Sorcerer

Because of the resource cost and environmental cost involved in space travel. If they don't first have the technology to live in balance with their home planet spending their resources and damaging their environment in order to gain exo planet resources, leads to inefficiencies that either cause their extinction or prevent them progressing. It's the great filter, except the filter is caused by the very nature of interstellar travel. Basically if we want to colonise mars first we must have the technology to live there extremely efficiently. If we then applied that technology to our way of life on earth we would then have more to invest in further travel. But if we spend so much of earth's resources colonizing Mars that the earth suffers, we're putting ourselves at risk of stunting our potential or extinction. If humans fail on earth, even with a colony then on Mars, they will too fail there. We've got it easy here. Advanced civilizations know this, growth leads to carrying capacity, advanced spacefaring civilizations must live in balanced with their universal carrying capacity. The nature of this fact means the type 1/2/3 megastructures we assumed would be out there are just dumb growth fixated human pipe dreams. Ecological harmory is the hallmark of an advanced civilization.

Well yes 2 halves mirrored of a whole which adds to nothing is the common point between the 2. But they both differ from there. The main difference IMO being the number of parts to the universe. However considering the mirror is 2 seperate halves, you could equate Krauss's universe as 2 combined halves. Actually making the complexity equal. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91649-the-chimrea-twin-universe/

Imagine a big bang that occurs forwards and backwards in time from the origin, much like the mirror universe model. Now let's suppose both halves expand normally until later when they reach a critical point for selection as a stable half universe. One of the 2 halves fails, it begins to collapse backwards to the origin and deflate. In doing so like a balloon deflating it expelled some of its contents back through the origin (forward in time relative to the survivor). This action directly causes inflation in the remaining more stable half universe, now the whole. Some or all of the properties of the physical laws of the failed universe are also combined with the stable half, they are however now reversed in time. Same effects in reverse, so the deleterious rules add to our half. Dark energy and dark matter could be explained by a time reversed failed property of a mirror universe. If these physical properties were out of phase, since there is a causality paradox it could hide them from our instruments except for certain properties. It can also explain the matter/antimatter asymmetry and perhaps lead to ways of modelling new grand unified theories. The laws of physics would be a chimera of 2 sets of laws. One from a more stable surviving twin coexisting with a time reversed out of phase failed twin.

Unicorns are pretty damn good at picking up after themselves too. They use their horn. You've never seen one because they consider humans to be inferior so they use their pixie dust to cloak themselves. The Fermi paradox is easily explained by aliens that adapt to be at maximum efficiency with their environment. Those alien civilizations that try to go off world before learning to live in balance with their own planet, cause their extinction by running out of resources. There's a technological carrying capacity, it involves maximum efficiency. There maybe more resources in space, but the resources spent in order to obtain it must balance and not destroy the environment.

So again I had a brilliant thought, a mirror universe wich would balance out 2 sides of an equation, but it seems Sean Carroll had it first. Considering it, the equally opposing, more simple universe from nothing seemed like a good candidate to compare. The Mirror Universe - Sean Carroll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/big-bang-may-created-mirror-universe-time-runs-backwards/ VS Universe from nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsGYRArH_w Which one of these would you choose if you assume one is correct and the other not? Why?

Time is an artifact of the universe due to our observation from within spacetime at this present moment, our cognition works via entropy's arrow of time and our senses and the machines we augment them with are dependant on observations of the EM field. Therefore we are restricted to having only knowledge of the portion of spacetime we call the past, even the present is kept slightly distant due to the speed of light. We are therefore biased to view cause and effect as unidirectional. If we remove this bias and consider the totality of existence simultaneously, then the need for a first cause or prime mover becomes illogical. To make that concise: Everything exists at once but we are deluded by our perception into assuming an uncertain future which we are moving into. This leads to invalid reasoning, which creates the infinite regress problem of causality. Which in turn creates the unecessary assumption of a first cause and the false semantics surrounding time which confuse an otherwise simplistic issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

It's not another universe the universe would then simply be extended to include the higher dimensional space. You cannot have effects occurring over non existent boundaries, there must be some connection which the gravitons pass through. In this case our spacetime would simply be a subset of a larger universe. Universe by definition literally means the entirety of everything that exists.

I guess I double posted, maybe an admin can merge the posts. I had the thought that perhaps dark matter is in a higher dimensional space it is attracted close to the plane of our 3 dimensions by regular matter and normal effects of gravity and clusters where matter is dense, ie near galaxies. The gravitational effects can be observed by us, but since our observations are confined to our 3 dimensions the matter itself is hidden, perhaps it may be possible to observe the higher dimensional dark matter as it occasionally crosses our 3D plane through its higher dimensional space. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91621-dark-matter-in-higher-dimensional-space/ And here's an article by nature I googled up. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/news050829-18.html

Well in terms of physics and potential/kinetic yes it's energy, but I was using the normal semantic definition. In this case it is just an equation or a set of possible equations which allow spacetime so existence. Since they're physically abstract this is about as close to nothing as it gets, yet the conditions which allow something isn't nothing. I'm inclined to believe (with good reason) nothing is an abstract concept we created. 0 however should be accompanied by a quantifier or a set of rules of which it is a part. I think I first heard of the idea from Lawrence Krauss, I have actually toyed with the thought myself though since I was a teen and linked possible ways the universe could've been with the yin yang. I still however prefer the idea that even in the "potential" state the universe is simply partitioned between physical states. Everything always existed and always will. It seems close to turtles all the way down, however if you remove the concept of time, something that exists in this form of everything, but probably only exists in the minority of possible configurations. Then you remove the dimension of down, it's just turtles, one big fucking mess of them.

But spacetime even though moving in 4d could be motionless in the 5th dimension, we would only ever then interact with a 4D slice of 5d and also what ever it contains if it moves across our slice. Doesn't this mean that 5d would be independent of our timeline, something from it would be able to enter our 4d slice at any point and would observe it as all of spacetime in one block? Wouldn't it make more sense to shift the time dimension so it is always last. IE in N dimensions space time is always N+1? Or rather would each dimensional observer have their own imaginary time dimension? So a 2D observer in a circle would describe it's space time as a cylinder, or a sphere/oblate sphereoid depending on its universes surface area through time being static or expanding/contracting. But really the 3D observer would just see lines moving across a circle as it changed in diameter as a part of its own imagined 4d time? Edit: sorry I took your spacetime analogy out of context there, I guess where that thought was going is if time is all pervasive through dimensions or if each higher dimension would see the lower dimensions spacetime in its entirety as block time.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/news050829-18.html So, Google is my friend, seems like I'm about 10 years late with my idea.

Actually at zero dimensions a single point can still exist. I guess this is just a problem with our dimension nomenclature, maybe it should be pushed up 1. So anyway.... at -1 dimensions there can be nothing? That doesn't seem possible.

I followed his reasoning quite well, he just forgot to add a few hidden premises. The conclusion comes from the problem of causality and the first cause, nothing cannot set a chain of events in motion. So given that there are events, there must be an infinite regress towards the beginning of time or there must be a prime mover. Similarly something cannot undergo an event where it becomes nothing, it must go somewhere. So the event after something begins to tend towards nothing must be added on an thus out to infinity. There was a non sequitur that came from supposing that these 2 infinite ends must connect and loop though. Although there was unconnected mention of the first cause being a time loop, causing itself. The problem of nothing is quite easily solved if we consider it is a humans mathematical construct which we use as a place holder and a tool to model concepts. 0 or nothing is always attached to a quantifier when used as a tool to model reality. Nothing is just something we confuse ourselves with. It's quite possible for there to be 0 units of the universe, yet something still existing. What exists is the potential for a universe, it's not time and space, just its potential, its existence was at the beginning but there was no spacetime so it makes no sense to causally link it because events only happen once the potential has allowed spacetime. For example let's suppose that only mass and energy form the entire universe and mass and energy are inverse properties, two halves of a whole. So we could picture that as all the mass in the universe having a positive value and all the energy having a negative value. If mass has a value of +M then energy has the inverse value of -M. The universe = +M-M=0 I'm not saying that's correct but as an example of how there needn't be a first cause or infinite regress. When there was "nothing", before time the universe existed as 0 units of universe, the first moment of time or event was a split into positive units of mass, balanced by negative units of energy. That was the first event, before it existed only potential. Similarly in this case there may come a point in time where the universe again returns to 0 and only potential.

Atheism is the default stance. You must choose actively a God to believe in to be a theist. To be an atheist you don't need to decide on anything, it is just as you were born, it is not a choice it is the lack of a choice. Given the above to be true, then we can say that atheists are more open minded than theists. Theists have chosen their God in which to believe, there are many kinds, most theists with different gods disagree with one another, closing their mind to others beliefs possibly being true. Limiting the openness of their mind to only 1 possibility. Atheists however haven't chosen a belief, they are open to any one of the possibilities being correct, they're open to possibilities no one has even thought of yet. Beliefs held despite the absence of evidence are closed minded. Being of no belief yet open to consider all possibilities and even accept those which have convincing evidence is the definition of open minded. In response to insinuating that stating a position (or non position) somehow changes the reality of it: I'm fairly certain that if someone who couldn't ride a bike never called himself an "acyclist", he still wouldn't suddenly magically know how to ride a bike. Just as an atheist need never "STATE" they are such, because that is what everyone is until they choose a god to believe in. Being an atheist doesn't limit your imagination or the possibilities, as shown above it's the opposite of that, theism does. Being atheist just means you don't believe in god (whichever one(s) or what ever that might be).

This relates to my other thread on "Flatland" and Hilbert space. But is a seperate question. Are there any theories or models which attempt to account for dark matters gravitational influence, yet its seemingly non interactional presence otherwise, by describing dark matter as a higher dimensional particle which does not intersect with our 3 dimensions but however is so close to doing so it's gravitational effects still pass to our 3 dimensions? Or perhaps explaining it as all particles/fields having a higher dimensional form, the common matter and energy we observe intersect as to be observed by us in 3D. Some particles and fields however don't intersect with 3D, they still interact with the particle's that do however on the other dimensions. So when we observe their effect, but cannot show their existence otherwise, that is accounted for by the higher dimensional interaction, yet none in 3D. If this is correct, would it mean experimental physics/particle accelerators can never observe directly the truth of reality?

I came across this: "Higher Dimensional Beings: Imagine if there was a 2D person. If you stare at them a certain way, they cant see you. All you have to do is look from a top view and they wont know you are there, and they would never know. Living their life as 2D, they would never be able to comprehend how something could be looking down on them. Now imagine a 4D person. They could be looking at you from a 4 dimensional angle, an angle that you will never understand. They could be right beside you, but you wouldnt know, and you would never know. Just as we could interact with the 2D person, the 4D person could interact with us. But as long as they dont want us to, we could never interact with them or not even know of them." This reminded me of the book Flatland. ... because it's basically is just a shorter way to put it. So anyway, my question is, that if a theory allows for the existence of extra dimensions do we then have to consider there may be otherwise unobservable things which can infrequently interact with us? Should our stance on it be logical positivist, agnostic or should we allow it?

How much would it take to solve the missing antimatter problem? Is there enough? Is it testable ever?

Is there inverse yet parallel simarlaity where by the observation of an object approaching a black holes event horizon and an obect approaching a hubble volumes event horizon can be compared. Where one is an apparent velocity of recession caused by gravity stretching space in length away and the other is an apparent velocity of recession caused by dark energy inflating space in length away? Are these inverse similarities considered in an models of the universe? For instance is there a 2 halves of a whole symmetry?

It's only true if we assumed a universe that suddenly became static I guess. Then the observable universe would expand outward at c since the light would then have the time to travel to us to be observed from points which were previously unobservable. However, now you point it out I would change that increase in the size of the observable universe (with mordreds help) to (c- Vrec)/time up to the point where Vrec = c, beyond which it is permanently unobservable. Hubble afaik was unaware of dark energy, how does his law appear when we factor in an accelerating expansion? Are there parts of the observable universe which are coming into view which were previously outside our hubble volume? IE where Vrec > c we can never observe (change in again), because (new) light can never reach us from there, but there are points between 13.7billion light years and Vrec > c which we can observe given enough time. IE is Vrec > c where d=13.7 billion light years or is it lower than c, at which distance is Vrec > c? Since the universes expansion is accelerating isn't it reasonable to assume that at some point our hubble volume will begin to shrink again as Vrec > c will tend towards a maximum and then begin to decrease in diameter? If so: What will the galaxies on the edge of the hubble volume then appear to do? Will they stop in a time and red shift similar to as if they were approaching the event horizon of a black hole? Then: If we extrapolate further, at some point won't Vrec > c be shorter than the smallest distance possible between 2 fundamental fermionic particles? Are these images of galaxies frozen in time and becoming more redshifted over time? How can we observe them if they weren't once receeding at less than c?

Since the observable universe is expanding at the speed of light, (ie we can see a light second per second distance into the currently unobservable universe), yet the universes expansion is thought to be accelerating due to dark energy, does this mean we can extrapolate to a point where the size of the observable universe reaches a limit? (because the accelerated expansion makes the outer reaches of the observable universe again expand away from us faster than the speed of light) What happens beyond this point? Do we see the universe we observed at the fringes frozen in time and this freezing of time spread back towards us as the observable universe shrinks due to the accelerated expansion outstripping the speed of light at those distances? Does this frozen image red shift?

So the first implies a hubble volume doesn't account for the expansion of the universe, which is odd because I thought the hubble volume was created by the universe having expanded faster than the speed of light, not allowing us to observe parts which haven't had time for the light from them to reach us yet. The second implies that a hubble volume doesn't have a center, which is also odd, because every observer has its own independent hubble volume, shifted by a distance of c/t (light years, seconds, etc). So each observer is the center of its own independent hubble volume. The third(x2) implies that observations of the past, (once allowed as the hubble volume increases to such a scale of moments soon after the big bang and recombination, where the universe was smaller and denser), won't show any effects of the density of matter on observations of the passage of time. I find this odd, since if we obey the laws of conservation of mass and energy, yet the size of the universe is increasing, then the energy+mass density of the universe must decrease over time, why then would there be no relativistic effect? This also leads me to another question, but I'll create a seperate thread for that.

So an observer isn't the center of its hubble volume. The hubble volume doesn't account for expansion. And the universe wasn't more dense in the past????? Anyway a bit of digression no real need to answer that.

Are there similarities between these time coordinates and those we would place from an observer to the edge of its hubble volume?

Could you also elaborate a little more on this, or rather simplfy/explain it easier, it's similar to what I was asking in the original post I think, although I don't have much time to disect the word salad at the moment. And this...... long shifts at the moment, perhaps I'll disect it later. One more question; The Schwarzchild metric defines the time coordinate as being measured from a clock which is an infinite distance from the massive body, can this clock actually exist under our current understanding of the universe and if not, does that mean the Schwarzchild metric only models an idealised or fantasy version of a black hole?

Thanks, which coordinate system is the best represtentation of a black hole under our current understanding of the space time. IE do any represent a black hole where space time is accelerating in expansion?