Anyone got any Mind Blowing Questions?

[vampiregenocide]

Vamp, I think you have it backwards. But that's just me, just my very un-scientific opinion I think space and time are related, if not permanently entwined with one another. I think that space/time exists within our Universe. I believe the big bang was preceded by a big "crunch". I think this is why our Universe continues to expand and eventually, will contract in on itself forming a big crunch, and then another big bang, etc.

I don't know what lies outside that expansion/contraction. I don't know if it's nothingness, another dimension, more Universe's or what. But every thing, and "unthing" that we're able to see, touch, taste, measure or observe, including space, or space/time are all part of the Universe as we know it. In other words, the Universe as we know it is a container, everything is inside that container. Who knows what's outside of the container... I don't think the Universe is in space, I think space is in the Universe.

And again, this is just my *opinion*, just what *I* think, not saying I'm right or that other possibilities couldn't or don't exist.

...I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion...

Thats a cool idea, but there are theories abotu what preceded the big bang. One is that there was a long reaction between matter cancelling out anti-matter and creating the base elements of the universe, but I can't remember the ins and outs of it as I read it a while ago.

As for time, I never included that in my posts because I believe it to be a force like gravity, Einstein's theories look at it that way, as do Hawkin's. It is very different to space, which time sort of works through. I disagree with the universe being a container though, I believe it is far bigger than that.

 

[orb451]

Thats a cool idea, but there are theories abotu what preceded the big bang. One is that there was a long reaction between matter cancelling out anti-matter and creating the base elements of the universe, but I can't remember the ins and outs of it as I read it a while ago.

Cool Hadn't heard of that.

As for time, I never included that in my posts because I believe it to be a force like gravity, Einstein's theories look at it that way, as do Hawkin's. It is very different to space, which time sort of works through. I disagree with the universe being a container though, I believe it is far bigger than that.

See I think of space/time as being fundamentally tied together. If you travel from one place to another, whether it's from one point in a room or house, to another, or from one planet to another, you're traveling through space *and* time. Those constructs exist, at least to me, within this Universe of ours. Things like Black holes, White holes, Worm holes and whatever the fuck else is out there, all exist *within* our Universe. So maybe Black holes as an example, if you could physically get through one, would lead you to another *point* in space/time *within* our Universe. Or, maybe, they punch holes straight through space/time and take you to another Universe altogether... I dunno .

But anyway, like I said, that's just my take on it, it's unfounded and unscientific so to me at least, this whole discussion is somewhat more philosophical and less scientific... And to each his own, I'm not saying you're wrong at all

 

[vampiregenocide]

See I think of space/time as being fundamentally tied together. If you travel from one place to another, whether it's from one point in a room or house, to another, or from one planet to another, you're traveling through space *and* time. Those constructs exist, at least to me, within this Universe of ours. Things like Black holes, White holes, Worm holes and whatever the fuck else is out there, all exist *within* our Universe. So maybe Black holes as an example, if you could physically get through one, would lead you to another *point* in space/time *within* our Universe. Or, maybe, they punch holes straight through space/time and take you to another Universe altogether... I dunno .

But anyway, like I said, that's just my take on it, it's unfounded and unscientific so to me at least, this whole discussion is somewhat more philosophical and less scientific... And to each his own, I'm not saying you're wrong at all

Hmm I see what you mean, I think theres more to black holes than we know though. I don't think that we could pass through them, but they'd either destroy us or alter physics greatly. But time effects us, time changes everything. Space is just what time exists in, as does matter.

And sorry if I came across like I was trying to disprove your points man, I find what you say really interesting I'm just like playing Devil's Advocate in some cases, trying to provoke thought at ones own ideas. And I agree it is very philosophical and theoretical.

 

[wannabguitarist]

One question I'd like answered is, how can I get Synesthesia? I want to be able to *see* sounds and hear colors. That to me would be the best.

Smoke a lot of weed

 

[JBroll]

Not saying you're mad, what you wrote was madly set out.

And which point?

And what I am describing is the universe, its just such a term that can be open to interpretation. What is matter and what is abscence of matter? Is abscence of matter technically included in the definition of the universe, if the universe is all known matter and forces?

It fits in with what I said because I was explaining the fact our universe is not an isolated thing. If we think of our universe as a collection of matter within space not part of it, then we open up the idea that there are more universes, and that it is not technically everything, but a collection of everything created in the same manner (a big bang for instance).

Madly set out? It's as clear as I could make it - if trying to get a point across efficiently is 'mad', then I guess I'm usually pretty pissed. If I were mad I would have attacked you instead of explaining why I don't think your ideas work, and I would appreciate fewer assumptions like that about 'mad wording' when what we're talking about has nothing to do with feelings and hugs and all of that fuzzy hippie nonsense.

I think that the distinction that you're trying to set up is clouding your judgment and you're trying to differentiate between things in an utterly nonsensical way. 'Opening up the idea that there are more universes' in this way is honestly not going to get too much done and you gain nothing (except confusion, as suggested by this more-big-bangs-whee! thing) from it. For 'the absence of things' to make sense, there are a few things that you need to be much more careful with - in any case, it just seems to have gotten in your way and befuddled matters and doesn't seem necessary.

Finally, I don't know if the questions on the third line are meant to be philosophy or if you just didn't get good enough physics texts, but in either case it's important to set out definitions like 'matter' and 'universe' from the start in order to not make the discussion completely silly (and the definitions provided by physicists for the context in question should generally be taken).

I pretty much didn't understand a single word,
can you translate this into english please.

@vampire
Ok i think where your disagreement lie is the definition of space,
if space is SOMETHING, then it would probably be part of the universe, if space is the ABSENCE of THINGS, then the universe is probably a part of it.
I don't think there is scientific concensus on this matter.

That link is a summary of a logical axiom that's (at least here) best left assumed - in set theory, which underlies just about everything (unless you've moved on to category theory, which has its own way of avoiding these problems), one of its implications is 'nothing is an element of itself', 'nothing is an element of an element of itself', 'nothing is an element of ... an element of itself' (for arbitrarily many 'an element of' in the place of '...'), and so on. To be fair, if you allow sets that are elements of ... elements of themselves, you can still make a lot of things work... but you won't enjoy it at all and you don't gain much in return for the lost intuition and 'common sense' that you're giving up (apart from perhaps something that sounds interesting under the influence of controlled substances).

As far as 'the absence of things'... there's not scientific consensus on the matter because that question isn't science - it's a definition that's trying too hard to chase its own tail and doesn't help any science get done.

Vamp, I think you have it backwards. But that's just me, just my very un-scientific opinion I think space and time are related, if not permanently entwined with one another. I think that space/time exists within our Universe

That would be closer than what he's trying to get away with - saying 'space is in time' or 'time is in space' or anything like that is no more sensible than 'left is outside up'. (This is why we need better physics education - a lot of the mess would be cleared up if we shot the pseudo-pop-physics twats in the face and had more people like Feynman who could teach physics to lay people without them realizing it.)

Jeff

 

[pink freud]

space is the abscence of things, otherwise it isn't space, its something. and yeah thats my point; the universe is a part of space.

To counter that, space can be considered merely the result of four dimensions. It has a volume and a duration. Either one can possibly be infinite. Other universes would effectively be other planes of existence, as theorized by sub-atomic particles shifting in and out of our reality.

 

[vampiregenocide]

Madly set out? It's as clear as I could make it - if trying to get a point across efficiently is 'mad', then I guess I'm usually pretty pissed. If I were mad I would have attacked you instead of explaining why I don't think your ideas work, and I would appreciate fewer assumptions like that about 'mad wording' when what we're talking about has nothing to do with feelings and hugs and all of that fuzzy hippie nonsense.

I think that the distinction that you're trying to set up is clouding your judgment and you're trying to differentiate between things in an utterly nonsensical way. 'Opening up the idea that there are more universes' in this way is honestly not going to get too much done and you gain nothing (except confusion, as suggested by this more-big-bangs-whee! thing) from it. For 'the absence of things' to make sense, there are a few things that you need to be much more careful with - in any case, it just seems to have gotten in your way and befuddled matters and doesn't seem necessary.

Finally, I don't know if the questions on the third line are meant to be philosophy or if you just didn't get good enough physics texts, but in either case it's important to set out definitions like 'matter' and 'universe' from the start in order to not make the discussion completely silly (and the definitions provided by physicists for the context in question should generally be taken).

Just that sentence didn't come across very clearly. It's not a big deal man blimey. But I give up because no offence but we never get anywhere talking and I'll just end up repeating what I've said a dozen times. I see no problem with any of my points, and you've never flatly said why they're wrong, just that they are. Then theres the fact you can't even prove it because we're basing these ideas on theories and ideas, not proven fact. But I'll leave you to it because we're not getting anywhere.

 

[chimp_spanner]

New rule - don't feed the Jbroll!

**Also, 4 years and only 447 posts. That's rubbish!

 

[JBroll]

Just that sentence didn't come across very clearly. It's not a big deal man blimey. But I give up because no offence but we never get anywhere talking and I'll just end up repeating what I've said a dozen times. I see no problem with any of my points, and you've never flatly said why they're wrong, just that they are. Then theres the fact you can't even prove it because we're basing these ideas on theories and ideas, not proven fact. But I'll leave you to it because we're not getting anywhere.

I've actually said why they brought about problems and why the 'new Big Bangs' thing didn't make much sense... even though I really didn't have to since you gave no indication that your definition wasn't circular.

Jeff

 

[vampiregenocide]

Rightio.

 

[JBroll]

I'm really not doing this to be angry or mean - the fact that you've seemed a bit lost on what the Big Bang actually was and how time stands in relation to space is cause for concern, and what's really there is so much more interesting than just about any misguided layman's misexplanation that it would be wrong to *not* try to find and fix mistakes. (Long story short: I don't dislike you, I just like physics too much.)

Jeff

 

[vampiregenocide]

I'm really not doing this to be angry or mean - the fact that you've seemed a bit lost on what the Big Bang actually was and how time stands in relation to space is cause for concern, and what's really there is so much more interesting than just about any misguided layman's misexplanation that it would be wrong to *not* try to find and fix mistakes. (Long story short: I don't dislike you, I just like physics too much.)

Jeff

Its alright man, its not that I don't know what it is exactly, I just don't think perhaps I was demonstrating what I know corretly.

What is your definition ofthe big bang and how do you think time relates to space?

 

[JBroll]

I don't have my own definitions because I think the physicists are the ones whose definitions should be used - to fix the biggest things that seemed odd in your earlier posts, the Big Bang was an explosion 'of' (not 'in') space (Weinberg's The First Three Minutes is well worth checking out - Weinberg is a Nobel-winning physicist and great writer, and that book is a great example of why he should be as much of a household name as Hawking or Feynman) and time is one of the 'parts' of spacetime (so it's certainly not a 'force' or a thing that goes through space... at the risk of oversimplifying, it is to the rest of space as up is to left) - spacetime is what you get when you combine space and time (so that the familiar three spatial 'directions', together with one for time, are the four 'directions' of spacetime) and has made a lot of things much simpler.

Jeff

 

[vampiregenocide]

I don't have my own definitions because I think the physicists are the ones whose definitions should be used - to fix the biggest things that seemed odd in your earlier posts, the Big Bang was an explosion 'of' (not 'in') space (Weinberg's The First Three Minutes is well worth checking out - Weinberg is a Nobel-winning physicist and great writer, and that book is a great example of why he should be as much of a household name as Hawking or Feynman) and time is one of the 'parts' of spacetime (so it's certainly not a 'force' or a thing that goes through space... at the risk of oversimplifying, it is to the rest of space as up is to left) - spacetime is what you get when you combine space and time (so that the familiar three spatial 'directions', together with one for time, are the four 'directions' of spacetime) and has made a lot of things much simpler.

Jeff

Hmm I see what you mean, though I don't get the definition for the big bang. I mean, if it is an explosion of space, what is space in itself? Space has to exist within something if it does indeed exist and isn't just volume which matter resides in.

 

[JBroll]

Well, it looks like we've found the problem. I assume for the sake of argument that the phrase 'exist in something' makes sense (a debatable assumption at best).

Consider the so-called 'principle of explosion', which I'll paraphrase as "If one assumes nonsense, anything is provable" for now. It should be clear why you should check the assumption in the last sentence *very carefully* with that in mind, because if anything is provable then nothing is better than anything else and there's nowhere for a discussion to go.

Suppose that space has to exist in something - call it superspace, just for the hell of it. Does superspace have to exist in something?

If not, why does superspace *not* have to exist in something when space does, and why would one not just define space to be what is currently being called superspace?

If superspace must exist in something, does supersuperspace have to exist in something?

(repeat as long as necessary to show the problem.)

The conclusion is that if only finitely many super...superspaces are necessary, then the cutoff is entirely arbitrary and silly, and if infinitely many are needed then spaces 'existing in something' are no more sensible and well-founded than before *and* we've introduced infinitely many super...superspaces for no good reason.

Your assumption then makes no more sense than thinking that a god must have existed to create the universe. I'd strongly recommend a good physics book to clear up problems of this sort.

Jeff

 

[vampiregenocide]

Well, it looks like we've found the problem. I assume for the sake of argument that the phrase 'exist in something' makes sense (a debatable assumption at best).

Consider the so-called 'principle of explosion', which I'll paraphrase as "If one assumes nonsense, anything is provable" for now. It should be clear why you should check the assumption in the last sentence *very carefully* with that in mind, because if anything is provable then nothing is better than anything else and there's nowhere for a discussion to go.

Suppose that space has to exist in something - call it superspace, just for the hell of it. Does superspace have to exist in something?

If not, why does superspace *not* have to exist in something when space does, and why would one not just define space to be what is currently being called superspace?

If superspace must exist in something, does supersuperspace have to exist in something?

(repeat as long as necessary to show the problem.)

Your assumption then makes no more sense than thinking that a god must have existed to create the universe. I'd strongly recommend a good physics book to clear up problems of this sort.

Jeff

No no you've made my post far more complicated than it is. Space, superspace or whatever you want to call it does not have to exist in anything. It is simply abscence of matter which is then filled by matter e.g our universe. A fish tank is filled with fish, and tank is the perimiter inside which those fish exist. There does not need to be another tank, because theoretically this tank is infinite, as we presume space to be. Its just...nothing, filled by something. There is no supernothing, no alternate dimension of nothing.

Exist in something makes perfect sense. You fill a box with something. Space is filled by the universe. Does that not make sense?

 

[JBroll]

Space has to exist within something ...

Space, superspace or whatever you want to call it does not have to exist in anything.

Before you object to what I omitted from the first post, any defense from those grounds would boil down to an argument over what it means to exist and that'll just get nowhere. I have complicated nothing any more than your original statements - I've just taken their consequences and shown how they didn't work. The problem is that your definitions make sense only if you already assume them to make sense, and that's no way to define things. If there is a way to separate space from the universe, it doesn't look like you've found it.

Jeff

 

[MF_Kitten]

Chimp: it IS rubbish! you SUCK at being a forumite! hang here more so we can marvel at your presence more!

JBroll, we need more awesome physics/science/cool shit threads from you. you always get into arguments, and spew awesome sentences all over the place, but i haven´t seen threads from you lately. make some threads on things that interest you! we like it! you make yourself heard in the awesomest of ways, and as such are a great teacher

 

[vampiregenocide]

Before you object to what I omitted from the first post, any defense from those grounds would boil down to an argument over what it means to exist and that'll just get nowhere. I have complicated nothing any more than your original statements - I've just taken their consequences and shown how they didn't work. The problem is that your definitions make sense only if you already assume them to make sense, and that's no way to define things. If there is a way to separate space from the universe, it doesn't look like you've found it.

Jeff

I can't find where I said that first bit but whatever I said it looks like I was incorrect there. Getting my points confused. I am posting a lot of shit mostly at 1 in the morning.

And I disagree, you haven't stated exactly why they don't work. I've not seen anything to prove that. I think we are essentially arguing over what it means to exist, and that is where our ideas are conflicting. To me, my ideas make perfect sense and I see no logical or scientific reason why they could be considered wrong. I could agree there are other possible alternatives, but I don't think it is wrong. I don't know, I just honestly can't understand what you're arguing against and your actual reasons.

 

[vampiregenocide]

I'm gna give up either way dude sorry, this thread is keeping me up and I can't keep posting here. I understand your points, and while I disagree I also understand why you disagree with me. I'm half asleep now so I'mpulling out.