lemur Posted September 21, 2010 Posted September 21, 2010 In an empirical sense, you cannot really go beyond claiming that space extends to the furthest observation of matter/energy. To claim that space continues beyond that, you need to extend your perception from the empirical to what can be imagined as potential based on your empirical knowledge, correct? Space can then be described as deviation from a single point of simultaneous space/time. The moment a point is differentiated into multiple points, space-time becomes an issue. Space/time is basically variability in the paths energy can take to return to its source. All matter-energy was presumably together in a single point prior to the big bang or whatever causes it to begin expanding and separating. If the big bang had produced only EM radiation, the entire contents of the universe would be expanding in a single spherical plane (presumably) with all energy concentrated in the skin of the bubble. However, because matter travels at different speeds according to its momentum and gravitational relations with other matter, the objects in the universe are moving in different directions at different speeds. Space can be attributed to this fact, I believe, but others may disagree with my generalization. If space is conceived in this way, as a product of relationships between matter as a result of energy/gravity dynamics, then I think you could also say that matter and energy stretch space as they move. So, for example, as two galaxies move away from each other, it is as though they were stretching the space between them. Likewise, if an observer in either galaxy looks off in a direction away from the other galaxy and there is nothing to see, then could it also be said that space ends in that direction? Saying this is problematic insofar as one can know without seeing that light emitted in the direction of nothing continues to radiate indefinitely in that direction at the speed of light (unless lack of gravity causes it to curve around through space-time curvature). Still, how can space be said to extend beyond the forward-most photon of light emissions from a given source? Therefore, I would say that space ends at whatever point a photon, particle, or object has reached. Maybe it would make sense to use the term, "spatial potential" for space that is perceived as extending beyond a given entity's path as an assumption of physical potentiality. Just as potential energy is distinguished from kinetic energy in the sense it is energy that is not yet actual/expressed; the same could be said of spacetime beyond the front of a moving object. So, for example, we know that the Earth will return to its current position in a year's time, but couldn't it be said that the point in spacetime where the Earth will be in a year is still potential rather than actual?
Mentor Posted November 20, 2010 Posted November 20, 2010 half a quark LMFAO at that reply 'maybe he gets it now' David Wilcock has some good youtube presentations on space and time ECT he believes their were people on mars some time ago who were like a big influence on life on earth, not saying he is right in any way just that he has his shit together so to speak. He says something is going to happen in 2012 that will change life on earth forever, guy is worth watching.
steevey Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 (edited) So a lot of people seem to think space never ends. But what about "why" it never ends? They only way I can think for space to be infinite, is if distance itself is an illusion, which would explain why entanglement exists. Edited November 30, 2010 by steevey -1
marton Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 Ever since I was a young boy, I have wrestled with trying to understand space. In particular, I have never really understood how space is supposed to never end. I really don't see how that's possible. Everything ends somewhere. Where one thing ends the next begins. Can people please provide thoughts on this? Sorry I messed up with my reply to this post of Edisonian, here is the correct one. I believe based on logics that the universe has no end due this basic reflection: The universe cannot have a limit because it would imply to be in surrounded by nothing, cero, if space or universe has an end this would imply as consequence that the universe would be contained by in a non existing entity which in turn it would negate the universe self existence. (Basic theory of groups) When the astronomers say that the universe is this big they should say: "The detectable or known universe is" because the known universe will depend only on the sensitivity of the instruments developed and used, therefore we can expect that the size of universe will be always on revision as happening now. MS www.engitek.com Ever since I was a young boy, I have wrestled with trying to understand space. In particular, I have never really understood how space is supposed to never end. I really don't see how that's possible. Everything ends somewhere. Where one thing ends the next begins. Can people please provide thoughts on this?
Mr Skeptic Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 So a lot of people seem to think space never ends. But what about "why" it never ends? They only way I can think for space to be infinite, is if distance itself is an illusion, which would explain why entanglement exists. So, where does the Euclidian space (the one you learned in high school) end? Where does the number line end? These go on forever because they are "flat".
steevey Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 (edited) So, where does the Euclidian space (the one you learned in high school) end? Where does the number line end? These go on forever because they are "flat". But as Einstein pointed out, the fabric of space is non-euclidean. The shortest distance between any two points is not necessarily a straight line. The universe can't really be summed up in a number line either, I don't think, cause that's saying there is only one dimension for the universe to expand in, whether it goes on perpetually or not. I think Einstein along with other physicists determined that space isn't flat, but curved. Edited December 10, 2010 by steevey -1
Just the Facts Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Time and Space have no Beginning and no End. They are boundless and continue infinitely. If someone says there was a beginning to Time, ask them what was going on ten minutes before Time began? If someone says there is a moment when Time will end, I will say I'm going to be ten minutes late for the ending ceremonies. Time can not be bent, curved altered or dilated. Time travel is impossible and will never happen. Nothing can go forward or backwards in time. Only in the human imagination are such things thought possible. Not in the real physical world. Time is a constant continuum of itself. Time is merely a concept. There was never a time before time. Some people believe time is a dimension that exist. I don't believe that is true. If you believe that time is more than a concept, I'll ask you to go get a bucket full of time and bring it to me. Can you put your finger on time? All you can do is imagine time is going by. Time goes by only because we believe it does. Man conceived the idea of time as a means of measuring how long things take. Go ask a cow what time it is. You will find that the cow knows nothing about time, and doesn't care. I think I'll put some time aside today that I can use tomorrow. Time doesn't work that way. You can't hold time in your hand. You can't hold back time. Time waits for no one. A stopwatch doesn’t stop time. It only stops the process of measuring time at that moment. We live in the now, not the past or future. The past is gone forever. The future never arrives. Nothing is affected by time itself. Everything is affected by what happens to it during a length of time. Time does not turn the pyramids into ruble. Rain and wind over time do that. Not time. When I hear someone say they believe time can warp or change in some physical way, I imagine the whole universe in a bubble inside of a glass bowl on the coffee table in Mother Nature’s living room. There is a clock on the wall ticking away the seconds. No matter what any else thinks or believes, Mother Nature knows what time it is. The universe is not in some kind of bubble. I can't help but think that concept is rather silly. There is no reason to believe that is necessary within the laws of physics. No "Parallel Universe". There are no fences or walls at the border of the Universe. No sign that says: "You have reached the end of the Universe" "No service stations beyond this point" Even if all the "Matter" within the Universe dissipates down to "Nothing", the nothing continues infinitely. It is Impossible for there to be an end to Time and Space or Nothing… If there is an end to the nothing, what is on the other side? More nothing I presume. If the Big Bang happened, it could be that it was just a little bang in one small part of the universe. We will never know where that matter originally came from, or how long it existed. To suggest that time began with a Big Bang is absurd. To say the universe began with the same bang is preposterous. For there to even be a bang, there must be something there to do the bang and that must have taken a very long time to get all that matter in one place. A very big place. There may have been trillions of Big Bangs come and go in the entire universe. There can be no end to the universe, and no beginning of time., nor, an end to time. The so called Dark Matter is dark because it is nothing at all. Or transparant Plasma Separate the universe (space) from the matter that is within the universe. I like to call it Something and Nothing. There may be a limit to the Something, but the Nothing is infinite. Man can calculate how long the light from a distant star takes to reach Earth. That has no bearing on where that star is within the universe, only how far from earth. The star may be right in the middle of the universe. Actually there is no middle, or edge to the universe. It is impossible for man to be certain about the age of the universe. I don't care who says they know such things, they are WRONG. No form of math can answer such questions. Einstein was wrong about a lot of his theories. Most of mans theories about the universe are wrong. The simplicity of my theories/conclusions make them far more likely to be correct. There is all that is Natural, and Nothing that is Supernatural. That’s the truth. The universe has no limits or edge/boundaries. There is no beginning or end to time. Man will never know where all the matter came from. Only speculations. That's how I see it. Very simple. I don't need any fancy math equations to add it up. Math can not answer all questions about life. Math can't explain why a Bear Shits in the woods. Math can't explain why the shit stinks. Math is NOT the answer to all questions. Mother Nature cares nothing about Math. I am certain I'm correct. No one ever will or can prove my conclusions to be wrong. Except GOD, and he is not real. Just another concept. There is No Heaven or Hell I’m just a realist who tells it like it is.
IM Egdall Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 When I hear someone say they believe time can warp or change in some physical way, I imagine the whole universe in a bubble inside of a glass bowl on the coffee table in Mother Nature's living room. There is a clock on the wall ticking away the seconds. No matter what any else thinks or believes, Mother Nature knows what time it is. Time runs at a different rate depending on 1) relative motion and 2) gravity. Experiments verify that a clock on a moving airplane or rocket or satellite runs more slowly than an identical clocks on Earth (due to its motion). And they show that a clock on the ground runs more slowly than a clock at higher altitude (where gravity is weaker). So consider the universe with all kinds of motions and gravitational fields. Einstein is right. There is no universal rate at which all time passes. So what time is it?
Just the Facts Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Time runs at a different rate depending on 1) relative motion and 2) gravity. Experiments verify that a clock on a moving airplane or rocket or satellite runs more slowly than an identical clocks on Earth (due to its motion). And they show that a clock on the ground runs more slowly than a clock at higher altitude (where gravity is weaker). So consider the universe with all kinds of motions and gravitational fields. Einstein is right. There is no universal rate at which all time passes. So what time is it? It is time for a new and realistic view of the universe. There are thousands of intelligent credible researchers that are certain Einstein was all wrong. They know his gravity theories are flawed in too many ways to even be possible. It is the Hardcore old school guys who refuse to consider any other possibilities. They can’t handle thinking they may be entirely wrong, and have wasted so much time and money learning something that is false and erroneous. I see it at several forums. They are usually around twenty something. Still too young to see the error of their thinking. Too arrogant to accept a new approach to the questions we all, seek the answers to. I am personally certain that Einstein will soon be thought of in the same class as Ray Bradberry, just another Science Fiction writer with no real connection to reality. The name Einstein will no longer be considered genius., but more like a crazy guy trying to win a prize by fooling everyone with his nonsensical theories. Even the man himself knew he was wrong…. “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” - [Albert Einstein] And the people who still insist he was right…. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --[Albert Einstein] The so called mainstream astrophysics crowd have literally wasted nearly 100 years of time promoting a bad theory. What a Shame. BUT.. fear not, there is hope for the future, it is in the study of Plasma and electric currents in the cosmos. be patient the future is coming on fast. Sorry if this offends anyone. the truth sometimes does that.
IM Egdall Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) It is time for a new and realistic view of the universe. There are thousands of intelligent credible researchers that are certain Einstein was all wrong. They know his gravity theories are flawed in too many ways to even be possible. It is the Hardcore old school guys who refuse to consider any other possibilities. They can't handle thinking they may be entirely wrong, and have wasted so much time and money learning something that is false and erroneous. I see it at several forums. They are usually around twenty something. Still too young to see the error of their thinking. Too arrogant to accept a new approach to the questions we all, seek the answers to. Just some of the evidence supporting Enstein's theories of relativity: - Tests from atomic clocks on airplanes, rockets, and satellites, from the measured lifetimes of subatomic particles, and from numerous laboratory experiments that Einstein was right. Time is relative; time does slow down with motion; and in just the amount his formula predicts. -DeSitter binary star experiment in 1913 verified Einstein's Light Postulate; the speed of light is unaffected by the motion of its source. A vastly more accurate version Brecher at MIT in 1977 using Uhuru satellite images of X-ray pulsars verified Einstein's light postulate to one part in a billion! - In 1992, experiments at Colorado State University on muon lifetimes verified Einstein's time dilation to an accuracy of under 3 parts per million. - In 2005, researchers at NIST and MIT confirmed E = mc2 to an accuracy of better than one part in a million! - A laboratory experiment in 2010 by Miller, Peters, and Chu confirmed Einstein's gravitational time dilation to 7 parts in a billion. - GPS has to take into account both time dilation due to motion (special relativity) and gravitational time dilation (general relativity) in order to work. It is a continuous verification of Einstein's predictions. - In 2005 astrophysicist Kopeikin of the University of Missouri and his colleagues used the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) and four distant quasars to confirm Einstein's bending of light prediction to within an accuracy of three-thousandths of one percent. - Numerous telescopic observations of Einstein's gravitational lensing prediction. - Weisberg and Taylor found a steady decrease in the distance between the binary pulsars over time; giving indirect evidence for Einstein's gravity waves to better than a third of a percent. - Indirect astronomical evidence for black holes predicted by Einstein's general relativity, including motion of stars around unseen source at center of our Milky Way galaxy, accretion discs and jets, tremendous high-energy radiation from centers of many many galaxies (Quasars). In 2007, a suite of space-based and ground-based telescopes recorded X-ray evidence for over a thousand black holes in a narrow region of our sky about 40 times the size of the Moon. - Numerous independent observations and measurements supporting the expansion of the universe and the big bang; phenomena based on Einstein's theory of general relativity. This is far from a complete list. But the evidence supporting Einstein's theories is simply overwhelming. This is not to say that it is the last word. Science is a work in progress. There is still much physicists do not know (e.g. what dark energy is). There may someday be a new theory which explains things beyond Einstein's theories. But we must remain sceptical. Until a new theory gives us new predictions which are independently verified by observation, measurement, and test; it is still just speculation. To date, no other theory can compare with the outstanding predictive success of Einstein's theories of relativity. Edited January 6, 2011 by I ME
Doc. Josh Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Quite interesting indeed, I personaly believe that the universe is a part of a multiplex made up of individual universes which have so called boundaries but only to the extint of the next multiplex which in fact is just a never ending unfolding megaverse. relitive to if the universe is expanding it is still expanding and being created it never stops just keeps rolling like a wave whitout friction to slow it down and never an end. So the boundary per say i believe is just the edge of the unfolding wave. So if it were possible to travel to the edge of the wave then there might lie the only true "boundary" just a theory of mine nothing is proven or fact.
Furshiz Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 matter cannot always be divided into smaller protions. do the words "elementary particles" mean anything to you? Matter is the term for elimentary particles - no one knows what matter is or what size it is. The Elimentary Particle used to be Sand Then it became the Atom Then it became the Neutron, Electron, Proton Then it became the Quark Who knows what it will become tomorrow? Who knows what it will become in a thousand years? There can be no end to space. Anyone who quotes Time as the fourth dimension clearly hasn't thought it through. Agnostic means to not know. No-one will or can ever know how far space goes or who is in charge, because it is all impossible. Infinity is impossible. In an empirical sense, you cannot really go beyond claiming that space extends to the furthest observation of matter/energy. To claim that space continues beyond that, you need to extend your perception from the empirical to what can be imagined as potential based on your empirical knowledge, correct? Space can then be described as deviation from a single point of simultaneous space/time. The moment a point is differentiated into multiple points, space-time becomes an issue. Space/time is basically variability in the paths energy can take to return to its source. All matter-energy was presumably together in a single point prior to the big bang or whatever causes it to begin expanding and separating. If the big bang had produced only EM radiation, the entire contents of the universe would be expanding in a single spherical plane (presumably) with all energy concentrated in the skin of the bubble. However, because matter travels at different speeds according to its momentum and gravitational relations with other matter, the objects in the universe are moving in different directions at different speeds. Space can be attributed to this fact, I believe, but others may disagree with my generalization. If space is conceived in this way, as a product of relationships between matter as a result of energy/gravity dynamics, then I think you could also say that matter and energy stretch space as they move. So, for example, as two galaxies move away from each other, it is as though they were stretching the space between them. Likewise, if an observer in either galaxy looks off in a direction away from the other galaxy and there is nothing to see, then could it also be said that space ends in that direction? Saying this is problematic insofar as one can know without seeing that light emitted in the direction of nothing continues to radiate indefinitely in that direction at the speed of light (unless lack of gravity causes it to curve around through space-time curvature). Still, how can space be said to extend beyond the forward-most photon of light emissions from a given source? Therefore, I would say that space ends at whatever point a photon, particle, or object has reached. Maybe it would make sense to use the term, "spatial potential" for space that is perceived as extending beyond a given entity's path as an assumption of physical potentiality. Just as potential energy is distinguished from kinetic energy in the sense it is energy that is not yet actual/expressed; the same could be said of spacetime beyond the front of a moving object. So, for example, we know that the Earth will return to its current position in a year's time, but couldn't it be said that the point in spacetime where the Earth will be in a year is still potential rather than actual? You're are basing your opinion on scientific fact. Scientific fact does not exist. The world was once flat according to scientific fact. LMFAO at that reply 'maybe he gets it now' Look at the calender on your wall - is that when life on earth will end? David Wilcock has some good youtube presentations on space and time ECT he believes their were people on mars some time ago who were like a big influence on life on earth, not saying he is right in any way just that he has his shit together so to speak. He says something is going to happen in 2012 that will change life on earth forever, guy is worth watching. LMFAO at that reply 'maybe he gets it now' Look at the calender on your wall - is that when life on earth will end? David Wilcock has some good youtube presentations on space and time ECT he believes their were people on mars some time ago who were like a big influence on life on earth, not saying he is right in any way just that he has his shit together so to speak. He says something is going to happen in 2012 that will change life on earth forever, guy is worth watching. So a lot of people seem to think space never ends. But what about "why" it never ends? They only way I can think for space to be infinite, is if distance itself is an illusion, which would explain why entanglement exists. Have you ever considered Agnosticism.
Flatland Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 half a quark I really really hope you are joking.
Severian Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I really really hope you are joking. Why? It is not so ludicrous to suspect that there is substructure to quarks.
imatfaal Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Susskind tells the story of a colloquium / conference when various heavyweights were discussing what it means for a particle to be fundamental with no form of agreement being reached - in the end t'hooft stood up and said "a particle is fundamental when it is useful to think of it as fundamental" - and everyone agreed that was the best they were gonna get in terms of a definition.
Flatland Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Why? It is not so ludicrous to suspect that there is substructure to quarks. Perhaps but it's most certainty not "half a quark." The point here is that matter is not infinitely divisible. Edited February 23, 2011 by Flatland
steevey Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 There is no observed boundary for the universe, so as far as cosmologists and astronomers know, the universe has no boundary.
zapatos Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Perhaps but it's most certainty not "half a quark." The point here is that matter is not infinitely divisible. If you do not know what (if any) substructure to quarks exists, what indicates that a quark cannot be divided in half?
rigney Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) If you do not know what (if any) substructure to quarks exists, what indicates that a quark cannot be divided in half? Might half a quark be considered a "QUAUQ"? And could that quauq then be further sub-divided into a pair of "s'UQAQU's'"? Is there actually a dividing line between matter and ? Unless we are lucky enough to submit to a dream world, and live in it as the Aborigine, we will always have questions without answers. Yes, to me our universe is a continuous and cyclic event going on and on in a "forever" continuum. Please don't quote that as fact, I stay in trouble enough as it is. Edited February 23, 2011 by rigney
IM Egdall Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Might half a quark be considered a "QUAUQ"? And could that quauq then be further sub-divided into a pair of "s'UQAQU's'"? Is there actually a dividing line between matter and ? Unless we are lucky enough to submit to a dream world, and live in it as the Aborigine, we will always have questions without answers. Yes, to me our universe is a continuous and cyclic event going on and on in a "forever" continuum. Please don't quote that as fact, I stay in trouble enough as it is. You are right. What you say is not, as far as we now know, a "fact". According to our current understanding of the physical world, a quark is a fundamental particle. This means it cannot be divided further. Will some new theory or experiment reveal a further subdivision of quarks? No one knows. So for now, any ideas on half-quarks and such is just speculation with no scientific basis. Edited February 23, 2011 by I ME
Flatland Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) If you do not know what (if any) substructure to quarks exists, what indicates that a quark cannot be divided in half? The same reason that a proton or neutron can't be divided in half? The argument here is not whether or not quarks have substructures but that "half a quark" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Edited February 23, 2011 by Flatland
zapatos Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 The same reason that a proton or neutron can't be divided in half? The argument here is not whether or not quarks have substructures but that "half a quark" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But a proton could be divided into thirds, correct? (two up quarks and one down quark?) Or are you saying that once a proton is broken down into quarks that the individual quarks don't contain any properties of a proton, and therefore it isn't meaningful to discuss them in terms of being a third of a proton? (Please pardon my ignorance of the subject.)
Snuttifronk Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) Space must be infinite, it can only end if something else continues. And if space is infinite, then how big is our matter filled universe in comparison? Something that have a determined size cannot be compared in any way to something that is infinite, so compared to infinity we are nothing. So in theory we don't exist? Also if space is infinite, then there must be an infinite amount of matter and universes aswell. Actually if space is infinite, there must be an infinite number of universes exactly like our's. With the exaxt same people, planets, stars and galaxies in it and so forth. Doesn't seem likely but because it's infinite, it must be so. Because of this, it would seem to me that it's impossible for space to be infinite and for it to end. !??! This question will in all likelyhood never be answered correctly, allthough if space is infinite it has already been answered and infinite number of times. Edited May 16, 2011 by Snuttifronk
MrScienceMan Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 In my opinion space is technically ongoing. I believe that space is spherical and when you reach the edge of the sphere you reappear on the other side of the sphere as if you were going around a doughnut, eventually you end up where you started, but in this case your heading in a straight line.
ajb Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 In my opinion space is technically ongoing. I believe that space is spherical and when you reach the edge of the sphere you reappear on the other side of the sphere as if you were going around a doughnut, eventually you end up where you started, but in this case your heading in a straight line. You mean something more like closed, ie.compact and without boundaries. Spherical suggest you mean a space-time whose isometry group contains SO(3) as a subgroup.
Recommended Posts