Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2 3 4
6
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

mattnunn

4,087 posts

30 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
ewenm said:
qube_TA said:
Eric Mc said:
So, the speed of light is increasing too.

It's not just the distances that are increasing - but the items we use to measure the distances are increasing. The measuring stick is stretching as we try to use it to measure.
This!
But since it is a closed system and everything is expanding, does it make any sense to say distances are increasing?
Who says it's a closed system?

It's either expanding into something or something is being compressed somewhere. My 30cm ruler doesn't seem to have expanded in the last few weeks, although I can't be sure how big it was before I got it out the stationary cupboard (stationery).

Which leads to the real truth, everything only really exists as you see it. Our definitions of the universe will die with us.

ewenm

24,437 posts

114 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
mattnunn said:
Who says it's a closed system?

It's either expanding into something or something is being compressed somewhere.
Says who? wink Have you any evidence for the Universe not being a closed system? As far as I know, we haven't observed any phenomena that appear to be extra-universal. The idea of the universe expanding into something is flawed, and also one of the hardest to let go of.

mattnunn said:
My 30cm ruler doesn't seem to have expanded in the last few weeks, although I can't be sure how big it was before I got it out the stationary cupboard (stationery).
Don't go all Schrodinger's Cat on me, although Schrodinger's Ruler is much less cruel ;0

mattnunn said:
Which leads to the real truth, everything only really exists as you see it. Our definitions of the universe will die with us.
Your truth mattnunn, your truth. Are you suggesting that things we can't see don't exist? As for the last sentence, well yes of course, given that we are the only species we know of capable of making a definition of the universe.

don4l

3,313 posts

45 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
Most people seem to be treating Einstein's theories as if they were immutable laws of nature. They are not. They are just a set of mathematical equations that we can use to describe some of the things that we see around us.

These equations do not work at the sub-atomic level. I strongly suspect that they also don't work on the very large scale either.


Don
--

mattnunn

4,087 posts

30 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
don4l said:
Most people seem to be treating Einstein's theories as if they were immutable laws of nature. They are not. They are just a set of mathematical equations that we can use to describe some of the things that we see around us.

These equations do not work at the sub-atomic level. I strongly suspect that they also don't work on the very large scale either.


Don
--
Einstein didn't believe in any of this stuff, he didn't support the BBT or an expanding universe, he and Fred Hoyle believed in a stable universe, the Big Bang was a term Hoyle used to deride the theory, it stuck. As previously posted the Big Bang theory was first promoted by possibly the worlds best and most forgotten Physicist George Lamaitre, his name not so widely used by popular science due the confusion caused in the minds of the geeks because of the fact he was a catholic priest.

mattnunn

4,087 posts

30 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
ewenm said:
mattnunn said:
Which leads to the real truth, everything only really exists as you see it. Our definitions of the universe will die with us.
Your truth mattnunn, your truth. Are you suggesting that things we can't see don't exist? As for the last sentence, well yes of course, given that we are the only species we know of capable of making a definition of the universe.
If humans aren't agency for knowledge and there is an immutable physical truth to reality that goes beyond our perception, how come we have to think this stuff up before we go looking to see if it's true? Science has long since stopped discovering stuff and really only prooves what our imagination can concieve.

Advertisement

qube_TA

6,615 posts

114 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
mattnunn said:
Who says it's a closed system?

It's either expanding into something or something is being compressed somewhere. My 30cm ruler doesn't seem to have expanded in the last few weeks, although I can't be sure how big it was before I got it out the stationary cupboard (stationery).
Everything inside the universe is spreading out.

However if you could somehow be outside the universe, and also be somehow able to see this one then it's probably not changed size at all.

The age/shape/size of the universe only exists inside it.

mattnunn

4,087 posts

30 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
qube_TA said:
mattnunn said:
Who says it's a closed system?

It's either expanding into something or something is being compressed somewhere. My 30cm ruler doesn't seem to have expanded in the last few weeks, although I can't be sure how big it was before I got it out the stationary cupboard (stationery).
Everything inside the universe is spreading out.

However if you could somehow be outside the universe, and also be somehow able to see this one then it's probably not changed size at all.

The age/shape/size of the universe only exists inside it.
How very handy.

Is this emperical or just very handy?

Because on the face of it it sound like irrational straw clutching to me.

I'd be happy to have the proof, if it is in a language I can understand.

ewenm

24,437 posts

114 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
mattnunn said:
If humans aren't agency for knowledge and there is an immutable physical truth to reality that goes beyond our perception, how come we have to think this stuff up before we go looking to see if it's true? Science has long since stopped discovering stuff and really only prooves what our imagination can concieve.
Really? Look closely enough at "reality" and it all changes into probabilities and a whole lot of nothingness rather than anything solid. Doesn't sound like physical immutable truth to me.

A lot of astrophysics appears to be trying to explain observations that don't fit the current best fit model, rather than making up stuff and then looking for it. Got any examples of your assertion that "Science has long since stopped discovering stuff and really only prooves (sic) what our imagination can concieve."?

Eric Mc

67,253 posts

134 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
I just found out that marine scientists discovered 32 new species of sea horse over the past few years. Did the scientis just make that up?

Gaffer

6,670 posts

146 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
But what about "Black Holes", they are eating matter (not sure if that is the correct term), galaxys etc so could they actually have eaten the origin of space..?

Humans struggle to grasp the concept of nothingness, bit like before we were born and what happens after.....

But that is a whole other issue/topic.

Claire

qube_TA

6,615 posts

114 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
Gaffer said:
But what about "Black Holes", they are eating matter (not sure if that is the correct term), galaxys etc so could they actually have eaten the origin of space..?

Humans struggle to grasp the concept of nothingness, bit like before we were born and what happens after.....

But that is a whole other issue/topic.

Claire
OK, in an attempt to explain as I understand it:

Imagine living in a 2 dimensional world. So everything was completely flat, you have no concept of height at all. You couldn't perceive it at all, it makes no sense to your 2D mind.

If objects do have a 3rd dimension/height then you'd be unaware of this as you'd only see or know about the other 2 dimensions.

Now if an object in your flat world lifted 'up', then it would completely disappear from your world/POV as it would no longer exist in your 2 dimensional universe as you understand it, as this mysterious 3rd dimension doesn't make sense or really exist to you.


Back to our 3 dimensional universe, take a star, the gravity pushing all the particles together is stopped by the hot gas inside which is trying to push everything away in a big explosion (this is like our Sun), the balance of these two forces keeps everything in check for the duration of the stars life. But if the mass is much higher then the greater the resultant gravity is heavy enough to overcome this electron force and it's the nuclear force inside atoms that stops this crushing force of gravity, this is a neutron star (atoms are mostly full of space, but the nuclear force the surrounds them stops atoms passing through other atoms, stopping you walking through walls). But if the star is so super massive then this nuclear force propping up the star isn't strong enough to fight of the squashing of gravity, it then squashes to 'nothing' but the effect of where it was is still felt as a black hole.

So all that stuff has vanished, no way to get to it, it has no size at all any more, but it was once several times larger than our whole solar system but now it's gone.

Now back to our 2D universe with your 2D self encountering a 3D object, if the mass of the big star has moved 'up' to a dimension that you can't perceive it any more, it's completely disappeared, and in addition if you were caught up inside that collapse and somehow survived then you'd not be able to detect the rest of the universe from which you came as it is now also in a dimension that you can not perceive or get to, you are now effectively in a new universe all of your own and there are no others.

You would be able to perhaps theorise how big your new flat universe is from your POV, and possibly determine when it came into existence, but you've no real way to determine how big it is relative to the other one or anything else that you could theorise as there's no ruler that would be able to measure the different dimensions required, one isn't relative to the other.

If your new universe expanded, you may ask 'into what is it expanding' but from everyone else's point of view in the universe you left behind, you were squashed and disappeared to nothing.

So take our 3D universe and imagine being confronted with additional dimensions, you've no way of knowing they're there or how 'big' they are and vice versa.








Edited by qube_TA on Thursday 14th June 22:47

Ray Luxury-Yacht

6,374 posts

85 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
Gaffer said:
Imagine living in a 2 dimensional world.
I already live in one of these. It revolves around getting up, going to a boring job, coming home late, going to bed, then repeat. To earn some meagre money that gets taxed to the hilt, with the rest spent on consumer goods I don't need, so that I have to keep going to the boring job day in, day out.

The only break from that is maybe leaving the house that is hanging by a thread by being a few mortgage payments away from re-possession, only to be met with an array of surveillance cameras tracking my every move, and an army of enforcers looking to fine me for the merest transgression.

If I want to use the 'freedom' of my car, then before I can even get in it, I am presented with stellar bills for insurance and 'road tax', whatever that is. Want some fuel for the car? No problem, but another 80% of the cost of fuel is further tax - lolz, enjoy! And be careful not to exceed the ridiculous arbitrary speed limits, or dare to park somewhere you shouldn't for a minute - because we'll tax you again! Big Government Lolz!!

Entertainment wise, I suffer a Television that tries to sell me even more stuff I don't need for around 25 minutes of every hour, and when I do get to see a programme, it feeds me 'reality' episodes of stuff that either belittles my existence by insisting I should be living my life in a particular manner, or else presents me with an endless array of 'celebrities' and 'famous' people that I am supposed to be interested in, but are actually vacuous non-entities devoid of any real talent, who spout their own mediocre verbal diarrhoea like it's some kind of important Biblical teaching.

Ok forget that then, I'll stay in and go 'online.' Online you say, responds the Government Big Brother? Well, watch out - we're looking to track your every move there too, sucker! Lolz again, etc!


That's my current '2D' world, right there!



Sorry, bad day...







Blib

Original Poster:

20,645 posts

66 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
As a PHer, I should probably say "MTFU" or similar, at this juncture. But, you'd probably hunt me down and kill me.

hehe

Ray Luxury-Yacht

6,374 posts

85 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
Blib said:
As a PHer, I should probably say "MTFU" or similar, at this juncture. But, you'd probably hunt me down and kill me.

hehe
I'm a lover, not a fighter! Life's hard enough as it is without creating more trouble, lol!


Blib

Original Poster:

20,645 posts

66 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
Blib said:
As a PHer, I should probably say "MTFU" or similar, at this juncture. But, you'd probably hunt me down and kill me.

hehe
I'm a lover, not a fighter! Life's hard enough as it is without creating more trouble, lol!
thumbup

don4l

3,313 posts

45 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
mattnunn said:
don4l said:
Most people seem to be treating Einstein's theories as if they were immutable laws of nature. They are not. They are just a set of mathematical equations that we can use to describe some of the things that we see around us.

These equations do not work at the sub-atomic level. I strongly suspect that they also don't work on the very large scale either.
Einstein didn't believe in any of this stuff, he didn't support the BBT or an expanding universe, he and Fred Hoyle believed in a stable universe, the Big Bang was a term Hoyle used to deride the theory, it stuck. As previously posted the Big Bang theory was first promoted by possibly the worlds best and most forgotten Physicist George Lamaitre, his name not so widely used by popular science due the confusion caused in the minds of the geeks because of the fact he was a catholic priest.
I didn't explain myself very well.

I don't believe that Einstein believed "any of this stuff".

Galaxies appear to be rotating faster than Einstein's theories predict. Most modern scientists assume that Einstein was 100% correct, and that these galaxies, therefore, must contain much more matter than we can observe (ie. dark matter). I suspect that if Einstein was still alive, he would say that he had been wrong.

He was very close, but he wasn't 100% correct.

The Big Bang Theory fails on many levels.

The Universe seems to be far bigger than it should be if our knowledge is correct - and if Einstein was right.

The Universe, or Space itself, seems to be expanding at an increasing rate.

Maybe, we should re-evualate our ability to understand the cosmos.

Don
--




skeeterm5

1,029 posts

57 months

[news] 
Thursday 14th June 2012 quote quote all
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
The most mental thing I could not (and still can't) get my head around, is that most scientists say that, before the 'big bang', there was 'nothing'!
Actually there is no "before" the big bang as this would imply time, which started at the point of the big bang.

S

hornet

5,447 posts

119 months

[news] 
Friday 15th June 2012 quote quote all
don4l said:
Most modern scientists assume that Einstein was 100% correct
I'm guessing most of the quantum physicists don't...

hornet

5,447 posts

119 months

[news] 
Friday 15th June 2012 quote quote all
mattnunn said:
Who says it's a closed system?

It's either expanding into something or something is being compressed somewhere.
At which point you're faced with the exact same question, just now concerning the other something rather than our something.

Bedazzled

4,042 posts

90 months

[news] 
Friday 15th June 2012 quote quote all
don4l said:
Galaxies appear to be rotating faster than Einstein's theories predict. Most modern scientists assume that Einstein was 100% correct, and that these galaxies, therefore, must contain much more matter than we can observe (ie. dark matter). I suspect that if Einstein was still alive, he would say that he had been wrong.
Dark matter and especially dark energy do seem to fudge existing theories to fit with observation. No doubt Einstein's theories will be superseded in time, in the same way his work built on that of Newton and Kepler (and others), but there is currently no compelling alternative explanation.

In the mean time, the spiral galaxy NGC 4736 provides an interesting little puzzle, the rotation appears to slow down as you move farther out from the centre of the galaxy; exactly as you would expect if there is no extended halo of dark matter - see here.
1 2 3 4
6
Reply to Topic