Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The outside of the universe- The abscene of existence/time

  1. #1 The outside of the universe- The abscene of existence/time 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Great Barrington
    Posts
    62
    In my studies, I have been thoroughly interested in space. As I am currently studying how factors (Atoms) interact with each other, to create outcomes, and every new outcome produces a new environment which produces new scenarios for each factor, which in turn, produces new possible outcomes. A continuing cycle with domino effects.

    So, this has lead me to the topic of astrology and physics.

    My definition of time is as follows: The interaction of factors with other factors
    My definition of the passage of time is as follows: The continued persisting interaction between factors which creates and fulfills outcomes

    My definition of time itself states that time is merely the process which is interacting factors. My definition of the passage of time states that, the passage of time (And thusly, continuation of the interacting process) is merely continuation of the process of factors interacting with each other to produce outcomes, and the continued interaction between factors is specifically what makes time noticeable, albeit existent.

    So, if my definition of time is correct (It is not the conventional definition denoting time applied in the measuring system, but merely the term that can be used for the continued interaction between factors), then it would be safe to say, that the outside of the universe, from what we know of, contains nothing.

    What is nothing? Nothing is vacuum. A lack of particles, and the presence of inactivity, where neither active nor inactive factors exist (See "Theory of continuity" in Pseudoscience), so, if no factors exist to interact with each other, then it would be reasonable to say that time itself is non existent. Just as if Earth was the only planet in the Universe, if one continued to fly away from it into space, there would be no landmarks or points of relativity to compare the distance you've travelled. So, there would be no concept of distance. Perhaps this same concept can be applied to time.

    Where there are no landmarks, and thusly no points of relativity, it would be safe to say that distance cannot exist since there are no points (not even the one the observer is at) to refer to. If there were no factors existent, there would be no interaction, and thusly, no time. But what is time? In your opinion.

    In the creation of the universe (Which is widely accepted as the big bang), all matter was said to have originated from one point. However, when you take the distances of stars and move them towards the center point of the universe, they do not line up in one spot. Making the theory more controversial, now some scientists think that the universe originated from many spots, but that does not answer the question of how matter began existence, and since matter can be converted into energy, ance vice versa, matter and energy can never be destroyed, only interchanged.

    But, outside of the universe, no light, no energy, and no matter (presumably also no dark energy) exists. So, could it be argued that since there is no matter or energy, and thusly, nothing that can affect or be affected, that time does not exist where there is vacuum, and outside of the universe?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The outside of the universe- The abscene of existence/ti 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3
    I dont mean to be rude in anyway and im no way educated in physics or anything of the sort, I just really enjoy the conversation on this forum and read it regularly so excuse me if anything seems "stupid" or rude i dont mean to come across this way and my mother tongue is not english either so bare with me .

    Quote Originally Posted by RosenNoir

    My definition of time itself states that time is merely the process which is interacting factors.

    Where there are no landmarks, and thusly no points of relativity, it would be safe to say that distance cannot exist since there are no points to refer to.
    How does that seem logical to you, if you were to be at that point then you would have passed something at some point (even if its the "edge of the universe") so couldnt you then take the point you are located at and the "edge of the universe" as a measuring point?

    Quote Originally Posted by RosenNoir
    In the creation of the universe (Which is widely accepted as the big bang), all matter was said to have originated from one point. However, when you take the distances of stars and move them towards the center point of the universe, they do not line up in one spot.
    Just out of curiousity why would they have to reallign to one spot, stars explode and new systems are created all time for billions of years so how did they find the original points of the first systems?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Great Barrington
    Posts
    62
    It's quite a confusing topic. Also, you're not rude at all, don't worry about it.

    If no matter existed at all (Except for, say, yourself). No dust, air, molecules, or atoms, except for yourself, in the entire universe, something would exist. Ergo, time and distance would exist. But let's try to think of something that's not physical. Assume you're giong through space not as a humasn or an animal, or even an object. But an omnipresent metaphysical being. You're not interacting with anything, because you're not physical or made of anything, and there's nothing else interacting in the universe.

    If one was to solve, say, a geometrical problem, find the distance between two points, in order to find a distance, you must recognize that there are two points. In order to have a distance between, there must be at least two points. But since there is nothing material that exists anywhere (Not even you), and no starting point to reference, and no destination to refer to, then there would be no way to measure anything. If space goes on forever, since there are no requirements that we know of for space itself to exist, then there really can be no measurement, ergo, no time, because nothing is existent or interacting, and one must wonder, are we moving through space itself? Or are we simply using objects such as Earth to move on, and if we walk down the street, are we moving through space? Or are we only moving relative to the location of the matter we're using as a reference?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: The outside of the universe- The abscene of existence/ti 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by RosenNoir
    So, this has lead me to the topic of astrology and physics.
    Astrology? I do hope you mean astronomy.
    Quote Originally Posted by RosenNoir
    that the outside of the universe, from what we know of, contains nothing.
    What makes you think that there is an outside to the Universe?
    Quote Originally Posted by RosenNoir
    What is nothing? Nothing is vacuum. A lack of particles, and the presence of inactivity, where neither active nor inactive factors exist
    You have an old fashioned idea of what a vaccum is. Vacuum is not empty, but is filled with virtual particles and enegy fields.
    so, if no factors exist to interact with each other, then it would be reasonable to say that time itself is non existent.
    By the same argument you would appear to say that space cannot exist either. Correct?
    So, could it be argued that since there is no matter or energy, and thusly, nothing that can affect or be affected, that time does not exist where there is vacuum, and outside of the universe?
    It's just that I suspect that 'outside' and 'vacuum' aren't quite what you think they are which may invalidate your thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    RosenNoir. Cause and effect works with atoms too, and in a predictable manner.

    You obviously mean astronomy and not astrology (which is a superstition).

    Time is any form of change. For the convenience of maths, we have assigned certain values to changes.

    Before the universe somehow started, there was literally nothing. The universe filled this nothing with matter, energy, gravity, etc so creating what we now call space.

    Distance as you say needs two points (ignoring the size of one object).

    The big bang was a four physical dimension expansion, as in a balloon blowing up, with the universe as the balloon's skin, so having no physical centre. The BB has seriously problems with it and is not viable.

    The origin of everything is a puzzle and as yet, there is no believable explanation.

    Since there was nothing before the universe began, then outside the universe is literally nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Great Barrington
    Posts
    62
    Odd to think about. But what is space? Is there such thing as empty space? Is there anything required to exist in space for space iself to exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    RosenNoir. Space is literally nothing. Before the universe was nothing, occupying no area. The universe somehow happened and then nothing becomes contaminated with matter, energy, gravity, etc so giving space definition.

    According to the BB, we have space expanding from quantum size to around 158 billion light years in diameter, and continuing to expand. If space is any kind of material, if it is occupied by any kind of virtual particles, etc, then it is just not going to expand like that. If it is literally nothing, then matter and energy moving further apart gives the impression that space is getting larger as the area of what is in it grows and grows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    If space is any kind of material, if it is occupied by any kind of virtual particles, etc, then it is just not going to expand like that.
    Why not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    John Galt. We know that if we let a gas expand, we get ever further distances between molecules. Space has expanded from quantum size (we are told) to maybe 158 billion light years across without changing in any way. How can there be the same number of virtual particles to the cubic mile as there was 13 billion years ago? How can basic laws like the speed of light remain the same?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    RosenNoir. Space is literally nothing. Before the universe was nothing, occupying no area. The universe somehow happened and then nothing becomes contaminated with matter, energy, gravity, etc so giving space definition.
    I don't understand!
    First you say "space is literally nothing".
    Then you say there was nothing before the universe "occupying no area" but space does occupy area, and volume, so how can you say space is nothing?
    I don't know how philosophers define "nothing" but if someone argues that there was nothing before the Big Bang surely he/she means the absence of time, matter and space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Halliday. We don't know how everything began. It requires the emergence of everything we have now from somewhere. There is talk of a multiverse so we have conservation of matter and energy over all when our universe happens (and elsewhere loses it), but this just pushes the problem back one step.

    First you have nothing then somehow the universe happens, BB or whatever. Now you have matter, energy, gravity, etc. Time is change so as soon as something appears, "time" starts. These now produce distance, size, mass, etc so what we call space and the universe. It is difficult to explain how there can be absolutely nothing yet it can have the potential to become infinite in size (but this can only be "measured" by it's contents.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    John Galt. We know that if we let a gas expand, we get ever further distances between molecules. Space has expanded from quantum size (we are told) to maybe 158 billion light years across without changing in any way. How can there be the same number of virtual particles to the cubic mile as there was 13 billion years ago? How can basic laws like the speed of light remain the same?
    Ahhh, you are touching on something here. What makes the molecules expand? You are picking an area, and showing expansion, but not showing the resulting compression. Its the compression of a localized region that causes the expansion of a localized region. You could say "you add heat" and that isnt entirely true. Heat can cause expansion, but that is only because the heat force is overpowering the pressure that keeps the liquid in a condensed state. There is an easier way to do this, with less energy loss, and that is to REMOVE the pressure that is maintaining the state. Our observable universe is expanding, and the cooling is a result. This expansion could not exist without drawing in energy, just like if we cooled the liquid enough, it wouldnt matter how low the pressure was, it would remain condensed, and not expand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •