Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 119
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: A hypothesis regarding time & space: as it is, and as we experience it

  1. #1 A hypothesis regarding time & space: as it is, and as we experience it 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    5
    Modern psychology suggests that our our brains work a lot like modern computers do. Storing Information by processing & encoding neural patterns, alike how computers process & encode raw, simple information. Consciousness itself has been thought to be the result of SO much raw information (light entering the eyes, airwaves vibrating an eardrum) being processed SO thoroughly that the output produced is our waking experience. Consider how light travels through space, the theory of relativity only acounts for time in terms of space. Science has been unable to detect why time goes forward, rather than in reverse. Actually, science doesn't know why time exists, nor what it is.So heres my potentially dumb idea. Information processing, like any other "process" must happen in chronological order. In the same way that a computer starts at the first line of code, and runs the math down to the last line of code. We can easily imagine reversing the computer's operation by making it process the same code backwards. Therefore, if there is no reason that processing outside the brain has to "go forwards", and there is no reason to believe that everything in our universe could just as well go backwards, then we must account for the possibility that our lives are nothing but a predetermined line of code that we are each processing systematically. If this is the case ,we can understand a timeless, 4-dimensional universe not beginning at the big bang and ending at the big rip, but stretching, as if it was a new depth, from one tip being at the big bang, and the other end at the big rip.Just a thought.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Firstly: multiple posts saying the same thing are not welcomed.
    Secondly: what exactly are you saying here?
    Time is "caused" by consciousness?
    All I see is that you appear to have done nothing more than rephrase the problem - "science doesn't know why time exists" and your idea - "Information processing, like any other "process" must happen in chronological order".
    That still doesn't say why time exists.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    5
    Sorry, it was my first post and I wasnt sure exactly where it was more appropriate and I figured each thread had a distinct audience. Second, yes. I meant that time is an illusion caused by our existence being split accross it. Every moment has existed and will exist. The universe is a set of information, we only percieve time because we're so small relative to the universe and our processing is rapid, thorough, and for whatever reason has an order (you think of something that causes you to think of something else, same thing as a meteor crashing into another meteor before crashing into a third) we are then bound by the order of our thoughts to believe that it has meaning, meaning we interpret as time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    As a theory, it most certainly has merit. Everything we know about time we know based on peoples perception. People, I might add, who all seem to have interaction with other humans. If we looked at Time as, instead a straight and steady line with which to base our lives, but rather as a phenomena which we have no idea on how it works, we could say, time is a set of data, perhaps, which directly influences our lives and the environment around us, most probably on a multi-dimensional level. As to why time exists... well I don't even know how to begin to speculate the answer to that question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt View Post
    Everything we know about time we know based on peoples perception.
    No it's not.

    we could say, time is a set of data
    Huh?

    most probably on a multi-dimensional level
    What?
    Lostnoob likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt View Post
    If we looked at Time as, instead a straight and steady line with which to base our lives, but rather as a phenomena which we have no idea on how it works, we could say, time is a set of data, perhaps, which directly influences our lives and the environment around us, most probably on a multi-dimensional level.
    And if we looked at Time as an orange flavoured rabbit, we could say that Time makes a very tasty stew, perhaps.
    Dywyddyr and Lostnoob like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt View Post
    If we looked at Time as, instead a straight and steady line with which to base our lives, but rather as a phenomena which we have no idea on how it works, we could say, time is a set of data, perhaps, which directly influences our lives and the environment around us, most probably on a multi-dimensional level.
    And if we looked at Time as an orange flavoured rabbit, we could say that Time makes a very tasty stew, perhaps.
    A stew that never seems to be up for grasp#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,450
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    And if we looked at Time as an orange flavoured rabbit, we could say that Time makes a very tasty stew, perhaps.
    Maybe it tastes like shit......er...I wouldn't know.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    And if we looked at Time as an orange flavoured rabbit, we could say that Time makes a very tasty stew, perhaps.
    Maybe it tastes like shit......er...I wouldn't know.
    I don't suppose you are allowed to touch not thinking of tasting#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    If you were able to step back and view the whole process from an infinite viewpoint. It would all look like woven spiraling strands of spaghetti. The spiraling represents all orbits, rotations, and spins in the arrow of time. The human consciousness would then act like a charge traveling in the strands of time. Moments may only exist in the conscious of free thinking entities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If you were able to step back and view the whole process from an infinite viewpoint. It would all look like woven spiraling strands of spaghetti. The spiraling represents all orbits, rotations, and spins in the arrow of time. The human consciousness would then act like a charge traveling in the strands of time. Moments may only exist in the conscious of free thinking entities.

    If you are at an infinite distance, then how can see anything?
    Would it not be so that photons are unable to reach your retina if you are at an infinite distance?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If you were able to step back and view the whole process from an infinite viewpoint. It would all look like woven spiraling strands of spaghetti. The spiraling represents all orbits, rotations, and spins in the arrow of time. The human consciousness would then act like a charge traveling in the strands of time. Moments may only exist in the conscious of free thinking entities.

    If you are at an infinite distance, then how can see anything?
    Would it not be so that photons are unable to reach your retina if you are at an infinite distance?
    Wow did you just physically go there, sorry. If you were able to step back, sorry finite creature an infinite realm does exist. All the energy and time spent is merely to mend a tear in an infinite realm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If you were able to step back and view the whole process from an infinite viewpoint. It would all look like woven spiraling strands of spaghetti. The spiraling represents all orbits, rotations, and spins in the arrow of time. The human consciousness would then act like a charge traveling in the strands of time. Moments may only exist in the conscious of free thinking entities.

    If you are at an infinite distance, then how can see anything?
    Would it not be so that photons are unable to reach your retina if you are at an infinite distance?

    Wow did you just physically go there, sorry. If you were able to step back, sorry finite creature an infinite realm does exist. All the energy and time spent is merely to mend a tear in an infinite realm.

    If an infinite realm exists, then it is possible to observe from an infinite viewpoint, is it not?
    Ergo, what are the answers on my previous questions?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    No, I do not believe an infinite realm or state can be viewed by a finiteentity. I do believe a quasi-infinitestate can exist through balancing acts made by the differences created byopposing forces i.e. spacetime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    No, I do not believe an infinite realm or state can be viewed by a finiteentity. I do believe a quasi-infinitestate can exist through balancing acts made by the differences created byopposing forces i.e. spacetime.
    Given the fact that one has to be infinite to view the whole process,
    then how does one know that it looks "like woven spiraling strands of spaghetti", which represent "all orbits, rotations, and spins in the arrow of time"?

    And why would one state that space-time are opposing forces?
    Lostnoob likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    No, I do not believe an infinite realm or state can be viewed by a finiteentity. I do believe a quasi-infinitestate can exist through balancing acts made by the differences created byopposing forces i.e. spacetime.
    Given the fact that one has to be infinite to view the whole process,
    then how does one know that it looks "like woven spiraling strands of spaghetti", which represent "all orbits, rotations, and spins in the arrow of time"?

    And why would one state that space-time are opposing forces?
    If all moments in time existed at once, all positions from point “A” topoint “Z” what do you think it would look like?
    The simple answer to the existence of a zero state is the cancelation of equal opposing forces, it could also be any equal opposing entities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If all moments in time existed at once, all positions from point “A” topoint “Z” what do you think it would look like?
    The simple answer to the existence of a zero state is the cancelation of equal opposing forces, it could also be any equal opposing entities.

    I have no idea, because there could be an infinite number of moments. This would imply that it cannot be observed by finite entities (as you have stated in post #14).
    Furthermore, what is the correlation between the fundamental forces and the cancellation of time? And why have you stated in post #16 that space-time are two opposing forces?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If all moments in time existed at once, all positions from point “A” topoint “Z” what do you think it would look like?
    The simple answer to the existence of a zero state is the cancelation of equal opposing forces, it could also be any equal opposing entities.

    I have no idea, because there could be an infinite number of moments. This would imply that it cannot be observed by finite entities (as you have stated in post #14).
    Furthermore, what is the correlation between the fundamental forces and the cancellation of time? And why have you stated in post #16 that space-time are two opposing forces?
    I did not state spacetime is two opposing forces. Spacetime is created from two opposing forces.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    I did not state spacetime is two opposing forces. Spacetime is created from two opposing forces.

    Which two forces?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    I did not state spacetime is two opposing forces. Spacetime is created from two opposing forces.

    Which two forces?
    The expansion force of the universe and the preexisting collapsing force needed to create a big bang. The preexisting collapsing force still exists after the big bang. Once in motion always in motion unless acted upon by another force, Sir Isaac Newton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin
    The expansion force of the universe and the preexisting collapsing force needed to create a big bang. The preexisting collapsing force still exists after the big bang.

    You have to provide a reference in order to show that there is indeed an expansion force.
    The pre-existing force (as mentioned here) was an assumption, thus you need to cite this too.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin
    The expansion force of the universe and the preexisting collapsing force needed to create a big bang. The preexisting collapsing force still exists after the big bang.

    You have to provide a reference in order to show that there is indeed an expansion force.
    The pre-existing force (as mentioned here) was an assumption, thus you need to cite this too.
    You needa reference to the expansion force of the universe? You need a reference to explain density, infinite density, or the density of a singularity dense enough to create a big bang?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    The expansion force of the universe
    No such force is needed. In the absence of a cosmological constant, space-time expands by default.

    preexisting collapsing force needed to create a big bang.
    The "collapsing force" would be gravity. However, several problem with the above statement :

    1. The term "preexisting" is meaningless. The BB event can be thought of as a geometric pole in space-time, so there is no "pre-" here, just like there is no "north" of the North Pole.
    2. Gravity is not a force
    3. There was no space-time and no hence no gravity at the BB, so how could that have been "preexisting" ?

    All of what you say are claims that will require empirical and theoretical support.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    The expansion force of the universe
    No such force is needed. In the absence of a cosmological constant, space-time expands by default.

    preexisting collapsing force needed to create a big bang.
    The "collapsing force" would be gravity. However, several problem with the above statement :

    1. The term "preexisting" is meaningless. The BB event can be thought of as a geometric pole in space-time, so there is no "pre-" here, just like there is no "north" of the North Pole.
    2. Gravity is not a force
    3. There was no space-time and no hence no gravity at the BB, so how could that have been "preexisting" ?

    All of what you say are claims that will require empirical and theoretical support.
    And that’s the problem with science. Great mathematiciansbut lousy detectives, that statement just broke a link in a chain of events. North of the north pole iscalled south. Thinking you don’t have to explain pre big bang is why we don’t have a grand unification theory. When things exist with no explanation we callit magic.
    Last edited by YangYin; October 12th, 2013 at 11:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    North of the north pole iscalled south.
    Exactly my point. Just as you end up going south everywhere from the North Pole, you go into the future everywhere at the Big Bang. The notion of "before the BB" makes no sense.

    why we don’t have a grand unification theory.
    GUTs are models which describe a unification of the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions. The GUT era is very much after the BB.

    When things exist with no explanation we callit magic.
    All speculations of conditions at the Big Bang are currently just that - speculations. The reason is of course that we are missing a crucial building block, being a fully self-consistent model of quantum gravity. In other words, we don't know yet what the topology of space-time on scales of the order of the Planck length really looks like. If I was to hazard a guess, the basic idea as put forward by Causal Dynamical Triangulations seems promising, especially if one puts in some thought as to how this could be combined with the recent development of amplituhedrons. But then again, it could turn out to be something different altogether. Like I said, this is all merely speculation.

    Thinking you don’t have toexplain pre big bang
    I did not say that, I merely pointed out where I see issues with your proposed idea, and I suggested that empirical and theoretical support is needed, which really goes without saying in all disciplines of science.

    By the way, there is another reason why there might not have been a "before" the BB - can you think of another such reason ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    You needa reference to the expansion force of the universe? You need a reference to explain density, infinite density, or the density of a singularity dense enough to create a big bang?

    Yes, I do.
    Feel free to post the articles that give your ideas support.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    North of the north pole iscalled south.
    Exactly my point. Just as you end up going south everywhere from the North Pole, you go into the future everywhere at the Big Bang. The notion of "before the BB" makes no sense.

    why we don’t have a grand unification theory.
    GUTs are models which describe a unification of the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions. The GUT era is very much after the BB.

    When things exist with no explanation we callit magic.
    All speculations of conditions at the Big Bang are currently just that - speculations. The reason is of course that we are missing a crucial building block, being a fully self-consistent model of quantum gravity. In other words, we don't know yet what the topology of space-time on scales of the order of the Planck length really looks like. If I was to hazard a guess, the basic idea as put forward by Causal Dynamical Triangulations seems promising, especially if one puts in some thought as to how this could be combined with the recent development of amplituhedrons. But then again, it could turn out to be something different altogether. Like I said, this is all merely speculation.

    Thinking you don’t have toexplain pre big bang
    I did not say that, I merely pointed out where I see issues with your proposed idea, and I suggested that empirical and theoretical support is needed, which really goes without saying in all disciplines of science.

    By the way, there is another reason why there might not have been a "before" the BB - can you think of another such reason ?
    Infinity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Infinity
    No
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Infinity
    No
    Hey aren’t you extinct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Thinking you donít have to explain pre big bang is why we donít have a grand unification theory. When things exist with no explanation we callit magic. [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Noone said we don't have to explain it. Just that we don't have an explanation currently. Making up random nonsense as an "explanation", we call it crackpottery.
    Lostnoob likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Hey aren’t you extinct?
    Extant
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Thinking you don’t have to explain pre big bang is why we don’t have a grand unification theory. When things exist with no explanation we callit magic. [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Noone said we don't have to explain it. Just that we don't have an explanation currently. Making up random nonsense as an "explanation", we call it crackpottery.
    What’s north of the North Pole has been said many times amongst the science community. We don’t know what happened pre big bang but there are clues to a system that is all connected in some fashion or another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    What’s north of the North Pole has been said many times amongst the science community. We don’t know what happened pre big bang but there are clues to a system that is all connected in some fashion or another.

    What are these clues you are speaking of?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    And that’s the problem with science. Great mathematiciansbut lousy detectives

    And here's the problem with cranks: great, er, well they might be great at something, but lousy logicians.:

    North of the north pole iscalled south.
    See that word "South" in your "answer"?
    That means "NOT North".

    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Moments may only exist in the conscious of free thinking entities.
    Assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    it could also be any equal opposing entities.
    No.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Infinity
    In a certain sense the answer is actually spot on. One can, in General Relativity, replace the usual Levi-Civita connection with some other connection which allows non-vanishing torsion to be present in space-time, in addition to the usual curvature. The result ( in the context of this thread ) is that below a certain length scale a collapse becomes indistinguishable from an expansion ( 1/R duality ). This immediately eliminates the cosmological singularity, and replaces the "Big Bang" event with a "Big Bounce" - the result would be a universe which is "oscillating", continuously contracting and expanding. Such a universe would have no end and no beginning, and thus no "before". It is eternal in the true sense of the word.

    Mind you, while the maths and physics of this are sound, the basic premise contradicts observational evidence ( i.e. accelerating expansion ). I mentioned Einstein-Cartan cosmology only to point out that not everything is just "black & white", but that there are other alternatives. Causal Dynamical Triangulations presents us with yet another possibility, but that's for another day...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    107
    don't feed the cranks.everybody has a pet hiepotheses that they toy with.forexample time as motion of mass and inertia slow dowd in any straight line distance from the center of the universe.please leave the cranks alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by sapien View Post
    don't feed the cranks.everybody has a pet hiepotheses that they toy with.forexample time as motion of mass and inertia
    slow dowd in any straight line distance from the center of the universe.please leave the cranks alone.
    What if the cranks don't ωαηт to be left alone?
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Infinity
    In a certain sense the answer is actually spot on. One can, in General Relativity, replace the usual Levi-Civita connection with some other connection which allows non-vanishing torsion to be present in space-time, in addition to the usual curvature. The result ( in the context of this thread ) is that below a certain length scale a collapse becomes indistinguishable from an expansion ( 1/R duality ). This immediately eliminates the cosmological singularity, and replaces the "Big Bang" event with a "Big Bounce" - the result would be a universe which is "oscillating", continuously contracting and expanding. Such a universe would have no end and no beginning, and thus no "before". It is eternal in the true sense of the word.

    Mind you, while the maths and physics of this are sound, the basic premise contradicts observational evidence ( i.e. accelerating expansion ). I mentioned Einstein-Cartan cosmology only to point out that not everything is just "black & white", but that there are other alternatives. Causal Dynamical Triangulations presents us with yet another possibility, but that's for another day...
    Contracting and expanding is the thought process behind the big bang theory is it not? Continuing to contract and expand is a possibility unless altered by another force. A rotation can change the dynamics of contracting and expanding while creating other forces, centrifugal force, and tensor.
    The acceleration of the universe is a simple answer when realized Matter draws from the system. As the universe expands it incorporates more matter that is going through or has gone through the same process on a smaller scale.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Contracting and expanding is the thought process behind the big bang theory is it not? Continuing to contract and expand is a possibility unless altered by another force. A rotation can change the dynamics of contracting and expanding while creating other forces, centrifugal force, and tensor.
    The acceleration of the universe is a simple answer when realized Matter draws from the system. As the universe expands it incorporates more matter that is going through or has gone through the same process on a smaller scale.

    [citation needed]
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Contracting and expanding is the thought process behind the big bang theory is it not?
    Essentially yes. The exact dynamics then depend on the density of matter and energy in the universe.

    rotation can change the dynamics of contracting and expanding while creating other forces, centrifugal force, and tensor
    Actually when it comes to space-time there are no "forces" involved; the entire process is purely geometric. Newtonian mechanics play no role here. Tensors are geometric objects which are invariant under changes of the underlying coordinate system.

    The acceleration of the universe is a simple answer when realized Matter draws from the system.
    I don't really understand your meaning here, but the point is that the expansion after the BB event is a natural consequence of the geometry of space-time. To alter the rate of expansion you need to alter the underlying geometry, through the presence of energy-momentum such as normal matter, or vacuum energy ( cosmological constant ). That's what Einstein tried to do when he introduced the cosmological constant - he wanted to "stop" expansion and thereby obtain a static universe by incorporating this factor ( which is in essence a vacuum energy density ) into the field equations. He later abandoned his belief in a steady-state universe, but the cosmological constant came back into vogue recently with the discovery that the expansion is actually accelerating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Contracting and expanding is the thought process behind the big bang theory is it not?
    Essentially yes. The exact dynamics then depend on the density of matter and energy in the universe.

    rotation can change the dynamics of contracting and expanding while creating other forces, centrifugal force, and tensor
    Actually when it comes to space-time there are no "forces" involved; the entire process is purely geometric. Newtonian mechanics play no role here. Tensors are geometric objects which are invariant under changes of the underlying coordinate system.

    The acceleration of the universe is a simple answer when realized Matter draws from the system.
    I don't really understand your meaning here, but the point is that the expansion after the BB event is a natural consequence of the geometry of space-time. To alter the rate of expansion you need to alter the underlying geometry, through the presence of energy-momentum such as normal matter, or vacuum energy ( cosmological constant ). That's what Einstein tried to do when he introduced the cosmological constant - he wanted to "stop" expansion and thereby obtain a static universe by incorporating this factor ( which is in essence a vacuum energy density ) into the field equations. He later abandoned his belief in a steady-state universe, but the cosmological constant came back into vogue recently with the discovery that the expansion is actually accelerating.
    What happenswhen matter and antimatter smash together?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][COLOR=#333333][FONT="Tahoma"]What happenswhen matter and antimatter smash together? [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT="Times New Roman"][/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    They are converted to photons. What does this have to do with anything?

    (p.s. that is what your annoyingly formatted posts look like to me.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    What happenswhen matter and antimatter smash together?
    The result is two photons, so that energy and moment are conserved in the process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    What happenswhen matter and antimatter smash together?
    The result is two photons, so that energy and moment are conserved in the process.
    Conserved is a form of containment. Planck constant is based on frequency related to an electromagnetic wave. It is not an explanation of the spinning effect only the value relating to size. The reason why atomic and subatomic particles spin has been measured but not addressed. When photons are absorbed by matter is energy and momentum conserved by increasing the force of gravity due to the increase in mass?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    When photons are absorbed by matter is energy and momentum conserved by increasing the force of gravity due to the increase in mass?
    Since photons are massless, there will be no increase in mass, only in energy and momentum. Rest mass never really changes, that is an outdated concept which has led to much confusion - all that can ever change is the total energy content of a given system, e.g. through acceleration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    When photons are absorbed by matter is energy and momentum conserved by increasing the force of gravity due to the increase in mass?
    Since photons are massless, there will be no increase in mass, only in energy and momentum. Rest mass never really changes, that is an outdated concept which has led to much confusion - all that can ever change is the total energy content of a given system, e.g. through acceleration.
    I can remember you markus telling me that an increase in temperature of a body can increase its gravitational interaction.......of course I was saying that by kinetic theory,just the kinetic energy of the constituent particles will increase,when you made it clear that its even accounted for in einstein's field equation....

    Now how is that different from a body absorbing a photon(energy) which can heat it up and increase its gravitational interaction as you said. We know that mass creates gravity,gravity creates pull#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    I can remember you markus telling me that an increase in temperature of a body can increase its gravitational interactionl
    Yes, that's correct.

    Now how is that different from a body absorbing a photon(energy) which can heat it up and increase its gravitational interaction as you said.
    Absorption of a photon is not necessarily the same as "heating up"; but regardless, it increases the total energy of the system, and thus its gravitational interactions, so you are correct. There is no difference.

    We know that mass creates gravity,gravity creates pull#
    While that is true ( at least in Newtonian physics ) the point I was making is that all forms of energy affect gravity, not just mass. When a photon gets absorped by another body, that body's rest mass does not increase - only its total energy does, and as a result of course also its gravity. My point was that "relativistic mass increase" is an outdated concept, which modern day textbooks no longer use, because it leads to a lot of confusion. All that really increases with relative velocity is a body's total energy. Rest mass on the other hand is an invariant quantity. If we keep these concepts separate, there is no more confusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    I can remember you markus telling me that an increase in temperature of a body can increase its gravitational interactionl
    Yes, that's correct.

    Now how is that different from a body absorbing a photon(energy) which can heat it up and increase its gravitational interaction as you said.
    Absorption of a photon is not necessarily the same as "heating up"; but regardless, it increases the total energy of the system, and thus its gravitational interactions, so you are correct. There is no difference.

    We know that mass creates gravity,gravity creates pull#
    While that is true ( at least in Newtonian physics ) the point I was making is that all forms of energy affect gravity, not just mass. When a photon gets absorped by another body, that body's rest mass does not increase - only its total energy does, and as a result of course also its gravity. My point was that "relativistic mass increase" is an outdated concept, which modern day textbooks no longer use, because it leads to a lot of confusion. All that really increases with relative velocity is a body's total energy. Rest mass on the other hand is an invariant quantity. If we keep these concepts separate, there is no more confusion.
    S̶̲̥̅Ơ̴̴̴̴̴͡ far its Φk™γ̲̣ and not confusing#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    I can remember you markus telling me that an increase in temperature of a body can increase its gravitational interactionl
    Yes, that's correct.

    Now how is that different from a body absorbing a photon(energy) which can heat it up and increase its gravitational interaction as you said.
    Absorption of a photon is not necessarily the same as "heating up"; but regardless, it increases the total energy of the system, and thus its gravitational interactions, so you are correct. There is no difference.

    We know that mass creates gravity,gravity creates pull#
    While that is true ( at least in Newtonian physics ) the point I was making is that all forms of energy affect gravity, not just mass. When a photon gets absorped by another body, that body's rest mass does not increase - only its total energy does, and as a result of course also its gravity. My point was that "relativistic mass increase" is an outdated concept, which modern day textbooks no longer use, because it leads to a lot of confusion. All that really increases with relative velocity is a body's total energy. Rest mass on the other hand is an invariant quantity. If we keep these concepts separate, there is no more confusion.
    Does this change if the system is open or closed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Does this change if the system is open or closed?
    No, energy being a source of gravity applies to both open and closed systems, so this does not change. If there is a net flow of energy in or out, then the object's gravity simply is not constant, but varies over time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Does this change if the system is open or closed?
    No, energy being a source of gravity applies to both open and closed systems, so this does not change. If there is a net flow of energy in or out, then the object's gravity simply is not constant, but varies over time.
    by so one can tell that for an isolated system,the gravitational interaction will only increase with time.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    by so one can tell that for an isolated system,the gravitational interaction will only increase with time.
    How do you mean this, exactly ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Does this change if the system is open or closed?
    No, energy being a source of gravity applies to both open and closed systems, so this does not change. If there is a net flow of energy in or out, then the object's gravity simply is not constant, but varies over time.
    Is the universe a closed system if it is expanding? Does the universe expend energy to expand? Does matter increase in gravity as it accelerates through space? Is the universe reversible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Is the universe a closed system if it is expanding?
    Yes, it would still be considered a closed system because there are no boundaries, and thus nowhere for energy to "go".

    Does the universe expend energy to expand?
    No. The expansion itself is inherent in the geometry of space-time, no energy is required. Accelerated expansion is due to the presence of "dark energy" - it has a positive energy density, but does negative work on its surroundings ( "push" ), so the overall net energy contribution to the universe as a whole is exactly zero. This can all be made rigorous using the appropriate mathematics.

    Does matter increase in gravity as it accelerates through space?
    For an outside observer seeing a massive object speed past him - he will see gravitational interactions become distorted along the direction of motion. This is expected, because of (a) relativistic effects such as length contraction between the two frames, and (b) due to the fact that from his vantage point the speeding object has momentum.
    However, it is important to understand that in the rest frame of the object itself, nothing changes at all. For example, if you were to set the Earth-Moon system into motion at relativistic speeds relative to the Sun, the Moon would still orbit the earth at the same distance in their local rest frame, even though everything appears distorted from the point of view of an observer standing still with the Sun. This question is usually posed in the following way - do object turn into black holes if they go sufficiently fast ? The answer is of course no, because locally, in the object's rest frame, nothing happens. Rest mass is invariant for all observers, it is only 3-momentum that changes between observers, and that affects only interactions along the direction of motion.

    Is the universe reversible?
    Yes, if the total energy density of the universe were above a critical value, the expansion would slow down, and eventually reverse itself into a collapse. This is perfectly in accord with theory ( as a possibility ), but it is not what we empirically observe - the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    by so one can tell that for an isolated system,the gravitational interaction will only increase with time.
    How do you mean this, exactly ?
    an isolated system is one that allows neither heat or matter to be exchanged. and by second law of thermodynamics we know entropy will always increase for such a system,and by virtue of the knowledge we have shared in previous post,then a continuous increase in energy of the system is a corresponding increase in it gravitational interaction.

    thats what i meant exactly.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    an isolated system is one that allows neither heat or matter to be exchanged. and by second law of thermodynamics we know entropy will always increase for such a system,and by virtue of the knowledge we have shared in previous post,then a continuous increase in energy of the system is a corresponding increase in it gravitational interaction.

    thats what i meant exactly.
    Surely if it's an isolated system then the total energy must remain the same at all times.
    neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    an isolated system is one that allows neither heat or matter to be exchanged. and by second law of thermodynamics we know entropy will always increase for such a system,and by virtue of the knowledge we have shared in previous post,then a continuous increase in energy of the system is a corresponding increase in it gravitational interaction.
    I see what you are trying to say, but gravity couples only to the densities of the various forms of energy, not to entropy. In a perfectly isolated system there is no net flow of energy through a surface bounding that system, and hence gravity remains constant. Only if you allow things like gravitational waves, Hawking radiation etc etc will you get any change in gravity, but then the system is no longer locally isolated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    an isolated system is one that allows neither heat or matter to be exchanged. and by second law of thermodynamics we know entropy will always increase for such a system,and by virtue of the knowledge we have shared in previous post,then a continuous increase in energy of the system is a corresponding increase in it gravitational interaction.
    I see what you are trying to say, but gravity couples only to the densities of the various forms of energy, not to entropy. In a perfectly isolated system there is no net flow of energy through a surface bounding that system, and hence gravity remains constant. Only if you allow things like gravitational waves, Hawking radiation etc etc will you get any change in gravity, but then the system is no longer locally isolated.
    True
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Is the universe a closed system if it is expanding?
    Yes, it would still be considered a closed system because there are no boundaries, and thus nowhere for energy to "go".

    Does the universe expend energy to expand?
    No. The expansion itself is inherent in the geometry of space-time, no energy is required. Accelerated expansion is due to the presence of "dark energy" - it has a positive energy density, but does negative work on its surroundings ( "push" ), so the overall net energy contribution to the universe as a whole is exactly zero. This can all be made rigorous using the appropriate mathematics.

    Does matter increase in gravity as it accelerates through space?
    For an outside observer seeing a massive object speed past him - he will see gravitational interactions become distorted along the direction of motion. This is expected, because of (a) relativistic effects such as length contraction between the two frames, and (b) due to the fact that from his vantage point the speeding object has momentum.
    However, it is important to understand that in the rest frame of the object itself, nothing changes at all. For example, if you were to set the Earth-Moon system into motion at relativistic speeds relative to the Sun, the Moon would still orbit the earth at the same distance in their local rest frame, even though everything appears distorted from the point of view of an observer standing still with the Sun. This question is usually posed in the following way - do object turn into black holes if they go sufficiently fast ? The answer is of course no, because locally, in the object's rest frame, nothing happens. Rest mass is invariant for all observers, it is only 3-momentum that changes between observers, and that affects only interactions along the direction of motion.

    Is the universe reversible?
    Yes, if the total energy density of the universe were above a critical value, the expansion would slow down, and eventually reverse itself into a collapse. This is perfectly in accord with theory ( as a possibility ), but it is not what we empirically observe - the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating.
    Is the universe reversible in as in a Carnot theorem? Does the effect of gravity on matter cause friction? Does an expanding universe introducing zero K as it expands have an overall effect on the temperature of the system?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Is the universe reversible in as in a Carnot theorem?
    No, it is reversible in the sense that, in the Lambda-CDM model, the rate of metric expansion depends on the average energy density of the universe itself, as well as the density of dark energy. If the gravitational effect of energy density outweighs the counter effect of dark energy, the expansion would slow down, stop, and eventually turn into a contraction.

    Does the effect of gravity on matter cause friction?
    No. Gravity is a geometric property of space-time itself, not a mechanical interaction that causes friction.

    Does an expanding universe introducing zero K as it expands have an overall effect on the temperature of the system?
    Sorry, but I don't understand this question. Can you rephrase this ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Is the universe reversible in as in a Carnot theorem?
    No, it is reversible in the sense that, in the Lambda-CDM model, the rate of metric expansion depends on the average energy density of the universe itself, as well as the density of dark energy. If the gravitational effect of energy density outweighs the counter effect of dark energy, the expansion would slow down, stop, and eventually turn into a contraction.

    Does the effect of gravity on matter cause friction?
    No. Gravity is a geometric property of space-time itself, not a mechanical interaction that causes friction.

    Does an expanding universe introducing zero K as it expands have an overall effect on the temperature of the system?
    Sorry, but I don't understand this question. Can you rephrase this ?
    As the universe expands does this extend the zero-point energy (Zero Kelvin)?
    Is back-reaction a form of friction?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    As you think of what to type do you actually attempt to make no sense whatsoever? Are your posts surreal performance art or just the gibberish they appear to be?

    Regardless the question if it is performance art rather than being reluctant to be coherent;
    it does leave open the question if his/her ideas are supported by anything more than mere speculation.


    A quick glance reveals that (s)he has made 3 threads; two ended up in the Trash Can, the other in Pseudoscience.
    The first one was refuted by member Markus Hanke.
    The second one demonstrated that (s)he did not possess the necessary knowledge nor the sources to support the claims (s)he made:

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    You are the one displaying a presumptuous attitude. The combination of ignorance and arrogance makes you look like a fool. If that isn't your intent, get educated on what the scientific method is, and on what the mainstream scientific position is. Until then, you really have no business presenting arguments about them.
    The third one was even worse. (s)he went from this:
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    DNA is part of the code but does not need to be written. The evolution of collapse and expansion both always gaining in strength and velocities is the path to the evolution of a DNA strand. The model of the DNA code interests me because it is two spiraling events heading in opposing directions connectedat intervals of ninety degree angles.
    ... to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Carbon acts like a Higgs field as it incorporates matter to form molecules. It helps if you think of the system as a huge clock with gears that are all connected. The teeth in the gears are fields of energy and the space between the fields is time. Once carbon creates a gear system that forms life its internal gear system is connected with carbonís environmental gear system that feeds each part of the gear system to keep it running. The balancing act, acts like a boson.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    As you think of what to type do you actually attempt to make no sense whatsoever? Are your posts surreal performance art or just the gibberish they appear to be?

    Regardless the question if it is performance art rather than being reluctant to be coherent;
    it does leave open the question if his/her ideas are supported by anything more than mere speculation.


    A quick glance reveals that (s)he has made 3 threads; two ended up in the Trash Can, the other in Pseudoscience.
    The first one was refuted by member Markus Hanke.
    The second one demonstrated that (s)he did not possess the necessary knowledge nor the sources to support the claims (s)he made:

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    You are the one displaying a presumptuous attitude. The combination of ignorance and arrogance makes you look like a fool. If that isn't your intent, get educated on what the scientific method is, and on what the mainstream scientific position is. Until then, you really have no business presenting arguments about them.
    The third one was even worse. (s)he went from this:
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    DNA is part of the code but does not need to be written. The evolution of collapse and expansion both always gaining in strength and velocities is the path to the evolution of a DNA strand. The model of the DNA code interests me because it is two spiraling events heading in opposing directions connectedat intervals of ninety degree angles.
    ... to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Carbon acts like a Higgs field as it incorporates matter to form molecules. It helps if you think of the system as a huge clock with gears that are all connected. The teeth in the gears are fields of energy and the space between the fields is time. Once carbon creates a gear system that forms life its internal gear system is connected with carbon’s environmental gear system that feeds each part of the gear system to keep it running. The balancing act, acts like a boson.
    And you the one that keeps record#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    And you the one that keeps record#

    In order to answer the question I have formulated in my previous post:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    it does leave open the question if his/her ideas are supported by anything more than mere speculation.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    The third one was even worse. (s)he went from this:
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    DNA is part of the code but does not need to be written. The evolution of collapse and expansion both always gaining in strength and velocities is the path to the evolution of a DNA strand. The model of the DNA code interests me because it is two spiraling events heading in opposing directions connectedat intervals of ninety degree angles.
    ... to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Carbon acts like a Higgs field as it incorporates matter to form molecules. It helps if you think of the system as a huge clock with gears that are all connected. The teeth in the gears are fields of energy and the space between the fields is time. Once carbon creates a gear system that forms life its internal gear system is connected with carbon’s environmental gear system that feeds each part of the gear system to keep it running. The balancing act, acts like a boson.
    Wow. That is extraordinary; it's like he is channelling Alfred Jarry.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Nah, it's just bog standard nutjob rambling...
    Ramblers still get there voice heard#
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    As the universe expands does this extend the zero-point energy (Zero Kelvin)?
    It has no effect on zero-point energy. What it does do though is lower the averge temperature associated with the CMBR over time.

    Is back-reaction a form of friction?
    No, it's the other way around - friction ( in classical mechanics ! ) would be a force opposing the motion of an object. For example, if you take your car out of gear on a flat and level stretch of road, it will slow down and eventually come to a stop due to friction forces.

    Please remember though that the classical notion of friction does not extend to the physics of space-time itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt View Post
    If we looked at Time as, instead a straight and steady line with which to base our lives, but rather as a phenomena which we have no idea on how it works, we could say, time is a set of data, perhaps, which directly influences our lives and the environment around us, most probably on a multi-dimensional level.
    And if we looked at Time as an orange flavoured rabbit, we could say that Time makes a very tasty stew, perhaps.
    Only if it sits overnight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Nah, it's just bog standard nutjob rambling...
    Ramblers still get there voice heard#
    Unfortunately yes, even yours
    the way you spot ramblers,it awesome. makes me wonder if personal experience is needed. but considering your skill in it,i believe you have a resevior of such experience.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    sense of humour failure...
    you never eat soup, stew the day you make it Sir Demon!! It is always better the NEXT DAY!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    oh and PhDemon!! SMACK! *laughing* I do like you, ya little demon! *chuckle*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    As the universe expands does this extend the zero-point energy (Zero Kelvin)?
    It has no effect on zero-point energy. What it does do though is lower the averge temperature associated with the CMBR over time.

    Is back-reaction a form of friction?
    No, it's the other way around - friction ( in classical mechanics ! ) would be a force opposing the motion of an object. For example, if you take your car out of gear on a flat and level stretch of road, it will slow down and eventually come to a stop due to friction forces.

    Please remember though that the classical notion of friction does not extend to the physics of space-time itself.
    Is the universe slowing down and then collapsing a true reversal as in the Carnot theorem? It seems more like a loop than a true reversal. Slowing and collapsing is more like starting a car engine and describing a reversal in the system as driving the car in reverse. Wouldn’ta true reversal be carbon monoxide reentering the tail pipes and into the cylinder recreating gas and pushing out air from the carburetor.
    Wouldn’t a reversal of the universe in the Carnot theorem mean a reversal in time as well? If time were included in the reversal of the universe when it collapsed gravity would be the expanding force.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Is the universe slowing down and then collapsing a true reversal as in the Carnot theorem?
    No, as I said earlier, it is not a "reversal" in the thermodynamics sense, but rather in the geometry of space-time, more accurately in sign of the metric expansion coefficient. Time still goes "forwards" ( i.e. everything still goes towards the future ), even during the contraction phase.

    It seems more like a loop than a true reversal.
    Yes, indeed.

    Wouldn’t a reversal of the universe in the Carnot theorem mean a reversal in time as well?
    Yes, it probably would; but as stated, the "reversal" is not a thermodynamic one in reality.

    If time were included in the reversal of the universe when it collapsed gravity would be the expanding force.
    Gravity isn't a force at all, it is a geometric property of space-time. Even if time is reversed, the geometry wouldn't change; what does change is the orientation of a test particle's trajectory, meaning it undergoes the same geodesic deviation, only in reverse. Please bear in mind though that this is purely hypothetical, as metric contraction does not actually involve time reversal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Thanks Markus for putting in your time to answer these questions. They are text book answers and use to be the only way I would look at it as well. For fun I wanted to see if there were any alternative ways this system could work. I ask that I may ask a few more questions and the tread not be trashed as the playing field and pieces have been placed. I am not able to ask or answer right way so this may take a few days. Thanks again
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    In any belief system that may contain truths or non-truths or a combination of both I believe certain questions should be addressed.
    In order to believe what you believe:
    How many truths are you willing to ignore?
    How many unproven truths are you willing to create?
    How many truths are you willing to leave unanswered?
    When added up, what number greater than zero are you willing to accept and use your belief system as a reference?
    Can known truths be used to subtract this number if greater than zero to help validate your belief?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    In any belief system that may contain truths or non-truths or a combination of both I believe certain questions should be addressed.
    In order to believe what you believe:
    How many truths are you willing to ignore?
    How many unproven truths are you willing to create?
    How many truths are you willing to leave unanswered?
    When added up, what number greater than zero are you willing to accept and use your belief system as a reference?
    Can known truths be used to subtract this number if greater than zero to help validate your belief?
    Of course, none of that is relevant as we are talking about science, not religion. Did you mean to post that in one of the threads on spirituality or something?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Is the universe slowing down and then collapsing a true reversal as in the Carnot theorem?
    No, as I said earlier, it is not a "reversal" in the thermodynamics sense, but rather in the geometry of space-time, more accurately in sign of the metric expansion coefficient. Time still goes "forwards" ( i.e. everything still goes towards the future ), even during the contraction phase.

    It seems more like a loop than a true reversal.
    Yes, indeed.

    Wouldnít a reversal of the universe in the Carnot theorem mean a reversal in time as well?
    Yes, it probably would; but as stated, the "reversal" is not a thermodynamic one in reality.

    If time were included in the reversal of the universe when it collapsed gravity would be the expanding force.
    Gravity isn't a force at all, it is a geometric property of space-time. Even if time is reversed, the geometry wouldn't change; what does change is the orientation of a test particle's trajectory, meaning it undergoes the same geodesic deviation, only in reverse. Please bear in mind though that this is purely hypothetical, as metric contraction does not actually involve time reversal.
    Correct me if Iím wrong. A close analogy of the BB theory would be a boiler (origin unknown) filled with water (an analogy to plasma or whatever). The boiler collapses under its own weight or for reasons unknown. There is no pressure release valve so as the boiler heats up it explodes or expands creating time and space and all matter. As the force or expansion cools it slows as the static pressure of the system begins to reach equilibrium. The effect of Gravity takes the cooling matter in a gas state that formed in clumps throughout space and pulls it inward. This heats matter up enough to form stars, they supernova and create black holes, planets, moons, and asteroids. The black holes in each galaxy may have been created in the BB along with antimatter which would explain why the BB did not create a huge black hole. The system is now accelerating faster than the accepted static pressure should allow due to weakening gravitational confinement which creates a need for dark energy. The production of space as the system increases in size should reduce the static pressure and eventually slow the system down to a point of equilibrium. Galaxies that move independently within the system appear to be speeding away from each other at an accelerated rate. Some or all galaxies appear to be rotating faster than the mass of a galaxy would allow which is the reason for dark matter. The system is thought to be a closed system and all static pressure must come from within the system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    In any belief system that may contain truths or non-truths or a combination of both I believe certain questions should be addressed.
    In order to believe what you believe:
    How many truths are you willing to ignore?
    How many unproven truths are you willing to create?
    How many truths are you willing to leave unanswered?
    When added up, what number greater than zero are you willing to accept and use your belief system as a reference?
    Can known truths be used to subtract this number if greater than zero to help validate your belief?
    Of course, none of that is relevant as we are talking about science, not religion. Did you mean to post that in one of the threads on spirituality or something?
    Great! You must know the reason for the four fundamental forces. Dark energy and dark matter have been proven. A preexisting collapsing force does not need to exist for a BB.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Of course, none of that is relevant as we are talking about science, not religion. Did you mean to post that in one of the threads on spirituality or something?
    Great! You must know the reason for the four fundamental forces. Dark energy and dark matter have been proven. A preexisting collapsing force does not need to exist for a BB. [/COLOR][/FONT]
    That is a complete non sequitur. What on Earth are you talking about?

    You must know the reason for the four fundamental forces.
    No I don't.

    Dark energy and dark matter have been proven.
    As they are names for a variety of different hypotheses to explain observations, no they haven't. Obviously. (And nothing is proven in science.)

    A preexisting collapsing force does not need to exist for a BB.
    There could have been a collapse before the current expansion. That depends on the total energy density of the universe.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Correct me if Iím wrong. A close analogy of the BB theory would be a boiler (origin unknown) filled with water (an analogy to plasma or whatever).
    This is not a good analogy, because the BB was not an explosion.

    BB did not create a huge black hole
    That is not possible, for geometric reasons; in the space-time around a static black hole, Ricci curvature is vanishing, whereas Weyl curvature isn't. In the early universe, i.e. near the cosmological BB event, the situation is reversed - Ricci curvature was very large, whereas Weyl curvature was almost zero. It can be shown that under such conditions no gravitational collapse will occur.

    The production of space as the system increases in size should reduce the static pressure and eventually slow the system down to a point of equilibrium.
    Dark energy works exactly the opposite way - it increases the negative work done, thus accelerating the expansion, which is what we observe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    I sometimes Ying....then I Yang......other days I Yang...then I Ying.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I sometimes Ying....then I Yang......other days I Yang...then I Ying.....
    This where you and I differ.
    I ying then I tong...
    babe likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I sometimes Ying....then I Yang......other days I Yang...then I Ying.....
    This where you and I differ.
    I ying then I tong...
    Sometimes, Sir Duckness....I wanna kiss you!! *L* I love it!! HILARIOUS!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I wanna kiss you!!
    Eeeuw!
    Girls (well, people generally) are icky!
    Daecon likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I wanna kiss you!!
    Eeeuw!
    Girls (well, people generally) are icky!
    Geez, even my gay friends hug and kiss me!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Correct me if Iím wrong. A close analogy of the BB theory would be a boiler (origin unknown) filled with water (an analogy to plasma or whatever).
    This is not a good analogy, because the BB was not an explosion.

    BB did not create a huge black hole
    That is not possible, for geometric reasons; in the space-time around a static black hole, Ricci curvature is vanishing, whereas Weyl curvature isn't. In the early universe, i.e. near the cosmological BB event, the situation is reversed - Ricci curvature was very large, whereas Weyl curvature was almost zero. It can be shown that under such conditions no gravitational collapse will occur.

    The production of space as the system increases in size should reduce the static pressure and eventually slow the system down to a point of equilibrium.
    Dark energy works exactly the opposite way - it increases the negative work done, thus accelerating the expansion, which is what we observe.
    Will the system slow down when a point of equilibrium occurs? Once the universe has reached a point of equilibrium is it possible for it to collapse again or will dark energy prevent this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Once the universe has reached a point of equilibrium is it possible for it to collapse again or will dark energy prevent this?
    Dark energy has the tendency to accelerate the expansion of the universe, whereas "normal" matter and energy tends to slow the acceleration. What happens in the end thus depends on which one of these two factors gains the upper hand; at the moment it appears that there isn't enough matter and energy to stop the expansion, in fact, what we observe is an accelerating expansion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Once the universe has reached a point of equilibrium is it possible for it to collapse again or will dark energy prevent this?
    Dark energy has the tendency to accelerate the expansion of the universe, whereas "normal" matter and energy tends to slow the acceleration. What happens in the end thus depends on which one of these two factors gains the upper hand; at the moment it appears that there isn't enough matter and energy to stop the expansion, in fact, what we observe is an accelerating expansion.
    If it were to collapse what would happen to the space created before in the expansion? Does matter and energy take up space or absorb space? Does dark energy expand the boundaries of space or prevent matter and energy from taking up space? Is space the difference between dark energy and normal matter and energy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If it were to collapse what would happen to the space created before in the expansion?
    It would collapse back just as the rest of the universe.

    Does matter and energy take up space or absorb space?
    No. Matter and energy are in space.

    Does dark energy expand the boundaries of space or prevent matter and energy from taking up space?
    No. Also, there are no "boundaries" to space.

    Is space the difference between dark energy and normal matter and energy?
    No, space is an aspect of space-time, which forms the "background" to everything else that is going on in the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If it were to collapse what would happen to the space created before in the expansion?
    It would collapse back just as the rest of the universe.

    Does matter and energy take up space or absorb space?
    No. Matter and energy are in space.

    Does dark energy expand the boundaries of space or prevent matter and energy from taking up space?
    No. Also, there are no "boundaries" to space.

    Is space the difference between dark energy and normal matter and energy?
    No, space is an aspect of space-time, which forms the "background" to everything else that is going on in the universe.
    If the universe produced only one galaxy would the system act in the same manner? If the universe did not produce matter would it have the ability to collapse and expand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If the universe produced only one galaxy would the system act in the same manner?
    Yes - and the acceleration of the expansion would be much faster, due to the almost complete absence of any counter-effect.

    If the universe did not produce matter would it have the ability to collapse and expand?
    It could only expand, since there is nothing to stop and reverse the expansion. The expansion itself would still happen, since this is inherent in the geometry of space-time; see for example the Kasner solution, which describes a universe completely devoid of any matter, yet still expanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    If the universe were to collapse and space along with it what would happen to wavelengths traveling in space?
    If one universe can exist can other universes exist as well?
    If the universe is finite will it then always increase entropy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If the universe were to collapse and space along with it what would happen to wavelengths traveling in space?
    They would "collapse" along with the rest of the universe, i.e. cease to exist in the classical sense.

    If one universe can exist can other universes exist as well?
    I would say it is a possibility, but at the moment we can't tell either way. There certainly is no observational evidence for the existence of other universes at present.

    If the universe is finite will it then always increase entropy?
    Due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the global entropy of the universe will never decrease.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Andres Q View Post
    Modern psychology suggests that our our brains work a lot like modern computers do. Storing Information by processing & encoding neural patterns, alike how computers process & encode raw, simple information. Consciousness itself has been thought to be the result of SO much raw information (light entering the eyes, airwaves vibrating an eardrum) being processed SO thoroughly that the output produced is our waking experience. Consider how light travels through space, the theory of relativity only acounts for time in terms of space. Science has been unable to detect why time goes forward, rather than in reverse. Actually, science doesn't know why time exists, nor what it is.So heres my potentially dumb idea. Information processing, like any other "process" must happen in chronological order. In the same way that a computer starts at the first line of code, and runs the math down to the last line of code. We can easily imagine reversing the computer's operation by making it process the same code backwards. Therefore, if there is no reason that processing outside the brain has to "go forwards", and there is no reason to believe that everything in our universe could just as well go backwards, then we must account for the possibility that our lives are nothing but a predetermined line of code that we are each processing systematically. If this is the case ,we can understand a timeless, 4-dimensional universe not beginning at the big bang and ending at the big rip, but stretching, as if it was a new depth, from one tip being at the big bang, and the other end at the big rip.Just a thought.
    The universe is supposed to be billions of years old; we discuss all kinds of probabilities and enjoy doing so because its fun. But if the truth be told, no one has yet come up with anything that can explain this unknown thing. There are many who think they have it down pat, however we are still here discussing and making wild guesses. Each time we discover something new we go crazy and feel good about our achievements. The computer is nothing but a replica of our own functions, be it physical or other. If you think time goes backwards go look for something that can confirm it, if it goes the other way do the same, there is always a way. There is simply no way to prove you wrong or wright, however it’s exciting to be able to play the game.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    What would happen to Ricci curvature if more dimensions were incorporated into the system?
    If the universe had one galaxy it would still be a universe, observations of our universe proves galaxies are not an oddity. Other universes may not be observable so other universes cannot be assumed to exist or not to exist. If other universes did exist the question would be what divides them?
    It seems looking at the universe as an open system with closed operatives is an almost exact opposite view point which is Ok with me. Time was created in the creation of this universe a complete time reversal I believe will prove what is open and what is closed. Orbits, rotations, and spins will reverse but act the same in a time reversal. Space does not act the same in both directions of time which means it is formed from an open system. Packets of energy will still be packets of energy in both directions of time as they travel through expanding space or collapsing space. The formation of a packet of energy will not act the same in both directions of time. This would imply the formation of a packet of energy is open and separate from its momentum through space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    What would happen to Ricci curvature if more dimensions were incorporated into the system?
    The field equations, and the geometric principles behind them, are still valid even if there are more than 4 dimensions; all the various curvature tensors can be defined in any arbitrary number of dimensions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    13
    I was going to post the following as a new thread before I seen this existing thread. As it relates to the subject matter of our perceptions regarding time and space, I hope it is ok to just post the following comments as a reply in this thread.

    The phenomenon of particles interacting instantaneously over distance (non-locality), is an observable verifiable fact. Despite decades of theorising and speculation by some of the greatest minds however, a definitive explanation of the process at work when non-locality is observed remains lacking. The main reason why the latter situation exists is that the phenomena appears to occur outwith the parameters of our present understanding of the nature of time and space.


    The mere verifiable fact that the non-locality of particles over distance has been observed at all, implies that the universe accommodates it’s occurrence. This further implies that, regarding the true nature of space and time, the universe works according to laws and principles which we do not yet fully understand. If the phenomena of non-locality could be explained and accommodated within the parameters of our present understanding of space and time, it would have been achieved before now. The appearance of virtual particles which disappear at the same moment of their creation, is another example where the behaviour of particles defies our present understanding of space and time.


    The universe allows for the occurrence of non-locality and virtual particles. Our present understanding of space and time does not and so cannot explain it. The latter is confined within the parameters that the forward flow of time from past to future is dictated by cause and effect and the constant exchange and flux of energy as it changes from one state to another. The former however, represents the one ultimate true nature of reality. ( Or the way things actually are as opposed to what we perceive them to be). The wider parameters whereby non-locality and the appearance of virtual particles may be regarded as a legitimate and explainable part of the laws of nature would necessarily encapsulate the narrower parameters of our current knowledge of the nature of space, time and reality.


    If our present understanding of space and time could be compared to the playing rules of draughts on a matrix of 64 black and white squares, the actual laws and principles which governs the process by which non-locality occurs could be compared to the fact that the same board matrix also allows the playing of chess. The analogy being that we are 100% confident that we are correct in our understanding of the rules of draughts/present understanding of space and time, ( and in this we are not wrong), yet at the same time unaware that the board matrix of 64 squares also accommodates the playing of the more complex game of chess.


    A more comprehensive understanding of the wider parameters encompassing the laws and principles which allows, accommodates and explains the occurrence of non-locality and the appearance of virtual particles in the universe, would go a long way in further explaining other ’supernatural’ phenomena- such as the instantaneous emotional connection over distance as experienced by some identical twins.


    It would be a very arrogant person who asserts that they know everything - the existence of non-locality interactions between particles obviously proves that they don’t. I have my own proposition as to what the parameters of the ‘big picture’ may be. I would be interested meantime however, to discover other peoples’ opinions and views on what I have said so far.
    Implicate Order likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679į S, 153.0278į E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by imetheman View Post
    I have my own proposition as to what the parameters of the ‘big picture’ may be. I would be interested meantime however, to discover other peoples’ opinions and views on what I have said so far.
    Non-locality is not necessarily an issue with those that may take a 'universal' quantum superposition literally. The issue relates to 'connectedness' which we appear to obtain 'glimpses' of in our classical reality. This connectedness may be a deep principle at the heart of relativism and may be applicable both at the classical and quantum level but this opinion is currently conjecture only.

    I am encouraged by some trends that appear to be occurring today with the increasing demands placed on the need to prove a 'claim through observational evidence' as some theoretical pursuits in physics appear to be abandoning this route almost entirely.

    I would however prefer to see a greater focus on those emerging theories that faithfully abide by 'natural process' such as non-linear dynamics. Doing experiments in an 'isolated' box seems to run counter to this principle. Useful in identifying componentry but not very useful in analysing system behaviour which would in my opinion be a fundamental tenet of any physical theory. We need to take complexity seriously and be patient in our quest for answers. Yes, the mathematics may appear intractable at the moment dealing with complex systems but that should not dissuade us in our efforts.:-))
    Last edited by Implicate Order; December 1st, 2013 at 11:50 PM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99 reply to implicate order. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    13
    Non-locality is not necessarily an issue with those that may take a 'universal' quantum superposition literally. The issue relates to 'connectedness' which we appear to obtain 'glimpses' of in our classical reality. This connectedness may be a deep principle at the heart of relativism and may be applicable both at the classical and quantum level but this opinion is currently conjecture only.
    You are correct in saying that the issue relates to connectedness. The bigger issue, (for me), is that the latter occurs instantaneously. It is my belief that if we could mathematically crack the 'bigger picture' model of the universe which accommodates and explains the process which facilitates the occurrence of non=locality within a broader, ( and not yet fully understood), set of parameters. we would be describing how things really are and the ultimate one true nature of reality.

    I suspect however that any 'cracking' of the model isn't going to happen anytime soon. It takes a set of cajones from somewhere within the realms of orthodox science to admit that our present understanding of space and time is lacking. The implications for orthodox science is that by accepting that there is a wider set of parameters which dictates the process involved in the evolution of the universe, they would therefore be required to accept that supernatural phenomena such as ESP, are as much an explainable part of the true nature of reality, as are the laws of gravity. A case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Any scientist would readily admit that neither GR nor QED (our two best models of reality) are complete as each are incredibly accurate within their domains, but their domains don't overlap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. constructing a hypothesis for new space-time axioms
    By theQuestIsNotOver in forum Physics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 1st, 2019, 08:15 AM
  2. Time & Space
    By timetraveler in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 16th, 2013, 09:33 PM
  3. Future and Time / hypothesis /
    By socratus in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 12:11 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2009, 10:15 AM
  5. R&D experience
    By anand_kapadia in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 19th, 2007, 07:23 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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
  •