How can space be both infinite and a vacuum at the same time?

So - Tesla, Heisenberg, and Feynman walk into a bar.....

:lol::lol::lol:
 
EdFred said:
It does if it is part of something bigger.
Click to expand...

No, you're thinking in a Euclidean fashion. Space is not Euclidean.

It's quite difficult to get one's head around, but it you can have the universe expanding, and some causally disconnected other universe expanding as well, and they need not be getting closer to one another.

In a dark energy dominated (inflating) universe, every point expands exponentially from every other point. That implies things leave causal contact, not something we're used to dealing with. Once far enough apart, they will never see each other again. An empty universe grows as t (speed of light), and a critical universe grows as t^(2/3), so every "normal" universe expands slower than inflating portions.

It's all very speculative -- and I personally don't buy it at all -- but it does show a self-consistent solution that has multiple "universes" and still doesn't require an embedding space to expand into.

This really isn't a good forum for this kind of thing. There are several good semi-pop books on the subject, including Linde's, Tom Greene's, Kip Thorne's, and a few others.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I am really trying to keep up.
My brain cannot grasp a lot of the real thinking much beyond my little epiphany
I may have to go back to d!ck and fart jokes.
Click to expand...

Just do what I do. Shrug your shoulders and scoff at the bible bangers.

Seriously, the above posts, even though way above my head, just sound a million times more legit than talking snakes, virgin births, a super jerk god who thinks telling a guy to kill his son is a cool gag and for some reason requires constant praise.
 
What does God need with a starship?
 
teejayevans said:
We're told the universe started as a singularity, then inflation caused it to expand for some unknown reason, then stop for some unknown reason, there is dark matter that makes up 90% of universe but we can't find it, there is dark energy that we don't know anything about, all this happen once 16 billion years ago....
What kind of drugs do you need to be on to be an astrophysicist?
Click to expand...

You just have to realize that the universe is made of multiple convergent dimensions, some we have no sensory ability to perceive. There are things that we can perceive results of that we don't really understand, yet measurable and understood effects exists, therefor we know there is something, we are just 'in the dark' about just WTF it is, hence why we call it 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'; it has nothing to do with luminosity, even astrophysicists have a sense of humor.:lol: I used to love the charters I used to run for the JPL guys, they were fun out on a sailboat.

Personally I think the universe is expanding because 'Space Time' as one of these dimensions is still pushing into the dimension of 'information'. Remember, without Space Time the other dimensions are all singularities.

In other opinion, thought provides Dark Energy and they process in a dimension we can not perceive, and dark matter is a conversion product of that, same as we can convert matter to energy and back here in our perceivable universe. If there is a heaven or hell, we'll find it here.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
There is no evidence, and it is not testable.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. To make a statement that something isn't testable requires a proof that it isn't. It may be. In some versions of a multiverse there are possible interactions. One explanation for the "great attractor" is that two different universes, actually branes, are intersecting and have a gravitational interaction.

Edited to add:

It would have been more correct for me to use dark flow instead of the Great Attractor.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Infinity is not a number,
Click to expand...

Not exactly correct. The aleph numbers are used to represent the cardinality of different infinite sets. This allows distinguishing the infinite nature of the rational numbers, which are countable, vs. the reals which aren't.

Physicists routinely divide infinity into infinity or zero into zero. It drives mathematicians nuts. Their justification is that the result fits experimental data. A lot of what they do is valid if looked upon as limits.
 
Rex Kramer said:
What does God need with a starship?
Click to expand...

Directly, nothing, indirectly God would need spaceships to support superior life forms in a dangerous universe. God needs life to produce thought to 'feed' on. Any individual planet is but a temporary abode for the development of any species, a closed circuit environment, a nursery of sorts. If a species proves worthwhile in what it produces, then 'spaceships' in some form or another is required to assure the long term survival of the species. If a species does not prove worthwhile, it ends up eliminated and replaced. So far we haven't particularly proved out worthwhile, we're still think the wrong thoughts in general.

Thought is the only thing we produce that can leave our universe.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, you're thinking in a Euclidean fashion. Space is not Euclidean.

It's quite difficult to get one's head around, but it you can have the universe expanding, and some causally disconnected other universe expanding as well, and they need not be getting closer to one another.

In a dark energy dominated (inflating) universe, every point expands exponentially from every other point. That implies things leave causal contact, not something we're used to dealing with. Once far enough apart, they will never see each other again. An empty universe grows as t (speed of light), and a critical universe grows as t^(2/3), so every "normal" universe expands slower than inflating portions.

It's all very speculative -- and I personally don't buy it at all -- but it does show a self-consistent solution that has multiple "universes" and still doesn't require an embedding space to expand into.

This really isn't a good forum for this kind of thing. There are several good semi-pop books on the subject, including Linde's, Tom Greene's, Kip Thorne's, and a few others.
Click to expand...

I said if. I never made a declaration. It is entirely possible our universe is taking up space in a superverse, and there is no way to definitively say one way or the other.
 
Henning said:
You just have to realize that the universe is made of multiple convergent dimensions, some we have no sensory ability to perceive. There are things that we can perceive results of that we don't really understand, yet measurable and understood effects exists, therefor we know there is something, we are just 'in the dark' about just WTF it is, hence why we call it 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'; it has nothing to do with luminosity, even astrophysicists have a sense of humor.:lol: I used to love the charters I used to run for the JPL guys, they were fun out on a sailboat.



Personally I think the universe is expanding because 'Space Time' as one of these dimensions is still pushing into the dimension of 'information'. Remember, without Space Time the other dimensions are all singularities.



In other opinion, thought provides Dark Energy and they process in a dimension we can not perceive, and dark matter is a conversion product of that, same as we can convert matter to energy and back here in our perceivable universe. If there is a heaven or hell, we'll find it here.
Click to expand...


My point is they are making **** up so their equations balance.
Galaxies not flying apart, create dark matter
Universe expanding, create dark energy
How about just admitting you don't know how the universe works.
I'd also like see alternative theories to the Big Bang as well, despite the problems its accepted as fact, science is becoming more of a religion.
Not to mention string theory....
 
My alternate to the Big Bang:

We are in a universe that is all the matter that is being sucked into a black hole of another universe, and being pushed out through the singularity. Since time/matter/energy go crazy at a singularity, all the matter in our universe still exists in the other, and at the same time it doesn't.

And since we also have black holes in our universe, all the matter in our universe is being used in other universes as well. Rinse and repeat.
 
teejayevans said:
Universe expanding, create dark energy
Click to expand...

Well, to be specific, an expanding universe would not require dark energy. In fact, until not that long ago, there was no need for it.

Without dark energy, the expansion of the Universe would have received some initial rate at the end of the inflationary period. After that, gravity would work to slow that rate down. The question was, was there enough gravity to stop the expansion altogether, or even to reverse it in the future (Big Crunch).

However, then a wrench got thrown into the mix. A detailed survey of galaxies showing their recession velocity (redshift) and distance (using standard candles) showed that the expansion of the universe was not slowing as expected, but was accelerating.

In cosmology, "dark ..." is basically people saying "We don't have a f'ing clue, but something is causing the observations."
 
There are some really smart people on this forum
Or full of s#!t

Either way I can't tell the difference.
 
teejayevans said:
My point is they are making **** up so their equations balance.
Galaxies not flying apart, create dark matter
Universe expanding, create dark energy
How about just admitting you don't know how the universe works.
I'd also like see alternative theories to the Big Bang as well, despite the problems its accepted as fact, science is becoming more of a religion.
Not to mention string theory....
Click to expand...

The last lecture or two in the Yale course I mentioned above* go into that exact contention - except for the part about "science becoming more of a religion". Though theology is at least mentioned.

*"Astronomy - Frontiers and Controversies" on iTunesU. Worth watching the last lecture or two even if you don't have the time or patience for the entire course.
 
Henning said:
Directly, nothing, indirectly God would need spaceships to support superior life forms in a dangerous universe. God needs life to produce thought to 'feed' on. Any individual planet is but a temporary abode for the development of any species, a closed circuit environment, a nursery of sorts. If a species proves worthwhile in what it produces, then 'spaceships' in some form or another is required to assure the long term survival of the species. If a species does not prove worthwhile, it ends up eliminated and replaced. So far we haven't particularly proved out worthwhile, we're still think the wrong thoughts in general.

Thought is the only thing we produce that can leave our universe.
Click to expand...

Where do you go to think some of this s*** up? Some of it is downright brilliant (though I don't always agree with your conclusions), but I applaud you for using your brain.

Your post made me think of the below movie clip. The above sentence is the explanation behind the thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B7MzBmjaJ8
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
There are some really smart people on this forum
Or full of s#!t

Either way I can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

What is the phrase that describes? "any sufficiently advanced science looks like magic to the natives" or something along those lines...

In this case folks make a living speculating on things they can't know to explain things they only think they see
 
Jaybird180 said:
Where do you go to think some of this s*** up? Some of it is downright brilliant (though I don't always agree with your conclusions), but I applaud you for using your brain.

Your post made me think of the below movie clip. The above sentence is the explanation behind the thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B7MzBmjaJ8
Click to expand...

One of the interesting things about being born to a research pshrink is you are a free research subject. When I was very young, 3-5 year old range, I used to get hooked up to an EEG machine regularly. What was truly interesting was the fact that there was no direct link to my brain, the little pickups were just pasted on with jelly. Yet though this link, I could control the needles on that graph with nothing more than thought. Thought emanates from us directly into all the dimensions that comprise our universe, those we can perceive, and those we can't. While these dimensions comprise our Space Time bounded universe of matter we perceive, they are not necessarily constrained by it. Hence, thought is the only thing we produce that can leave our universe, in fact they are the only thing we produce that is an 'export commodity'.
 
Henning said:
Yet though this link, I could control the needles on that graph with nothing more than thought..
Click to expand...

... uuuhhhhh no.

I'm pretty sure a good sensitive microvoltmeter is gonna indicate that you're full of it.

“Facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored” – Aldous Huxley
 
airguy said:
... uuuhhhhh no.

I'm pretty sure a good sensitive microvoltmeter is gonna indicate that you're full of it.

“Facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored” – Aldous Huxley
Click to expand...

I don't see how. That's basically what an EEG is. What is being metered is being created by thinking.
 
At least 15 years ago they had this video game at incredible universe (that's how long ago)
1 metal pad on which you place your finger tip

Games were downhill skiing, bowling. You rest your finger there.
You think left, it goes left
you think right it goes right.

I forget if you were supposed to think the word "left" or imagine the character going left

I to recall trying to beat it by leaning one way or rolling my finger one way and thinking the other.

It went with what I was thinking 100% of the time.
I will see if I can find a link
 
Last edited:
teejayevans said:
My point is they are making **** up so their equations balance.
Galaxies not flying apart, create dark matter
Universe expanding, create dark energy
How about just admitting you don't know how the universe works.
I'd also like see alternative theories to the Big Bang as well, despite the problems its accepted as fact, science is becoming more of a religion.
Not to mention string theory....
Click to expand...

No one claims to know the identity of the dark matter particle.

MANY people have tried alternative models to explain it. There are a ton of them out there, and you really should look before calling it a "religion."

The problem is, science requires testability. Which means all those models, standard and alternative, get tested. And they HAVE been tested really hard over the last 20 years.

The standard model got modified twice because of that. First, the realization that the universe could not be simultaneously flat and cold (with much better 3D surveys of galaxies), then that the universe could not be pressureless (dark energy), based on surveys of extremely distant critical (type Ia) supernovae. Both of those are tweaks, representing removal of an assumption that had previously been made on simplicity grounds. Data beats assumptions every time.

You'll find a dark energy term in my dissertation, and that of anyone else who considered a general cosmology. That was between the two revisions; I was surveying the parameter space for models that were still viable after galaxy surveys were compared with the then-rough cosmic microwave background. Dark energy was a possibility, but we favored a massive neutrino background. The subsequent supernova result reversed that.

Now, most of the alternatives have been convincingly ruled out. Like the steady state universe (doesn't have the right distribution of galaxies). Like "modified Newtonian dynamics" (predicts big spiral galaxies should rotate differently from small ones -- they don't). Like a changing speed of light (predicts 21 cm emission line separation changing as a function of redshift -- but that's observed constant).

That's the difference between science and religion. Testing is a critical part of it, and the model is only as good as it reproduces the data. In the last few decades, a massive amount of observational data has been collected, and quite a lot of testing has been done.
 
MAKG,

Thanks.

Your posts are refreshingly informative and to the point.

Makes me kinda wish I had pursued Astronomy, which fascinated me as a kid, and still does.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
There are some really smart people on this forum
Or full of s#!t

Either way I can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Most are the former with a couple of the later. Myself, I'm mostly the former but can, on occasion, be the later.
 
FastEddieB said:
MAKG,

Thanks.

Your posts are refreshingly informative and to the point.

Makes me kinda wish I had pursued Astronomy, which fascinated me as a kid, and still does.
Click to expand...

I've been wishing that the college astronomy course I took in the 1960s had talked about things that were going on at the frontiers of the science, which have by now greatly expanded our knowledge of the universe. If I had known that stuff was going on, I would have been much more likely to go into that field. :(
 
Henning said:
I don't see how. That's basically what an EEG is. What is being metered is being created by thinking.
Click to expand...
But a brain dead person would still register EEG activity.
 
Palmpilot said:
I've been wishing that the college astronomy course I took in the 1960s had talked about things that were going on at the frontiers of the science, which have by now greatly expanded our knowledge of the universe. If I had known that stuff was going on, I would have been much more likely to go into that field. :(
Click to expand...

The annoying thing is, it has changed a lot faster than that.

I find it a bit scary to review the original Cosmos TV shows, which were cutting edge for the early 1980s. Unfortunately, the field underwent a new-data-driven revolution in 1983-84, and it got out of date very quickly. Carl Sagan is still the prototypical outreach guy, even though he's been dead for almost 20 years.
 
Becky said:
But a brain dead person would still register EEG activity.
Click to expand...

They are not fully brain dead, there are multiple sectors of the brain which function at different levels and with different purposes.
 
MAKG1 said:
The annoying thing is, it has changed a lot faster than that.

I find it a bit scary to review the original Cosmos TV shows, which were cutting edge for the early 1980s. Unfortunately, the field underwent a new-data-driven revolution in 1983-84, and it got out of date very quickly. Carl Sagan is still the prototypical outreach guy, even though he's been dead for almost 20 years.
Click to expand...

I took a class in college called Listening (yes, seriously, I needed an elective and I figured it would be good for a laugh). One thing my professor repeated multiple times was that scientists and engineers are very bad communicators with the general population and tend to view anyone who is good at that communication as less of a scientist. His example of this was, if I remember correctly, Carl Sagan. Apparently, at the height of Sagan's popularity a lot of scientists didn't view him as a true scientist anymore.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong there, it's been a few years since I took that class (and it wasn't nearly as amusing as I was hoping).
 
Lots has changed in 35 years.

Sagan was the first "real" scientist who tried to engage the public in such a whole-hearted way (Einstein wrote at least one pop book, but it wasn't very good). Many have followed.

Heck, most of my generation of astronomers and physicists got their inspiration from him, and quite a number of leading scientists these days attempt to write pop-sci books. Some are better than others, but it's not at all a black mark against them professionally.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
If exposed, the whole "body swelling up" , "Blood boiling" etc suggests there is negative pressure. Space if infinite should be neutral. no pressure at all.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Dark Energy.
 
When I think about dark matter and dark energy, I'm reminded of aether.

Also this:

math07.gif


;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top