Our planet is among the first of many, many Earths.

[Strange]

You say I have a warped idea of how time works, yet I have merely stated two actual, accepted views, that of what we see, and that of what we imagine, and asked, under which view there are to be many more Earths.

 

Every one knows that there is a difference between the time something happens and the time we hear or see it. But you are the only person who thinks it is a problem.

 

Do you have the same problem with everyday events like thunder where there is a noticeable difference between when you see it, when you hear it and when it actually happened?

 

 

There is a time lag, between there being an Earth, somewhere else in the universe a billion lys from here, and us seeing that Earth, or having any knowledge of that Earthlike planet.

 

So what?

 

 

So the question is, are we counting that Earthlike planet, which exists now a billion yrs from here, as currently existent or are we counting that as a future Earth?

 

If it exists now, then it exists now. Isn't that obvious?

 

 

So answer me this. If a star 5 lys from here, goes super nova today, and we see it go super nova in 2020. Is that something happening now, or something happening in our future, in your view of time?

 

If it happens today, then it happens today. Whether we see it or not.

 

This is even dafter than the "if a tree falls in a forest" question.

[Ophiolite]

@Gater: it is now 52 hours since you made this statement - "The Universe is infinite - it has always been here. Anyone with any logic skills knows this. There is no scientific evidence that can prove this - only logic proves this."

 

It is 48 hours since I asked you to "set down the clear, concise logical argument that supports your contention." Perhaps you have been busy with work, or personal matters. I do hope you can find the time soon to respond. I am waiting patiently to be educated. I should hate to think you had just been making groundless, bombastic statements.

[StringJunky]

"In the beginning there was nothing... then it exploded."

[tar]

Strange,

 

I don't think you understand my issue. There is a logical requirement that a star that is 5 light years from Earth, actually exists now in a configuration that is putting out photons which we will see, on Earth in 5 years. And when we point our telescopes at the star we see a particular configuration which informs us of the configuration that that star was in five year ago.

 

If the star was blue five years ago, on its way to blue green, it is blue green now.

 

We see it as blue.

We interpolate it to now be blue green.

 

Which is a true statement?

The star is blue.

The star is blue green.

 

Regards, TAR

Strange,

 

Consider the static on AM radio is reflective of lightning strikes all over the world. The particular cadence and duration of the static is unique, depending on your position. Same with the universe, and our Earthly vantage point. The universe intersects here and now. This is a different case on another planet.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 4, 2015 by tar

[Ophiolite]

Consider the static on AM radio is reflective of lightning strikes all over the world. The particular cadence and duration of the static is unique, depending on your position. Same with the universe, and our Earthly vantage point. The universe intersects here and now. This is a different case on another planet.

It is axiomatic that the Earth is not in some privileged position in the universe. (For privileged, read special, different, unique, etc.) The Cosmological Principle asserts that, on a sufficient scale, the universe is homogenous and isotropic. i.e it will look the same wherever you are in it.

 

You seem to disagree with this. You need to support this unusual position with evidence, or rational argument to the contrary.

[Strange]

I don't think you understand my issue.

 

I understand what you say. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is a problem.

 

 

If the star was blue five years ago, on its way to blue green, it is blue green now.

 

Which is a true statement?

The star is blue.

The star is blue green.

 

As you have already said "it is blue green now" I don't understand why you are asking the question.

 

Let me try that again more slowly so you can follow it:

 

If... the... star... is.... blue... green... now... then... it... is... blue.... green.

 

OK?

 

Or, to put it another way: it is blue green now.

Or, as someone else might out it: it is blue green now

Or, to use the answer you provided: it is blue green now

 

So, I think the answer might be: it is blue green now.

 

What do you think? it is blue green now? Or don't you believe what you wrote?

 

Do you have a problem with the fact that thunder and lightning happen at the same time, even though you nearly always hear the thunder some variable time after you see the lightning.?Does this mean they didn't really happen at the same time in your universe?

 

You won't know how much later the thunder will be until you know how far away the lightning was. You can work that out when you hear the thunder. Because you know they happen at the same time.

 

Similarly, Betelgeuse may have already gone nova. But we won't know that until we see it happen. At which point we will know that the star we were looking at in 2015 no longer existed.

 

 

I don't think you understand my issue.

 

I cannot understand why you have a problem with this.

[tar]

Ophiolite,

 

On a sufficient scale, in a theoretical, imagination sense, it will look the same. However if you take actual observers and put them various places in the universe, they will see different things depending on whether they are in a black hole, or in a galaxy on in a void or on a planet or below the surface of a sun, on a beach at noon, or in their basement at night. It also depends on what

wavelength of light or sound is being recorded, what the pixel count is, and what exposure time you are considering. And it matters whether you are looking this way or that way, all around, and whether you are looking in, or out.

 

Regards, TAR

Strange,

 

It is blue-green, but we cannot prove it. We just imagine it to be blue-green. The evidence points to it being blue.

 

Regards, TAR

if you were searching the catalog and the skies for blue-green stars, you would not find it, it would not be true

if you were searching the catalog and the skies for blue stars you would find it

[Strange]

On a sufficient scale, in a theoretical, imagination sense, it will look the same. However if you take actual observers and put them various places in the universe, they will see different things depending on whether they are in a black hole, or in a galaxy on in a void or on a planet or below the surface of a sun, on a beach at noon, or in their basement at night. It also depends on what

wavelength of light or sound is being recorded, what the pixel count is, and what exposure time you are considering. And it matters whether you are looking this way or that way, all around, and whether you are looking in, or out.

 

It makes no difference to what is, though.

 

It is blue-green, but we cannot prove it. We just imagine it to be blue-green. The evidence points to it being blue.

 

I am assuming that science has a model for your (unrealistic) star type that tells us how they change from blue to blue-green. As such, we don't just "imagine" it to be blue-green, we know it (*). In other words, the evidence points to it being blue-green.

 

(*) with some level of certainty, depending on how good our model is - it may be that, like Betelgeuse, all we can say is "it might be"

 

if you were searching the catalog and the skies for blue-green stars, you would not find it, it would not be true

if you were searching the catalog and the skies for blue stars you would find it

 

If you found a blue star of sufficient maturity (or whatever) that you knew that by now it must be blue-green then you will have found it.

 

Is your problem really the time difference between when things happen and when you see them? Or is it that you don't think we can actually know anything unless we see it with out own eyes? (Neither of these is a very realistic attitude.)

 

It is quite hard to find examples where we know enough about cosmological processes so we can say with any certainty that the thing we observe has changed or no longer exists. But there are plenty of examples the other way round: for example even though we see the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago, we know with pretty much 100% certainty that it has not gone nova in the last 8 minutes. Even though we won't see it shining away merrily for 8 minutes or maybe 12 hours, if it is night time. (But see Larry Niven's Inconstant Moon for a great short story around this idea!) And the same is true for stars that we are seeing as they were years or even thousands of years ago. We know they are still there largely unchanged.

 

And:

 

Do you have a problem with the fact that thunder and lightning happen at the same time, even though you nearly always hear the thunder some (variable) time after you see the lightning? Does this mean they didn't really happen at the same time in your mind?

Edited November 4, 2015 by Strange

[tar]

Strange,

 

I have no problem with lightning and thunder.

 

It is the vast distances which we have no way to check, that cause me to hold an "unknown" model, in my head. The warped version as you call it. You say things remain largely unchanged , which might be alright for local stuff, but as you go out, the meaning of such a statement changes dramatically. A far away galaxy may appear to be on its first and second generation of stars, as we here are on our second and third generation. The metalicity of a far away galaxy is therefor not equivalent to a closer one, and all galaxies have had the time to be in the second and third generation of stars, if you count everything as currently present, even if we don't see it. So there are not galaxies at different ages. We see the universe that way, but its not true if you go by your most recent claims, that the star on its way to blue green, that should be blue green by now, is blue green. With that definition of true, there are no galaxies that are not exactly as old as this one. And that probably means that currently the galaxies of about the mass of the Milky Way are acting quite like this galaxy and building planets and solar systems quite like the ones here. So looking at distant galaxies and predicting the formation of more Earths in their future, is not notably helpful, because it would be more accurate to take what we see locally and just imagine it is currently like this everywhere.

 

Regards, TAR

[Gater]

Since space and time are both infinite - we can reasonably conclude that there has been an infinite number of earthlike planets. Also an infinite number right now - its only distance keeping us from discovering each other.

[Strange]

Since space and time are both infinite

 

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

[Ophiolite]

Since space and time are both infinite - we can reasonably conclude that there has been an infinite number of earthlike planets. Also an infinite number right now - its only distance keeping us from discovering each other.

You made a statement: "The Universe is infinite - it has always been here. Anyone with any logic skills knows this. There is no scientific evidence that can prove this - only logic proves this."

 

I asked you to "set down the clear, concise logical argument that supports your contention."

 

You did not respond, so I reminded you of this request a day or so later.

 

You failed to respond to that request, yet have been active on the forum. This is contrary to forum rules. I have not reported your failure yet as you are new to the forum and may not have properly digested the forum rules. You are required to respond, appropriately. Please do so without further delay.

[Gater]

lol this is so funny - I honestly thought everyone accepted the universe as infinite. So tell me, if you were to travel forever in any direction what do you think you'd find? A brick wall maybe? No seriously, how could space have any limits?

No the universe goes on forever in every direction.

Time is infinite also - there was no beginning of time - how could there be?

The space that is here has always been here - can you create or destroy space?

Some people confuse the idea of universe with "known universe" - our known universe supposedly started with the big bang - I don't know -I wasn't there - scientists claim this is how our earth and galaxy started - who am I to disagree?

However logic tells me that there is no end of space and no beginning of time - how could there be?

[Ophiolite]

lol this is so funny - I honestly thought everyone accepted the universe as infinite.

So, we have established the level of your ignorance. That is useful. We are all ignorant, but correction of this condition in any particular subject area begins with recognising that ignorance.

 

We have also established that you are not concerned by the level of your ignorance. That is interesting. It suggests there may not be any point in taking anything you say seriously.

 

So tell me, if you were to travel forever in any direction what do you think you'd find? A brick wall maybe? No seriously, how could space have any limits?

No the universe goes on forever in every direction.

This allows us to establish two further facts.

1. You don't understand the options available for the character of space.

2. Despite encountering the alternative view, instead of investigating that view and assessing its probability you simply reject it out of hand, thereby remaining close minded.

 

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. Ignorance that you could correct, but choose not to is something to be ashamed of.

 

Time is infinite also - there was no beginning of time - how could there be?

The space that is here has always been here - can you create or destroy space?

You place a great deal more faith than I do in the ignorance of an uneducated individual who stubbornly insists upon remaining ignorant.

 

However logic tells me that there is no end of space and no beginning of time - how could there be?

There is not an ounce of logic in that statement. There is, however, abundant, self-imposed ignorance. Is there a pattern emerging here?

 

I do thank you for your reply. I appreciate the time you took to make it. I urge you to do some simple research to remove your ignorance in this subject area. It will help you avoid further embarrassment.

[tar]

Thread,

 

I am wondering why I got neg reps on #34, without any description of the nature of the objections to the post. I have no way to argue a point in my own defense if the counter point is not described.

 

Regards, TAR

[Gater]

Ophiolite - what an arrogant simpleton you are. Why don't you give me one example of how time and space could not be infinite.

[Strange]

Ophiolite - what an arrogant simpleton you are. Why don't you give me one example of how time and space could not be infinite.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Infinite_or_finite

 

As you have provided nothing but (arrogant and simplistic) claims, I don't see why anyone should take you seriously.

[michel123456]

 

Or, one could say, the wrong way and the right way.

 

 

 

Fairly obviously it is looking at the state of the universe now and comparing it with the state of the universe at some time in the future. As none else shares your warped view of how time works, you can be fairly certain that no one will be basing models on it.

 

 

There is some speculation and imagination involved, I suppose. But you imply it is a fairly meaningless guess. That is obviously not the case as it is quite carefully calculated from a large amount of data and scientific theory (which you haven't bothered to question, so I assume you accept it all).

 

 

The only sensible one, of course (i.e. not yours).

I don't know what you mean and it is not obvious. What is the universe now?

Tthe one that we observe, that is to say the universe spead in different time frames? or the one projected in an human "now" time frame, that is to say a universe that we cannot see?

Edited November 6, 2015 by michel123456

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite - what an arrogant simpleton you are.

Guilty as charged.

 

My ignorance of most things is astounding in its breadth and depth. There are topics I am wholly unaware of, others of which my understanding is so flimsy it would blow away with the first breath of a penetrating question. My mathematics is less than primitive. I can barely compute a Hohmann transfer orbit without consulting a text book. I don't know if the ulna is in the arm or the leg. I cannot remember what the Krebs cycle is. The list goes on. So, simpleton is a well chosen and accurate description.

 

However, I have noticed two things. I seem to know more and understand more about a wide array of subjects than many people I encounter on a day-to-day basis, even a couple of the members of this forum (though thankfully only a couple). I confess that leaves me feeling slightly smug - arrogant would be an acceptable synonym, so you got that one right also.

 

Why don't you give me one example of how time and space could not be infinite.

Strange has kindly provided a link that discusses how the universe might not be infinite. What do you find unacceptable in that discussion?

[Gater]

I read that - any discussion about how the universe can be anything but infinite is stupid. There are no "edges"

There is no shape - the universe is space and matter forever in every direction - Jesus its so simple, im amazed at how many "educated" people don't get this.

[Strange]

So, no evidence to support your crude beliefs then?

[Ophiolite]

I read that - any discussion about how the universe can be anything but infinite is stupid. There are no "edges"

There is no shape - the universe is space and matter forever in every direction - Jesus its so simple, im amazed at how many "educated" people don't get this.

I find it astounding that you can casually dismiss the carefully arrived at conclusions of some of the most penetrating minds humanity has produced, purely on the basis that is does not square with your simplistic, uneducated opinion. (Yet you have the temerity to accuse me of arrogance!) Fortunately, the forum has an Ignore button - a facility I rarely use, but one that was designed for just this situation.

[StringJunky]

I read that - any discussion about how the universe can be anything but infinite is stupid. There are no "edges"

There is no shape - the universe is space and matter forever in every direction - Jesus its so simple, im amazed at how many "educated" people don't get this.

The surface of the earth has no edges but it is finite. The universe can be finite and unbounded i.e. no edges.

[michel123456]

So, no evidence to support your crude beliefs then?

I find it impressive that the statement made in the OP article by a scientist that the universe is infinite raised from you a very quiet comment:

I would be surprised if that was actually made as a statement of fact. But on the other hand, scientists are human and that may be what he believes. It is just as reasonable as believing it finite.

 

And when the same statement originates from a new member, it becomes fantasy.

Edited November 7, 2015 by michel123456

[Strange]

I find it impressive that the statement made in the OP article by a scientist that the universe is infinite raised from you a very quiet comment:

And when the same statement originates from a new member, it becomes fantasy.

 

Because I don't believe the scientist said that. I think the reporter misquoted/misunderstood him.

 

If the scientist does think that, then he has as little basis for it as Gater (i.e. none).

 

(Note: I would [and do] equally question anyone who insists the universe is finite.)