll ever know definitively until I die and then only
if there is an afterlife.
^^ of course assuming that the universe was a single point for a given period of time before the big bang and the big bang wasn't the "mirror point" of a previous crunch.
Still, i think the reason most take issues with most of the theories is because no one has quite got it yet
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]^^ of course assuming that the universe was a single point for a given period of time before the big bang and the big bang wasn't the "mirror point" of a previous crunch.
Still, i think the reason most take issues with most of the theories is because no one has quite got it yet
i have no issues with the theories im just saying the universe has to expand into something. im fully aware that an object in motion stays in motion and i can get with that because i do believe in the big bang, but i just saying what space is the universe expanding into. but my issue with the big bang is if nothing was there before it, what caused it, i mean for it to happen there had to be some sort of chemical reaction or something because nothing plus nothing equals nothing so if nothing was there before then we would not be here now so with that being said there has to be something that the universe is expanding into because the space its expanding into is the space where the big bang occurred...i personally think the universe i one big loop...and thats why no one can find the end of it its like bending light in a para scope it reflects and you look in one end and no matter what shape it is you can still see out of the other end...but the only hole in that theory is we would probley see ourselves if it that theory were true
Sinister Ambitions
when your girl is getting on your last nerve f*#k her dont fight her
The thing is, is it really expanding, or is something just changing state?
Also, there is an assumption that there is a boundary for the universe--a line that is the "edge" of it. What if there is none?
To try and illustrate my point: A line is bounded by a plane--from the line's perception, it's bounded by something indescribable (when you can only see 1 dimension, try to visualize 2), a plane is space is the same, and space in time is the same, and so on.
If we follow curved space theory using standard 3-dimensional movement, there will be no way for us to reach the boundary edge of the universe--it's like driving in the Flintstones--we keep passing the same scenery over and over again.
Before we can say where the universe can expand to, we have to fine the final dimension in which we can describe it--assuming it's not infinity (how I theorize it), then and only then can you percieve the limits of the universe, and thus state where the boundary is and how the contraints trickle down--in theory. Also, assuming that it's infinity, it means that there are no bounds, and the universe as we know it is limitless--we're only cntrained by our perceptions.
I see where you're going with this--however, consider this--we are constrained by our perceptions. Negating existential philosophy, up until the 18th century Uranus didn't exist to us, Then, all of a sudden, we had a 7th planet. we couldn't see it before because we weren't looking in the right direction, and had to use calculations of "wobble" in Saturn and Jupiter's orbits.
If we look into "empty" space, all we see is black, right? Maybe the reason we see black is because if we took that to the point of the big bang, and maybe before, the "stuff" that was there could be of a nature that we can't percieve--so all we see is nothingness--but we can't percieve it because we have no clue where to look.
It would be intresting if a group of people with the equipment and the funding tried instead to see the points of light in the dark, tried to learn about the dark itself...
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
euric dinkins wrote:but my issue with the big bang is if nothing was there before it, what caused it, i mean for it to happen there had to be some sort of chemical reaction or something because nothing plus nothing equals nothing so if nothing was there before then we would not be here now
I don't think that there was nothing before the big bang. It's just the entire universe was condensed into a single point (or something like it). From that point the universe expanded into what it is today. Also consider that matter and energy are interchangeable, so it may have been that the single point was a spot with an incredible amount of energy and something caused it to change into matter. Since this matter would have had trouble fitting in that small of a space it caused the ejection of matter from the original point, thus you get the big bang.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]If we look into "empty" space, all we see is black, right? Maybe the reason we see black is because if we took that to the point of the big bang, and maybe before, the "stuff" that was there could be of a nature that we can't percieve--so all we see is nothingness--but we can't percieve it because we have no clue where to look.
It would be intresting if a group of people with the equipment and the funding tried instead to see the points of light in the dark, tried to learn about the dark itself...I think this is and forever will be beyond our ability. The only reason we can percieve "dark" is because we have a reference of "something" to compare it to. all of our senses require some feedback to function and we can only study something by using these senses.
We can see visible light and use other instruments to measure infrared, ultraviolet, radio waves, and various types of radiation among other things, but without any of these methods of information delivery, there is nothing for us to percieve. Until some of the energy given off by the universe expands into the area of the "dark", we can't percieve it and thus to us it won't exist. After the energy reaches this area we can get the sensory feedback to percieve this area, but now it's no longer "dark" and the "dark" is still just beyond our range of perception.
But just because it's beyond our perception--or ability, doesn't mean it's not there or doesn't exist
That was my whole point--as long as we search for the known, any unknowns that we unlock will be accidental.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]But just because it's beyond our perception--or ability, doesn't mean it's not there or doesn't exist
That was my whole point--as long as we search for the known, any unknowns that we unlock will be accidental.I think you missed my point. I'm not saying it's not there because we don't percieve it.
It's not possible to look for something that you can't percieve, either directly, indirectly or by using instrumentation that can.. If you can see indirect evidence of it then you can percieve it indirectly. Say there's something out there that we don't know exists, the only way we'll find it is to observe it directly or observe it's effects on things that we can percieve. That isn't to mean that we can't look at unknown areas for unusual signs and then try to decipher those signs or look for things we've theorized about by observing objects that it would interract with.
We've never seen an extrasolar planet, yet we theorized about them and knew what to look for to confirm their existence. We've since found that evidence even though we can't observe them directly. We can percieve the effects on their surroundings and these effects are registered by our senses using instruments that convert information that we can't percieve into information that we can, meaning we can't see gamma radiation, but our instruments can and they convert this into a form that we can percieve.
Now, back to studying what's beyond the edge of the universe. We have to get information from this area to study it. If we look at it in the visible spectrum then we would have to be getting light back to see anything. If we look at it in the radio spectrum, we would have to be getting radio signals back to see anything. This works with any way you want to study something. We're studying the universe around us and as far as we can see with every means of instrument we know of.
When we percieve something, we're getting sensory perception from the object to our bodies, the same goes for any instrument. You can't measure gamma radiation without gamma radiation reaching the instrument. You can't measure radio waves without radio waves reaching the instrument. My point is that unless we're getting information back from beyond the edge of the universe, we can't measure it or even notice it.
And if you're mean that we're limiting ourselves to looking for certain things, then I'll say that it's the most efficient way. We're looking at the universe both near and far with every way that we possibly know. You're saying we should look for the unknown. Are you meaning some form of information coming from this area that we don't know about? If we don't know about it then how do we look for it? Maybe in the future we'll have new ways of obtaining information and our perception will change. I'm sure we're always looking for more ways to study the universe. For now, we can only use what we understand.
Let me try to explain:
We only understand things in a specific way, and that way is limiting. I think that the best way to do it is not have a pre-notion of how things are and be open to the fact that even the rediculous can be true (like stars being pinholes in the curtain of night--or something that i find rediculous--christianity's answers being the correct ones). The redicuouls can be the answers, and doing the rediculous can lead to impressive discovery.
After all, Gallileo defied the church and pubplished his findings when he pointed his telescope where they said he shouldn't.
And Fleming with pennicilin?
My point was, most people, if given the most powerful telescope in the world, would point it at known objects, I, OTOH, would point it away fron anything known.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
I think we've mostly gone beyond preconcieved notions about things in the universe. The examples you've quoted were from times when a select few were the only ones doing any research in these fields. Nowdays there are many more researchers putting forth and testing various theories. While there will be discoveries made in the future that no one has even contemplated yet, it's rediculous to think that there's nobody looking.
You'd be surprised--science is on the path religion when down--in that it's all about fame, money, and presteige rather than the discovery of fact. After all, if some young upstart discovers something that blows a theory of a older, long estabished scientist out of the water, how long will it be covered up?
It's less a thing of the fallacy of science and more a commentary of the society we live in. We're scared that a discovery, or revelation of something will take the world we know and completely change the rules.
After all, science partly operates on the erroneus belief that nothing that is unreal exists.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
could you be a little more cynical?
Nope...Daria Morgendorffer is my twin sister and Zelgadis Graywords is my avatar.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
