What do you think ?

  • Thread starter Aquw
  • Start date
  • #26
10
0
Evo, I am trying as best I can to logically explain my arguments. Unfortunately, where my weakness lies is my knowledge base, which as you have pointed out, is much lower than certain other people on this thread.

I am not making outrageous statements, nor, I'll remind you, am I claiming that I am correct. I made this thread to ask the opinions of other, so as I may learn more on this subject.

I can assure you that my arguments are well-motivated, and although they may not strictly adhere to scientific knowledge and theory, they do have some grounding.

I accept there are people who know much more than me about all this, or otherwise, why would I be here? We're not all master physicists or expert philosophors, and I think this forum as a whole has to remember that, especially those who are in charge of it.

You can't dismiss my opinions purely because you do not agrree with them, or that they do not follow some sort of scientific or mathematical rules- this is a philosophy section after all.
 
  • #27
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
It is not my opinion that the surface of a 3-sphere is finite and without bound -- it's a fact.

- Warren
 
  • #28
179
1
How is our Universe like the surface of a sphere. The surface of a sphere is two-dimensional; our Universe is three-dimensional
although the baloon analagy is not acepted as a model of the real universe it is still a usefull conceptual tool, so imagine if you can a three dimensional surface of a four dimensional sphere. So in that sense you could say that we are on the surface of the universe rather than inside it. That's wrong probably but it illustrtes the point that there doesnt have to be an outside, and if there is, then it could be some dimension that we are incapable of percieving, being three dimensional creatures. but then four dimensions cause unstable orbits, so I tend to agree with the crowd that there is no outside.
 
  • #29
266
0
I can assure you that my arguments are well-motivated, and although they may not strictly adhere to scientific knowledge and theory, they do have some grounding.
That is precisely why several members respectfully replied in a well informed manner.

I accept there are people who know much more than me about all this, or otherwise, why would I be here? We're not all master physicists or expert philosophors, and I think this forum as a whole has to remember that, especially those who are in charge of it.
I have yet to see an uncalled for response to any of your posts. I am of the opinion that, by chroot especially, you were treated with a gratuitous amount of patience.

You can't dismiss my opinions purely because you do not agrree with them,
That has not been done by anyone but yourself so far.

or that they do not follow some sort of scientific or mathematical rules- this is a philosophy section after all.
You are making a physically observable and a mathematically testable claim. Why would you think that the "scientific or mathematical rules" do not apply?





The concept of a finite yet boundless 3 dimensional mathematical construct is well defined, and appears to fit observational data quite closely. It is a real possibility that the geometry of the universe is indeed finite and boundless.

I would suggest that you read up on the general theory of relativity and the maths involved. Ned Wright's cosmology guide would be a good place to start: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm" [Broken]

It should get you well enough informed of the current consensus in cosmology to better equipped to reformulate your question and seriously consider the concepts posted by others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
105
1
People seem inclined to think of the universe as a big jar when they are told it's not infinate because they assume that the up/down/left/right/forward/backward availability of space is something inherent to everywhere, beyond the universe. I think it helps to imagine that space in which you are free to move is a feature specific to the inside of the universe, not the outside, and that deleting the universe wouldn't create a bunch of empty space where the universe once sat, it would be more like turning you calculator off.
 
  • #31
and to think, we used to believe the earth was flat and if you traveled far enough you would fall off the edge...

I have always found that people have a difficult time wraping the grey matter around the concept of 'nothingness'. Perhaps 'infinity' can be just as difficult. But when you stop trying to picture things in your mind and just accept the concept then it becomes easier with things that are so counter intuitive.

Since the subject of time was brought up...

I have a question or lots of questions about time. So help me understand it a bit. I know that it is considered a dimension which is somewhat interchangeable with the other 3 dimensions of space from GR. so that by changeing the speed at which you move through space, you change your position in time relative to a stationary observer. but.... I can imagine a universe which contains no matter or energy, would there be a such thing as time in that uninverse? are we required to have motion in order to have time? If so then is there an equivilance of time and motion or of time and energy, and if so then could time be considered to have a wave particle duality? could we envision some experiment where time waves could be detected?


...if there is gray matter, is there gray energy? jk ;)
Get it out of your head that time is some THING. In order for time to exist it simply needs to be acknowledge, it's what we use to measure, it's just as good as a ruler, and nothing more, if you have no concept of time, then there is no time, simple events.
 
  • #32
36
0
Question 1- what's beyond the Universe?

If the universe if finite, there must be something outside it, right? I've heard many people say "it's just time- and no space", but how can this be?
Well, the way that i see this is that If, the universe is finite then a location of this space must exist, i.e. your house on the planet, you cant hold a location of space if there isn't sufficient space in which to hold it, thus the universe is finite in which it is held in a location, but this location in which holds the prior location of the location must always be finite and therefore the universe must be finite which, logically is impossible (i.e. you MUST have space to hold space). assuming the universe is infinite, you would need to assume that an infinite amount of space exists to hold the infinite(or continuously expanding) universe, which also will turn up impossible (this is all assuming that the universe isn't just a "4-D" Space-time continuum which many theories suggest - which seems slightly un-real, but the only possibility) so in turn there is nothing beyond the universe, for the universe doesn't exist at all. :frown: which obviously it does, but think about it. :confused:


-- Grog
 
  • #33
179
1
There is an old saying that sems apt to many of the posts on this forum and I am no exception. " a wise man knows not, and knows that he knows not. A fool knows not and knows not that he knows not"

and oh by the way, time is a real thing as much as any of the other three spacial dimensions.

nuf said
 

Related Threads on What do you think ?

  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
124
Views
14K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Top