Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue May 07, 2013 5:48 pm**

What scientists try to do is to construct physical models of what they see to help them understand what is going on; for example, the physical model associated with general relativity is a rubber sheet that is stretched when matter,
typically bowling balls and marbles are placed on it. No one knows
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
l left those models behind when i was 12 and built 3d models of pinched spacetime.
in full color and rotatable [pan tilt]
such is easy for me.. its what i do.
but i have nomath. everything is invested in conceptual model.
40 years latter my model of a singularity is awesome in 3d. eapecially with dynamic inflow of mater. insert say 100 virtual neutronium masses and watch them spiral in aT 1 billion g they blur out .
spaghettified. My model of stable solar system is poetry

A phd math fron NYU Said how can yo envision such with no math?
my reply it exist independent of math.. math is just a way of seeing what i see in 3d .maybe my imagination is more accurate?
As scientist try to imagineer the math... i gave up on math turning my imagineering to words.
it certainly fails to turn reality into words.
rubber sheet lol my daughter knew more that sjlly rubber sheet visualization at age 6.
Have you seen a 7 year old lecture on nature of spacetime.. and you agree with every idea?
i taught her.SHE TAUGHT ME.. at 9 she was called the 'brain' a Terrible thing for a kid.
I regret screwing up her youth . she knew more than teacher by 11.
way more.
pride is a horrid thing.
she became a psychologist...
oh my god.

ah well ay least she is not a politician then i'd flip

Posted: **Tue May 07, 2013 10:11 pm**

Hjarloprillar wrote:What scientists try to do is to construct physical models of what they see to help them understand what is going on; for example, the physical model associated with general relativity is a rubber sheet that is stretched when matter,
typically bowling balls and marbles are placed on it. No one knows
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
l left those models behind when i was 12 and built 3d models of pinched spacetime.
in full color and rotatable [pan tilt]
such is easy for me.. its what i do.
but i have nomath. everything is invested in conceptual model.

Well the sentence that starts 'No one knows' continues 'if it is a good analogy of what spacetime actually is, if it exists at all.' It shouldn't be necessary to add that no one in their right mind believes the universe is either 2 dimensional or made of rubber, but for the sake of clarity I will assert, without fear of contradiction, that I do not believe the universe is a 2D rubber sheet. The conceptual models are more or less irrelevant to science, any old cobblers will do; if you are a relativist you might be inclined to visualise the universe as a rubber sheet, even a 3D one, a sponge or something, and see gravity as massive objects following geodesics. On the other hand, if you are a quantum mechanic,you might prefer to visualise gravity as the exchange of virtual particles called gravitons, despite the fact that no such thing has ever been seen. If you have a third hand it is possible that you are a religious nutter and believe that the cause of gravity is angels pushing things together. If you are an out and out nutter, you will deny that General Relativity is a fantastically accurate description of the action of gravity; that is the science part, the rubber sheet, the gravitons or the angels are conceptual models that make absolutely no difference to the empirical data.

Hjarloprillar wrote:40 years latter my model of a singularity is awesome in 3d. eapecially with dynamic inflow of mater. insert say 100 virtual neutronium masses and watch them spiral in aT 1 billion g they blur out .
spaghettified. My model of stable solar system is poetry

Neutronium?

Hjarloprillar wrote:A phd math fron NYU Said how can yo envision such with no math?
my reply it exist independent of math.. math is just a way of seeing what i see in 3d .maybe my imagination is more accurate?

Well it might be a more accurate description than the rubber sheet, it certainly has the advantage of being 3D, but could you get a man to the moon and back using it?

Hjarloprillar wrote:As scientist try to imagineer the math... i gave up on math turning my imagineering to words.
it certainly fails to turn reality into words.
rubber sheet lol my daughter knew more that sjlly rubber sheet visualization at age 6.
Have you seen a 7 year old lecture on nature of spacetime.. and you agree with every idea?

Strewth!

Hjarloprillar wrote:i taught her.SHE TAUGHT ME.. at 9 she was called the 'brain' a Terrible thing for a kid.
I regret screwing up her youth . she knew more than teacher by 11.
way more.
pride is a horrid thing.

Of your daughter? I think not.

Hjarloprillar wrote:she became a psychologist...

Then again...

Hjarloprillar wrote:oh my god.

ah well ay least she is not a politician then i'd flip

Well thank god* for small mercies.

*Note to godfree: god figures purely as a figure of speech, any such usage does not imply belief.

Posted: **Tue May 07, 2013 11:27 pm**

Where was I?

Godfree wrote:NO space time ,,???
before the bb there was no space and no time ,?? ,, what a complete load of crap ,

I don't remember saying that, so I'm not sure if you are having a go at me or someone else. If it's me I don't 'believe' in spacetime now. I can see that it is a very useful concept mathematically, but I know of no way to measure 'time' that doesn't involve things moving. Time is how often or how much one thing moves compared to another. Space is just the seperation of things. I'm not convinced that time and space, without anything to move and be measured makes sense. As to what happened beyond what we can see, we have no means of checking whether we are right.

Godfree wrote:space has always been and so has time , what ignorance is this ,if this is the bbt ,
it's a pile of fundementalist bullshit ,

Who are these fundamentalists who claim there was nothing before the Big Bang? Presumably they mean nothing apart from god.

Godfree wrote:try explaining the nothing , before the bang there was nothing , describe that "Nothing " please ,

Start with the fundamentalists 'nothing', subtract god and there you have it. Alternatively, look at a ring doughnut, it’s the bit in the middle you are interested in.

Godfree wrote:also do some research , and learn the shape of our Universe , galaxies are moving together not apart ,

From what I understand, you believe that the universe has always existed; why haven’t all the galaxies crashed into each other?

Godfree wrote:and if you think you know this shit ,
explain how we come to be ahead of the image , the CBR how are we ahead of the image ,
did we shoot out faster than the image to then slow down and wait 14 billion years for it to catch up ,
it's supposed to be about 14 billion light years away ,

No, it is the view from Earth of the CBR in every direction.

Godfree wrote:so why did we slow down ,
only to according to these "experts" to be accelerating again ,,???
why would we go so fast slow right down and then accelerate again ,
does any of that make sense to you,???

It doesn’t have to. The observed data is consistent with what you describe; whether it makes sense is neither here nor there.

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 10:34 pm**

Hjarloprillar wrote:
Thozau wrote:...but into what?
lets see:

Space exists because mater is. no mater. no space
if a ship is set sail it will create its own space when planets and stars are left behind
As such space is as large as it needs to be to encompass mater...
cool no?

i claim that for posterior.
"space is as large as it needs to be to encompass mater..."
_______________Quote_________________________________________
So MR tillingborn ,in order for me to accept the bbt , I need to solve some puzzles , maybe you can help me ,
NO space time ,,???
before the bb there was no space and no time ,?? ,, what a complete load of crap ,
_______________________________________________________________
Well said
i agree.
it is counter intuitive.
though i am annoyed you said complete load of crap before i did. Thats MY job

I asked so many well what was before BB.
i wish i could remember 1/10 the total excrement people propose
a place without causality is hillarious
god
before like everything.
where ther are no stars
nirvana
nothing

it all just popped into existence... laws ans all.. a fully functional verse.
hahahaaaa

and people call me arrogant for saying humans are stupid

Well it's nice to meet another logical brain ,
what I call logic seems to be different to most peoples understanding ,
I call logic , "the most probable"
this is a simple way of conveying why most people use logic ,
people cling to the idea that there might be a god and a heaven,
but if you asked them is it the most probable , the honest answer is no ,
but the preferred reality , is that it's all true and god will look after them forever in heaven ,,
until wee the Atheists of this world hold religion to account ,
it will continue to control and use the weak and the vulnerable ,
So I say it's time to challenge religions right to brainwash the people ,
to sell a pack of lies , with tax free status ,
corrupting the minds of our children ,
it's just not right ,
and why should the Atheists of society be contributing to the local church , via tax refunds for donations ,
when we the Atheists can't get the same tax free club to talk about Atheism in ,
religion should not be funded by government , end of story ,,!!!

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2013 10:51 pm**

quote="Godfree"]space has always been and so has time , what ignorance is this ,if this is the bbt ,
it's a pile of fundementalist bullshit , [/quote]
Who are these fundamentalists who claim there was nothing before the Big Bang? Presumably they mean nothing apart from god.

Godfree wrote:try explaining the nothing , before the bang there was nothing , describe that "Nothing " please ,

Start with the fundamentalists 'nothing', subtract god and there you have it. Alternatively, look at a ring doughnut, it’s the bit in the middle you are interested in.

Godfree wrote:also do some research , and learn the shape of our Universe , galaxies are moving together not apart ,

From what I understand, you believe that the universe has always existed; why haven’t all the galaxies crashed into each other?
[,,
Correct me if I am wrong but you appear to be a supporter of the bbt,??
the theory that claims no space time ,,??
and lets just see if I can make any sense of your "doughnut"
your dnut , is in our atmosphere , so in the empty hole in the middle is not Nothing ,,!!!
so try and get real and explain how nothing can exist , how the universe could not be there ,
and then it is there ??, thats a shit load of matter,
if you can grasp infinity it's an infinite amount of matter,
and as to why havn't all the galaxies crashed into each other ,
they do we have ball shaped galaxies , how would you imagine they got round ,
as apposed to the flat plane of our Milky Way ,
I believe bangs happen on a galactic scale not a universal one .

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2013 7:58 am**

Godfree wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but you appear to be a supporter of the bbt,??

The difference between religious leaders and cosmologists is that religious leaders claim to know things without being able to demonstrate the source of their knowledge. To be fair, some will concede that what they have is faith, rather than knowledge, because they have to admit that there is no demonstrable causal link between any god and things that happen. Cosmologists on the other hand are perfectly aware that they do not know what the origin of the universe is, the Big Bang theory is just that; a theory. The evidence that supports it is incontrovertible, all the distant galaxies are red-shifted and the cosmic background radiation is exactly what you would expect from a Big Bang. There may be other explanations, but by far the most plausible interpretation of the evidence is that there was,in fact, a Big Bang.

Godfree wrote:the theory that claims no space time ,,??

No it doesn't. It simply claims that the most likely source of empirical evidence that suggest a Big Bang is a Big Bang. Nobody knows what the conditions prior to the Big Bang were; it is not possible to see that far. In the absence of any data, people are left to speculate, one possibility that has been mooted is that there was nothing, but, to repeat, there is no way of telling.

Godfree wrote:and lets just see if I can make any sense of your "doughnut"
your dnut , is in our atmosphere , so in the empty hole in the middle is not Nothing ,,!!!

Godfree, I salute you! You have a dizzying intellect, I must refine my thought experiment. Intergalactic space is reckoned to contain one particle per cubic metre, it's as close to nothing as you will find in this universe. Take your doughnut to intergalactic space, place it somewhere in a cubic metre where there isn't a particle and then look in the hole.

Godfree wrote:so try and get real and explain how nothing can exist , how the universe could not be there ,
and then it is there ??, thats a shit load of matter,
if you can grasp infinity it's an infinite amount of matter,
and as to why havn't all the galaxies crashed into each other ,
they do we have ball shaped galaxies , how would you imagine they got round ,
as apposed to the flat plane of our Milky Way ,
I believe bangs happen on a galactic scale not a universal one .

Another option discussed by cosmologists is the possibility that our universe is just one bubble universe that has budded off from a much larger, possibly infinite and eternal multiverse. Perhaps that interpretation of the Big Bang theory is more to your liking.

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2013 8:51 am**

The reason no one can know if the universe, as a whole, is either expanding, contracting or static, is because our observations are only those of relative movement within our particular visible portion of the complete universe. Thus any claim is only speculation.

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2013 3:09 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The reason no one can know if the universe, as a whole, is either expanding, contracting or static, is because our observations are only those of relative movement within our particular visible portion of the complete universe. Thus any claim is only speculation.

It's a bit more than speculation. It's true that we can only see so much, but nearly everything we can see looks like it is moving away; suggesting that the visible universe is expanding.

Posted: **Fri May 10, 2013 7:12 pm**

tillingborn wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:The reason no one can know if the universe, as a whole, is either expanding, contracting or static, is because our observations are only those of relative movement within our particular visible portion of the complete universe. Thus any claim is only speculation.
It's a bit more than speculation. It's true that we can only see so much, but nearly everything we can see looks like it is moving away; suggesting that the visible universe is expanding.
But I understand consequence that would make it seem so, due to the limitations of our visual frame of reference, but not actually be so, which only seeing the entire universe would illuminate.

Posted: **Sun May 12, 2013 8:52 am**

tillingborn wrote:It's true that we can only see so much, but nearly everything we can see looks like it is moving away; suggesting that the visible universe is expanding.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But I understand consequence that would make it seem so, due to the limitations of our visual frame of reference, but not actually be so, which only seeing the entire universe would illuminate.

The trouble is, we cannot see the whole universe, but (nearly) everything that we can see is red shifted, strongly suggesting it is moving away. Who knows what goes on beyond what we can see? There is no harm speculating, but if ideas cannot be shown to make any phenomenal difference, what difference does it make if you believe that just beyond the horizon is a much larger multiverse that in fact is collapsing, or that the visible universe is really this kid Jake's bubblegum and matter is his smelly breath?

Posted: **Sun May 12, 2013 9:23 am**

An interesting bit about galaxy movement:
Scientists found a tendency of near superclusters to move
into one and the same direction while far superclusters don´t.
They called this phenomenon "The Great Attractor".
Here´s some more Wikipedia-Info about it:

"The Great Attractor is a gravity anomaly in intergalactic space
within the range of the Centaurus Supercluster that reveals
the existence of a localized concentration of mass equivalent
to tens of thousands of galaxies, each of which is the size of the Milky Way;
this mass is observable by its effect on the motion of galaxies and their
associated clusters over a region hundreds of millions of light years across.

These galaxies are all redshifted, in accordance with the Hubble Flow,
indicating that they are receding relative to us and to each other,
but the variations in their redshift are sufficient to reveal the existence
of the anomaly. The variations in their redshifts are known as
peculiar velocities, and cover a range from about +700 km/s to −700 km/s,
depending on the angular deviation from the direction to the Great Attractor."

Posted: **Sun May 12, 2013 9:37 am**

tillingborn wrote:
tillingborn wrote:It's true that we can only see so much, but nearly everything we can see looks like it is moving away; suggesting that the visible universe is expanding.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But I understand consequence that would make it seem so, due to the limitations of our visual frame of reference, but not actually be so, which only seeing the entire universe would illuminate.
The trouble is, we cannot see the whole universe, but (nearly) everything that we can see is red shifted, strongly suggesting it is moving away. Who knows what goes on beyond what we can see? There is no harm speculating, but if ideas cannot be shown to make any phenomenal difference, what difference does it make if you believe that just beyond the horizon is a much larger multiverse that in fact is collapsing, or that the visible universe is really this kid Jake's bubblegum and matter is his smelly breath?

You make light, but I have a visualization coming, though simple, will allow you to see this concept, along with a bit of dialog that shall make it clear. Be patient as I'm attempting to ensure that the visualization is complete, I'm only working with Paint Shop Pro 7, and I'm not currently in practice. I will try and have it ready within hours.

What difference does it make? It makes all the difference in the world, as the point is, that as to the the ability of 'knowing,' and thus speaking of whether the universe is in fact either expanding, contracting or is static, one cannot attest with any amount of certainty, so then why should anyone state as such, as if it's possible to know? As they lie in their ignorance.

Posted: **Mon May 13, 2013 3:39 am**

Godfree wrote:the theory that claims no space time ,,??

No it doesn't. It simply claims that the most likely source of empirical evidence that suggest a Big Bang is a Big Bang. Nobody knows what the conditions prior to the Big Bang were; it is not possible to see that far. In the absence of any data, people are left to speculate, one possibility that has been mooted is that there was nothing, but, to repeat, there is no way of telling.
I must correct you here , the universe is expanding , because according to the theory it isn't there already , that no space , or time , exist before the bang , so the theory does indeed suggest no space outside what the bang just created , so use your brain , the universe isn't expanding onto itself ,,!!!

Godfree wrote:and lets just see if I can make any sense of your "doughnut"
your dnut , is in our atmosphere , so in the empty hole in the middle is not Nothing ,,!!!

Godfree, I salute you! You have a dizzying intellect, I must refine my thought experiment. Intergalactic space is reckoned to contain one particle per cubic metre, it's as close to nothing as you will find in this universe. Take your doughnut to intergalactic space, place it somewhere in a cubic metre where there isn't a particle and then look in the hole.
Again a fairly flawed logic , the point is , if there was ever nothing in the universe , what do we make the something from ,? ,matter doesn't appear from nowhere and nothing , it is the continuation of a cycle and a process , if there was a wee bang in our corner of the universe , it was the accumulated matter from the previous cycle being spat out by a black hole going pop , not created out of "nothing"

Godfree wrote:so try and get real and explain how nothing can exist , how the universe could not be there ,
and then it is there ??, thats a shit load of matter,
if you can grasp infinity it's an infinite amount of matter,
and as to why havn't all the galaxies crashed into each other ,
they do we have ball shaped galaxies , how would you imagine they got round ,
as apposed to the flat plane of our Milky Way ,
I believe bangs happen on a galactic scale not a universal one .

Another option discussed by cosmologists is the possibility that our universe is just one bubble universe that has budded off from a much larger, possibly infinite and eternal multiverse. Perhaps that interpretation of the Big Bang theory is more to your liking.[/quote]
If our universe? is just a bubble of something larger , how is it a UNIVERSE ,?
I wouldn't call a bud a universe , I would call it our corner of the universe ,,,infinity ,,there is only one ,,!!!

Posted: **Mon May 13, 2013 3:52 am**

Thozau wrote:An interesting bit about galaxy movement:
Scientists found a tendency of near superclusters to move
into one and the same direction while far superclusters don´t.
They called this phenomenon "The Great Attractor".
Here´s some more Wikipedia-Info about it:

"The Great Attractor is a gravity anomaly in intergalactic space
within the range of the Centaurus Supercluster that reveals
the existence of a localized concentration of mass equivalent
to tens of thousands of galaxies, each of which is the size of the Milky Way;
this mass is observable by its effect on the motion of galaxies and their
associated clusters over a region hundreds of millions of light years across.

These galaxies are all redshifted, in accordance with the Hubble Flow,
indicating that they are receding relative to us and to each other,
but the variations in their redshift are sufficient to reveal the existence
of the anomaly. The variations in their redshifts are known as
peculiar velocities, and cover a range from about +700 km/s to −700 km/s,
depending on the angular deviation from the direction to the Great Attractor."

Interesting , so they can see the clusters or grouping of galaxies but still persist with the expanding universe ,
Heres a couple of ideas for you ,
Red and dead , a term given to galaxies that are at the end of their cycle ,
question , why can we see red and dead 10 billion years ago ,
surely that would suggest the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years old ,
Also , photon decay being the cause of the red shift ,
nothing goes forever , not light, radio waves , nothing goes forever , so light slowly decays ,
what if this is the cause of the red shift, and the expansion idea is wishful thinking ,,??

Posted: **Mon May 13, 2013 3:04 pm**

Godfree wrote:I must correct you here , the universe is expanding , because according to the theory it isn't there already , that no space , or time , exist before the bang , so the theory does indeed suggest no space outside what the bang just created , so use your brain , the universe isn't expanding onto itself ,,!!!

Can you quote any cosmologist who states categorically that there was nothing before the Big Bang? Lawrence Krauss has written a book on the possibility, for example, but no respected scientist insists on the truth of something he or she cannot see. You are attacking your own strawman, only nutters claim to know what happened before the Big Bang. The rest of us understand that we are working with a hypothesis that is subject to change in the light of new evidence.

Godfree wrote:Also , photon decay being the cause of the red shift ,
nothing goes forever , not light, radio waves , nothing goes forever , so light slowly decays ,
what if this is the cause of the red shift, and the expansion idea is wishful thinking ,,??

The thing is we can observe red shift (and blue shift) in things that we know the relative speed of, the planets in our solar system being an example. There isn't the same support for photon decay. The expansion idea is not wishful thinking; it is the conclusion drawn by the vast majority of working cosmologists, most of whom have no religious axe to grind.
You seem determined to undermine christian fundamentalists. Well go get 'em tiger, but for goodness sake, don't talk such utter bollocks or they will dismiss you as an idiot.

Philosophy Now Forum

The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...

Re: The universe expands ...