the universe

Anhar Miah said:
TIme does exist and is finite, an extremly simple proof:


Q. Can Two finite object share the same space?

A. If you do not inlcude a time dimension (4th Dimension) then no, it would be impossible, yet it can even be done very simply.

Try this experiment:

Take two objects of the same dimensions, (eg 2 footballs), get a stop watch.

Mark out a spot to place the football, then after X minutes replace this ball with the other one.

Now if we assume that time did not exist (i.e. lets collapse the time dimension) then what we just did would be impossible BECAUSE two seperate objects would be inhabiting the same space ! clearly impossible.

But since finite time exists, two seperate objects can inhabit the same space SO long as they are seperated by a time distance (which we measured with our stopwatch ) :)
Click to expand...

This is not a great analogy, because space and time are one. Those two footballs do NOT inhabit the same space EVER. Because the whole Earth, solar system, galaxy, universe is in motion. So even if you placed it in the same spot at two different times, they would NEVER occupy the same space. It's kind of the beef with time travel films. If you tried to travel back in time in the same spot you left, you would end up somewhere in space.
 
And a hush falls over the crowd... Tiger SINKS IT!

Damn geo-time'o-centric logic won't die.

(UN) Ironically Mark is saying that the best way to explore space might be to build a time machine... brrrilliant!

All I'm saying is that in the sense that time is proven in that other example you're going to have to tivo that football if you want to impress me :)
 
Well all I was saying was that that particular example was not a good "proof" because it is inaccurate. I have no opinion on whether time exists. Hmmm, maybe a good excuse for being late to work in the morning...
 
To prove time exists all you have to do is watch. To accurately define time? Well that could take a while.
 
Humorous Proof of time:

Two gentlemen a physicists and an a economist meet at a noisy bar, the economist taps the shoulder of the physicist and asks him for the time,

The physicist turns around and punches him in his face, the shocked and angry economist asks why he has hit him, the physicist replies:

"Look, two events have occurred, if time existed, then you could say in which order they occurred (which one happened before and which one happened afterwards), but if time doesn't exist, then those events would just be unrelated events with no time between them. Since your an economist I know time is money, and to explain "time" would have taken much longer, so as a practical demonstration I hit you to explain it faster, "

The economist scratching his perplexed head replies:

"I see, but I still don't understand how that explains what time it is?"
 
I'm also having trouble understand the argument that an "infinite universe" could not contain any finite distances.

If our universe was endless, wouldn't we still be able to have a standard of measurement?
 
Drew Ott said:
I'm also having trouble understand the argument that an "infinite universe" could not contain any finite distances.

If our universe was endless, wouldn't we still be able to have a standard of measurement?
Click to expand...


It's moot because the universe IS finite. :D
 
taormina said:
It's moot because the universe IS finite. :D
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for proof that doesnt equate to "just because" lol. Everyone is saying I'm wrong because infinity means measurement is impossible. I don't get that, at all. If you have, for example, an empty sphere. Two objects within the sphere have a finite distance, and the sphere itself as a universe is finite. But if you get rid of the edges, which weren't involved in measuring the distance anyway, then you still have that finite measurement, but there is an infinite amount of space around those objects. They can move billions of miles parallel to each other and obviously be the same distance apart, but they can also move away from each other forever, and the distance would increase towards (but never achieving) infinity.

This is simple calculus stuff here... why is everyone saying I'm wrong?
 
Sean;

Who said just "because"?

As I told you before, thinking the universe goes on forever has the close cousin that you can divide and object in half again and again "infinity" times and keep getting smaller and smaller objects.

Plank Length destroys that whole line of thinking on a micro level; whay can you not see that it is like that at the macro level as well?

Who cares about two points - it's irrelevant. Show me ONE THING in nature that is infinite. Nothing is. Everything can be measured. Why would the volume of the universe be any different?

This whole discussion is now turning into one of my favorite books:

"Your ass and a hole in the ground; a comparative study"
 
It comes down to this - what we know about the universe and physics is minuscule. We'll never understand more than a very tiny tip of that proverbial iceberg. Take Steven Hawking with his Hawking radiation theory. I'm not sure if it still holds as being valid or if it has been disproved, but it was developed by a very smart individual - it doesn't really explain anything. It's just an observation on black hole behavior. The point is, we'll never know anything much more than trivial things. Space and time could be completely separate, but we see it as being related in a very congruent manner. The fact that we can prove something is valid with calculus in almost invalidated because in the grand scheme of things (the universe, physics, etc.), it's an extremely simple tool that we have - a way for us to try and wrap our brains around what we live through every day. The universe could be infinite or finite. The fact is there's no way to prove that. The universe could be something that we are way off base on trying to understand. The big bang could be the equivalent of someone rubbing their fingers together... no one will ever know. I think the universe is MUCH more than scientists will ever realize.
 
SeanEmer said:
I'm still waiting for proof that doesnt equate to "just because" lol. Everyone is saying I'm wrong because infinity means measurement is impossible. I don't get that, at all. If you have, for example, an empty sphere. Two objects within the sphere have a finite distance, and the sphere itself as a universe is finite. But if you get rid of the edges, which weren't involved in measuring the distance anyway, then you still have that finite measurement, but there is an infinite amount of space around those objects. They can move billions of miles parallel to each other and obviously be the same distance apart, but they can also move away from each other forever, and the distance would increase towards (but never achieving) infinity.

This is simple calculus stuff here... why is everyone saying I'm wrong?
Click to expand...

Well there is no proof either way. No one knows, and there is yet a theory that handles the question adequately. General Relativity models the structure of spacetime, but it doesn't cover the finite/infinite thing. Nothing does yet.

So no one can tell you you're wrong, if it's any consolation.
 
Tom Marshall said:
It comes down to this - what we know about the universe and physics is minuscule. We'll never understand more than a very tiny tip of that proverbial iceberg. Take Steven Hawking with his Hawking radiation theory. I'm not sure if it still holds as being valid or if it has been disproved, but it was developed by a very smart individual - it doesn't really explain anything.
Click to expand...

Hawking radiation has not been proven, but NASA is about to launch GLAST, a probe which might be able to help.
 
Not one person here disagrees that Saint Louis is about 293 miles from Chicago... and always will be.

Nobody has disagreed with finite measurements in the "infinite" universe (which again... I don't believe in an infinite universe, but you put the point out there)...

Who is denying finite measurement in an infinite universe? I think that what everybody is trying to tell you is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Since Stephen Hawking's name has arisen, it bears mentioning that he believes the universe is finite BECAUSE of Planck Length. I only just found that out about him tonight.
 
Tom Marshall said:
Yeah, well... my point was that even Hawking can't predict whether the universe is finite or not...
Click to expand...


Yeah but the guy knows more about this than just about anyone alive. Besides, why argue about the color of ****. The universe is so vast as to almost be infinite anyways.
 
I just find it amazing that *anything* exists. The universe is just so amazingly complex, really - to us, that is. To some other extraterrestrial species, it could very well be some fantastic work of art. Who knows why anything exists. But whatever created it - be it "God" or something else, whatever you choose to believe, created something truly fantastic...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top