Digital Radio Central - Sponsored by TSS Radio
  DRC Home Page DRC Forums Contact Us  
 
SIRIUS Backstage Forum
 
 
 
  Sirius Satellite Radio XM Satellite Radio iTunes/iPod Slacker Pandora  
 
 
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   SIRIUS Backstage Forum > >
Visit Digital Radio Central

Notices

The Doghouse Here is where people are talking everything not SIRIUS related. So be cool, be smart and have something to say!

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
 
Old 09-27-2005, 02:31 AM   #46
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

hi amnesia,

"time" to me is where most of our mystery lies. at least with this expansion of the universe, assuming there have been others, time is the answer that this current expansion had a beginning.

it is impossible for us to imagine an existence without time, for then how would we separate one event from another ?

if it were to be constantly expanding/contracting, it is not for sure that each such creation would create the same set of laws.

however, the very word "expanding" means it is getting larger over "time", which would mean that at least "time" is part of each expansion.

the e/c theory would then fail the cause/effect, because it basically says that the e/c has been going on forever.

within our universe, there is no such thing as an effect without a cause.

anyways, as colonel klink would say "very interesting".
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 09-27-2005, 02:56 AM   #47
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

hi rc,

i wanted to make a small correction - i said that gravity warps spacetime.

what i should have said is that matter warps spacetime, and the result is what we call gravity.

newton felt that there was a built-in attraction for 2 pieces of matter. einstein said that the bodies move along these warps in spacetime.

i must say that i cant imagine spacetime, if it indeed exists. time is something that we experience, but i cant imagine it as an actual physical type of entity.

as i told amnesia, time seems to be the big mystery. the more we learn about it, the closer we will come to understanding our own universe.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 09-27-2005, 10:06 AM   #48
Amnesia
Sirius Star
 
Amnesia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 03, 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,035
Amnesia is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
what i should have said is that matter warps spacetime, and the result is what we call gravity.
As far as we know.

All we really know is that gravity and matter are correlated.

Perhaps it's gravity that causes matter, not the other way around.

There's a lot more to learn...
__________________
Amnesia is offline  
 
 
Old 09-27-2005, 12:03 PM   #49
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
what i should have said is that matter warps spacetime, and the result is what we call gravity.
Quote:
All we really know is that gravity and matter are correlated.
Perhaps it's gravity that causes matter, not the other way around
Hi!

Speaking from memory so correct as needed!

We can argue gravity, mass, and matter and their effects on one another but gravity is associated with a "force" of nature. We can increase gravity by increasing density or adding matter. In fact we can have gravity with missing components of the galaxy called Dark Matter if you subscribe to it's properties to explain expansion cycling. Thus tossing another stick into the spoke of reality. But we all agree gravity as we feel it is a force.

It's hard to grasp items in the Cosmos without a building block of knowledge. If I just said E=MC2 or Energy equals Mass times the universal C or constant of light in a vacum (sqaured) was the fundamental and currently flawless restriction in our universe you would say HUH? Yeah right. But it does state mass can never be excellerated to the speed of light and beyond. Because the energy needed to accelerate it cannot be achieve because as speed increased, mass increases to a point where it would take all the energy in the universe and beyond to reach C.

All thought up by a postal worker. Then one would argue the properties of light particles having mass or not. Then dream up things like dropping into subspace to travel between two physical points or WARPing space in effect moving space versus the object with mass. Riding massless waves etc.

Nutonian gravity is outdated although still used to navigate. Einstein didn't even use gravity in his special theory of relativity. He labored to include gravity later in his general theory of relativity. A building block that insinuates gravity is nothing more than acceleration of particles. And that smaller particles are not actually attracted to one another, they merely fall into the wells of spacetime curvature by matter. (which eludes to gymejet's statement).

So what is spacetime? There is a reason space and time are included. Time is relative to the observer and is basically the movement of particles in space as observed. Space is warped by matter so time or the movement of a particle does not follow a straight path through space. Thus space effects time and the measurement of time is spacetime.

Even on earth time measurment is relative to the observer. A quick example would be the witness of a gun shot. We would all see the gun fire at different times and probly never agree on when the light turned red before running it. Or watch a basball game and try and decide if the foot hit first or the glove. It is the oberservation of time that makes time for us. And time is relative to your observation point.

For instance light takes time to get here from distant galaxies. If I were to look at a star and see a battle ship armada around it conducting a vast intersolar war, that would be my now. But 100,000 years in their past. If I were to then fly off to help I would arive 100,000 more years into their future. Looking back is how we percieve the creation of the universe. We can look toward the origin of universe expansion and see back in time. Whitness events that happened long before our solar system was formed. Asuming you accept that the universe wasn't created at once. In fact there is a vast darkness of unperievable universe. We cannot see back far enough because light did not form at the creation of the universe. We can only see back so far and even then all of the light we can see has not had enough time to reach us. There are events left undiscovered in this great mystery.

But all in all I'll wrap up since I can talk all darn day on this. Time does flow and you can measure it's passage in observing the movement of paricles. The intersting part is it flows in one direction, called by many as Times Arrow. For instance time does not move backwards. Cars don't magically uncrash or mom's favorite china doesn't jump off the floor and unbreak itself. And speaking of time travel, it wouldn't be a matter of just moving back a few seconds in time, it would be locating the observed particles in space and accelerating fast enought to track back their locations at a given observable instant in their location of space and time.

But all of this is known in the classical sense of realtivistic view. Meaning this is a relativistic universe based on relativity. I haven't even got to quantum mechanics and modern theories meaning post 1914 or so.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 09-28-2005, 02:09 PM   #50
deadhead13
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2005
Location: florida
Posts: 1,766
deadhead13 is on a distinguished road
Default

My final answer will have to be, yes!

The universe, the world, life... all works a little to well to be an accident of nature.

Everyday i look at the workings of our Anathomy & Physiology, and the way the human body works is an absolute marvel.
deadhead13 is offline  
 
 
Old 09-28-2005, 03:25 PM   #51
Amnesia
Sirius Star
 
Amnesia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 03, 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,035
Amnesia is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadhead13
The universe, the world, life... all works a little to well to be an accident of nature.
I've never subscribed to this argument.

For all we know, there were a billion other potential universes where fundamental physical constants had slightly different values. Some worked out, some didn't.

The fact that the values of physical constants seems to support life doesn't require an intelligence behind the "choices".
__________________
Amnesia is offline  
 
 
Old 09-28-2005, 07:31 PM   #52
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesia
Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
what i should have said is that matter warps spacetime, and the result is what we call gravity.
As far as we know.

All we really know is that gravity and matter are correlated.

Perhaps it's gravity that causes matter, not the other way around.

There's a lot more to learn...
hi amnesia,

i was actually correcting myself with regards to einstein's theory about gravity, in this statement.

i dont necessarily believe it. there were known holes in newtons theory, which einstein tried to patch up with his. and then quantum mechanics is trying to explain some of the problems with relativity.

i think these are all stepping stones, but am not convinced they are correct. personally, i have a problem with the concept of spacetime. people may be able to make mathematical models/predictions, but i dont think any of us can conjure up a real physical entity of 4 dimensions.

einstein's spacetime is 4 physical entities, such that it's shape is actually changed due to matter.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 09-28-2005, 09:26 PM   #53
UncleBoomsky
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: Dec 11, 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 1,819
UncleBoomsky is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadhead13
My final answer will have to be, yes!

The universe, the world, life... all works a little to well to be an accident of nature.

Everyday i look at the workings of our Anathomy & Physiology, and the way the human body works is an absolute marvel.
This is a VERY compelling argument. How can something so order just occur?

Then again God is in theory remarkably ordered so well-designed as to be conscious, moral, able to construct the cosmos and people, etc...Where then did God come from and how incredible a design that God must be? So in essence to say that the universe is too well ordered to occur so God must be present dismisses the next question of where did God come from and wouldn't God be too well-ordered just to occur?

UB
UncleBoomsky is offline  
 
 
Old 09-28-2005, 10:00 PM   #54
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

hi ub,

you sound like amnesia.

but actually there is a flaw in that reasoning. for the very reason that you describe, is why many people do believe in a god.

by definition, god is a conscious identity, such that order is not necessarily unlikely, especially if said conscious entity is all-knowing, etc. but a non-conscious thing, like the universe or something that created it - is much harder to believe that it would be that orderly, or complex, without an awareness of what it did.

if i had no religious upbringing whatsoever, i would still believe in a conscious creator, for that very reason.

none of us can really conjure up what it means to "have no beginning", because none of us has ever seen that, nor will anyone ever see that.

i think that the existence of time completely rules out that this current universe did not have a beginning. and from the research that i have done so far, i cant find anyone who thinks that the universe will ever collapse. the amount of matter and the rate of expansion come to the conclusion of expansion, although if a certain ratio is close enough to 1, it is thought that there may be some point where gravity pulling in, and force expanding out will balance one another, and the universe would exist in more of a steady state.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 09-28-2005, 10:18 PM   #55
Amnesia
Sirius Star
 
Amnesia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 03, 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,035
Amnesia is on a distinguished road
Default

So, you're saying that it's more likely for a sentient creature to be orderly than a non-conscious entity?

That seems like a circular argument to me. It's more likely for a sentient creature to be orderly because in order to be sentient it has to be more orderly.

That doesn't seem like a very good argument for believing in some supernatural being...

If we're talking about a time before the universe existed, who is to say which is the more likely? You keep on insisting that you want an outside force to create the universe because otherwise it would violate this universe's laws (as we currently believe to know them).

You can't at the same time use this universe's examples of life and order to judge the likelihood of how things were before the universe.
__________________
Amnesia is offline  
 
 
Old 09-28-2005, 10:26 PM   #56
UncleBoomsky
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: Dec 11, 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 1,819
UncleBoomsky is on a distinguished road
Default

I formally go one record as saying the prior two replies are too intelligent for me to have any idea where we are in this argument...oh well DUNCE hat time for me.

UB
UncleBoomsky is offline  
 
 
Old 09-28-2005, 10:40 PM   #57
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesia
So, you're saying that it's more likely for a sentient creature to be orderly than a non-conscious entity?

That seems like a circular argument to me. It's more likely for a sentient creature to be orderly because in order to be sentient it has to be more orderly.
you are not reasoning correctly. if conscious things tend to have orderliness moreso than non-conscious things, it is fair to reason that it is more likely for an orderly thing to have conscious.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 09-28-2005, 10:42 PM   #58
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesia
You keep on insisting that you want an outside force to create the universe because otherwise it would violate this universe's laws (as we currently believe to know them).

You can't at the same time use this universe's examples of life and order to judge the likelihood of how things were before the universe.
good point.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 09-29-2005, 11:54 AM   #59
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
but i dont think any of us can conjure up a real physical entity of 4 dimensions.
We do it every second of every day.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 09-29-2005, 07:02 PM   #60
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadClosed
Quote:
but i dont think any of us can conjure up a real physical entity of 4 dimensions.
We do it every second of every day.
well then, build me a time-box 2 feet long, 3 feet wide, 1 foot high, and 2 minutes time.

i would sure like to know what that looks like. !!!

p.s. i did not say IN 2 minutes time
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
 

Go Back   SIRIUS Backstage Forum > >


Digitalradiocentral.com




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.39 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All Content Copyright SIRIUS Backstage. All Rights Reserved. SIRIUS and registered trademarks are the property of SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc. The opinions posted on SIRIUS Backstage website and forums are those of the individual posters and/or this website and are not necessarily the opinions or positions of SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc.