Absolute emptiness

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 3 months ago #6255 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
ANS: We have a disagreement here already. By what authority do you presume that we have a burden of proof vs you having a burden of proof. Such a burden would only exist if there was a general consensus that the universe is infinite. I know of no such consensus.
Occam's Razor it seems would dictate just the opposite. Finite is far more simple than Infinite. Infinite is unresolved and unresolvable.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Cartesian geometry is what we actually observe and experience. Even the deep sky surveys show no progressive distortion in the distant mapping of the largest structure that would begin to occur if space was progressively curving in some way. We have yet observed no distance at which matter peters out or curves back upon itself. The universe so far appears to be what most people assume it is, unending and 3D Euclidean geometry. All the rest is the almost religious faith of cosmologists in the BB.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
ANS: There is no beyond the finite boundry formed by the loss of time and space. As bizzar as the concept might seem it is as though the "surface (which is mobius and hence only one sided) is a point of singularity.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I do indeed regard it as a "bizzare" concept since I have had no direct experience with any such thing. It all hinges on evidence, where is the evidence in the sky surveys or anywhere else that supplies us with definitive proof of noneuclidean geometry anywhere around us?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
ANS: I would have to agree with this position; except I don't agree with the conclusion that infinite can be applied to anything physical and the universe and its dimensions are physical.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The dimensions of the universe are not physical. Dimensions are numerical measurements made by physical instruments but the dimensions themselves are not physical.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
ANS: I am not subscribing to the above theory regarding rotating galaxies but only want to ask why you find proposing "Infinite" universes (which can NEVER be shown to exist) more plausible than material that HAS NOT YET been shown to exist?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Keep giving me more powerful telescopes and I will keep showing you galaxies and stars, things that we know without doubt exist. If I keep giving you more powerful telescopes are you going to be able to show me dark matter? I can at least show you PART of an infinite universe that you can actually observe with your own eyes. In fact, I can keep showing you larger and larger parts of it to the limit of technology as opposed to totally theoretical matter which hasn't been shown to exist in any laboratory anywhere.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 3 months ago #6385 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Jeremy,

You are correct that there is no specific indication of the time/space barrier or limit that I think is there. The only indirect indication is that it predicts that objects moving away with a linear velocity would "appear" to be accelerating away. That is one conclusion, that is that objects are accelerating away. The concept of tired light applied to time and space would cause a simular observation rather than concluding "Dark Energy" with antigravity properties.

I find the tired time/space more viable than a new form of matter for which there is also no indication exists except the same accelerating expansion.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The dimensions of the universe are not physical. Dimensions are numerical measurements made by physical instruments but the dimensions themselves are not physical.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I find this comment bizzar. You want to explain a bit? Are you a bliever in the "Holographic Universe"?

Knowing to believe only
half of what you hear is
a sign of intelligence.
Knowing which half to believe
can make you a genius.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 3 months ago #6386 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The dimensions of the universe are not physical. Dimensions are numerical measurements made by physical instruments but the dimensions themselves are not physical.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I find this comment bizzar. You want to explain a bit? Are you a bliever in the "Holographic Universe"?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Dimensions exist relative to a coordinate system, a coordinate system is of itself not physical but a mental conception. You can't point to a cubical grid of lit up points in front of us and say there it is! When we dimension something we compare one physical thing to another but the numerical value we get is an abstraction. The map is not the thing that we are mapping. That is what I mean by dimensions not being physical.

As for the holographic universe it seems to me to be similar to the notion that we are all in a computer simulation. That may be, but in practice we have to behave according to the rules of the simulation and have to proceed with the provisional assumption that it is for real.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.282 seconds