ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waxing Crescent 16.1%
|
|

30-03-2007, 09:10 AM
|
 |
Blacktown isn't so black
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Prospect, NSW, 2148
Posts: 1,316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
So the logic I employ is simply the more difficult you make something for someone to own is a sure way to have them want it and make them pay a very high price to take it home
|
I couldn't agree more (actually I could), this is the same philosophy that perfume manufacturers employ to sell 5 Bucks worth of scent for 500 Bucks. Bucks in this sense means dollars
|

30-03-2007, 09:12 AM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Well in that case I will continue...thank you Ron
alex
|

30-03-2007, 09:17 AM
|
 |
Blacktown isn't so black
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Prospect, NSW, 2148
Posts: 1,316
|
|
Have you noticed that ron is at the centre of ast ronomy
|

30-03-2007, 09:21 AM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
It is further evidence that we are each as individuals are at the centre of the Observable Universe.. this fact escapes many but they still present to others that is where they live.
alex
|

30-03-2007, 09:25 AM
|
 |
Blacktown isn't so black
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Prospect, NSW, 2148
Posts: 1,316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
we are each as individuals at the centre of the Observable Universe..
|
Have you speculated what might lie beyond the observable universe? Is it more of the same? Does it end as we know it and change into something else or nothing? What would nothing actually be? Help me out here, these are important questions
|

30-03-2007, 09:47 AM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
There can be no "nothing" so that implies the actual Universe is infinite. This makes it difficult to go along with the big bang idea as one can not double a point, a seed, a discrete object so that it becomes infinite. Infinite however is beyond humans conception and therefore human acceptance. Humans need to have a start and a finish, they need to be able to run the tape around it and get a reading.
The question when one tries to comptemplate infinity is it more of the same or does our observable Universe form for example no more than the smudge upon the lens of a big telescope belonging to a being beyond our comprehension is size. We can only speculate and wonder about the various possibilities. There is a body of math seeking to deal with infinite and it seems that many working in this area go crazy.. so be careful..if you entertain the possibility past a more than curious level.
It is said it is a wise man who can imagine a stick with no ends but of course a life time can be devoted to imagining same and thereby bring the observation that to spend ones life in such a pursuit is not wise at all.
alex
|

30-03-2007, 10:04 AM
|
 |
Blacktown isn't so black
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Prospect, NSW, 2148
Posts: 1,316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
There can be no "nothing"
|
I never got past your first 5 words
For the purpose of useful discussion, please define for me 'something'. When you imply nothing does not exist, are you referring to it's state of being as in the opposite of being (existing).
I put it to you that the 'ONLY' thing that makes something is nothing, otherwise there would just be.
Consider the record, what makes the record is the hole at it's centre, and yet it can be argued that the hole is nothing. Not true, the hole (the nothing) is what defines the something (in this case a record). Without the hole it would be a round disk of plastic (were they made of plastic, I think not but you know what I mean).
If you have a universe, a 'real' existence, it can only be so by what defines it, and that is it's opposite.
The evidence of opposites occur throughout nature and is directly observed, electricity is a good example, speed (temperature), and the very essence of being itself must have an opposite. I have refrained purposefully from using the term negative in this sense, because that is not what I mean.
A negative universe has a series of implications that are too complex for me to understand, however an opposite universe is easy for me to understand in the terms I have outline above.
My summary is this, nothing can exist but only in tandem with something, you cannot isolate either one IMHO. Like the subatomic particles both existing and not existing in quantum physics, I believe it will come to pass that these laws will one day be resolved in giant physics.
Over to you mate
|

30-03-2007, 10:41 AM
|
 |
SKE
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Blaxland, N.S.W.
Posts: 634
|
|
'Nothing' is an interesting concept in a philosophical sense, perhaps even in a scientific one as well. I suspect that 'infinite' falls into the same category.
I also suspect, rightly or wrongly, that most people would envisage 'nothing' as a vacuum - that is, lack of air or other baryonic matter. But we know, or think, that this is not the case. What most would consider to be a vacuum is full of radiation which, if E=MC^2 is to be believed, means that space outside an atmosphere is still populated by matter (i.e. energy=matter=energy). If that were not the case then there would be no barrier to us stepping from the Earth's atmosphere to that of Mars - or to anywhere else in the universe, visible or not.
Perhaps it's a matter of mathematical semantics, much like a Roman ignoring the concept of zero? Perhaps it is a human inability to process and accept the idea that 'nothing' exists? I find it hard at times to think of history as a time I didn't exist and, likewise, a future in which I will have the same state.
The point being, of course, that both states have and will occur.
|

30-03-2007, 10:45 AM
|
 |
SKE
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Blaxland, N.S.W.
Posts: 634
|
|
Ah, sorry, Ron. I've just been shifting a few cartons of goods that arrived - still not finished - and as a consequence missed your post.
|

30-03-2007, 11:02 AM
|
 |
Blacktown isn't so black
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Prospect, NSW, 2148
Posts: 1,316
|
|
John, lifting cartons is a lesson in biomechanics and physics and one that I would love to observe but not directly participate in. I believe that to be a true observer, one must know where not to step beyond
|

30-03-2007, 11:59 AM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Ron this could take months so I will start right away  .
The hole in the record does not establish nothing I mean it is not nothing err dam you can see why I don’t use the term  .
However in the interest of establishing how you can look at a hole and conclude it is nothing I say this...in the context of the record the absence of material does not represent nothing as the hole is indeed something.
It is a material part of the structure and a necessary part of the record needed so it may function...another sysetem could arrive at the same result without a hole using a system to grip the record at the edge to replace the function of the original hole…so I say this is an example of how humans will grab at something and declare it to be nothing when in fact they have simply experienced a leap in logic that happily passed over the reality apparent upon a careful consideration.
The requirement of opposite I can embrace and have often made the point we can have no peace unless we have war, no clean without dirt, no day without night...however these are simplification I use to guide minds easily led when through their nose you insert a ring of human belief and experience.
The opposite and opposites are introduced merely at a human level for in truth all that is...just is. It is the observer who makes the qualification so that being observed fits neatly into the box that already is there waiting.
Good or bad for example is a human observation of simply what is...But being human I make the required decision to see the good in every “as it is" situation so that the mind can file away all experience as good, which after all is an uplifting emotion and one to be pursued .on the basis that I in my human form can make a choice of the available human emotions. Failure to manage ones (human) mind in this way can see experiences of "what is" as negative and capable of causing a un necessary phobia or debilitating neurosis.
All these observations simple point to a human condition of requiring limits, starts and finish to all things. The term nothing means we must look for a place where there is a complete absence of everything..not even a single photon is allowed there as then that area becomes "space" and although sparsely populated with a single photon can not be called nothing.
I don’t buy much of the physics I have been offered and many are surprised that one is prepared to say “no thanks” and choose to construct more workable models I build in my mind that follow logic not a maze of complex math capable of manipulation and ready to accept conveniences such as the need for a "repeater" such as .3333 rather than tackle the real problem that such a strange feature reveals about our current maths.
AND some say that in this regard I am too demanding and that I should accept our current highest level of understanding as the truth.. I have noticed that people can be wrong and Ron as hard as you may find this next statement..I also can be wrong..perhaps even wrong to suggest such a possibility.
Calculus is looked to as a complex and higher expression of the art of math where as in truth it is a system of "close enough is good enough". I like calculus as it goes about things as I would when doing bush carpentry.. I work out the area of a circle by dividing to circle into boxes, count them up and arrive at an approximate area.. calculus does the same but has taken the time to provide a short cut to this method with a formula that condenses this very approach…and one should never forget it is indeed simply counting up the boxes. As complex as calculus may appear it based on close enough is good enough.. it provides however a very simple approach to measurement that by the very nature of the math is not absolute.
Back to the particles jumping into and out of existence as one can loosely put that proposition. I don’t buy it and the entire math in the world will not sway me it makes no sense therefore I reject it and I do not care who carrying whatever qualification proclaims it truth.. they can believe in it I have no problem with that but I also can chose not to believe in it for finally the matter under discussion is past presenting proof I will find acceptable. If God were to tell me it were so I would still ask him for some ID but then check his answers with mine.
Positive and negative as applied to electricity perhaps takes away more understanding of the matter than it provides simply because human views and quantification demand a start and a finish.. positive and negative suggest a start and a finish to the matter and of course this approach hides the picture I believe exists.
Consider a black hole..this is an object born form this approach and believed to exist with such passion that observations are explained simply by the belief in an object born on a sheet of paper to fit humans desire to have a start and a finish.
The expansion of the Universe is similar, arrived at thru an extrapolation of perhaps observational data that was going to fit the prevailing popular idea. In fact I question the purpose of having a big bang idea on the basis that it also has grown out of a human need to have a start and a finish.
Yet this need takes us away from facing the possibility that there is no end to our Universe but there is a place where one can hop the fence and travel forever in nothing...an infinite nothing is not possible in any model I can entertain.
If the Universe is expanding does it expand into nothing. Do the out flowing photos colonize nothing to turn it into “space”
I find the reaching for an explanation of the conditions that may have existed before the big bang provides for nothing yet in that nothing we have introduced the proposition of quantum fluctuations ..err from nothing. The very construct of the big bang idea grows from the human need to accept and be happy with nothing. I am never happy with facing the prospect of nothing and in its place will always see something. Again I have confined myself to a short answer by making simple but expandable points.
My Universe is infinite and holds together by every particle wanting to have its own turf and sending messages to the rest of the Universe pointing out its presence and sending a little part of itself to every corner of the Universe..
In trying to account for the region of higher temp (more excited bits) past the surface of the Sun illustrates the power of all these particles arriving to tell the Sun of their respective being.. the Sun pushes back and everyone (bit) gets so excited observers overlook that they witness a coming and going not merely a going.. this increased temp/activity is tentatively explained by the breaking of a magnetic field because that is the only way under current thought they can get addition energy into the region..ship it in from the closest apparently available source (the Sun is the source and magnetism the shipping company of choice) well do that if they must but sums without the appropriate inputs will give the wrong picture even though the sums may be correct in every aspect of their calculation.
This was mostly unchecked or edited so please rip into the ideas not the presentation. I will look at it and fix anything that misleads you from my idea I seek to present.
Alex
|

30-03-2007, 12:10 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
John space certainly is not nothing as you observe its full of gravity rain for a start. Think of any point in space and consider what travels thru that one point (and the point next to it and the point next to it adinfinitum) place two objects in close proximity to each other and consider the effect upon them of the bits rushing everywhere, they will both move to the area of "shadow they create for each other.. this is not nothing at work so I agree with your general observation. Moving cartons are you not married?
alex
|

30-03-2007, 12:15 PM
|
 |
Blacktown isn't so black
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Prospect, NSW, 2148
Posts: 1,316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
|
Alex, you are the master of understatement
|

30-03-2007, 12:19 PM
|
 |
Blacktown isn't so black
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Prospect, NSW, 2148
Posts: 1,316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
John space certainly is not nothing as you observe its full of gravity rain for a start. Think of any point in space and consider what travels thru that one point (and the point next to it and the point next to it adinfinitum) place two objects in close proximity to each other and consider the effect upon them of the bits rushing everywhere, they will both move to the area of "shadow they create for each other.. this is not nothing at work so I agree with your general observation. Moving cartons are you not married?
alex
|
That analogy is as silly as the two kids trying to out bid each other till finally one says, "my number is a googol plus one". Come on Alex, you can do better than that.
Nothing is not you placing 'something in nothing', that changes the state. Nothing is the 'Place' or 'State' where there is nothing. You have it upside down and sideways, similar to a Chinese All You Can Eat Smorgasbord, hmmmnnnn now you made me hungry
|

30-03-2007, 12:26 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tailwag
Alex, you are the master of understatement 
|
Considering the two concepts we are considering..."ďnfinity" on the one hand and "nothing" on the other perhaps I did underestimate the time such could take to explain in deatils..still its a start.. but I really cant take any longer than that.
alex
|

30-03-2007, 12:29 PM
|
 |
Blacktown isn't so black
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Prospect, NSW, 2148
Posts: 1,316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
If the Universe is expanding does it expand into nothing.
Alex
|
Short answer: Yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
Do the out flowing photos colonize nothing to turn it into “space” Alex
|
I assume you meant photons and not photos sorry, this grammar thing is so quaint
The short answer to this question is: YES.
One of the principles of observation is that you must not let the observer influence the outcome of the observation.
In keeping with this edict, by altering the state of 'Nothing' you are actually contaminating it, or if you like, changing it's state. Thus it is you the observer that creates the essential difference between something and nothing, and not the state itself per se
Alex: A question: Are we having fun
|

30-03-2007, 12:59 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Looking at it one must view anything not returning a dollar as fun.
I came across this interesting article.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...xy_040216.html
I have suggested the big bang idea although interesting may have difficulty living to a ripe old age. The following comment by the author of that article
he says
There is a lot to learn.
When it was born, the universe contained only hydrogen and helium. All other elements were forged inside stars and in the explosive deaths of the most massive stars, known as supernovas.
"But we see a lot of other elements around those early quasars," Fan said. "We see evidence of carbon, nitrogen, iron and other elements, and it's not clear how these elements got there. There is as much iron, proportionate to the population of those early systems, as there is in mature galaxies nearby."
Theorists have become increasingly impressed with how rapidly stars must have formed as the Dark Ages ended.
Comments such as these point to the sort of thing I seize upon to reason I may be closer to the answers by removing a start, for if nothing else they will have to increase the age given to the Universe and "tweet"the sums as the day of reckoning doth approach... and being an impertinant fool I sugest the observations will become more difficult to fit the idea as more observations come to hand.
AND Ron re reply for John...having gone on about gravity rain for over a year elsewhere and personally posting over 600 replies to myself I just could not bring myself to offer more than the bare bones I offerred John to grind upon. An example of how I avoid detail in an effort to be brief.
alex
|

30-03-2007, 01:59 PM
|
 |
Blacktown isn't so black
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Prospect, NSW, 2148
Posts: 1,316
|
|
Ahhhh had to stop for lunch and to clear my head of all your conflicting thread starters. To be fair, there are probably more than a dozen different possible threads rolled into this one, which is about the ignition of a white dwarf star
There is however on the whole a lot of very fine observations by you Alex and some that by your own admission fly in the face of popular opinion. Be that as it may, I want you to consider this final point regarding the 'Big Bang', seeing that you inadvertently (or purposely) brought it up.
Most people see the event we call the Big Bang as a starting point, you yourself coined those words. I on the other hand do not, nor have I ever. I have a linear doughnut theory that I developed whilst at Swinburne and it would take several years for me to explain it to you.
However a gross oversimplification is that the universe 'as we know it' is merely a lap, one circuit, one revolution if you like, of an endless ongoing universe where the movie (this reality, this time around), is being played out.
In my multi-dimensional fixed direction doughnut, the end is the beginning and vice versa. The actual big bang point is merely the end (or transition) from one lap to the next, from one existence to the next.
So the term of time is never mentioned by me, because time is a position and not the passage of events over a given range. Thus the question could be asked, not what time is it or was it, but what position is it or was.
If you just focus on the current lap of existence (the one we are in, in the dimension we are occupying), you are constantly trying to figure out 'Where' it began (not when).
The folly of the big bang theory is as you eluded to, seemingly unanswerable for time to have begun, we are compelled to ask but what of before time? In my model of 'Where' it began, you know the answer, will be, a position relative to where the previous 'Lap' ended but in another dimension.
The doughnut is a great shape for my universe because it sits well with the endless flow of existence, continually passing the same position, time and time again, but with each new beginning, the life forms (us) think we are the only ones that ever existed and that somehow it all works just for or around us.
The nothing that exists outside of all that exists is the conduit that binds it together, for no reality can exist outside of itself and by definition must be contained within itself.
The essence of what makes nothing and something is the only real universal cop that keeps life and reality flowing along the doughnut round and round and round ad infinitum.
On this lap, we go back to a position where it began, but can't go further or past that position, because of the shape of existence (the humble doughnut), it is one way traffic only. I have often used the human heart with it's marvellous filters which purify blood and stop the backflow as a way of trying to explain what is happening at the position where one lap ends and the next begins (what you could call the big bang) but is more probably like a big contraction
If you have ever wondered about the meaning of life (no not the number 22) but the cycle of life-death-birth you must admit it goes on everywhere and with everything to some degree or other. So too in my model does the rebirth after death exist, I call it laps, you can call it whatever you like, it's all the same thing.
Each time around, there is an end, which is followed by a beginning which moves towards the next end and so on. This is not strange, you see it everywhere, here on Earth and in the stars, so why not the very fabric of existence itself?
Okay, I will stop this short because it is off topic and the one thing I have learnt is that you dare not push a moderator too far, else all the universe will be annihilated with an unimaginable fury
|

30-03-2007, 02:18 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
Ron I am speechless but that has never stopped me.
May I ask what does the doughhnut (mmm I spelt it doenut elsewhere) sit in nothing? or a bowl of cream?
Ron I thought all said was very much on the original post.
But that is an interesting idea and indeed a novel idea...a Universe without a start or finish.
Have a good one.
alex
|

30-03-2007, 02:32 PM
|
 |
Blacktown isn't so black
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Prospect, NSW, 2148
Posts: 1,316
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
But that is an interesting idea and indeed a novel idea...a Universe without a start or finish.
Have a good one.
alex
|
Thank you Alex (both of you)
No seriously, I am serious you have a good day too
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 02:04 AM.
|
|