tar

Moontanman, Understood. But many people are intrigued with the Mayan, "end of a cycle" type of ending. What is our requirement for such punctuation marks on existence, based on? Regards, TAR2 Why do we feel any ownership of or responsibility to the next act...after our own body/civilization/solar system ends its existence?

It does not even make any sense to imagine an "end" to a universe where it is already evident that it must take "at least" scores of billions of years for happenings at one end, to "reach" the other. The universe has no way to "end" at the same moment. So the desire for personal "knowledge" of the "end" of the universe must be a psychological, whim, of some sort, and might indicate a desire to project ones own evident mortality on the universe. It is hard to admit to oneself, that life will go on, without you. But the universe has shown some rather strong stay-to-itiveness and does not appear to have a way to suddenly cease operations. I would say it is completely clear, that no one around here will be able to witness the last act. (not even Krauss, a non-religious person) Regards, TAR2

John Cuthber, If the word "God" is already used for something, then there must be that something that the word "God" is used for. As there are pieces of paper we put ink on in agreed upon and understood patterns that we call newspapers. The thing we are referring to by the word newspaper has an agreed upon meaning to refer to existing things that we have created and brought into reality. Perhaps the word "God" in its agreed upon meaning is referring to those real things that we (humans) had no part in bringing into existence, but that non-the-less have an agency about them. And we need a common word to refer to this other-than-known agent. Have you revealed that you too believe in God, by this statement? Or to reverse the thread title, can an atheist "use" the word "god"? That is, if you know what the agreed upon meaning of the word is, then it is difficult to say that you fully understand the thing that you do not believe exists. As has been pointed out already in the thread, we are going to need a little more time, as a species, to "fully understand". We know the universe is capable of agency, because we have it ourselves. "Only in our case is agency possible", would be quite an unsupportable claim, indeed. Regards, TAR2 Bill Angel, Not quite sure that questioning the intentions of a creator can be done, without imagining one to question the intentions of. If the universe is to have no intentions, then what its going to do next has not yet been experienced, has not yet been concieved of, and certainly we, as universe material, can not "fully understand" ourselves as solid anchors on one end of a thusly "terminated" continuum. Interesting to me, is that when we look back into our universe's past, millions of lys, we see parts of our universe that have not yet evolved those millions of lys. Parts of our own Milky Way Galaxy are witnessed by us as they were 400,000 years ago. If in such a region, a similar system to our Sun's, and a similar planet to the Earth, spawned life and developed a way to be noticed from 400,000 lys away...now...we would not do the noticing of it, 'til the year 402,012 AD. We had sentient life and civilations on this planet 4,000 years ago, that probably is not being noticed, by something that has the capacity to notice things, that resides a mere 4,000 lys from here. The signals would be weak at that distance, and I don't remember the Babylonians sending out any becons that announced their sentience to such distant eyes or ears or flazgrots. Regards, TAR2

jp255, Well I would say it is obvious that we have, as humans, a capacity for self-reflection. You bring up a good point, and an often used argument against there being a conscious, omnipotent god, who, if he or she or it, was able to critique him/her/itself, would have done it exactly right, from the beginning, and not allowed there to be any "bad" stuff. (cruelity, suffering, disease, death, anquish, destruction, loss, hunger, pain, etc.) However, this assessment presupposes that a human's judgement of good and bad is going to be the criteria that he/she/it should have used. I would agree that this is a good argument against an anthropomorphic god, but would advise against using it to critique a non-human creator. As has been pointed out, and suggested, this creator we would be subject to, need not be a human, with human concerns, and human judgement. Like the board of directors of a company, the shareholders are the first concern, and the company is not there to take care of the workers. Such could be the case with the imagined creator you are finding fault with. He/she/it could have the best interests of the shareholders of the universe in mind, and do an excellent job at running the universe, even if that means you stub your toe, or catch a cold, or die in a hurricane. Now, on the other hand, with the abiogenisis that we both agree makes the most sense, WE are the shareholders, and are beholding to ourselves, and also responsible for deciding what is good, what is bad, and seeing to it, that the good is maintained and fostered, and the bad is reduced and struggled against. But even this leaves us beholding to the rest of the universe, that made it possible for us to be...even if we grabbed life and form and structure from a universe that otherwise seems headed toward disorganisation. So, if there IS a creator, he/she/it left some ingredients in the mix, that would allow for entities such as us, to exist. And that allowed for the universe to grow and evolve, and do something different than it did before, next. And since we are here to contemplate the rest, I would have to give the creator, whether that creator be familiar or strange, a grade of "excellent", and have no problem at all, worshipping it, should we find it. Regards, TAR2 and perhaps we are overthinking the matter, and already know the creator intimately. its right before our eyes.

jp255, I am at a loss, to understand what people are talking about, when they critique a supposed God, that they do not fear or have any reverence or love for, or even believe exists in the first place. If the universe did not do what it did before we were born, then we would not have had any patterns to copy. We would not have any "memories" of existence. There would be no light, coming into the Earth from 125 lys away. There would be no record of that which is other than us. And since we ourselves, did not spring into existence, but were born of parents, it would be rather safe to conclude, in the absence of any other apparent designer, that our parents created us. With the instructions, the working patterns, that their parents gave them. We have no knowledge of a way to spring into existence, without copying and maintaining the way it was done before. Abiogenisis had to be a natural occurence. Things fit together in such a manner and the patterns were copied and reproduced again. We are not then, other than, something akin to what was previously existing, prior our birth. The only conclusion reachable is that the universe created itself. Each component of the universe created by the confluence of that which previously existed. Thus A creator is not particularly descriptive or even possible. He, she or it, would have nothing to spring from, nothing to copy, nothing to carry forward, nothing to "do better than" or worse than. Thus we can not critique or worship a creator, objectively, that we are so intimately involved with. It would be a conflict of interests. We would have to testify against ourselves, and our own parents. Respect for, honoring, loving, your parents, already is worshipping your creator. Oh, you were asking about the creator of the universe, should one be found. My answer would be, yes, I would worship him, her, it. Its my source and who or what it is that I am copying and being like. Regards, TAR2

Wondering about that Dawkins scale. It seems to be bias toward considering God as a male anthropomorphic one...as in "is HE out there or not?". Does not seem to me, that it is likely that there is a "being" with an anatomy such as ours, which has evolved to exist and procreate on this Earth. A supposed God such as this, is most certainly a projection of ourselves upon the universe, and it seems quite obvious that such a being would not have a way to have become such, or any reason to have such a form...but this is the strawman aspect of Dawkins' take on the matter. He sets up the God which he knows can not be the case, inorder to be sure, as a "7", that it does not exist. But this is not the Godhead that believers in God are referring to. I would guess, anyway. It seems more, to me, that what we are, as conscious humans, is a reflection of what the universe is, and what the universe does. We are of it, in it and from it. We are not strangers to it, or impartial observers. We cannot be anything else, but universe material, universe stuff, universe occurences. What we are capable of, the universe is capable of...because here we are, doing the thing...according to, and fitting with, the universe and the reality that it is. If this suggests to some, that the power and being of the universe is inside us, that we and it are one in a basic sense, I find it completely reasonable that this "belief" be held. That we are separate from "it" and have a unique focus of here and now, regulated by our individual bodies, hearts and minds, as the "perspective" from which we view the universe...that is also a reasonable and evident thing to imagine. But in comes the question of how to moderate between the two... the eternal, immense and the me. I do not think that the universe is a figment of my imagination. It really is, what it is, including me, in it. Its a powerful, wonderful, completely great thing, in and of itself, with or without me...but since it DOES have me included, it is not unreasonable to conclude that me and it have some large number of aspects in common. Enough to conclude that believers in God are talking about, are believing in, something real and existing. And it is not the strawman that Dawkins sets up, to easily knock down. It is something much more than that. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, OCD. I suppose so. I am picturing 100,000 folks circling the stone in Mecca, murmuring the verses of the Koran that they have committed to memory, and have recited over and over, twice a day, for the greater part of their lives. But it seems we all like to do things the same way over and over. I was setting up the tree with my wife, and we know the next step and who is going to do it. I fresh cut the base out on the front steps, my wife and I carry it in, I at the base, she at the top, I go low, she goes high, and then she holds it as I Ioosen all four screws, she holds it straight and I tighten them again. Then after its up, my eldest daughter cuts the plastic constraining netting off...same every year, same spot in the livingroom, same garbage bag over the board we set it on...then I put the lights on, the next day, and then my wife and daughters apply the ornaments over the next several days, and I put the star on top (I just lighted it today, but the other stuff will occur.) OCD. I suppose so. I would guess that every other reader here can think of a dozen rituals they have, doing the same thing with the same people, daily, weekly, yearly. Interesting. Perhaps you really are on to something. There is something comforting about such repetition. Knowing what to expect, and your role, and knowing that others know, without having to say a thing, or be told. Regards, TAR2 Inow, Well looks like if the universe has a purpose, we are not the primary concern...but, on the other hand, I would say that life on Earth is a purposeful venture...whether or not we have the universe's OK. And if there is any purpose at all that you can describe, anywhere on this planet, then at least that means that purpose is present in the universe, whether or not it be the only example of it. Regards, TAR2 Just occurred to me, that the Earth its self does the same thing every year. We probably take after it.

jp255, Perhaps I am using numious incorrectly. Mysterious, and beyond comprehension is more the part of the definition I am alluding to, and the "spirit" part, not the part associated with a particular God. My theory is that, we all are associated with the same mysterious and beyond comprehension, essence of existence. That is, what I consider now is what you consider now, give or take the speed of light. This is important. Yesterday was real for the both of us, tomorrow will be as well, but we are both experiencing today, along with all the quarks and molecules, fish, birds, insects, minerals, viri, bacteria, amphibians, mammals, chemicals wind and water on the planet. The arrangement of all these things changes, the association of one to the other changes, but at any given moment, as in now, there is only one arrangement. If it rained in Ohio yesterday, it rained for everybody in Ohio, and you and I both can look at the records and realize it absolutly did, rain in Ohio (its an example, I really don't know if it rained in Ohio yesterday). It did or did not rain in Ohio yesterday, for everybody on the planet. So I use the term numious, to allude to that "thing" that binds us all to the same now. And it creates a real spirit, or consciousness, that we can all refer to, although not a one of us, can contain it all, or know all of it at once, we can all imagine it is as real and present for another as it is for us. It is in this mode of thought that I allude to a spirit, or god. That imaginary thing that we envision, that is about the same real thing that everybody else imagines. Regards, TAR2 And plants. I forgot to mention trees. The trees that blew over around here during Sandy, are no longer standing, for anybody on Earth. Immortal, But if i experience Chatra or Vishnu or whatever the teachers experience, but don't know the name they have given to it, have I not still experienced it? Do I need the teachers to experience reality? Have we not all, equal rights to reality? If a special key is needed, to unlock the door, I will be a monkey's uncle. Regards, TAR2

Immortal, I can also not read minds, but just from the posts, Inow's concern is with people that take the reality of a certain God, or other entity on faith, rather than on empirical evidence. When one believes that something is real, because they "wish" to believe such, and there is no, absolutely NO evidence that somebody else could view or find supports the claim upon testing fairly, then the belief is a made up thing. Hence basing ones life, and interaction with others on the existence of this figment of your imagination, is not substantially a different kind of thing than believing that pixies are whisperiing instructions into you left ear, as you make your life decisions. You have, yourself, (unless I mixed you with another poster) claimed to know the color of the jewels that God wears, which is, in your imagination, the litmus test, to determine if a person has or has not actually seen God. While I do not disagree with the existence of the numinous, nor each of our undeniable deep connections to, and associations with the greater world around us, there is a similarity between the belief in Santa Claus and the specifically described attributes of the God of the Bible, or the one that wears particularly colored jewels. That is, according to my theory, God exists, but is not containable. As soon as you think you have God in mind, you have made a mistake. You have only come up with your own vision of such, which by definition, is imaginary. Under this theory, agreement between us, as to what is important and valuable, what is good and what is bad, is the closest we are to get to allignment with the numinous. But that takes on a lot of complicated interaction that conflates what is real with what is real because we agree on it and make it real. And I suppose is why, we have to discuss it. Regards, TAR And why some, including myself, sometimes decide to just cut the chatter, and believe simply in the connections we have to reality that can not be fiddled with. I think we all know this already, and count on it. And my theory would suggest that in this, is where ones personal God is real and true. Just not transferrable. If it is the true god you believe in, it must be the same one that everybody else, already knows.

Mondays Assignment: Die, Read your edit, after I posted. In the questions, that are to determine the religiousity of a responder, there still remains, or maybe still remains, a level of responsibility to the "others" that hold the same belief. That is, one needs to respond to such questions, as if other people are going to judge your character and intentions, and trustworthyness, based on your response...If my theory holds any truth, ones concept of God, as the overall viewer and judge, that one puts themselves in the shoes of, when judging ones own life, is contingent upon the concept of God that others that one includes in one's feeling of self, hold. That is, no man is an island, and we always have the need to relate to the pack in some fashion. Lead it, follow it, join it, run from it, guide it, reject it, or whatever. You, for instance said that one could just stress the fact that we are all human. There is a "humanist" philosophy, that is in vouge these days, as a sort of replacement for standard religions. where all the "good stuff" that religions offer, can be together held on to, with all the silly nonsense, and burning in hell stuff simply discarded. But this might take on some of the "social" characteristics that I am suggesting guide us as humans in the first place, and one could be either a good or bad humanist, as in being a "bad" humanist, if you held your own race or nationality or language above the others. So if you were asked a question, and your status as a good humanist were to be enhanced or depreciated depending on your answer, you may or may not reveal your heart and true beliefs. Regards, TAR You might just say what you think you are "suppose to say" to be held in good regard by your pack.

Mondays Assignment: Die, I did not finish the talk you linked. It had no progress bar, or time listed, and I sort of like to know, how long the speaker has, to get to the point. Anyway, the studies cited seemed to be basing their measure of religiousity on church attendence. This is somehow not what I have been talking about in this discussion. I have been looking at it from a personal philosophy type of point of view, and trying to "understand" what a person might "mean" by believing in God. And consequently attempting to psychoanylize myself, and a "standard" hypothetical human, in terms of what would be "normal" to believe in, and what would be broken, or indicate a brokeness in one way or another. With the studies' taking religiousity as church attendance, the question then becomes, in my thinking, more of a social question, than a personal question of existence and belief in or non-belief, in a consciousness that controls the universe. In this, the arguments against belief in God, as belief in non-existent sky pixies, do not really address the issue. In the social context, it is the belief in a common spirit, that is understood by all, that takes the cake. Like Santa Claus, you can know he is pretend, and does not exist, and still feel the Christmas spirit, around Christmas time, when everybody else is thinking along the same lines, lighting lights, and decking the halls with boughs of holly, and getting together and sharing song and food, companionship and gifts. The fact that Reindeer don't fly, and there is no workshop at the North Pole where Santa and his elves toil to make all the gifts, has no real bearing on whether or not Christmas spirit is real. More likely, in the studies, is the fact that when people get together with the same people every week, at church, and recite the same words and talk about the same ideas, and read from the same book, and sing from the same hymnals, there will be a tendency to align oneself with people that know the same stuff, and somewhat shy away from people that go by different rituals. It is in this social sense, where I think intolerance and prejudice might be bred. Same kind of intolerance that is exhibited between Yankee and Red Sox fans, who might, out of the stadium, get along perfectly well. Regards, TAR2

Thread, New blood, I can not give to the thread, I have probably said most of what I have to say already. However, there is a theory I have, that I have been skirting around, that I would like to attempt to put into words, for assessment. Each of us, is aware of ourselves, others, and a context in which we are born into, exist and are subsequently removed from. There therefore exists, in each of our consciousnesses, an awareness of all three. The actor, the stage, and the story. Since we have the ability to know and care about our situation as viewer, participant and stake holder, ownership of any and all of the possible perspectives, is not an unreasonable assumption. That is, we can put ourselves into the shoes of any viewer, of any participant, and of any writer/producer/director that we can imagine. When the passengers of flight 83 brought down the plane headed for a Washington target. they were aware of the larger story, other participants...a reality that was important and their responsibility, regardless of their continued existence in it. This is proof to me, of a recognition that people can have, in "life after death". Not their own, but life non-the-less. Recognition, "belief" that the freedom and strength and values symbolized by, and brought into reality and maintained in Washington D.C. were "worth" dying for, to protect. The question then becomes "worth it" to whom? Friends, family, society, future generations... The statement is made to speak to all of humanity, to say to America's enemies "we have a good way, and will not have it taken away. A larger story. Greater than the lives of any person or planefull of people. Theory is, we each have aligned ourselves with a greater story, by choice or circumstance. We care about how it turns out...regardless of our personal presence in the next act. We arrange our lives, our associations, our thoughts and actions, to be consistent with the way we would like to see the story go. When a large group of people are following the same script, as in nations, companies, religions , "special interests groups", universities, philanthropic organizations, secret societies, scientific communities, and associations of all types, it brings into actual, empirical reality, a "consciousness" that is greater than the consciousness of any one of the participants. A consciousness that outlives and outshines its current members. In this theory, God is the producer, director, story teller, the audience, and the critic...that an individual puts him/herself, in the shoes of. And the characteristics and concerns that I place in this unseen other are bound to differ from those that you place in this unseen other. If I try to define this soul, it will fall woefully short of your expectations. And your description will not live up to my picture...unless we agree that we might be talking about the same soul, that trumps any individual's picture. So the theory I am trying to lay out here, is that religion sets a name, and a framework, and specifics on the numinous, that we all, already are intimately familiar with. And in so much as this is an attempt at unifying individual knowledge of existence, and its unfathomable size and complexity and duration, with collective concerns along those lines, it is not necessarily "broken" to believe in the collective wisdom of the teachers and mystics who, from an objective viewpoint, are, and have been viewing this situation from a human's perspective, and we (even as atheists) can not offer any different perspective than that. Regards, TAR

jp255, Interesting to me is the lack of specific "replacement" in the eyes and minds of "nonbelievers" for God. It always seems to be, "well its just reality", or its "all just chance interactions of energy and matter"... like that really is answering the primary question. If people that believe in God need to be fixed, then I would suggest that people that believe in reality also need to be fixed. And then of course, the question would be "what is the alternative to reality?" It seems rather obvious that reality is equally real to all of us. And interestingly, it is the SAME reality that we all seem to be involved in. When I do something in "my" reality, it is done in yours, as well. And vice-a-versa. Where the objection to "God" seems to be, is in whether or not there is a consciousness that is in control of reality, that keeps us in mind, in one way or another, for good or for ill. This gets complicated and confusing, when one clearly understands that there are indeed "other" consciousnesses that have great bearing on our personal existence, and that when taken together, really do "control" a great deal of our reality. But who, even when taken together, do not seem to control hurricanes, earthquakes, meteors, or even the growth of brain cell connections in a developing fetus. There is great power and control of reality that the constituents of reality have over it. Conscious or not. I personally do not know how to metabolize the food I eat. I don't pay any attention to it. I do not focus on it, or have to think about it, to have it happen. It is crucial to my existence, and "I" seem to be able to do it, completely unaware of it happening. So who is "controlling" this metabolism? Is it me? Or not? It is not science, it is not Thor, it is not Allah. But the thing that IS controlling my metabolism is real and worthy of consideration greater than considering it just an accident. I am very much metabolizing on purpose. Such with the world, and the universe and reality. We may not be in control of it. It may not be doing anything consciously. But it most certainly is doing what it does, on its own. And since I am 100% of it, and in it, I am certainly alllowed to take responsibilty for it, and assign it, with the responsibility for me. There really is no other source for me, and no other destination. So, since we have not "defined" God, I think it important, in deciding who is broken and who is not, to give the person of beliefs that "differ" from yours, the benefit of the doubt, and think first of what exactly they may be referring to, that is something you already know, by a different name, and simply make the translation from their language to your own, before condemnation of their "beliefs". Regards, Tom Roth aka TAR2

Iggy, Well that paper, A “Freely Coasting” Universe Savita Gehlaut, A. Mukherjee, S. Mahajan & D. Lohiya∗ Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of Delhi, Delhi–110 007, India included many concepts and terms, that I have "heard" before, but don't fully understand the derivations, and implications of. Interesting, that 10 years ago, we seem to have thought the universe was 15 billion years old. (if I read it right). Wouldn't that change the figures and figuring some? And boy, I just can not get my head around seeing the effects of pressure waves (sound) in the CMB. So long ago, and so far away, and so small, yet subtending measurable angles in our emmense sky. (If the mars rover would subtend an angle equal to hydrogen atom, at arms length, how could a swath of sky measureable in seconds of arc, be representative of something on the scale of photons and baryons pushing each other around.) These areas of sky are "behind"" and farther away than the most distant galaxy we have found. They must represent HUGE chunks of current space. What ever kind of dynamics are figurable from the anisotropies witnessed and measured, must be something the universe does on GRAND scale, hardly comparable to the speed of sound. I would tend to think that small things, far away represent hugher dynamics, than what we are familiar with, not smaller and closer dynamics. I guess its a grain size thing. And I don't think I have the mental equipment to scale EVERYTHING up and down consistently, in the appropriate manner. I suppose, under the circumstances, I will just have to leave cosmology to the geniuses that have the equipment required to make the shifts in scale, in both time and space, required to match the model up, with the reality. I just can't carry all the varibles through. I will have to retire with Spyman, and float about on the boats on the expanding river. Maybe just do some fishing, and drink icetea, and bask in the sun. Take some peanut butter cups. Thank you for trying, Iggy. I hope that somebody contributing or reading, learned something, or had a new insight along the way. Let's just say that Krauss is looking at it right. Regards, TAR2

Daedalus, Thank you for taking the time to work through the ant on a rope. I actually, basically followed (had taken various levels of calculus in college) although I could not have generated that myself. Very well done, and described. And I had seen, and pondered over that diagram you offered, many years ago, which I think had given me the subconscious understanding that the ant could reach the end...mathematically speaking. Iggy, I do believe I am understanding better now, from the paper you cited, and your comments, what Krauss was talking about, and am willing to answer my own question... that of "is Krauss looking at this right"... as yes, he probably is, but you have to be able to shift perspectives from what we know has to be the case, based on what we observe, to what we observe, that establishes the basis upon which we build the hypothetical models that establish what we know must be the case. I can accept what Krauss was saying, on some levels. Still have some questions though, as to when he is speaking about a "current" situation from a here and now observer point of view, and when he is commenting on the "state" of the comoving universe, when concieved of, as all having the same cosmological age. From the here and now observer's point of view, it does not effectively matter how big the universe currently is, or what events are currently occurring on distant galaxies. What matters is only what we observe of it. It is the way the entire universe is currently arriving here, that we observe, and that creates our reality. In essence, I would say, that we see the universe, exactly as we see it, and Krauss is seeing it, exactly as it is. This view however is only translated to "the way it actually is" with very careful analysis and peice by peice, hypothetical model building. We have no effective way, of actually checking such a model, against anything but what we observe, or have record of somebody else observing. I tend to think it is more valuable to see the universe as we see it, than to think it is something else, because it is not something else. Spyman, The river model is not as good an analogy as just using the universe itself. And going by what the universe provides us, as evidence, I would have to say that we have determined, that we can see galaxies now, that are actually moving away from us, at superluminal speeds. Regardless of what might be going on on the expanding river you presented. Although, I will agree that there may indeed be a galaxy somewhere in the universe whose current events, can never reach us, I would point again to the distant galaxies we see now and say that those very distant galaxies we now see, are the same ones whose current events will never get here. Again making the important distinction between seeing a galaxy, and witnessing its current events. Regards, TAR2

Spyman, Well here are my questions. And yes, I want to learn what we know, but I would like it to make sense, and fit together, from outside in, and inside out. The photons from my lamp, on for just a few hours, will not forever be in the space between here and Mars, but will they, or will they not, forever be somewhere in the universe, traveling outward from my house, in an ever increasing half shell, in the direction my house was facing during the event of it being on? Is the event of a galaxy currently exceeding C recessional speed, not a different consideration, from the information we currently are receiving from that galaxy? If we will never witness the event, but we currently see the galaxy, then the information we will recieve in the future, from that galaxy, must be events that occurred prior the event. Since a finite amount of events occurred prior the event, and after the events we currently are witnessing, should we not expect to see them all, eventually, given an infinite amount of time? Photons seen now will be of shorter wavelengths, than those we wil see (or fail to notice due to lack of huge telescopes and patience), at the end of time, which will be of very long wavelengths. Why is it not mandatory, that these wavelengths be proportionally, though increasingly lentheningly distributed in the spacetime between here and now, and the C exceeding event? Is each successive photon, we witness, in the future, from this galaxy, emitted way prior to the exceeding C event, not required to be just that slight bit more time dilated, that is, it will take a longer and longer time, to witness, a second worth of events, happening at that galaxy's location (prior the exceeding C event). Should these wavelengths eventually grow to the length of the Milky Way, at that time, it will take us 400 thousand years to witness one nanosecond of events that occurred at that galaxy, in the years just prior the exceed C event. Given the wave/particle duality of a photon, it raises the question of whether we would be able to collect the photon at the beginning of the 400 thousand years, the end, or at any time, inbetween. That is, what is the nature of a photon, stretched out over 400 thousand ly. If the wave function would collapse, upon reception of the photon, would that require a physical nullification of the electrical and magnetic fields generated by the photon, instantaneously, over a 400thousand ly distance? Or would the nullification itself travel at C, as well? Are the photons, that passed us by, from that galaxy, yesterday, still existant, in our galaxy, somewhere behind us, (figuring we are facing the distant galaxy)? These questions raise a logical question in my mind, of what you might mean, by us recieving the "last" photon, from that galaxy, at which time, there will be no more available, or on their way. Zapatos, It is unfortunate that you have labeled me, forever, as a speculation thread ignoramous. It saddens me. I don't feel, from this end, like I earned the label. Regards, TAR2

Iggy, Yes, I got a bit more from the article, than from the blog. Interesting in regards to this thread, that the appendix included "Examples of Misconceptions or easily misinterpreted statements in the literature." Number 13 was by some fellow named Krauss. [13] Krauss, L. M. and Starkman, G. D. 1999, ApJ, 531(1), 22–30, Life, the universe and nothing: Life and death in an ever-expanding universe, “Equating this recession velocity to the speed of light c, one finds the physical distance to the so-called de Sitter horizon... This horizon, is a sphere enclosing a region, outside of which no new information can reach the observer at the center”. This would be true if only applied to empty universes with a cosmological constant - de Sitter universes. However this is not its usage: “the universe became -dominated at about 1/2 its present age. The ‘in principle’ observable region of the Universe has been shrinking ever since. ... Objects more distant than the de Sitter horizon [Hubble Sphere] now will forever remain unobservable.” Misconception or easily misinterpreted? Regards, TAR2 Spyman, According to the article any object that we see above Z=1.6 is already moving away from us, due the expansion of space, at greater than C. Distant galaxies are not like nearby lamps. If I turn the lamp off now, the Mars probe will see it shining for 14 more minutes. Regards, TAR2 On Pluto, I have not even turned it on yet.

Spyman, "Beyond a horizon from where they can't be observed anymore"? This is the crucial consideration that I am questioning, in general. At the moment the galaxy passes over this horizon, and no new photon, has a chance to close the distance, it does not represent a time, here, at the Milky Way, at which the galaxy can't be observed anymore. Remember, we are not seeing the galaxy as it is at the moment. Its present condition is not available to us. There is the lag in time, that it takes light, to travel the emmense distances we are talking about. So, logically, is there not the previous photons, from before the horizon event, that ARE available to us? Are not the photons from before the horizon event, already loaded in the cosmic grid, between us, and the horizon event? They are yet to get here, and are not wiped from the grid, by the fact that the said Galaxy has now exceeded a C recessional speed. Whatever happens to the space between us, and the horizon event, for the rest of eternity, it, the space between, will ALWAYS contain photons, from prior the horizon event. This requires that the nature of, that is the wavelengths of those, and the frequency which when they arrive at the Milky Way, is what will be apparent to Milky Way observers, as they look in that direction. The photons from that galaxy, that are arriving here, do not just "turn off", at the moment of the horizon event. I refuse, in this conversation to be lumped in, with other speculation thread type persons, who refuse to accept known science, in favor of their pet theory. I have not offered a pet theory, except for the idea that the space between us, and any distant object, must contain the photons that will, in the future, inform us of events at that distant object. This is already a fact, known by everyone. We do not see distant events, immediately. I am merely exploring what that might mean. Regards, TAR2

Iggy, Yes, those are the remarks upon which I base Krauss' huberis. How exactly does one say at the beginning of ones remark how silly it is for someone to act as if they know everything, and then by the end of the remark say with certainty, what the universe will look like, from the Milky Way in 650 billion years? And not only that, but claim to know what future scientists can and can not find out about the universe? It struck me at the viewing as an extreme contradiction. It is exactly why I started this thread. If one is to believe there is more we do not know, than know, then claiming understanding of the conditions present in the universe, and what of it will be available for unknown entities so incredibly far into the future, is crazy talk. There is no way to even guess at such a thing. And absolutely no reason to, either. We will not be there to verify, or care. It could be wonderful, it could be horrible, it could be the majority of the Milky Way, with its future scientists, are crushed together in the black hole at the Milky Way's center, or the Milky Way could lose its current form and become something else. Like a hurricane, loosing its fury when it moves over land, or away from the warm waters that generate its character. I in no way consider the universe static and unchanging. Quite the opposite. And if it came up with life on Earth, I am rather sure it is capable of all sorts of configurations, great and small. A scientist must take the universe as if galaxies are like gas molecules, subject to the same laws and equations. And no where in such equations, can you derive life, or peanut butter cups. If the equations cannot predict peanut butter cups, than I have no faith, what-so-ever, in their ability to predict what an entity in this region of the universe, can and will be informed of in 650billion years. It certainly will be different, but it probably will not look anything like, anything we can imagine. And if our current observable universe is limited to 13.7 billion lys, the observable universe at the time of Krauss' prediction will be fifty times as large. And if at first, after the big bang there was inflation, incredible inflation, and then there was expansion, and then the expansion accellerated, the universe is capable of not just doing one thing forever. It's "current" accelleration, might not continue, the same way it appears locally to be acting. If the said galaxy we were talking about was actually right now, heading toward us, we would not even see it slow and make the turn back, for billions of years. Why could not the universe be currently engaged in huge circulations and eddies, the scope and nature of which, we have not had the time, to notice? Regards, TAR2

EquisDeXD, Well, points taken. Except for the random chunks of matter thing. We would both agree that a hurricane has no brain, or purpose in mind. It is just a bunch of air and H2O heated up by the Sun's energy. But some characteristics emerge, that give the hurricane an identity and a direction, and powers to saturate stuff and blow stuff down and around. There is a definite non-randomness when a huge thing with a shape and a name is headed for your city. Random? Not exactly. There is a season for hurricanes, and they are somewhat predictable. They have a way about them, all their own, that no other random chunks of matter seem to emulate. Except perhaps a spiral Galaxy on some much much huger scale. So, what do you think about enities? Are they random chunks of matter? The Sun? Is the Sun not a completely different type of random chunks of matter, than a rack of billiard balls? Are you not a completely different collection of random chunks of matter, than an earthworm? Is an apartment building a different type of random chunks of matter than a beehive? I tend to give myself characteristics given to me, by the universe, and thusly consider myself a reflection of the universe. A creation of the universe, if you will. That the universe is capable of such a thing, is obvious, because here we are, with no other possible source, but the universe. And proof beyond any possible argument, that the universe knows how to create a TAR. And I am, in my own estimation, NOT just a random bunch of matter. And I tend to give every other entity in the universe equal footing, as NOT just random bunches of matter. Regards, TAR2

EquisDeXD, Yes. A tricky situation. I was admonished earlier, that the universe does not "know" anything. Not completely convinced of this fact myself. After all, we are 100% universe material ourselves, and we know something. So set theorywise I would say that at least some part of the universe is capable of knowing something. Which would indicate that when taken as a whole, there is some "knowing" that the universe can do. So the universe does know something. Information, by the construction of the word, indicates that an outside form is internalized. One part of the universe, informing another of its form or presence. That you and I know the universe exists, is because it informed us of its presence. I throw in this philosophical type approach here, because it is central to the thread, as to the differences and similarities between our internal model of the universe, and the universe itself. The universe itself exists with or without our model of it. Our model would not exist if not for the information presented by the universe, to us. Our model reflects the universe. The universe need not comply with our model. What is possible in our heads, as we collapse a square and swing it around to the other side of a line, may not be something the universe itself would accomplish in the same fashion. We would have to try it out, and see if this activity would actually work in the world. There is bound to be some component of the operation that really doesn't work that way. Works in the imagination, but does not fit reality. This is my caution to Krauss (and to myself), to give the universe the benefit of the doubt in all regards. It is always the thing we are in and of, and the thing we know. Our knowledge of it, can never be greater than it. There is always, much more that other portions of the universe have been informed of, than what a single human has been informed of. And likewise, an entire university of scientists, with records from thousands of years of human attention to incoming information. There is plenty of room, to ask the question, "Is Krauss looking at this, right?" Regards, TAR2

Zapatos, I am not trying to be obtuse. I am trying to be logical, and work with the things we know, and the things we see. We don't see what any galaxy is doing right now, what is pertinent to us is what we see the galaxy doing right now. The "events" we witness are 100% real. They fully account for that particular Galaxy's existence to us. It is, as far away and dilated as it is. And there is, in the universe, only one instance of said Galaxy. From a shifting perspective we can imagine observers between us and said galaxy, and what they must be witnessing in terms of photons from said galaxy. This requires that photons from said galaxy are both arriving now, and some very many more are on the way. They will not be currently present to us, until they get here, but one can take a Godlike view, not bound by the speed of light, and fix the location and expanse of each and every one of those photons, within the framework of a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, and of a hypothetical size, that a universe that looks like it does, here and now, to us, must be, from a Godlike view, not bound by the speed of light. But translation back to our here and now view is required at every step, to predict how each of the "in transit" photons will appear to us, when they get here. With the Galaxy that is "currently", from the Godlike view, reaching a recessional speed of C from the Milky Way, its future appearance to us, is ALREADY in transit, and mappable on the Godlike grid between. Each of the events that occurred in that Galaxy between the events that we see now, and the events that occurred in the billions of years between what we see happening there now, and what the Godlike view, sees happening there now, as its recessional speed reaches C, have already informed the godlike grid of their presence. We have been informed of events happening at that galaxies location for many billions of years, since the Milky Way received its first photons from it. We are being informed currently of its presence in the universe, and we will in the future continue to be informed. Logically, since the information is coming in, at the speed of light, and the godlike grid is already loaded with the information, it must continue to arrive, without end. Being that a finite amount of events, a finite amount of hydrogen beats are loaded already into the grid, and they must last, as information to us, for an infinite amount of time, the only solution is for each beat to get slower, so that as time passes regularly at the galaxy, it appears to us dilated, almost but not quite, standing still, as the 100s of billion years pass. Practically frozen in space, as we see it age to a 13.7 billion year old Galaxy, some time 100s or 1000s of billions of years in our Milky Way's future. Regards, TAR2

So consider another Galaxy, whose recessional speed, has "just now" exceed C. Now consider a hydrogen atom in that Galaxy, that has been in existence for 13.7 billion years. It has emitted photons, depending on its temperature, over the entire 13.7 billion years. Like a heartbeat, continually for 13.7 billion years. Currently we hear the heartbeat from when that hydrogen atom was only a few billion years old, and it sounds a bit slower than a local hydrogen atom would at that temperature. As we continue to listen it gets slower and slower and fainter and fainter, but ALL the beats, up to and including its last beat, before its galaxy's recessional speed exceeded C, can and must reach us. All of future time will include a possible photon, of appropriate wavelength, from that hydrogen atom, reaching the Milky Way. Just really really low frequency (slow beats) the further out in time you place the Milky Way in.

Spyman, But hold on a minute. A point in time when... This is a misnomer. We are speaking from a here and now, point of view. We always have, and we always will. It is the only way we think. We have the ability to remember stuff, and predict stuff, and put ourselves in the shoes of another observer that also has a here and now perspective, at another now, or another here, that we can relate to ours, or map to ours, and we can jump around to various of these positions in space and time, but each time we land, each time we focus on the current landscape it has two important characteristics. We consider it a here and now perspective, and we know where that spot in space and time is, relative to us. "A point in time" means something, only from a here and now perspective. The universe is contructed, or contains very many of these points. There is not a point in time, a human focus, here and now perspective type point in time, that embraces all of the universe at once...except for the view we actually have. Our here and now. Where the whole observable universe exists currently, all at once. The hand reached above your hand, and the distant star, existing similtaneously, right next to each other, in your view. If one is looking at the output of a powerful telescope, mounted on a space station, and sees a distant galaxy...there it is, at this point in time. The point in time when it is moving away from us at superluminal speeds, is on the one hand, already passed. Yet there it sits, within our view. So "at this point in time" when the galaxy is moving away from us, at greater than C due to the expansion of space, we can see it, with our equipment, just fine. We have many "points in time" to come, where we will still be able to see said galaxy. And they all, all these future points in time, will occur "after the point in time when the galaxy's recessional speed exceeded C". So I am not concerned with such a point in time, when said galaxy's photons can no longer reach the Milky Way. I am leary of there being such a point in time. If we can see said galaxy now, then chances are, a galaxy half way between us and it, can see it now as well. As long as we can see the galaxy, halfway between, and that galaxy can see said galaxy, then we can see said galaxy too. Consider a photon from said Galaxy, passing by the galaxy halfway between, and not being collected by a electron within the halfway galaxy, and headed in our direction. It has an equal chance of reaching us, as any photon emmited by the halfway galaxy, at that point in time. It will proceed with the same speed of light and propagate through the same expanding space that the photons from the halfway galaxy will. It will reach us, as surely as the photons from the halfway galaxy. The only difference will be the redshift. What ever redshift would have been detected at the halfway galaxy, plus whatever redshift we detect coming from the halfway galaxy. We can still see the darn thing. Regards, TAR2

Spyman, Is the "amount of water" increasing from an outside source? That is, is the water flowing "in" from somewhere? If there is a flow to the universe, what is carried by that flow? Why is it only considered an "outward" flow? Would it not also be an "inward" flow? That is, as much as the universe is flowing away from us, it must be likewise flowing toward us. Whether photons, or matter, or dark energy, or dark matter are carried by, or resist this flow, would make a difference in carrying out the river analogy. If space is the river, we need to define the properties of this river water, and the properties of these boats, in relation to each other, before we can visualize any boundries or impossible achievements. Plus, the big problem for me, with these boundries, is exactly WHEN are you considering the boundry to exist? Now as in what we see. Or now as in what we know must be the case, to see what we see. Light takes time to propagate. Iggy's statement about the scale factor of the universe being different upon emmission and reception of a photon, makes perfect sense, except WHEN was the universe this size, and WHEN was the universe that. There is no godlike perspective that can know both ends, as happening similtaneously, much less, that can then evaluate each end as having occurred at different times. One time, when the universe was simultaneously small, and another time, when the universe was simultaneously larger. I don't believe the universe knows how to do one thing at a time. Regards, Tom Roth