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

[tar]

Gater,

 

Well let me ask you this. What were you doing the minute before your conception?

 

Regards, TAR

Gater,

 

Adding a number to a number is imaginary in nature. In reality things emerge that did not exist prior their emergence. Like a hurricane. Just air pressure and water vapor and heat, before and after. But the hurricane itself is finite in duration.

 

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 12, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

I thought on a science board there would be intelligent people that understood that space and time are infinite.

 

There are people who understand it could be. They are also intelligent enough to realise that it might not be, and that they need evidence to decide.

 

But it does seem that there are some people who are not smart enough to realise that things are not necessarily true just because "common sense" says they should be.

[Strange]

I think I might be getting where you are coming from with this. When you look at the raindrop or galaxy that is at 90degrees to the direction of fall, you will (because of light delay) actually be seeing one that is slightly ahead of you and therefore falling slightly faster. However, only a proportion of the extra velocity will be in the direction away from you because it is at some angle to the direction of fall (a bit of vector maths required there). So it looks like you need to show that this preserves an isotropic speed-distance relationship. (I'm betting it doesn't. But I am not going to do your maths for you.)

 

However, there is an analogy between the free fall example and the increasing separation due to "expansion of space". They both examples of increasing separation in the absence of any force. But the former is not isotropic because it happens in curved space-time, whereas the latter is isotropic because it happens in flat space-time.

[swansont]

I thought on a science board there would be intelligent people that understood that space and time are infinite.

 

!

Moderator Note

An appeal to put-down doesn't count as supporting evidence

[tar]

Strange,

 

I don't think the raindrop is going faster than it looks. It is probably going as fast as it looks like it is going, except that from the observer's viewpoint, the positions of the raindrop at T 1 and T 2 were actually not where the raindrops where at T1 and T2. At T1 the raindrop had actually advanced a small distance to the right from its apparent position, and at T2 it actually was that same small distance to the right, further than the position at T2.

 

In one of your links earlier in this thread I ran into a new term (for me,) "virial". It has to do with equations of state and although I don't get it yet, it seemed to be dealing with two ways to treat large systems, along the lines, or for the reasons I have been alluding to, in this and other threads, in that the particle on one side of the system right now is the one we see, while the particle on the other corner of the system, is no longer where it appears to be.

 

I don't think this is a problem...unless you try to deal with the particles in the same equation. Then you have to specify whether you are considering the whole system as happening now, or whether you are considering the whole system in terms of its photon and gravity interaction with one specific point in the system.

 

Regards TAR

​

Edited November 13, 2015 by tar

[Gater]

tar - as I stated before - most things do have a beginning and a ending. I suppose most men are wired to believe all things have a "life cycle"

 

Scientists talk of the universe as starting with the big bang - but this is incorrect. The "known universe" did start with the big bang and I suspect that the stars in the "known universe" will burn out, and eventually will collapse and another big bang will occur. That would be life cycle of the "known universe"

 

The Universe is everything in every direction forever. It had no beginning, it will never end. It has no life cycle.

 

I accept and believe that as true. People in here keep asking me for proof. Ive tried twice to explain why I believe that - at this point I don't know what kind of proof would satisfy everyone. I can only suggest that you use your own logic skills to search for the truth.

[Strange]

The Universe is everything in every direction forever. It had no beginning, it will never end. It has no life cycle.

 

I accept and believe that as true. People in here keep asking me for proof. Ive tried twice to explain why I believe that

 

You haven't explained. You have just asserted it as a fact.

 

 

I can only suggest that you use your own logic skills

 

Done that. Logic tells me not to jump to a conclusion without evidence.

[tar]

Gater,

 

Well let’s talk sets and subsets. If this universe, that we are trying to decide the finiteness or infinite nature of, is what you are calling the “observable universe” that began 13.8 billion years ago, and who’s stars and galaxies will burn out in 600 billion years and who’s mass might fall back into a massive black hole singularity over some finite period of time, then the life cycle of this universe is finite and might be considered to have a birth, a life and a death, the whole thing over a finite period of time of say a trillion years.

 

So the universe is finite.

 

If, when the mass and energy of the universe is collected back into a singularity, something else emerges from it, that something else would not be this universe. Would it?

 

So if you are suggesting that there is a greater existence that we should consider, that includes whatever were the conditions “prior” or the conditions required for a singularity to be, such that this universe be an element in a greater set, then you need to show us the residuals from the previous occurrence of universeness, that lead you to this claim of the universe being just one in a chain of universes or just one element in a set of universes that extend spacially, forever.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

 

​

Edited November 13, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

Scientists talk of the universe as starting with the big bang - but this is incorrect.

 

How do you know it is incorrect?

 

The "known universe" did start with the big bang and I suspect that the stars in the "known universe" will burn out, and eventually will collapse and another big bang will occur. That would be life cycle of the "known universe"

 

 

I will assume that by "known universe" you mean "observable universe" (rather than the fictional worlds created by Larry Niven )

 

In which case it is entirely possible (but not known) that the "big bang" does not include the entire universe. We have no way of knowing.

 

However, it seems very unlikely that the big bang is just the observable universe. That would put us in a very special position in the universe, which seems improbable.

[Gater]

tar - The "known universe" - a 30 billion light year sphere, that we are in the center of, "started" with the Big Bang - this is not entirely accurate. The Big Bang is a point in the life cycle of the known universe that scientists have called the beginning - In any cycle, there is no true beginning. Just as in any circle there is no beginning.

[Ophiolite]

Why, on a science forum, are we "debating" with someone who has nothing more than an ill informed opinion? Especially when they adamantly refuse to listen to sound technical advice, confuse their own baseless thinking with logic and fail to understand any part of the scientific method!

 

The question was rhetorical. Since using the Ignore button has not prevented me from seeing the nonsense when others quote it, I guess I shall have to avoid the thread until some sense is restored.

[tar]

So Gater,

 

Is this among the first of many many Earths?

 

Regards, TAR

[Gater]

tar - of course its all speculation and probabilities, but my belief is that we are just one planet of an infinite number planets that came before us.

 

I believe theres an infinite number of planets that evolved life and societies in the past and a infinite number happening right now - its just that we are separated by so much time and space that we may never have proof of their existence.

[tar]

Gater,

 

Well as you say, its a guess, but my guess is that what the universe is doing now, it never did before.

 

To this, it would be hard for planets like Earth to have formed prior there being the heavier elements available. Like no Iron for the core and no carbon for carbon based life to be based on.

,

So other Earth like planets here and there in a very large galaxy, sure. And a very large number of other galaxies give us a lot of chances​ that there are other Earth sized planets concurrently existent or that have developed or will develop in the last 5 billion, or next 5 billion year history of the place, but figuring that an infinite number preceded us, ignores the possibility, that things might never have been like this before. .

 

Like on Earth, the internet is not among an infinite number of internets that have developed in the past.

 

It is the first and only to have developed on the planet. There cannot have been one in Atlantis. The microprocessor did not exist until 1971. Like the Iron atom is required to build a planet with an iron core, the microprocessor is required to build computers powerful enough and small enough and numerous enough to sustain an internet.

 

And we do not know the physical laws present in any of the universes that may have existed prior this one. Even if we are to speculate that matter and energy came into being at the big bang, and developed the galaxies and generations of stars and the metalicity required to build Earthlike planets, we cannot be sure that a previous universe would have had the same physical laws and would have evolved along similar lines. It could have been completely different. In which case other Earths would not be indicated. So you cannot interpolate backward. Not to the early times of this universe, nor to the unknown physical laws of a different universe.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 14, 2015 by tar

[Gater]

tar - when you say "universe" are you referring to the "known universe" - the 15 billion year old, 30 billion light year sphere? Or the "universe" of infinite time and space?

[tar]

Gater,

 

I am referring to the universe we know about., Any other construct is imaginary in nature, and is not forced by logic to be the case.

 

And I am referring to the other construct that you have, and others including myself have of an infinite existence from which this universe sprung. The physical laws governing such an extent of existence are not readily knowable.

 

What I am suggesting, is that such an area of existence, outside the knowable universe, is none of our business. It does not pertain to us. We cannot go there or be there or exist there. We are here. This is our universe. It is plenty big and plenty long lived on its own. We cannot reach the extents of this one, it is useless to claim any grasp of something that we cannot check on, or have any reason to check on.

.

Now, on the other hand. If we were to understand the nature of what could be passed on from a universe collapsing into a black hole, into the next universe, the next big bang, and understand the nature of universes and the physical laws that they engender, then indeed we might then consider ourselves an integral part of the history of universes, and guess at what the last one was like, and wonder about what the next one might look like.

 

But still then this universe would be our universe, and the others before and after, or surrounding this one, in whatever dimension of time or space you wish to imagine is existing in an infinite fashion, would be "other" universes. Not ours.

 

So I suppose I am referring to our universe and am thinking we have no responsibility for anybody else's. We cannot claim ownership of the eternity you say exists. We are quite committed to this reality. And this one alone. And this one, may well be finite in nature. As unique and fragile and limited as the extent of the history of the Oak tree. As an individual tree or as a species, the Oak tree is a fleeting thing, against the expanse of time and space. Even on a finite stage.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 14, 2015 by tar

[Gater]

tar - When I was a child I was taught that the definition of the word Universe was all space and matter forever in every direction - I accept that as being true.

 

Somewhere down the road the term Universe started being used as only what we could see with the most powerful telescopes. Right now that distance is about 15 billion light years, so in the future with more powerful telescopes does your universe get bigger?

 

I suppose we need a new term to differentiate between the things - 1 a finite "universe" and 2 an infinite "universe"

 

I typically say Universe vs the known or observable universe.

 

What you must understand is that while your universe seems big - compared to my universe its like comparing a single water molecule to the pacific ocean.

 

So in your universe, yes we may be among the 1st of many worlds, I really don't know. The funny thing is, I have more problems "crunching the numbers" in your universe than in mine. Because we are dealing with a finite time and space. But since we have discovered water in our own solar system there probably are many life sustaining planets in your universe.

 

 

But in my universe, logic dictates that I believe that there have been an infinite number or worlds with life and societies that have lived and died out. And a infinite number that are thriving right now.

[tar]

Gater,

 

I don't think there is your universe and then my universe. All evidence points to us existing in the same one. It would be my universe and it would be your universe.

 

If on the other hand you figure your model is superior to mine then that might be the case, but the fact of the matter is, what you figure is the case is not necessarily the case. That is what evidence is about. Can you back up your claim?

 

 

Of course you can't. We cannot even get to the other side of our galaxy and return with the report, much less check out what is 100 billion lys out.

 

Does it make sense to you that there are Turtles all the way down?

 

How can you get an Earthlike planet before there is iron?

Regards, TAR

[Gater]

tar - both of our definitions work - however your universe is contained within my universe.

 

I have 2 questions for you - 1st, how many life sustaining planets do you think there are in the universe?

 

and 2nd - why do you think we are among the 1st? opposed to being among the last?

Edited November 15, 2015 by Gater

[tar]

Gater,

 

I am thinking it does not matter much, in terms of what is for dinner tonight.

 

And you have to be clear in the question as to what you mean by among the first. That is my whole question as indicated in the OP and follow up thoughts.

 

Are we talking about what we see, or are we talking about what must be the case now, for us to see it later?

 

I think there are probably other life sustaining planets, probably none "like" Earth. Similar to, perhaps, but as two species, with a lot of similarities can be completely different from each other, probably Earth size planets with liquid water and iron cores are likewise, different from Earth.

 

Not twins. Too many things are required to be the same, for there to be a really close match. And the distance between us, and any match, is enough to place that Earthlike planet out of our reach. It is either happening now, in which case someone in this solar system will not know about it for the length of time it takes light to travel the distance between, or if we see it happening, it is just an image of a past reality. In either case we can not consider it as an event which we can commune with, between now and suppertime.

 

Regards, TAR

Gater,

 

Let's say for instance that we as Earthlings take a million years to travel to a planet on the other side of the Milky Way. We find it quite Earthlike and settle it. We send a message home which is received 100,000 years after we send it. When we get the return message, 200,000 years would have passed, by which time the message would be being received by our very great grandchildren. 10,000 generations would have lived and died, before the return message was received. What would you think about the verb "is", in that situation?

 

Regards, TAR

and the whole story, the launch the landing the message and the return message took 1.2 million years and 50 thousand generations. Each generation had an idea of what is was, and no generation grasped the whole story, as "present"

Edited November 15, 2015 by tar

[tar]

Except perhaps in your statements of a differenciation between my universe and your universe. If the model of the universe you hold in your head would be the same model as the model I hold in my head, then we both could feel as if we contained the whole story, presently. This is probably why people here ask for proof of your claims. If there is proof, that fits the facts then everybody adjusts their model accordingly. The Earth for instance is no longer considered flat, nor riding on the back of a turtle. It used to be. The Earth used to be the center of the universe, but the models that were continually collectively built, dropped that requirement from the model, and we now consider the whole place homogeneous, with no preferred center.

 

However, as far as collective scientific models go, there are some several that contain images of what the universe is "presently" like. And that makes the universe in the mind of a string theorist, possibly different from that in the mind of Morman. The "best" model however is the one that fits every fact we can find out about the place.

 

 

I have a strong feeling though, that what we think about the place does not change it very much. It is the way it is, and the truth of it will not change much according to our thinking about it. The same number of Earthlike planets have existed, do exist and will exist, in the exact order that that has been occurring, prior the OP article and study, as after the OP article and study.

Edited November 15, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

I have a strong feeling though, that what we think about the place does not change it very much.

 

Indeed. Gater's unshakeable belief (presumably one based on religion) that the universe is infinite and eternal has no effect on whether it is or not.

[Gater]

lol Strange - Time and space are infinite. Since you seem so sure they are not - why don't you give me some proof that they are not. I await your response - I need a good laugh.

[swansont]

lol Strange - Time and space are infinite. Since you seem so sure they are not - why don't you give me some proof that they are not. I await your response - I need a good laugh.

!

Moderator Note

you don't get to demand this while not providing any evidence to support your own claim

[Strange]

lol Strange - Time and space are infinite. Since you seem so sure they are not - why don't you give me some proof that they are not. I await your response - I need a good laugh.

 

I am not sure of any such thing. There is (currently) no way of knowing whether the universe is finite or infinite. As you are the one making definite statements, you are the one who has the burden of proof. But, despite that, I provided you with some information on the current state of knowledge, which you dismissed without even looking at it.