Is universe endless and eternally lasting? - Page 2

zooropa16 · 03-19-2002, 10:44 AM

The Universe is ezpanding, and increasing in it's rate of expansion. Eventually after all the stars have burned their Hydrogen into helium, that will be it. The Universe will still exist but it will be a "dead universe", no new stars or galaxies. Pretty grim but that's the way it is.

hermes · 03-21-2002, 05:08 PM

my question is, can true nothingness exist?

If the universe is expanding into nothingness, well that means the "nothingness" is given definition by the "somethingness" and is no longer nothing.

If the universe came from "nothing" there had to be potential there, so in strict terms there was something there.

Is there a way to philosophicly prove nothingness? Scientificly prove?

----
I tend to think the universe is holographic, but that's a whole other story.

----------

damn my horrible spelling

------------------

Same Old Story

[This message has been edited by hermes (edited 03-21-2002).]

melon · 03-22-2002, 07:06 PM

What do you guys think of multiple universes? Perhaps we are just one universe of many, but that, due to our own scientific limitations and the vastness of our own universe, we just haven't seen it?

Looking at science, in general, rarely are single things created. Even stars are usually made in pairs (Jupiter is our sun's dead twin).

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

foray · 03-23-2002, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by hermes:
If the universe is expanding into nothingness,

Who said that?

If the universe came from "nothing" there had to be potential there, so in strict terms there was something there.
The universe came from something that was always there and always is, yesterday, today and tomorrow; just like Love simply is.

Is there a way to philosophicly prove nothingness? Scientificly prove?
Hm... If a shadow is non-light, is it nothing?

foray

hermes · 03-23-2002, 12:24 PM

Unless I misunderstood who Sting2 was responding to, I believe he said it was expanding into nothing.

Quote:

Hm... If a shadow is non-light, is it nothing?

My answer philosophy wise is no. It's been defined by it's parameters and therefore no longer nothing.

Science wise, there are things that don't give off light that are something.

I think so anyways, I had a rough night last night and am not thinking to clearly. What do you think?
---

It's just something I've been thinking about for a while. People talk abotu the emptiness of space, but it's not empty. People talk about nothing, but I don't believe nothing can truly exist.
---

I've been up for fifteen minutes now, think I'm goign to take an aspirin and get back to bed.

------------------

Same Old Story

hermes · 03-23-2002, 12:35 PM

Melon,

I tend to think there are multiple universes, but for reasons that probably differ from most. I'm too tired to get into it now, but I do belive they exist.

---

I was wondering, for those who do believe they exist, What do you think thier nature is?

Various timelines, basicly alternatives to our universe?

A universe seperate, but like ours in most general ways?

A universe that acts more like a dimension, where the laws of physics and nature could be completely different from what we know?

or something else?

------------------

Same Old Story

christiana · 03-24-2002, 07:04 AM

I believe in multiple universes too. I think they are all connected in some way. In different universe, the laws of Physics are the same as this universe that we're living, but the timelines are completely differ from ours.

And about the emptiness of the space beyond the universes, I'm always thinking and almost fighting constantly with myself for this! At this moment, I believe that there're really nothing out there. It's hard to imagine, but those x-dimensional spaces are hard to imagine either.

YellowKite · 03-27-2002, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hermes:
This is pretty much how I think the universe is structured, though I don't agree with some of the conclusions at the end.
http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

this one is acutally formatted better: http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

[This message has been edited by hermes (edited 03-27-2002).]

After reading that second link - my question is - so did the trees really vanish or did the lady just convince the onlookers that they were no longer there, so they deleted them from their holograms?

This explains the power of suggestion and also gives weight to the theory of osmosis.

------------------
Mone

You ain't nothin without a rhythm section to back you up.

"What Adam does with his willy is his business..." -Bono

hermes · 03-27-2002, 04:12 PM

<<so did the trees really vanish or did the lady just convince the onlookers that they were no longer there, so they deleted them from their holograms?>>

I think for all intents and purposes, both. Though I don't think the trees were deleted, the people just stopped percieving those wave patterns.

------------------

Same Old Story

hermes · 03-28-2002, 02:37 AM

This is pretty much how I think the universe is structured, though I don't agree with some of the conclusions at the end.
http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

this one is acutally formatted better: http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

[This message has been edited by hermes (edited 03-27-2002).]

YellowKite · 03-28-2002, 02:58 AM

Did anyone else see A Brief History of the Universe - based on Stephen Hawkings book? It talked about the idea that is the universe came from a big bang and is expanding, does that then mean at some point it will reach its stretching point and shrink? Will time travel backwards and history become our future? Afterwards I needed a nap. <brain cramp>

------------------
Mone

You ain't nothin without a rhythm section to back you up.

"What Adam does with his willy is his business..." -Bono

melon · 03-28-2002, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by YellowKite:
Will time travel backwards and history become our future? Afterwards I needed a nap. <brain cramp>

Science fiction. Assuming that the universe eventually does contract and start coming back together, why would that mean that time would reverse as well? I think time travel is complete science fiction for the only reason that I don't think time, in itself, is "recorded" whatsoever. Time is just a series of "present" moments that cease to be "present" instantaneously. Past/future...all human concepts. All we have is the present, folks, regardless of our location or the size of the universe.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

Not George Lucas · 03-28-2002, 08:13 AM

There's a few things I'd like to address:

1. The universe is defined as everything that exists.

2. The universe is finite. How do I know? Look at it mathematically. I am finite. I am also an aspect of the universe. If you divide any number by infinity, you always get infinity. I am 1. 1/infinity=infinity.

3. Due to the very nature of the universe (all that exists), multiple universes cannot exist. If they did, what would they all be a part of?

------------------

Truth is offensive.
I'm morally opposed to rape, and I would never rape anyone, but I think, ultimately, it's up to the rapist and no one else.

hermes · 03-28-2002, 11:10 AM

Quote:

1. The universe is defined as everything that exists.

that's how it should be defined, but often people define it differently.

Quote:

2. The universe is finite. How do I know? Look at it mathematically. I am finite. I am also an aspect of the universe. If you divide any number by infinity, you always get infinity. I am 1. 1/infinity=infinity.

I'm just talking out of my ass here, but that reasoning just follows along the lines that you are part of the infinite, not that the infinite doesn't exist.

Quote:

3. Due to the very nature of the universe (all that exists), multiple universes cannot exist. If they did, what would they all be a part of?

I think what people usually mean by multiple Universes is multiple dimensions within the universe defined as a whole.

------------------

Same Old Story

hermes · 03-28-2002, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Assuming that the universe eventually does contract and start coming back together, why would that mean that time would reverse as well?

I don't think it would reverse time either, but it would certainly have some interesting effects since time, gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and many more I'm too tired to mention at the moment, are all intertwined together.

Quote:

I think time travel is complete science fiction for the only reason that I don't think time, in itself, is "recorded" whatsoever. Time is just a series of "present" moments that cease to be "present" instantaneously. Past/future...all human concepts.

you may be right, I don't think we'll ever know on this plane. But time and the universe could also be fully formed. We may just be experiencing and moving through it in this direction.

This of course has ramifications on the concept of free will, as do the ideas of multiple universes, but it's a theory that can't be discounted.

For what it's worth, I don't think actual time travel, in the way that science fiction uses it, is ever going to be possible.

------------------

Same Old Story

[This message has been edited by hermes (edited 03-28-2002).]

HeartlandGirl · 03-28-2002, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by melon:
Science fiction. Assuming that the universe eventually does contract and start coming back together, why would that mean that time would reverse as well? I think time travel is complete science fiction for the only reason that I don't think time, in itself, is "recorded" whatsoever. Time is just a series of "present" moments that cease to be "present" instantaneously. Past/future...all human concepts. All we have is the present, folks, regardless of our location or the size of the universe.

Melon

First, the current scientific consensus to my knowledge is that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating, thus making the problem of collapse and reverse time travel not something to worry about.

Also, theoretically, time travel is not science fiction. From Discover Magazine, March 2002, page 75...

"Einstein established that a limited form of travel into the future is possible. According to the special theory of relativity, rapid motion or a strong gravitational field can noticeably slow the passage of time. If you set out in a very fast spaceship at 87 percent the speed of light--161,000 miles per second--you'll see time pass twice as quickly for the rest of the world as it does for you. Press on closer to the speed of light, and you can race ahead even more rapidly into the future.

Going into the past requires a great deal more work..." It goes on to describe how that would be accomplished, theoretically.

So, just because we don't know how to do something or don't completely understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also, I don't remember who brought it up entirely, but there is a very interesting article about the existence or non-existence of time in Discover Magazine, December 2000, entitled "From Here to Eternity." In it, physicist Julian Barbour argues several interesting points:

1. Time is an illusion, a creation of human perception.

2. If time is removed from the foundation of physics, new theories are needed to explain why humans experience the sensation of passing time.

3. "Each stage of a person's life--from fetus to young adult to senior citizen--eternally coexists with all others." "Each instant has a content, and that content is eternal." Thus, we're all immortal.

Some pretty heavy stuff to wrap your mind around, admittedly, but that's just some tidbits from the article, which does a great job explaining theories of time. It is interesting, to say the least, to try to justify Einstein's theories with Barbour's. I also recommend reading St. Augustine's Confessions, which has some pretty interesting philosophical arguments on the nature of time which are still relevant today 1700 years later. Or has it really been 1700 years?

------------------
U2 @ The Blooming Heart

hermes · 03-31-2002, 11:29 PM

HeartlandGirl do you know if that article is on the web somewhere?

------------------

Same Old Story

03-19-2002, 10:44 AM	#21
zooropa16 The Fly Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Long Island, New York, USA Posts: 208 Local Time: 08:33 AM	The Universe is ezpanding, and increasing in it's rate of expansion. Eventually after all the stars have burned their Hydrogen into helium, that will be it. The Universe will still exist but it will be a "dead universe", no new stars or galaxies. Pretty grim but that's the way it is. __________________

03-21-2002, 05:08 PM	#22
hermes Acrobat Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: a blank page Posts: 360 Local Time: 08:33 AM	my question is, can true nothingness exist? If the universe is expanding into nothingness, well that means the "nothingness" is given definition by the "somethingness" and is no longer nothing. If the universe came from "nothing" there had to be potential there, so in strict terms there was something there. Is there a way to philosophicly prove nothingness? Scientificly prove? ---- I tend to think the universe is holographic, but that's a whole other story. ---------- damn my horrible spelling ------------------ Same Old Story [This message has been edited by hermes (edited 03-21-2002).] __________________

03-31-2002, 11:29 PM	#37
hermes Acrobat Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: a blank page Posts: 360 Local Time: 08:33 AM	HeartlandGirl do you know if that article is on the web somewhere? ------------------ Same Old Story __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-22-2002, 07:06 PM	#23
melon ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Ásgarðr Posts: 11,789 Local Time: 04:33 AM	What do you guys think of multiple universes? Perhaps we are just one universe of many, but that, due to our own scientific limitations and the vastness of our own universe, we just haven't seen it? Looking at science, in general, rarely are single things created. Even stars are usually made in pairs (Jupiter is our sun's dead twin). Melon ------------------ "He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

03-23-2002, 01:53 AM	#24
foray Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: full of sound and fury Posts: 3,386 Local Time: 09:33 PM	Originally posted by hermes: If the universe is expanding into nothingness, Who said that? If the universe came from "nothing" there had to be potential there, so in strict terms there was something there. The universe came from something that was always there and always is, yesterday, today and tomorrow; just like Love simply is. Is there a way to philosophicly prove nothingness? Scientificly prove? Hm... If a shadow is non-light, is it nothing? foray

03-23-2002, 12:35 PM	#26
hermes Acrobat Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: a blank page Posts: 360 Local Time: 08:33 AM	Melon, I tend to think there are multiple universes, but for reasons that probably differ from most. I'm too tired to get into it now, but I do belive they exist. --- I was wondering, for those who do believe they exist, What do you think thier nature is? Various timelines, basicly alternatives to our universe? A universe seperate, but like ours in most general ways? A universe that acts more like a dimension, where the laws of physics and nature could be completely different from what we know? or something else? ------------------ Same Old Story

03-24-2002, 07:04 AM	#27
christiana New Yorker Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 2,703 Local Time: 04:33 PM	I believe in multiple universes too. I think they are all connected in some way. In different universe, the laws of Physics are the same as this universe that we're living, but the timelines are completely differ from ours. And about the emptiness of the space beyond the universes, I'm always thinking and almost fighting constantly with myself for this! At this moment, I believe that there're really nothing out there. It's hard to imagine, but those x-dimensional spaces are hard to imagine either.

03-27-2002, 04:12 PM	#29
hermes Acrobat Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: a blank page Posts: 360 Local Time: 08:33 AM	<<so did the trees really vanish or did the lady just convince the onlookers that they were no longer there, so they deleted them from their holograms?>> I think for all intents and purposes, both. Though I don't think the trees were deleted, the people just stopped percieving those wave patterns. ------------------ Same Old Story

03-28-2002, 02:37 AM	#30
hermes Acrobat Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: a blank page Posts: 360 Local Time: 08:33 AM	This is pretty much how I think the universe is structured, though I don't agree with some of the conclusions at the end. http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html this one is acutally formatted better: http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html [This message has been edited by hermes (edited 03-27-2002).]

03-28-2002, 02:58 AM	#31
YellowKite War Child Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: adrift on a breeze in Tennessee Posts: 692 Local Time: 04:33 AM	Did anyone else see A Brief History of the Universe - based on Stephen Hawkings book? It talked about the idea that is the universe came from a big bang and is expanding, does that then mean at some point it will reach its stretching point and shrink? Will time travel backwards and history become our future? Afterwards I needed a nap. <brain cramp> ------------------ Mone You ain't nothin without a rhythm section to back you up. "What Adam does with his willy is his business..." -Bono

03-28-2002, 08:13 AM	#33
Not George Lucas Acrobat Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: South Bend, IN USA Posts: 399 Local Time: 08:33 AM	There's a few things I'd like to address: 1. The universe is defined as everything that exists. 2. The universe is finite. How do I know? Look at it mathematically. I am finite. I am also an aspect of the universe. If you divide any number by infinity, you always get infinity. I am 1. 1/infinity=infinity. 3. Due to the very nature of the universe (all that exists), multiple universes cannot exist. If they did, what would they all be a part of? ------------------ Truth is offensive. I'm morally opposed to rape, and I would never rape anyone, but I think, ultimately, it's up to the rapist and no one else.