Philosophy Now Forum

...but into what?
lets see:

it expands itself
along the time vector
towards entropy moment.

so it constantly reduces
the possible options
of its next moments expression.

which means that universe
expands its spacetime within
the plane of uncertainity.

this reduces the uncertainity
up to the point of definite certainity
focused in the final moment of entropy.

imagine
what will be born then ...

A poet well done.. my type of human.

But does it expand.. surely as machines show us.. will it keep expanding or later collapse'' now THAT is the question.

will it be cyclic or a black hole farm.

burning balls of gas

cosmic flatulence

-Imp

the known universe breathes
inhalation / exhalation
forever breathing beyond
the scope of intellect
but out of necessity
to it's universality...

Dear Hjarloprillar,

thanks for your friendly reply. As far as i know the universe expands
and even accelerates due to dark energy which makes 70 % of the universe
and pushes the galaxies away from each other so i´m afraid it will not recollapse
though that would be the more poetic way - collapsing and rebigbanging.

Read you later, dude



Dear mtmynd1,

wowow - thats BEAUTIFUL. Thanks for your reply. I love it.

I often wonder what will happen if the universe expands indefinitely... Anti-matter has been postulated to only have a small life-time, real matter also has a limited lifetime but this exceedingly exceeds that of anti-matter. As the universe expands the universe goes cold, and quite plausibly all matter may simply 'vanish' through degradation. Maybe the universe re-starts, who knows, maybe it just re-contracts. But what if there is a 'Big Brother' that simply resets the whole process to any way it desires with the push of a button?

F. J. Tipler, in his book, 'The Physics of Immortality', gives scientific proof for the existence of God at the final Omega point. He argues that as life expands throughout the universe, through pseudo calculus and physics, it will additionally tap into different sources of energy, mayhap even dark-matter, and other ingenious ways so as to reach a state of an unlimited supply of energy - maybe by tapping parallel planes. So indeed every incumbent's heaven manifests itself after the Omega, this throughout time if faith alone sufficed. I can't quite remember the whole book as I read it sometime ago, a very intellectual read, but in their reasoning the universe initially may flatten (in a way to perceive it) and once Omega is reached it 'may' expand in a number of ways, maybe even get smaller (although not discussed in the book).

So yes, the universe is expanding, but the question is for how long exactly before the sheer actions of raw sentience interferes with the process???

Afaik.

Tipler [If its the same one.. name is not usual. so i go with probability]
Imagined theoretically the Tipler engine. using singularities to travel backwards in time.

Interesting ideas.

prill

I thought this may be of interest to you, it is pretty amazing.


http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -says.html


Scientists previously have measured the light from distant exploding stars to show that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. They assumed that these supernovae are spreading apart faster as the universe ages. Physicists also assumed that a kind of anti-gravitational force must be driving the galaxies apart, and started to call this unidentified force "dark energy".

However, to this day no one actually knows what dark energy is, or where it comes from. Professor Jose Senovilla, and his colleagues at the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, have proposed a mind-bending alternative. They propose that there is no such thing as dark energy at all, and we’re looking at things backwards. Senovilla proposes that we have been fooled into thinking the expansion of the universe is accelerating, when in reality, time itself is slowing down. At an everyday level, the change would not be perceptible. However, it would be obvious from cosmic scale measurements tracking the course of the universe over billions of years. The change would be infinitesimally slow from a human perspective, but in terms of the vast perspective of cosmology, the study of ancient light from suns that shone billions of years ago, it could easily be measured

The team's proposal, which will be published in the journal Physical Review D, dismisses dark energy as fiction. Instead, Prof Senovilla says, the appearance of acceleration is caused by time itself gradually slowing down, like a clock with a run-down battery.

reasonvemotion wrote:

However, to this day no one actually knows what dark energy is, or where it comes from. Professor Jose Senovilla, and his colleagues at the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, have proposed a mind-bending alternative. They propose that there is no such thing as dark energy at all, and we’re looking at things backwards. Senovilla proposes that we have been fooled into thinking the expansion of the universe is accelerating, when in reality, time itself is slowing down. At an everyday level, the change would not be perceptible. However, it would be obvious from cosmic scale measurements tracking the course of the universe over billions of years. The change would be infinitesimally slow from a human perspective, but in terms of the vast perspective of cosmology, the study of ancient light from suns that shone billions of years ago, it could easily be measured

The team's proposal, which will be published in the journal Physical Review D, dismisses dark energy as fiction. Instead, Prof Senovilla says, the appearance of acceleration is caused by time itself gradually slowing down, like a clock with a run-down battery.

An idea i had not heard of before today.A new thing today, if only every day had a new thing i'd be 365 up every year
Fits my interest to a T.
As i'm very interested in nature of time.
Thanks

I will read up on it.

To be honest i never felt a thing for dark matter or energy.
It just dont add up. As the dog said.

The universe expands , ? now is that the whole Universe , all that exists , in which case the Universe would be expanding into Nothing? , explain nothing ,
godfree's law ," if there was ever nothing in the Universe , then nothing is all there would ever be "
So what proof have we apart from the red shift THEORY , what evidence is there to support the idea of an expanding universe ? .
The image we have of space now is one of clumps and chains of galaxies all moving towards one and other not all expanding , this pattern is constant throughout the universe and therefore there is no central point or radiating lines coming from some theoretical bang site .
Explanation , the Universe is not expanding , it is already infinite in size and age ,
the red shift THEORY was written by a very religious man looking for a moment of creation ,
Hubble saw what he wanted to see , confirmation of what he already believed ,
The truth is there was no moment of creation ,
the bible the koran and any other such book that talk of a beginning , are wrong ,
No beginning , not expanding , never ending ,!!

The universe expands?

what crao\p. who lied to you?

Godfree wrote:So what proof have we apart from the red shift THEORY , what evidence is there to support the idea of an expanding universe ?

Red shift is not really a theory, it is what people actually record when they look through their telescopes; it is an empirical fact. The theory is that it is caused by galaxies moving apart.

Godfree wrote:The image we have of space now is one of clumps and chains of galaxies all moving towards one and other not all expanding ,

What observations do you believe support this view?

Godfree wrote:this pattern is constant throughout the universe and therefore there is no central point or radiating lines coming from some theoretical bang site .

If the universe worked just like a giant firework, that would be a mystery, because the chances Earth is exactly in the centre are vanishingly small. In some ways a firework is a good analogy though; if you imagine the universe the size of a grapefruit and the bit that will eventually be you as a point in that universe, it doesn't matter where in the grapefruit you are, every point that was next to you has been moving away for nearly 14 billion years. In that sense, every point is at the centre of it's own explosion and sees everything else moving away from it.

Godfree wrote:Explanation , the Universe is not expanding , it is already infinite in size and age ,
the red shift THEORY was written by a very religious man looking for a moment of creation ,
Hubble saw what he wanted to see , confirmation of what he already believed ,

Edwin Hubble just recorded the data, what you see is only trivially affected by what you believe, if at all; how you interpret it is a different matter. The theory that the universe is expanding is attributed to the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre, so yes, one can imagine that he was a very religious man.

Godfree wrote:The truth is there was no moment of creation ,
the bible the koran and any other such book that talk of a beginning , are wrong ,
No beginning , not expanding , never ending ,!!

Georges Lemaitre called his idea the 'Cosmic Egg'. Like you, the British astronomer Fred Hoyle was appalled by the idea that there was a moment of creation and dismissed the idea as a Big Bang, but even he had to accept the evidence and proposed the Steady State Theory. The idea was that the universe is eternal and is constantly creating more matter in intergalactic space; it is this matter which he proposed is pushing the galaxies apart. Steady State was taken seriously until in the mid sixties Penzias and the other bloke, whose name escapes me, discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation. It looks exactly like the fading flash of a very big bang. The most probable cause is a very big bang, but there is no reason to infer from this that there was anyone to light the blue touch paper.

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:So what proof have we apart from the red shift THEORY , what evidence is there to support the idea of an expanding universe ?

Red shift is not really a theory, it is what people actually record when they look through their telescopes; it is an empirical fact. The theory is that it is caused by galaxies moving apart.

Godfree wrote:The image we have of space now is one of clumps and chains of galaxies all moving towards one and other not all expanding ,

What observations do you believe support this view?

Godfree wrote:this pattern is constant throughout the universe and therefore there is no central point or radiating lines coming from some theoretical bang site .

If the universe worked just like a giant firework, that would be a mystery, because the chances Earth is exactly in the centre are vanishingly small. In some ways a firework is a good analogy though; if you imagine the universe the size of a grapefruit and the bit that will eventually be you as a point in that universe, it doesn't matter where in the grapefruit you are, every point that was next to you has been moving away for nearly 14 billion years. In that sense, every point is at the centre of it's own explosion and sees everything else moving away from it.

Godfree wrote:Explanation , the Universe is not expanding , it is already infinite in size and age ,
the red shift THEORY was written by a very religious man looking for a moment of creation ,
Hubble saw what he wanted to see , confirmation of what he already believed ,

Edwin Hubble just recorded the data, what you see is only trivially affected by what you believe, if at all; how you interpret it is a different matter. The theory that the universe is expanding is attributed to the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre, so yes, one can imagine that he was a very religious man.

Godfree wrote:The truth is there was no moment of creation ,
the bible the koran and any other such book that talk of a beginning , are wrong ,
No beginning , not expanding , never ending ,!!

Georges Lemaitre called his idea the 'Cosmic Egg'. Like you, the British astronomer Fred Hoyle was appalled by the idea that there was a moment of creation and dismissed the idea as a Big Bang, but even he had to accept the evidence and proposed the Steady State Theory. The idea was that the universe is eternal and is constantly creating more matter in intergalactic space; it is this matter which he proposed is pushing the galaxies apart. Steady State was taken seriously until in the mid sixties Penzias and the other bloke, whose name escapes me, discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation. It looks exactly like the fading flash of a very big bang. The most probable cause is a very big bang, but there is no reason to infer from this that there was anyone to light the blue touch paper.

The red shift is reality , what causes it is not movement ,
but simply distance , the further something is away , the more red shifted it is ,
we don't need to ad , and it's moving away ,
reality is , the galaxies like our own are moving TOWARDS each other not moving apart ,
the theory that the red shift is caused by movement , is the only evidence offered when seeking proof,
or alternative explanations , try yourself , you will find it very difficult to find any actual proof ,
that the Universe is expanding ,
the current observational data does not agree with the bbt ,
more and more we are seeing images that the bbt cannot explain ,
last year on DW the host posed the question to a supposed expert ,
why does the observational data not fit the bbt ,??
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 ,
space has always been and so has time , what ignorance is this ,if this is the bbt ,
it's a pile of fundementalist bullshit ,
try explaining the nothing , before the bang there was nothing , describe that "Nothing " please ,
also do some research , and learn the shape of our Universe , galaxies are moving together not apart ,
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 , 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,???

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

Godfree wrote:The red shift is reality , what causes it is not movement ,

Red shift is observed when looking at the planets in our solar system. As we all go round the sun sometimes we are getting closer to other planets, sometimes we are moving apart. When we move towards a planet, the light from it is shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum. When we are moving apart, the light is red shifted. The amount in either case is independent of the distance and is only a consequence of the relative speeds of the planets. We can be confident that we know the speed at which planets are orbitting, because we have managed to hit most of them with probes. Red shift is the result of the Doppler effect. When you approach a source of waves, they hit you more frequently, the converse is also true. With sound the pitch rises and falls; with light it is blue or red shifted.

Godfree wrote:reality is , the galaxies like our own are moving TOWARDS each other not moving apart ,

From the observed blue shift of a few galaxies in our local cluster, they do appear to be getting closer; it looks like we're going to crash into Andromeda in a few billion years time, for instance. The other hundreds of millions of visible galaxies all show the same type of red shift displayed by planets we know are moving away from us.

Godfree wrote:the theory that the red shift is caused by movement , is the only evidence offered when seeking proof,
or alternative explanations , try yourself , you will find it very difficult to find any actual proof ,
that the Universe is expanding ,

Most scientists are not particularly bothered about proof. Mathematical theorems can be proved, scientific theories cannot. As Karl Popper observed, theories can be proved false, they cannot be proved correct. 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 if it is a good analogy of what spacetime actually is, if it exists at all. The mathematical model by contrast is extremely accurate, so much so that some people believe that the universe is 'governed' by mathematical laws.

Godfree wrote:the current observational data does not agree with the bbt ,

Yes it does. Redshift has the hallmarks of things moving away, CBR looks like the afterglow of a Big Bang.

Godfree wrote:more and more we are seeing images that the bbt cannot explain ,

Such as?

Godfree wrote:last year on DW the host posed the question to a supposed expert ,
why does the observational data not fit the bbt ,??

I don't know what DW is and I don't know what the 'supposed expert' failed to explain.

Godfree wrote:So MR tillingborn ,in order for me to accept the bbt ,

To be honest, I'm not particularly bothered whether you do or don't.

Godfree wrote:I need to solve some puzzles , maybe you can help me ,

I'll try. In the meantime, perhaps you could accept that not only am I not a fundamentalist, I do not believe in god.