Nothing outside of the universe vs no outside the universe

[eh]

The topic here is the concept of empty space. Since there is no such thing as empty space in our universe, the topic will focus on the idea of 'outside' the universe.

Since the universe is, by definition, all that exists, it is absurd to talk about anything outside it. But if I say there is no outside to the universe, am I saying the same thing as 'there is nothing outside the universe'?

If space is being created by the expanding universe, what then do we say is the difference between empty space and nothing? If we say nothing is outside, that seems to apply a place (or infinite space of) where nothing exists. To say there is no outside is true - but what is the difference?

Can you really have a place without having existence? Is there no there to speak of, when asking what is there beyond our universe? My intuition is bothering me with this seemingly simple question.

[Skepticwithachainsaw]

I would say no... because if something is outside the universe, then it is outside of space and time.

Right it appears to me that for something to change their needs to be an alteration in some form of Spatial (space) or temporal (time) dimension, either it's own structure of the thing in question needs to change or it's relation to something else needs to change.

Thus if it was outside Space and Time how could anything change?

Indeed it could be argued that it could also not possess any structure/features/ distinguishing characteristics, as these likewise seem to depend on Spatial/Temporal dimensions. If you think about how we describe things (either aesthetically or mathematically) it relies, in some form on the Dimensions. Even stuff like colour, unless you want to ignore modern Physics (in which case you have no real explanation for it) Indeed Mass could possibly be defined as "curves" and deformities in Space Time.

I suppose you could argue that there is some form of "Meta-Space" and/or "Meta-time", but in this case you're really just putting our universe within another universe.

I might have an over reliance on Physics here, but then it seems appropriate if we're talking about the Universe as being "real".

My two Philosopical pence.
Feel free to prove me wrong, not that you'd wait for my permission anyway... :)

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticwithachainsaw ]</p>

[The Other Michael]

Another way to look at it would be to ask:

If the universe is expanding, what is the universe expanding into?

cheers,
Michael

[Timordog]

What if nothing is simply something we cannot yet perceive. As in something which exists yet cannot be measured in physical time and space, and this alternate existance our universe is expanding into is simply defined and perceived by definitions we cannot comprehend.

[phaedrus]

Why is there a presumption that the universe has a boundary?

[Aquila ka Hecate]

The Other Michael:

[quote]If the universe is expanding, what is the universe expanding into?

<hr></blockquote>

It's not expanding into anything.
The fabric of space itself is expanding.
Or at least this is how I understand it.

[Hans]

Aquila ka Hecate

[quote]Originally posted by Aquila ka Hecate:
It's not expanding into anything.
The fabric of space itself is expanding.
Or at least this is how I understand it.<hr></blockquote>

If the universe is finite then the epansion must be "into something." If the universe is infinite then either the expansion is only local or there is an incredible force unknown to physics that is capable of expanding an already infinite expanse into an even larger expanse.

[Hans]

eh

[quote]The topic here is the concept of empty space. Since there is no such thing as empty space in our universe, the topic will focus on the idea of 'outside' the universe.

Since the universe is, by definition, all that exists, it is absurd to talk about anything outside it. But if I say there is no outside to the universe, am I saying the same thing as 'there is nothing outside the universe'?

If space is being created by the expanding universe, what then do we say is the difference between empty space and nothing? If we say nothing is outside, that seems to apply a place (or infinite space of) where nothing exists. To say there is no outside is true - but what is the difference?

Can you really have a place without having existence? Is there no there to speak of, when asking what is there beyond our universe? My intuition is bothering me with this seemingly simple question.<hr></blockquote>

Your questions arise from not knowing if "all that exists" is finite or infinite. If all that exists is infinite then the question is mute. The universe is infact everything and no "nothingness" exists. For the universe to be finite absolutly requires a "nothingness" in which the universe exists.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]</p>

[owleye]

That the universe is claimed by cosmologists to be expanding, or to have undergone inflation, or for that matter to have had a beginning, gives us the problem of this thread. For us, in the absence of any further explanatory remarks, these terms require us to think of them as we might similar properties of ordinary objects. Applied to the entire universe, however, they don't seem to make sense.

The main reason for the difficulty, I think, is that the world of our experience and the context in which are language has developed demands that the existence of objects at some time, presuppose their existence in space. That is, ordinary language has it that objects exist somewhere and at some time. To the extent we are told that the universe is an object, we cannot help but think it as existing in some space and time. The apparent contradiction arises when those who tell us that the universe is an object also tell us that it includes spacetime within its definition. Then either spacetime is an object existing in space and time, or it is not an object at all. The former gets us into difficultes that this thread is trying to sort out. The latter option is the way I'd prefer to consider it.

The problem with not considering it an object is that it would make the scientific picture of the universe unscientific. Science must stand apart from what it is investigating, treating it as an object in order to gain knowledge of it. As such, the universe must be tamed, so to speak. If science can stand apart from the universe, in some higher dimension, so to speak, there remains the possibilitiy of it being successfully modeled, at least right up to the point where infinities get the better of them. In any case, science, I think, winds up backing itself into a corner of its own making, so far is it from ordinary reality.

owleye

[Coljac]

[quote]Originally posted by Hans:
<strong>Aquila ka Hecate:
If the universe is finite then the epansion must be "into something." </strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know about that at all. There's no possible framwork in which one could describe the something being "expanded into". So, even if I agreed with your statement, it would be a moot point since there is no conceivable way to ascribe any properties to it.

However, I wonder if the word "expansion" itself is misleading. What do we really mean by that? Perhaps it can be re-expressed as a change in the ratios of the fundamental forces.

-Coljac

[WhiteKnight]

The possibility of a finite, unbounded universe makes the "expanding into what" question irrelevant.

The 2D equivalent is the surface area of a sphere. For any given radius, the area is finite. Yet there is no "edge" to it. If you travel far enough in a single direction, you end up where you started.

All points are equivalent, i.e. there is no "center". This finite 2D space can undergo "expansion" and "contraction" by variation of the radius.

The 3D implications would mean that if you could see far enough, you could observe your location billions of years ago. Personally, I'd think seeing the same galaxy from opposite directions (the other side of the balloon) would be impressive enough.

Anyone know how to drop a line to the Hubble operators? They seem to be able to peer back far enough.

[Hans]

Coljac

[quote]I don't know about that at all. There's no possible framwork in which one could describe the something being "expanded into". So, even if I agreed with your statement, it would be a moot point since there is no conceivable way to ascribe any properties to it.<hr></blockquote>

Thus a universe that is infinite in both expanse and time is the only universe that seems logical. To ascribe a boundry begs the question of exactly what a "nothingness" is. If not a "nothingness", then it is "something." And if it's "something" then it must, by definition, be included in the universe.

[quote]However, I wonder if the word "expansion" itself is misleading. What do we really mean by that? Perhaps it can be re-expressed as a change in the ratios of the fundamental forces.<hr></blockquote>

If the gallaxies we observe are increasing in distance from each other through time then the area they encompass must also increase through time. I'm not aware of a way to re-express an increase in area as a change in the ratios of the fundimental forces.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]</p>

[Hans]

WhiteKnight

[quote]The possibility of a finite, unbounded universe makes the "expanding into what" question irrelevant.<hr></blockquote>

I disagree because:

[quote]The 2D equivalent is the surface area of a sphere. For any given radius, the area is finite. Yet there is no "edge" to it. If you travel far enough in a single direction, you end up where you started.

All points are equivalent, i.e. there is no "center". This finite 2D space can undergo "expansion" and "contraction" by variation of the radius.

The 3D implications would mean that if you could see far enough, you could observe your location billions of years ago.<hr></blockquote>

The size of the sphere, or curved three dimensional space, will determine how long it takes for light to circumvent the area. From this time interval one could deduce the radius. If a finite radius is deduced then we have come full circle to once again asking what is outside of the radius.

[Synaesthesia]

[quote]If the universe is finite then the epansion must be "into something."<hr></blockquote>

Although the plausibility of the "absolute frame of reference" is powerful given human experience, it is merely an illusion. The only condition required for a finite universe to be expanding, is that the composite elements grow further apart. It does not require, and indeed current physical theories rule out, the existence of an immutable standard against which we measure the dimensions of the universe; everything is relative.

Since the "universe" includes all space and time, to grant that it is expanding requires that we abandon the notion that it is expanding "into" anything. Certainly one might think that the universe is not in fact expanding as a whole. However, the evidence today suggests that not only is the entire universe expanding, it is accelerating in this process.

[Hans]

Synaesthesia

[quote]Although the plausibility of the "absolute frame of reference" is powerful given human experience, it is merely an illusion. The only condition required for a finite universe to be expanding, is that the composite elements grow further apart. It does not require, and indeed current physical theories rule out, the existence of an immutable standard against which we measure the dimensions of the universe; everything is relative.<hr></blockquote>

Accept where one defines a point position from which all expansion originates, at a known point in history, and at a known rate of expansion. My geometry is weak at best, but I'm betting I could deduce a radius with the above info and enough high school refreshers.

[quote]Since the "universe" includes all space and time, to grant that it is expanding requires that we abandon the notion that it is expanding "into" anything.<hr></blockquote>

And for this to work requires the contrary of a finite expanse. Space and time must be infinite in expanse.

I just can't get a and b in my head. It's either a or b. They lack compatability to my thinking.

[wordsmyth]

I'm not an astrophysicist, but I've always thought about the expansion of the universe like this.

The universe, or the space in which everything exists, is not expanding but infinite and without boundaries. All the elements within the universe (planets, stars, everything basically) are moving farther apart(i.e. expanding) into infinite space.

So, in my view it would technically be possible to travel beyond the bounds of the expansion and still be within the universe which itself has no boundaries. Of course there wouldn't be anything out there yet.

Thoughts?

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: wordsmyth ]</p>

[Synaesthesia]

Hans,
[quote]Accept where one defines a point position from which all expansion originates, at a known point in history, and at a known rate of expansion. My geometry is weak at best, but I'm betting I could deduce a radius with the above info and enough high school refreshers.<hr></blockquote>

(I assume by “accept” you mean “except”)
It may indeed be possible to do this to a crude approximation but you are still measuring the motion objects through space and time relative to other objects within space and time. According to relativity, the frame of reference you choose is arbitrary.

Hans,
[quote]And for this to work requires the contrary of a finite expanse. Space and time must be infinite in expanse.<hr></blockquote>

No one has yet provided any convincing evidence for this somewhat unparsimonious assumption. Must is too strong a word.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

[Timordog]

Synaesthesia, how do you mean according to relativity the point you choose is arbitrary? Is the universe not expanding from a given point relative to it proposed orgin from the big bang? And if you conced that a crude approximation is possible what would this reprsent? would that not disprove the universe being limitless? and then you have to go back to the topic's main question what is outside of it that it is expanding into? I can understand the concept that the universe is not governed as an object and that it contains space and time but if you give creed to the big bang or the yo-yo thing what was it created into. I've asked this question and the sceintists say theoretically the big bang created time and space but you cannot create something from nothing so is it acknolodged that space and time where created from something with properties we cannot comprehend or is it thought that the universe was created from nothingness and expanding into it also? That seems a bit presumtious to think there can't be anything outside of our current rehlm of understanding.

[Liquidrage]

If you consider to the univserse it self then it can easily be said the universe takes up absolutely 0 space and never will regardless of how much we believe it to be expanded.

The universe can be stated as a collection of probability waves and colapsed probability waves. I see no reason why any *actual* space be needed for these waves to exist and for that matter for the universe to need any space whatsoever.

[Timordog]

Ok so your saying that the conecpt of the word "space" that we are using is a misconception, in that the univirse and it's actions don't pay heed to it, but then what undefined thing is the known timespace universe coming from would be the more acurate question. I simply use space because that is the simplest way i can visualize it, however incorrect it is, it's just a place holder i was using to ask questions of it. So then is it aggreed that there is something the universe is expanding into and expansion not in the traditional spatial sense but in accordance to whatever this undefined matter, or non-matter, i'm not sure how to even ask the question coherently, is going into and being created from? That this void outside the realms of the universe is also outside of timespace and therefore we cannot yet comprehend it, or is it just assumed there is nothing. So my question then is what is the nothing?

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Timordog ]</p>

[Liquidrage]

[quote]Originally posted by Timordog:
<strong>Ok so your saying that the conecpt of the word "space" that we are using is a misconception, in that the univirse and it's actions don't pay heed to it, but then what undefined thing is the known timespace universe coming from would be the more acurate question. I simply use space because that is the simplest way i can visualize it, however incorrect it is, it's just a place holder i was using to ask questions of it. So then is it aggreed that there is something the universe is expanding into and expansion not in the traditional spatial sense but in accordance to whatever this undefined matter, or non-matter, i'm not sure how to even ask the question coherently, is going into and being created from? That this void outside the realms of the universe is also outside of timespace and therefore we cannot yet comprehend it, or is it just assumed there is nothing. So my question then is what is the nothing?

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Timordog ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually my response was to say that there is nothing the universe is expanding into. Nor is there a *nothing* outside of the universe.

Look at it as this.
Space could be defined as a property of the probability waves. In order for more *space* to appear, all that is needed is for more probability waves to exist then was previously. But if the waves themselevs don't actually have any space (it's just a property of the wave) then all that there is, is just the waves.

We picture really tiny particles as little billard balls because it's easy for us. But if we look all the way down we find (in theory) that these aren't actually objects, they are more like little packets of information(or quanta). Only through the interaction of multiple packets do things like time and space arise, which is how we see it in the everyday world.

[I am]

[quote] The topic here is the concept of empty space. Since there is no such thing as empty space in our universe, the topic will focus on the idea of 'outside' the universe. <hr></blockquote>

The idea of something "outside" of the universe persupposes the idea of space, thus it is self-contradictory. Nothing more.

[quote] Since the universe is, by definition, all that exists, it is absurd to talk about anything outside it. But if I say there is no outside to the universe, am I saying the same thing as 'there is nothing outside the universe'? <hr></blockquote>

Well that depends on your definition of nothing. If by nothing you mean space without contents of any type, the no, you are not saying the same thing.

[quote] If space is being created by the expanding universe, what then do we say is the difference between empty space and nothing? If we say nothing is outside, that seems to apply a place (or infinite space of) where nothing exists. To say there is no outside is true - but what is the difference? <hr></blockquote>

Again if you refrain from aplying the idea of space to that which is not a part of the universe you will have no conflict.

[quote] Can you really have a place without having existence? Is there no there to speak of, when asking what is there beyond our universe? My intuition is bothering me with this seemingly simple question. <hr></blockquote>

The word place implies existence, so no you cannot have a place that does not exist. The opposite is what you should ponder, that is, can something exist but have no "place"?

[The Other Michael]

Is Schroedinger's kitty somehow involved in all of this?

cheers,
Michael

[99Percent]

(disclaimer, what follows is pure arm chair theoretical physics, I am obviously not an expert by any means)

Space is a related to time. Time exists only for mass.

You might rather want to see instead that time is going slower instead of space expanding. As time slows down, objects appear father and farther away since light takes more time to reach us but for light there is no time since it doesn't carry any mass, everything is simultaneous - in effect there is no space for any particle of light, the universe is a particle in itself.

That time is slowing down would account for gravity, as matter has a harder time physically separating while space is being created in effect forcing mass to clump together.

You can also picture the universe as a globe where the three dimensions of space is equivalent to the two dimensions of the surface of this globe. All points on the surface of the globe are receeding at the same time from all other points as time slows down. To move around on this surface is to actually make time quicker in relation to yourself (in effect you would have to travel close to the speed of light, expanding yourself) as you "catch up" to the time in that other part of this globe.

Question is, what is causing time to slow down?

[0n0w1c]

god forgot to change the battery?

[Metacrock]

[quote]Originally posted by Timordog:
<strong>What if nothing is simply something we cannot yet perceive. As in something which exists yet cannot be measured in physical time and space, and this alternate existance our universe is expanding into is simply defined and perceived by definitions we cannot comprehend.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Meta =&gt;But if nothing is something, than there is no such thing as nothing. If there is no such thing as nothing then it can't be soemthing. So there is such a thing as nothing! But then, it's something! AAAAAAAAAAAAA
:eek: :D

[atrahasis]

You are talking of the universe exiting in space and time; is it that every thing that exist is within space and time? What of what existed before the time itself 'that is Nothing' was there a beginning of time? :eek:

[HRG]

[quote]Originally posted by Metacrock:
<strong>


Meta =&gt;But if nothing is something, than there is no such thing as nothing. If there is no such thing as nothing then it can't be soemthing. So there is such a thing as nothing! But then, it's something! AAAAAAAAAAAAA
:eek: :D </strong><hr></blockquote>

If you want to do some Heideggering, it works much better in German, I can tell you! You can argue from "das Nichts" to its plural "die Nichte" - which by logical negation leads to "die Tante" *) ....

Regards,
HRG :)

*) Nichte = niece, Tante = aunt

[Bob K]

The Three Realities

The universe consists of at least three independent realities: (1) the spatial reality; (2) the temporal reality; (3) the physical reality.

1. The spatial reality is the infinite emptiness which is space; space would be empty—a pure vacuum—except for the presence of the matter/energy which is the physical reality; the spatial reality is infinite in duration; the spatial reality is dimensionless, unbounded, limitless.

2. The temporal reality is the concept of time which is the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences by means of time-intervals; time as measured by invariable time-intervals is the same for all observers in all reference frames without exception—time measured by means of invariable time-intervals in clocks which are motion/gravity-sensing and self-adjusting or clocks which are synchronized always show an identical increase in clock face readings/time measurements in all reference frames without exception; time moves forwards into the future and never backwards into the past, is irreversible and therefore is asymmetrical; there was never a beginning to time, nor will there ever be an ending of time; nor was there ever nor can there ever be time travel into the past, into the previous temporal sequence of events, for once the sequence of time has past it is gone forever.

3. The physical reality is the matter/energy (including gravity and the electric charge) which comprises all things [objects] and events [relationships between/among things]; the physical reality fills part if not all of space; its duration is infinite—matter/energy can be changed in form but never destroyed: E = mc2 and m = E/c2; its quantity is finite—the sum total of matter/energy is a constant [Thermodynamics]; the physical reality as matter/energy is the source of causality and there can never be an infinite regression of causality to a first cause; nothing comes from nothing, therefore something can only come from something else.

The concept of spacetime is a false concept. The spatial reality is independent of the temporal reality because time cannot and does not define nor measure unbounded space. Thus time is absolute and space is absolute.

The physical reality is independent of the spatial and temporal realities. Matter/energy exists in space but since space is unbounded emptiness/pure vacuum then matter/energy cannot interact with it although matter/energy can exist within it.

Matter/energy is independent of the temporal reality because it is infinite in duration—it was never created and can never be destroyed.

Time as measured by invariable time-intervals in the temporal reality is asymmetrical—it can be observed and measured only in the forward direction into the future, never in the backward direction into the past. Thus, because of the asymmetry defined by the use of invariable time-intervals for the measurement of time/the measurement of the temporal intervals between/among events in sequences, there can never be time travel into the past but only into the future. The appearance of symmetry in physics is an illusion due to the temporal reality as defined and measured by invariable time-intervals, time which is asymmetrical, and which is measuring into the future all events in the temporal sequence which is history.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

[MaxMainspring]

[quote]Originally posted by eh:
<strong>The topic here is the concept of empty space. Since there is no such thing as empty space in our universe, the topic will focus on the idea of 'outside' the universe.

Since the universe is, by definition, all that exists, it is absurd to talk about anything outside it. But if I say there is no outside to the universe, am I saying the same thing as 'there is nothing outside the universe'?

If space is being created by the expanding universe, what then do we say is the difference between empty space and nothing? If we say nothing is outside, that seems to apply a place (or infinite space of) where nothing exists. To say there is no outside is true - but what is the difference?

Can you really have a place without having existence? Is there no there to speak of, when asking what is there beyond our universe? My intuition is bothering me with this seemingly simple question.</strong><hr></blockquote>


This is a very intriguing question and in a lot of ways violates our ordinary intuitions. One way to frame the query is to consider the possibility of another big bang occuring independently of our own.

The first question to ask is whether or not the existence of one big-bang created universe disallows the existence of others. But even that question is deceptively simple, because you have to define what you mean by an allowed existence. To explain that particular problem lets look at the nature of time and space. They are both metrics that differ from each other in fundamental ways even if they can be combined into one system of dimensions. (I won't try to define the differences because the gut intuitional differences are sufficient for our purposes). According to current theory, they were both (space and time) created in the big band and have inflated or expanded ever since. So our big bang created universe has a self-contained space-time.

But now consider an independent big-bang created universe that exists separate from our own. What can we say about it in terms of the known metrics that we are familiar with. Does it make sense, for instance, to say that it does or does not exist simultaneously with our own *? And the same problem exists if we wish to think of it existing either "here" or "somewhere else". Both questions seem to be meaningless if both universes have self-contained space-time, yet it seems impossible to conceive of separate universes if we can't ask these questions. And the only way that it could be maintained that these questions were moot is if they were absolutely impervious to each other because any interaction would consitute a series of events or changing states which would be time-like and probably space-like (And quite possibly measurable to conscious entities that might emerge from the interactions (of many such universes) in a manner analogous to our emergence out of the interactions of elementary physical particles.). Thusly they would both (or all) be in a mutual system of metrics which would "exist" in a way that would seem to subsume our space-time.

We have observed our universe as having arisen from some event such as the big bang (or other current theories) and therefore we know such an event to be possible. But if it is possible once, would that not mean it is possible more than once. And wouldn't that make it reasonable to posit the occurance of other independent universes that arose by means similar to ours. But unless they are "displaced" from ours in some metric they are then simultaneous and coextensive with ours and would be a part of it.

So this brings up the question of whether it is possible that mulitple universes exist but are diplaced from each other by some "distancing" metric which may or may not be space-like or time-like.

But however this would work it seems that there would have to be a system of displacement with myriad loci in some kind of metric. This would mean that something potentially measurable would exist outside the space time of the observable universe unless the existence of our universe eternally precluded the existence of any other universe.

Of course, all of this is no more that speculative rumination, but I would be interested in any thoughts or comments anyone might wish to provide.

*It is understood that similtaneity is relativistic, but to any observer shares simultainiety with any other observer in his frame of reference, and any two events are either simultaneous or not to any observer, regardless of frame of reference. so it is a valid concept and cannot be dispensed with as meaningless simply because it is not absolute.

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: MaxMainspring ]</p>

[eh]

[quote]Originally posted by Bob K:


The concept of spacetime is a false concept. The spatial reality is independent of the temporal reality because time cannot and does not define nor measure unbounded space. Thus time is absolute and space is absolute.
<hr></blockquote>

Didn't Einstein forever scrap the idea of absolute space? Are there any non crackpot scientists still clinging to this idea? Links would be nice.

[Laurentius]

AVE

[quote] Originally posted by Owleye
Science must stand apart from what it is investigating, treating it as an object in order to gain knowledge of it.<hr></blockquote>

Similarly, but extrapolating of course, science will have difficulty in analyzing the brain-mind apparatus by means of the analysis obtained through and produced by the brain-mind apparatus itself.

AVE

[crocodile deathroll]

I am sure now that inflationary cosmology is very much alive and well. In fact it is now stronger than ever
<a href="http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/41/8/16" target="_blank">This may overcome many of the old paradoxes of the past</a>

[crocodile deathroll]

[quote]Origanally posted by Bod K
The universe consists of at least three independent realities: (1) the spatial reality; (2) the temporal reality; (3) the physical reality.
<hr></blockquote>
I am more of a proponent of 2 realities, 1 objective reality and 2 subjective reality
1 Objective reality is the reality our there; the empirical reality of atoms, and other matter with energy space and time that exist in spite of the fact that most of it is hidden from us. In objective reality time only exists as a single dimension and there is absolutely not dichotomy of it into a past, present and future.
2 Subjective reality is only the reality that comes your conscious attention on top of dreams, imagination, hallucinations, and delusions, or the inner voice of the mind. Even the "present moment" or the dichotomy of time into a past present and future is only just an expression of subjective reality.
[quote]
1. The spatial reality is the infinite emptiness which is space; space would be empty—a pure vacuum—except for the presence of the matter/energy which is the physical reality; the spatial reality is infinite in duration; the spatial reality is dimensionless, unbounded, limitless.
<hr></blockquote>
Space if real stuff, it is a part of objective reality as the objects within it and it consists of vacuum of dark energy or vacuum energy and without that there would not even be a spacial distance between material objects.
[quote]
2. The temporal reality is the concept of time which is the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences by means of time-intervals; time as measured by invariable time-intervals is the same for all observers in all reference frames without exception—time measured by means of invariable time-intervals in clocks which are motion/gravity-sensing and self-adjusting or clocks which are synchronized always show an identical increase in clock face readings/time measurements in all reference frames without exception; time moves forwards into the future and never backwards into the past, is irreversible and therefore is asymmetrical; there was never a beginning to time, nor will there ever be an ending of time; nor was there ever nor can there ever be time travel into the past, into the previous temporal sequence of events, for once the sequence of time has past it is gone forever.
<hr></blockquote>
You have forgotten about that guy called Einstein, time is just another fixed dimension.
The present moment is purely a part of your subjective reality and is no more than just a space time frame of reference that comes to your conscious attention. For example what may be perceived as the future in the eyes of Jones is the past in the eyes of Brown.
[quote]
3. The physical reality is the matter/energy (including gravity and the electric charge) which comprises all things [objects] and events [relationships between/among things]; the physical reality fills part if not all of space; its duration is infinite—matter/energy can be changed in form but never destroyed: E = mc2 and m = E/c2; its quantity is finite—the sum total of matter/energy is a constant [Thermodynamics]; the physical reality as matter/energy is the source of causality and there can never be an infinite regression of causality to a first cause; nothing comes from nothing, therefore something can only come from something else.
<hr></blockquote>
If two spaceships in very deep space were about to undertake a docking manoeuvre but at a very unfortunate moment they were both to run out of fuel when they were just a few kilometers apart. However, they just happened to run out of fuel when they were travelling at exactly the same velocity in exactly the same direction, so they remained as exactly the same distance from each other. Would they stay drifting apart like that forever?, well gravity will come to the rescue, because as small as those little stranded space ships are, there was still enough gravitation to warp the space between them and as such they both came gently together in the earlier planned docking manoeuvre.
If they happened to be too far apart then vacuum will have enough energy of its own to force those space craft apart with the expansion of the accelerating universe.
This vacuum energy that separates those two space ships will eventually overcome the entire universe and cause it to accelerate faster and faster and thus totally overcome come it so it will be frozen ashes expanding out forever into a great cosmic ice age.
This is just some of many examples of how matter, space, gravity and time do in fact interact in many complex ways
[quote]
The concept of spacetime is a false concept. The spatial reality is independent of the temporal reality because time cannot and does not define nor measure unbounded space. Thus time is absolute and space is absolute.
<hr></blockquote>
Why do many astronomers prefer to measure space in light years and not parsecs. Why do I fell more comfortable with a galaxy measured in
light year increments?
Why would the map of the neighbor Virgo Cluster of galaxies look different to a hypothetical alien observing it from the other side. It is in fact the dimension of time that is presenting a different picture of our local group, thus distorting the spacial structure of our local group
[quote]
The physical reality is independent of the spatial and temporal realities. Matter/energy exists in space but since space is unbounded emptiness/pure vacuum then matter/energy cannot interact with it although matter/energy can exist within it.
Matter/energy is independent of the temporal reality because it is infinite in duration—it was never created and can never be destroyed.
Time as measured by invariable time-intervals in the temporal reality is asymmetrical—it can be observed and measured only in the forward direction into the future, never in the backward direction into the past. Thus, because of the asymmetry defined by the use of invariable time-intervals for the measurement of time/the measurement of the temporal intervals between/among events in sequences, there can never be time travel into the past but only into the future. The appearance of symmetry in physics is an illusion due to the temporal reality as defined and measured by invariable time-intervals, time which is asymmetrical, and which is measuring into the future all events in the temporal sequence which is history.
<hr></blockquote>
Again I must assert that matter and energy exists with space and not in space, because space is energy, it is dark energy or vacuum energy and there is only a finite amount of space in the universe and we a observing it at a spacetime frame of reference when conditions make us possible. If life could only exist in the cosmic dark age trillions of years into the future, then we will be observing that era universe from that particular point in time. We may observe scientific measurements that show the universe is in fact 14 trillion years old, but we would of course be just totally oblivious to the preceding 14 trillion years preceding our birth, because the passage of time (not the dimension of time) is purely subjective. But as is happens life probably only exists in a era on the time vector when the universe is 14 billion years old and not 14 trillion. So we can only really observe a universe from the vantage point of conditions that make us possible and those conditions exist on the 14 billion year mark on the universe's time vector.


So what is the true age of the universe? -10^42 second? 6,000 years (as many young earth creationists assert) or 300,000 years? 14,billion years? 10^10^100^years?
In fact I believe it is all of the above, it is just that no one is around at 6 thousand after the big bang to observe it then and even a young earth creationist would be totally obliterated in that "hotter than hell" fire ball, so we do not observe a 6 thousand year old universe for the simple reason there is no one there to observe it then, but that does not dismiss the reality of a 6 thousand year old universe or -10^42 second old one for that matter. They are just as must a real point on the time vector as one you observe the universe "now" but as I have explained "now" has no place in objective reality.

crocodile deathroll

[crocodile deathroll]

If the Hubble constant is finally observes the exact age of the universe as we see it( just assume the figure is 14,249,676,000 years old) then I believe that will tell you nothing about the true age of the universe. It only tells us that the universe was 14,249,676,000 years old billion years old when humans appeared on the scene.

[Vorador]

I always thought that 'the universe' consisted of all the MATTER in the universe, not the space in it, too. So I kind of thought the whole 'expanding universe' thing just means all the matter in it is expanding. So I kind of figured that outside of this one, there were others. I mean, currently i can't think of why this universe would be just an isolated incident.

But if the ujniverse is space too... Then I dunno o_O

How could 'space' be created if it's empty anyway? A Vacuum is a lack of substance. A lack of substance can't be created, because it's a lack of anything that could possible BE created.

I'm too tired to read all these posts right now, and all these concepts being proposed are beyond my level of education, I think =P So yeah. Someone wanna dumb it down for me? Please? Help a poor insomniac, here.

I don't know. It makes sense to me. Anyone care to clear this up?

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: Vorador ]

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: Vorador ]</p>

[Bob K]

eh:

Bob K: [quote]The concept of spacetime is a false concept. The spatial reality is independent of the temporal reality because time cannot and does not define nor measure unbounded space. Thus time is absolute and space is absolute.<hr></blockquote>

eh quote: [quote]Didn't Einstein forever scrap the idea of absolute space? Are there any non crackpot scientists still clinging to this idea? Links would be nice.<hr></blockquote>

Einstein, on page 99 of his book, Relativity, stated thus: “Mechanical clocks serve for the definition of time.”

By this operational definition he tried to define time but used variable time-intervals which are affected by changes of velocity/gravity which cause cause mechanical clocks to vary (A) their rates of functioning and therefore (B) their time-intervals and therefore (C) their measurements of time causing the phenomenon wherein observers observe the speed of light to be the same in any reference frame and time to appear to be dependent upon space and space to be dependent upon time, as demonstrated by the phenomenon wherein identical clocks set to the same variable time-intervals will show a difference of face readings and therefore the measurement of time when one clock is accelerated by a ride aboard a spaceship and is returned to earth [decelerated] and its face reading is compared to the face reading of the nonaccelerated clock [the clock which remained upon the earth] with the result that the space clock shows a smaller face reading and therefore less time elapsed, as if there is a direct relationship between velocity and time, velocity including d = rt or r = d/t, where d = a spatial measurement/dimension.

By the theory of invariable time-intervals the phenomenon of the speed of light appearing to be the same to all observers can be/is demonstrated to be an apparent and not an actual phenomenon because of the identical face readings of clocks set to invariable time-intervals which are either (A) constructed to be velocity/gravity therefore motion-sensing and self-adjusting to compensate for sensed changes of velocity/gravity or (B) otherwise are synchronized by radio signals to read the identical face readings as clocks not affected by changes of velocity [not accelerated/not decelerated] nor affected by changes of gravity. Thus, the face readings/measurement of time of clocks (A) set with invariable time-intervals or otherwise (B) synchronized by radio signals can be compared when one clock is accelerated/decelerated by being placed aboard a spaceship which is shot into space/accelerated and which returns to earth/decelerated while another is nonaccelerated/decelerated by being placed upon the earth: the face readings will be identical/not different and therefore show the same measurement of time, which means that the affects of velocity/gravity can be compensated for/eliminated and that, therefore, time, as measured by clocks set with invariable time-intervals by A or B described above, is universal and everywhere in the spatial reality the same. And that conclusion means time and space are not interdependent but instead are therefore independent, and where time measured by invariable time-intervals is Absolute Time/independent of space then space is Absolute Space/independent of time. Thus, time and space are independent, and the concept of spacetime when time is measured by invariable time-intervals is an invalid concept and when time is measured by variable time-intervals the concept of spacetime becomes an illusion rather than a reality wherein the speed of light appears to be the same for all observers but in fact is the same for all physical phenomena, a.k.a. the physical reality.

Einstein did in fact define time by mechanical clocks whose rates of functioning are affected by changes of velocity/gravity and whose time-intervals are affected by those changes of velocity/gravity and are therefore variable time-intervals.

If you intend to refute the theory of invariable time-intervals, then prove that by defining time to be that which is measured by mechanical clocks [or atomic clocks] Einstein did not inadvertently use variable time-intervals. Prove that mechanical clocks [or any other clocks] whose rates of functioning are affected by increases or decreases of inertial mass due to increases or decreases of velocity and/or gravity are not set with variable time-intervals. Prove that invariable time-intervals do not exist/cannot exist.

In the theory of invariable time-intervals time is defined operationally as the measurement by time-intervals of the occurrences of events in sequences of events. If you want to refute the theory of invariable time-intervals then prove that the theory’s operational definition of time is false/invalid. Prove that people do not measure occurrences of events in sequences of events by time-intervals of any kind.

By the way, an operational definition defines terms by providing descriptions of observable people/things/events and thereby can be used to make concrete abstract concepts. Children use operational definitions whenever they use formulate sentences such as “_____ [term/phrase being defined] is when _____ [description of people/things/events related to the term/phrase being defined].” ‘Love’ can be defined operationally thus: Love is when someone says they like you and they do good things with you, for you and to you. ‘Hate’ can be defined operationally thus: Hate is when someone says they do not like you and they do bad things with you, for you and to you. Thus, by describing the actions/relationships of people/things/events which are relevant to a term/phrase operational definitions clarify and thereby define abstract terms. Operational definitions are required for The Code of Science:

<a href="http://www.bobkwebsite.com/thecodeofscience.html" target="_blank">http://www.bobkwebsite.com/thecodeofscience.html</a>

The theory of invariable time-intervals [the theory that time-intervals can be either variable or invariable] is an original theory. The only link to the theory is thus:

<a href="http://www.bobkwebsite.com/invriabletimeintrvls.html" target="_blank">http://www.bobkwebsite.com/invriabletimeintrvls.html</a>

This link does provide a more thorough explanation of the theory of invariable time-intervals.

By the way, to be original one must (A) say something new or (B) say something old in a new way.

By either A or B, the theory of invariable time-intervals is an original theory. Therefore the only link to it at present is the one presented above.

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

[crocodile deathroll]

With cosmic time scales cosmoligsts often use cosmic decades eg one cosmic decade is 10, 2 = 100, 3 = 1,000, 10^3, and we happen to reside in the 10th cosmic decade (10^10) but no one can possibly exist in the cosmic dark age at &gt; 10^ 100 or one googol. So we are not at all born in that cosmic dark age because it is physically impossible for any one to exist then.

Many cosmologist claim the universe from the moment of the big bang undergoes five eras first beginning with the primordial era ending at the demise of the 5th cosmic decade
We reside in the far more "temperate" stelliferous era , which lasts from the 6th to the 14th cosmic decade.
Then that gives way to the degenerate era from 10^14 to 10^38 and that may then give way to the black hole era between 10^38 to 10^100 then finally Hawking radiation eliminates all the black holes to give way to the dark era I just mentioned

CD

[Bob K]

crocodile deathroll:

Bob K quote: [quote]
The universe consists of at least three independent realities: (1) the spatial reality; (2) the temporal reality; (3) the physical reality.<hr></blockquote>

cd quote: [quote]I am more of a proponent of 2 realities, 1 objective reality and 2 subjective reality

1 Objective reality is the reality [out] there; the empirical reality of atoms, and other matter with energy space and time that exist in spite of the fact that most of it is hidden from us. In objective reality time only exists as a single dimension and there is absolutely [no] dichotomy of it into a past, present and future.

2 Subjective reality is only the reality that comes your conscious attention on top of dreams, imagination, hallucinations, and delusions, or the inner voice of the mind. Even the "present moment" or the dichotomy of time into a past present and future is only just an expression of subjective reality.<hr></blockquote>

The objective reality consists of the three realities as described above.

In the history of psychology/psychiatry, the objective reality was called the milieu exteriore or external world and the subjective reality was called the milieu interiore or internal world (cf. Franz Alexander, et al, The History of Psychiatry)

The subjective reality consists of the content of ideas [mental representations of things/events]/desires/fears/priorities/perceptions and the feelings which are the reactions to the perceptions of the realizations of desires/fears/priorities.

The subjective reality has a physiology and therefore an objective basis--it is located within the biology of the human brain/nervous system, within the brain/nervous system of an individual. Nerve impulses are objective--they can be detected and measured.

When an individual’s contents of his concepts [mental representations/ideas of things] and principles [mental representations/ideas of events as relationships among things] are accurate and his resulting feelings are related to accurate perceptions of the realizations of his desires/fears/priorities, then the individual is ‘in sync’ with his universe and the objective and subjective realities come together.

If ever we will see the objective measurement of the activities of human brains/nervous systems in such as way that we can determine from those measurements the content of individuals’ mental representations and feelings, then the subjective reality will become as objective as the physical reality. What the individual ‘experiences’ in his internal world/subjective reality will be describable by measurements and therefore objective, and, eventually, predictable, at least within limits, since it is currently believed that within the brain/nervous system there is random activity that would preclude total predictability.

Bob K quote: [quote]1. The spatial reality is the infinite emptiness which is space; space would be empty—a pure vacuum—except for the presence of the matter/energy which is the physical reality; the spatial reality is infinite in duration; the spatial reality is dimensionless, unbounded, limitless.<hr></blockquote>

cd quote: [quote]Space if real stuff, it is a part of objective reality as the objects within it and it consists of vacuum of dark energy or vacuum energy and without that there would not even be a spacial distance between material objects.<hr></blockquote>

We seem to be agreeing that space. as the spatial reality, is part of the objective reality.

However, the spatial reality is defined as being a pure vacuum except for the presence of the physical reality.

By this definition, the spatial reality--the unbounded place/location within which the physical reality exists--has no energy of any kind, since energy of any kind is a form of the physical reality--the matter/energy of any kind which comprises all things/events and is the source of causality.

Thus, in the spatial reality, there is no ‘dark energy’ or ‘vacuum energy.’

Once again, a pure vacuum cannot be pure if it is ‘contaminated’ by energy of any kind--by the physical reality. The presence of the physical reality [matter/energy of any kind] in a spatial reality means that spatial reality is not a pure vacuum.

Bob K quote: [quote]2. The temporal reality is the concept of time which is the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences by means of time-intervals; time as measured by invariable time-intervals is the same for all observers in all reference frames without exception—time measured by means of invariable time-intervals in clocks which are motion/gravity-sensing and self-adjusting or clocks which are synchronized always show an identical increase in clock face readings/time measurements in all reference frames without exception; time moves forwards into the future and never backwards into the past, is irreversible and therefore is asymmetrical; there was never a beginning to time, nor will there ever be an ending of time; nor was there ever nor can there ever be time travel into the past, into the previous temporal sequence of events, for once the sequence of time has past it is gone forever.<hr></blockquote>

cd quote: [quote]You have forgotten about that guy called Einstein, time is just another fixed dimension.

The present moment is purely a part of your subjective reality and is no more than just a space time frame of reference that comes to your conscious attention. For example what may be perceived as the future in the eyes of Jones is the past in the eyes of Brown. <hr></blockquote>

The theory of invariable time-intervals provides us with a means of defining and understanding what is past/present/future.

If we could take three-dimensional photographs wherein we could ‘see’ in the 3-D photograph the configuration of the physical reality [all people/things/events anywhere and everywhere in the universe] at specific timepoints as measured by invariable time-interval clocks, then we could have both an understanding of the past, the present and the future.

The past is the configuration of the physical reality at earlier/past timepoints--people/things/events as they were. The earlier/past 3-D photographs would show us what were the previous configurations of the physical reality.

The present is the configuration of the physical reality at the current/present timepoint--people/things/events as they are. The current/present 3-D photographs would show us the current configuration of the physical reality.

The future is the configuration of the physical reality at soon-to-be/future timepoints--people/things/events as they will be. No 3-D photographs can show us the future but previous and current 3-D photographs can help us predict the soon-to-be/future configurations of the physical reality.

By these 3-D photographs we could have an objective representation of the history of people/things/events and therefore a history of the universe itself. By history represented by 3-D photographs, time past and present is not subjective but instead is objective.

Bob K quote: [quote]3. The physical reality is the matter/energy (including gravity and the electric charge) which comprises all things [objects] and events [relationships between/among things]; the physical reality fills part if not all of space; its duration is infinite—matter/energy can be changed in form but never destroyed: E = mc2 and m = E/c2; its quantity is finite—the sum total of matter/energy is a constant [Thermodynamics]; the physical reality as matter/energy is the source of causality and there can never be an infinite regression of causality to a first cause; nothing comes from nothing, therefore something can only come from something else.<hr></blockquote>

cd quote: [quote]If two spaceships in very deep space were about to undertake a docking manoeuvre but at a very unfortunate moment they were both to run out of fuel when they were just a few kilometers apart. However, they just happened to run out of fuel when they were traveling at exactly the same velocity in exactly the same direction, so they remained as exactly the same distance from each other. Would they stay drifting apart like that forever?, well gravity will come to the rescue, because as small as those little stranded space ships are, there was still enough gravitation to warp the space between them and as such they both came gently together in the earlier planned docking manoeuvre.

If they happened to be too far apart then vacuum will have enough energy of its own to force those space craft apart with the expansion of the accelerating universe.

This vacuum energy that separates those two space ships will eventually overcome the entire universe and cause it to accelerate faster and faster and thus totally overcome come it so it will be frozen ashes expanding out forever into a great cosmic ice age.

This is just some of many examples of how matter, space, gravity and time do in fact interact in many complex ways <hr></blockquote>

The presence of gravity means the spatial reality is not a pure vacuum. Gravity is a part of/one form of the physical reality. If there exists an anti-gravity force in the spatial reality, that anti-gravity force is nevertheless a form of the physical reality because it is matter/energy of some kind.

The occurrences of events in the sequence of events in which space craft are drawn together by their independent gravities or otherwise are pushed part by an anti-gravity force can be measured by invariable time-intervals in which the universal time defined and described by invariable time-intervals can give us precise temporal measurements of the occurrences of events and therefore measurements of events which are before/simultaneous/after other events in sequences of events.

The physical dimension of the distance apart of the space craft that determines if they are drawn together by their independent gravities or otherwise they are pushed apart by an anti-gravity force is a simple spatial dimension and does not require a temporal dimension. Here again the spatial reality is independent of the physical reality.

Gravity is a force field--a force in a field which is a limited portion of the spatial reality. It invades the spatial reality. Invading/being present in the spatial reality is what the physical reality does. The presence of gravity as a force field in the spatial reality--in space--means that in that physical location, in that limited and therefore bounded portion of space, of the spatial reality, there is no pure vacuum, that location of the spatial reality is ‘filled’ with gravity, with the force field that is called gravity.

Anti-gravity, if it exists, would also be a force field--a force in a field which is a limited portion of the spatial reality which is no longer a pure vacuum.

Force fields may expand/contract but the spatial reality does not/never did/never will. Force fields exist within the spatial reality. The dimensions of force fields do not limit the spatial reality. The limits of the force fields can be described a spatial dimensions, but these are dimensions related to only the force fields and not to the spatial reality--these dimensions do not define not limit/bind the spatial reality. If force fields expand, even if infinite in the duration and extent of their expansions, they will never exceed the spatial reality because it has no limits/boundaries and thus is truly infinite in not being defined by either spatial dimensions nor by temporal measurements--it is infinite in size and in duration, it never began and will never end but will always exist in time/in the temporal reality and it has no edge, is forever open.

Bob K quote: [quote]The concept of spacetime is a false concept. The spatial reality is independent of the temporal reality because time cannot and does not define nor measure unbounded space. Thus time is absolute and space is absolute.<hr></blockquote>

cd quote: [quote]Why do many astronomers prefer to measure space in light years and not parsecs. Why do I [feel] more comfortable with a galaxy measured in light year increments? Why would the map of the neighbor Virgo Cluster of galaxies look different to a hypothetical alien observing it from the other side. It is in fact the dimension of time that is presenting a different picture of our local group, thus distorting the spacial structure of our local group <hr></blockquote>

There is at any timepoint in the temporal reality as measured by clocks set with invariable time-intervals a specific configuration of the physical reality in the spatial reality. Observations of the physical reality from different positions in the spatial reality present two-dimensional representations that simply look different but do not negate or distort the actual configuration, which is an impossibility. Two-dimensional photographs of people/things/events here on earth taken simultaneously [possible in the same reference frame] will show two views of the same configuration of the people/things/events who are the physical reality but do not distort the physical reality. There is no temporal variation herein, because of the specification that the photographs were taken simultaneously, thus there is no interdependence of time and space but, instead, only the record of the configuration of the physical reality at the timepoint in which the photographs were taken.

Feelings are reactions to the perceptions [accurate or inaccurate] of realizations of desires [or fears]. If you feel comfortable [physical/sensation reaction] or happy /mental/emotional reaction] to the measurement of a galaxy by lightyear time-intervals then you are reacting to your perception of the realization of your desire for the measurement of the galaxy by the lightyear time-interval.

Interesting observation: The American Heritage Dictionary equates ‘spatial’ and ‘spacial’: spatial = spacial.

Bob K quote: [quote]The physical reality is independent of the spatial and temporal realities. Matter/energy exists in space but since space is unbounded emptiness/pure vacuum then matter/energy cannot interact with it although matter/energy can exist within it.

Matter/energy is independent of the temporal reality because it is infinite in duration—it was never created and can never be destroyed.

Time as measured by invariable time-intervals in the temporal reality is asymmetrical—it can be observed and measured only in the forward direction into the future, never in the backward direction into the past. Thus, because of the asymmetry defined by the use of invariable time-intervals for the measurement of time/the measurement of the temporal intervals between/among events in sequences, there can never be time travel into the past but only into the future. The appearance of symmetry in physics is an illusion due to the temporal reality as defined and measured by invariable time-intervals, time which is asymmetrical, and which is measuring into the future all events in the temporal sequence which is history.<hr></blockquote>

cd quote: [quote]Again I must assert that matter and energy exists with space and not in space, because space is energy, it is dark energy or vacuum energy and there is only a finite amount of space in the universe and we a observing it at a spacetime frame of reference when conditions make us possible. If life could only exist in the cosmic dark age trillions of years into the future, then we will be observing that era universe from that particular point in time. We may observe scientific measurements that show the universe is in fact 14 trillion years old, but we would of course be just totally oblivious to the preceding 14 trillion years preceding our birth, because the passage of time (not the dimension of time) is purely subjective. But as is happens life probably only exists in a era on the time vector when the universe is 14 billion years old and not 14 trillion. So we can only really observe a universe from the vantage point of conditions that make us possible and those conditions exist on the 14 billion year mark on the universe's time vector.<hr></blockquote>

There are three independent realities. Matter/energy of any kind is the physical reality that exists in but otherwise is not defined by the spatial/spacial reality nor the temporal reality.

Unbounded space is the spatial reality, and, if not for the presence within it of the physical reality, would be a pure vacuum, defined as absolutely empty/completely without the presence of matter/energy of any kind. The spatial reality is unbounded by physical or temporal dimensions. Space, as the spatial reality, is neither dark energy nor vacuum energy, for the concept of the physical reality includes energy of any kind and therefore any kind of energy--dark energy/vacuum energy/etc.--is a form of the physical reality and not the spatial reality.

The amount of space in the universe is infinite in spatial dimensions--having no boundaries, no edge and also is infinite in temporal duration--having no beginning nor ending, never having been created and never having an ending. The spatial reality is thus unbounded space, unbounded by physical dimensions and unbounded by temporal duration.

cd quote: [quote]So what is the true age of the universe? -10^42 second? 6,000 years (as many young earth creationists assert) or 300,000 years? 14,billion years? 10^10^100^years? <hr></blockquote>

There is no age to the universe. The universe is infinite in duration. The temporal reality is independent of the spatial and physical realities. The temporal reality cannot impose an age upon the universe. Invariable time-interval clocks can count timepoints/measurements of time backwards as well as forwards and if set into motion will never measure an end to the backwards or forwards measurement of timepoints--the face readings will never stop.

If there was a Big Bang that reconfigured the physical reality at a timepoint we might be able to use invariable time-intervals to measure when that Bang happened and thereby use that happening as a T0, a Timepoint Zero, but that is an arbitrary timepoint, such as the supposed birth/death of Jesus being used by Xns as the timepoint T0 for the measurement of time prior to and after J, and which is where we get our BC and AD temporal references.

Once again, if there was a Big Bang, then space as the spatial reality, time as the temporal reality, or matter/energy as the physical reality did not start with that particular Bang, nor any other, if there were others, nor will space/time/physics end with a Big Crunch.

cd quote: [quote]In fact I believe it is all of the above, it is just that no one is around at 6 thousand after the big bang to observe it then and even a young earth creationist would be totally obliterated in that "hotter than hell" fire ball, so we do not observe a 6 thousand year old universe for the simple reason there is no one there to observe it then, but that does not dismiss the reality of a 6 thousand year old universe or -10^42 second old one for that matter. They are just as must a real point on the time vector as one you observe the universe "now" but as I have explained "now" has no place in objective reality.<hr></blockquote>

History as measured by invariable time-intervals is objective. If we measure time by invariable time-intervals and we set our present to be timepoint T0 [Timepoint T Zero], then the universe has a specific spatial/physical configuration in the present, in the ‘now,’ but will have had different spatial/physical configurations at T-1/T-2/etc. in the past and will have different spatial/physical configurations at T+1/T+2/etc. in the future. If we could have taken/take 3-D photographs we would have clearer evidence of the specific configurations of the spatial/physical realities in the history of the universe. Perhaps 2-D photographs will suffice. Regardless, there were specific occurrences of events in the sequence of events that is the history of the universe and, therefore, history is objective. History as the sequence of the configurations of the spatial and physical realities is independent of anyone’s opinion and is therefore objective in contrast to being subjective.

By the way, your SecWeb nome de plume/handle of [i]crocodile deathroll is clever and hilarious.

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

[Bob K]

Vorador:

Vorador quote: [quote]I always thought that 'the universe' consisted of all the MATTER in the universe, not the space in it, too. So I kind of thought the whole 'expanding universe' thing just means all the matter in it is expanding. So I kind of figured that outside of this one, there were others. I mean, currently i can't think of why this universe would be just an isolated incident.

But if the ujniverse is space too... Then I dunno o_O

How could 'space' be created if it's empty anyway? A Vacuum is a lack of substance. A lack of substance can't be created, because it's a lack of anything that could possible BE created.

I'm too tired to read all these posts right now, and all these concepts being proposed are beyond my level of education, I think =P So yeah. Someone wanna dumb it down for me? Please? Help a poor insomniac, here.<hr></blockquote>

The American Heritage Dictionary:

u-ni-verse n.
1. All matter and energy, including Earth, the galaxies and all therein, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.a. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things. b. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
4. Logic. See universe of discourse.
5. Statistics. See population.

Obviously, my definition of ‘universe’ as ‘all there is’ and consisting of three realities--(1) the spatial reality; (2) the temporal reality; (3) the physical reality--is a broader concept of ‘universe’ but perhaps necessary because of the vernacular usage by most people, especially nonscientists, as ‘all there is’ and meaning ‘all reality’ or, in my case, ‘all realities.’

If only the physical reality as matter/energy of the universe is expanding, then so be it/no problem, but if space as the spatial reality is expanding, then not so/problem. Space as the spatial reality is infinite and infinity cannot be expanded.

If there exist people who want to define ‘universe’ to mean only a local and therefore limited quantity of matter/energy then we need another term/phrase which means ‘all there is’ including all universes. Perhaps ‘superuniverse’ might work. I get the impression that most ‘normal people’--defined humorously as nonscientists--define ‘universe’ to mean ‘all there is’ and therefore ‘universe’ is okay/ought to be used to designate ‘all there is.’

The spatial reality could have within it regions in which are to be found clumps of the physical reality with regions of pure vacuum between the clumps.

The spatial reality is infinite in dimensions/is unbounded but where the physical reality is infinite in duration it is finite in quantity, therefore the physical reality could clump into local regions of the spatial reality and regions of the spatial reality devoid of the physical reality would be pure vacuums.

A pure vacuum is totally devoid of the physical reality--matter/energy of any kind, no gravity, no anti-gravity, etc., therefore clumps of the physical reality would not communicate with each other but would be truly localized.

The total physical reality--being finite in quantity--might be clumped into the one-and-only clump present in the spatial reality. What would be beyond this one-and-only clump of the physical reality would be the spatial reality.

[crocodile deathroll]

Hi Bob K
Time is not absolute and
<a href="http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae433.cfm" target="_blank">here is the proof</a>

[Liquidrage]

Originally posted by Bob K:

If only the physical reality as matter/energy of the universe is expanding, then so be it/no problem, but if space as the spatial reality is expanding, then not so/problem. Space as the spatial reality is infinite and infinity cannot be expanded.


There is no proof the the universe is infinte.
Just because it's *everything* does not mean it's never-ending.


If there exist people who want to define ‘universe’ to mean only a local and therefore limited quantity of matter/energy then we need another term/phrase which means ‘all there is’ including all universes.

Perhaps ‘superuniverse’ might work. I get the impression that most ‘normal people’--defined humorously as nonscientists--define ‘universe’ to mean ‘all there is’ and therefore ‘universe’ is okay/ought to be used to designate ‘all there is.’



Agree.
The term universe should be used to define *everything*


The spatial reality could have within it regions in which are to be found clumps of the physical reality with regions of pure vacuum between the clumps.


Matter can just appear in a pure vacuum.
Yes, out of no where as if magical. Although the
process isn't magical and is pretty well <a href="http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/hughes/ucourses/120f96/inf3.html" target="_blank">understood</a>.
There really is no such thing as a pure vacuum in the sense you seem to be using the word.


The spatial reality is infinite in dimensions/is unbounded but where the physical reality is infinite in duration it is finite in quantity, therefore the physical reality could clump into local regions of the spatial reality and regions of the spatial reality devoid of the physical reality would be pure vacuums.


Based upon your eariler definition of "spatial reality" you believe space to exist independantly of matter. With matter (your physical reality) occupying "spatial reality".
I do not find this to be the case and I've never seen anything to support your claim in all the reading I have done on the subject.
There is no such thing as empty space. Space does not exist without the possibility of matter. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, space is a property of the most fundamental building blocks of the universe. Space just doesn't exist on it's own.



A pure vacuum is totally devoid of the physical reality--matter/energy of any kind, no gravity, no anti-gravity, etc., therefore clumps of the physical reality would not communicate with each other but would be truly localized.


Again, a vacuum is never truely devoid. Although it's not like the elusive (and non-existant) ether either. Put it this way, you're true devoid spacial reailty has the extremly unlikely possibility of producing a 1979 Huffy Good-Buddy model bicycle at any moment.


The total physical reality--being finite in quantity--might be clumped into the one-and-only clump present in the spatial reality. What would be beyond this one-and-only clump of the physical reality would be the spatial reality.


There is no spacial reality :)
I agree the physical reality is finite and will continue to think that unless it is shown to be otherwise.

As I posted eariler in this thread, space is a property (or at the least a menifestation of) the basic building blocks of the universe. There is no reason to believe that the universe actually takes up any space whatsoever. It really does appear to be a world built on *math*.

I don't consider this subject to be "philosophical". Science is attempting to answer these questions and has actually made many strides in the past 150 years.

*/ edited to correct typos and spelling errors. I'm sure I missed some. Deal with it :)

[ May 27, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

[Liquidrage]

Here's just a few books I would reccomend reading if one wanted to take this topic from philosophy to physics.

The Book of Nothing : Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas About the Origins of the Universe
by John D. Barrow
This is probably a good place to start. The book includes both philosphical and scientific viewpoints about "nothing".

Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality : Solving the Quantum Mysteries
by John Gribbin
This book is a good text for understanding wave-particle duality and probability waves without needing the Copenhagen interpretation. Many other topics are also covered.

If you become a hardcore physics nut at this point I would move onto
Feynman Lectures On Physics
by Richard Feynman

[tempest]

I came today to start a new string concerning exactly what this string is about from a slightly differenct entry point. These quotes, among others, sucked me into this conversation.

eh - Since the universe is, by definition, all that exists, it is absurd to talk about anything outside it. But if I say there is no outside to the universe, am I saying the same thing as 'there is nothing outside the universe'?

This is a physicians way of expressing what I came here to assert in a more metaphysical way. It seems to me that whatever the science of the cosmos may turnout to be called in another 10,000 years of writing, it will always be ONE science. There must be one reality, regardless of the billions of changes, points of entry and outcomes. Nothing can be outside of Thing. Even in the case of related separate things, unified as a system, The thing is always one, or it is not.

Hans - I just can't get a and b in my head. It's either a or b. They lack compatability to my thinking.

This is the difficulty in speaking of such a ground point for all science. Neitzche was backed into the "eternal recurrence of the same" corner, and now I am saying "As we discover the method to demonstrate 'What Is', we always reveal only the same One reality for all." And this is confusing in a physical world where Space seems to require an infinity, and yet infinity cancels out the necessity of existing things like space.

Timordog - ...seems a bit presumtious to think there can't be anything outside of our current rehlm of understanding.

This is what I really wanted to discuss. I disagree that we are presumtious in making certain assertions. There may be more things necessary to say, but at the very least, we must assert that Reality is One. But the physical emphasis in this discussion leads me to try to explain something that goes back to pre-socratic philosophy. Thales observed that all must be One, and he revealed it as water, clear and fluid. "The Infinite" was Anaxamander or Anaxemenes term giving it a more abstract visualization. But there is a visualization of this one that is more Eastern in development.
The One is the same thing as The Infinite and Nothing. Think about it. Imagine All is One. Start with a round drop of water and increase it until it is so large, you are completely submerged and water goes on forever in every direction. Still, since you are there, all is not yet one, so imagine you are able to see inside this universe where only water exists - no motion, no means to trace time, no light, not even you, just water. And empty this water of its elemental particles as if it were more like pure gas... and now empty the gas molcules of the differences between nucleous, proton and neutron, and truly allow your mind to only concieve of ONE PURE REAL THING in the universe. Such a thing would require Infinity. If the One was limited, there would be another one, and so you have lost sight of this abstract vision of One. One must be infinite. And, The One is the same vision of the Nothing. If you empty the universe of all properties and substance differentiations except for One thing, you have the same exact universe as a universe emptied of all properties and differentiations excepting Nothing. Nothing must be infinite, as also must be the One, and so they are the Same thing. The One and Nothingness are the same vision.

Does this mean all of reality is One, and Infinite and so Nothing? Yes and no. Yes, in the abstract sense of the One as simple like water, the universe might as well be Nothing. No in the concrete sense of the universe as divided into parts that are whole unto themselves. In the physical world, Infinity and Nothing can not exist. What always exists is a moment in which quantity must be finite. If the universe itself is purely physical, then it must be measurable, and Infinity has not yet been born, nor has Nothing.

STILL, my original reason to post here works, because no matter what, the universe is only first investigated as One, and the ending explanation is One. It's just that this One, if not merely one physical thing, is always the one System of Many.

MaxMainspring - We have observed our universe as having arisen from some event such as the big bang (or other current theories) and therefore we know such an event to be possible. But if it is possible once, would that not mean it is possible more than once. And wouldn't that make it reasonable to posit the occurance of other independent universes that arose by means similar to ours. But unless they are "displaced" from ours in some metric they are then simultaneous and coextensive with ours and would be a part of it.

So this brings up the question of whether it is possible that mulitple universes exist but are diplaced from each other by some "distancing" metric which may or may not be space-like or time-like.

This is where my point gets reaffirmed. This question must be answered as No. Multiple universes even exclusive of each other and never overlapping, would simply be the new definition of "what is real". It would just be a lot more difficult for us to fill our mental concept of The Universe.

But since the Universe must be One, and since the One must be infinite, and since the infinite is the same as Nothing, shouldn't I be saying "The Universe is Nothing but One Infinity." This is where we must bend our minds towards the Eastern philosophy to see the physics. It is true to say the universe is one and one thing is a nothing, so; as physicists, Nothing is the reality where physics overlaps with metaphysics. Nothingness brings metaphysics into play as essential in this discussion, and our observable world of many things seen as One Universe is where physics becomes metaphysics and yet remains real. SO, what we need to do is allow Nothing to be an element on the periodic table, or allow the infinite to be the container itself that holds all finite things. We must allow abstract thoughts to be essential components to the reconstruction of the universe from the big bang or from whatever and whenever. We must admit that the birth of this universe was a concept that can not exist but was real. So all of you are right at times, and all of us will always be wrong when we claim a limit to the universe, unless that limit is the One, or Infinite, or Nothing.

[crocodile deathroll]

[quote]
Originally posted by Bob K

The subjective reality has a physiology and therefore an objective basis--it is located within the biology of the human brain/nervous system, within the brain/nervous system of an individual. Nerve impulses are objective--they can be detected and measured.

<hr></blockquote>
I am too very sure that subjective reality had to emerge from objective reality
The difference is, a good neural scientist will no doubt understand far more about the structure of an African Pigmy brain than then the African Pigmy would, but can he know by analyzing the pigmy's brain with his very latest a greatest functional MRI machine what the pigmy ate last for breakfast, or could the scientist ever know how to speak pigmy? How can he really get inside the pigmy's mind? On the other hand could the pigmy know where the center of thought in his body, because I know Aristotle had gotten it wrong, Aristotle believed it was the heart. Let alone what you may expect the pigmy to know about synapses or dendrites or axons.
If someone had invented a conscious computer, then would that computer know all about its hardware components?


We are all made of the same physical stuff, like neurotransmitters as well as all the basic 20 proteins. Then why aren't all the one collective being?
[quote][b]
If ever we will see the objective measurement of the activities of human brains/nervous systems in such as way that we can determine from those measurements the content of individuals’ mental representations and feelings, then the subjective reality will become as objective as the physical reality. What the individual ‘experiences’ in his internal world/subjective reality will be describable by measurements and therefore objective, and, eventually, predictable, at least within limits, since it is currently believed that within the brain/nervous system there is random activity that would preclude total predictability.
Bob K quote:

[b]<hr></blockquote>
We are all made of the same physical stuff, like neurotransmitters as well as all the basic 20 proteins. Then why aren't all the one collective being? Is there any physical material in your brain that truly unique to you?
I feel subjective reality is necessary because without subjective reality there would be know one around the observe objective reality.
I am sure there would be other objective realities out there where the laws of physics to not permit the evolution of complex beings like ourselves them, but that would not lessen their degree of reality, because as I stated earlier most objective reality it hidden from us.

CD

[crocodile deathroll]

[quote]
Originally posted by Bob K

The theory of invariable time-intervals provides us with a means of defining and understanding what is past/present/future.
If we could take three-dimensional photographs [instead of two-dimensional photographs] wherein we could ‘see’ in the 3-D photograph the configuration of the physical reality [all people/things/events anywhere and everywhere in the universe] at specific timepoints as measured by invariable time-interval clocks, then we could have both an understanding of the past, the present and the future.
The past is the configuration of the physical reality at earlier/past timepoints--people/things/events as they were. The earlier/past 3-D photographs would show us what were the previous configurations of the physical reality.
The present is the configuration of the physical reality at the current/present timepoint--people/things/events as they are. The current/present 3-D photographs would show us the current configuration of the physical reality.
The future is the configuration of the physical reality at soon-to-be/future timepoints--people/things/events as they will be. No 3-D photographs can show us the future but previous and current 3-D photographs can help us predict the soon-to-be/future configurations of the physical reality.
By these 3-D photographs we could have an objective representation of the history of people/things/events and therefore a history of the universe itself. By history represented by 3-D photographs, time past and present is not subjective but instead is objective.

<hr></blockquote>
If you happened to been born in London during the reign of Queen Victoria, I do not believe you will be dead your subjective reality will be instead observing the world from that 19th century vantage point or point O. After all you were not born for 14 billion years in the evolution of the universe so why should just a mere earth century or two feel any different to you?. So in your subjective "now" (the only true now as far as you were concerned) you just happen to be in Greenwich which was at the time considered the center of all universal time. The time and date that was indicated of the GMT clock was also considered the be the absolute present moment for the entire universe. Well that was the common school of thought then, but they had never heard of relativity, the space time dilation effect or the Keating/Hafele experiment that really clinched the view that time can be s t r e t c h e d and was not at all an inflexible invariable after all. There was nothing anyone could do then do disprove the time was not absolute so the belief in absolute time in the 19th century was rarely questioned. So because time can be dilated and distorted it is equally true to state that 1880 is just as much a part of objective reality as 2002. Also the configuration of physical reality in the year 2102 is just as tangible to an observer born 100 years later as it is to anyone in 2002. So if you happened to be born 100 years later you will come to the conclusion that 2102 = now and 2002 = "100 years in the past".

Also at the year 10^100 when the universe has entered the hypothetical dark age, that too (if that theory of the universe is right) is very much a part of objective reality, but there are no subjective observers to sit on a rock in the year 10^100 and to wonder in awe and contemplate deep thoughts about their place in the universe how they got here because not matter exists then so therefore no life can exist to observe it.

Event O can be anything from a quantum jump of a single electron to the big bang and each one of them is a valid "present moment" in there own right. The nearest one can come to an absolute present moment for the universe as a whole is the event of the big bang, but then there is only a present (the big bang itself) and the future (the evolution of the universe) and no before the big bang because there was no time before then and therefore no past. So from the perspective of the big bang event everything is in the future from that event including yours and my birth.

I do know one thing for certain, the universal present moment is not in Greenwich

crocodile deathroll
:D

[Bob K]

crocodile deathroll quote: [quote]
Time is not absolute and
here is the proof <hr></blockquote>

This article only refers to time dilation which I referred to when I spoke of the affects of changes of velocity/gravity upon the rates of functioning of mechanical clocks producing less measurement of time resulting in lower face readings than the face readings of similar earthbound clocks.

This article does not account for the differences in the measurement of time when (A) variable time-intervals are used or otherwise produced by changes of inertial mass due to changes of velocity/gravity and when (B) invariable time-intervals are used or otherwise are produced (B1) by using motion/gravity-sensing clocks which self-adjust which negates the changes of inertial mass due to changes of velocity/gravity or (B2) by synchronizing clocks via radio signals which also negates the changes of inertial mass due to changes of velocity/gravity.

Changes of velocity/gravity produce changes of inertial mass which produce changes in the rates of functioning of mechanical and atomic clocks and produce changes of time-intervals used to measure time and thereby produce variable time-intervals which appear to produce nonabsolute/nonuniversal time measurements; when the effects of velocity/gravity are negated by the use of invariable time-intervals then absolute/universal time is measured and similar clocks will show identical face readings.

Thus, variable time-intervals produce time-dilation but invariable time-intervals produce no time-dilation.

[Bob K]

Liquidrage:

Bob K quote: [quote]If only the physical reality as matter/energy of the universe is expanding, then so be it/no problem, but if space as the spatial reality is expanding, then not so/problem. Space as the spatial reality is infinite and infinity cannot be expanded.<hr></blockquote>

Liquidrage quote: [quote]There is no proof the the universe is infinte.

Just because it's *everything* does not mean it's never-ending.<hr></blockquote>

Likewise there is no proof that the universe ever began from nothing or that it will ever have an end.

Logical intuitive thought produces the awareness of the infinities of space and time [when measured by invariable time-intervals that eliminate time dilation] and thus the spatial and temporal realities, and scientific experiment has produced the awareness of the infinity of the duration of the physcial reality coupled with the finity of its quantity.

The concept of the invariable time-interval and its related principle that the measurement of time by invariable time-intervals produces absolute/universal time produces the necessary logical basis for separating the universe into three realites--the spatial reality, the temporal reality, and the physical reality. The invariable time-interval produces the asymmetry that is needed to provide an arrow to time and the conceptualization of the infinity of the measurement of time in either the forward or backwards directions. From our current timepoint, T0, we can count forward by T1, T2, etc., and backwards by T-1, T-2, etc., and find no limit to the measurement of invariable time-intervals and hence the infinity of time, and since neither the spatial reality, the temporal reality, nor the physical reality can be destroyed, the universe as the combination of the spatial reality, the temporal reality, and the physical reality is infinite in duration and physical size.

Bob K quote: [quote]If there exist people who want to define ‘universe’ to mean only a local and therefore limited quantity of matter/energy then we need another term/phrase which means ‘all there is’ including all universes.

Perhaps ‘superuniverse’ might work. I get the impression that most ‘normal people’--defined humorously as nonscientists--define ‘universe’ to mean ‘all there is’ and therefore ‘universe’ is okay/ought to be used to designate ‘all there is.’<hr></blockquote>

Liquidrage quote: [quote]Agree.

The term universe should be used to define *everything*<hr></blockquote>

Bob K quote: [quote]The spatial reality could have within it regions in which are to be found clumps of the physical reality with regions of pure vacuum between the clumps.<hr></blockquote>

Liquidrage quote: [quote]Matter can just appear in a pure vacuum.

Yes, out of no where as if magical. Although the process isn't magical and is pretty well understood.

There really is no such thing as a pure vacuum in the sense you seem to be using the word.<hr></blockquote>

Matter cannot appear in a pure vacuum. Nothing comes from nothing. A pure vacuum is pure nothing. Something comes from something. If something comes from what appears to be a pure vacuum then there is something in that vacuum and thus it is not pure.

Effects such as the Casimir Effect are caused by the presence of a physical reality in what is believed to be a vacuum but is in fact a field, a force field, which is not a vacuum of any kind. Electromagnetic and gravitational effects produce force fields, and force fields, being comprised of matter/energy which is the physical reality, are the something from which comes something in what may appear to be vacuums but in fact are not vacuums because of the presence of the physical reality.

Bob K quote: [quote]The spatial reality is infinite in dimensions/is unbounded but where the physical reality is infinite in duration it is finite in quantity, therefore the physical reality could clump into local regions of the spatial reality and regions of the spatial reality devoid of the physical reality would be pure vacuums.<hr></blockquote>

Liquidrage quote: [quote]Based upon your eariler definition of "spatial reality" you believe space to exist independantly of matter. With matter (your physical reality) occupying "spatial reality".

I do not find this to be the case and I've never seen anything to support your claim in all the reading I have done on the subject.

There is no such thing as empty space. Space does not exist without the possibility of matter. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, space is a property of the most fundamental building blocks of the universe. Space just doesn't exist on it's own.<hr></blockquote>

Space does exist without matter/energy, without the physical reality. Confirmation of E = mc2 has proven that matter/energy--the physical reality--cannot be destroyed but only changed in form and therefore is infinite in duration but finite in quantity.

Space--the spatial reality--is defined as an infinitely unbounded place/location/etc. Space/the spatial reality would be a pure vacuum if there was no physical reality.

Although the physical reality is infinite in duration it is finite in quantity, therefore, in infinite/dimensionless space--the spatial reality--there may and must be locales in which there is no physical reality but, instead, only a pure vacuum. Because of the finite quantity of the physical reality, it cannot be everywhere in the spatial reality and is therefore limited to locales, or clumps of the physical reality within the spatial reality.

Bob K quote: [quote]A pure vacuum is totally devoid of the physical reality--matter/energy of any kind, no gravity, no anti-gravity, etc., therefore clumps of the physical reality would not communicate with each other but would be truly localized.<hr></blockquote>

Liquidrage quote: [quote]Again, a vacuum is never truely devoid. Although it's not like the elusive (and non-existant) ether either. Put it this way, you're true devoid spacial reailty has the extremly unlikely possibility of producing a 1979 Huffy Good-Buddy model bicycle at any moment.<hr></blockquote>

No, again, a pure vacuum is truely devoid of the presence of the physical reality, and if somethings appear to come from nothings, a.k.a. vacuums, then those ‘vacuums’ are not vacuums but instead are ‘contaminated’ by the presence of the physical reality. Electromagnetic and gravitational fields produce force field effects that produce the appearance of things/events from ‘vacuums’ which are therefore, because of the presence of force fields, not pure vacuums.

And, again, because the physical reality is infinite in duration but finite in quanity, in the infinite spatial reality the physical reality cannot be everywhere but, instead, must be clumped, and, as the physical reality is clumped, there must be areas of the spatial reality in which there is no physical reality and hence those areas must be pure vacuums.

Bob K quote: [quote]The total physical reality--being finite in quantity--might be clumped into the one-and-only clump present in the spatial reality. What would be beyond this one-and-only clump of the physical reality would be the spatial reality.<hr></blockquote>

Liquidrage quote: [quote]There is no spacial reality

I agree the physical reality is finite and will continue to think that unless it is shown to be otherwise.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, there has to be a spatial reality.

There has to be a stage upon which all things/events play. The ‘stage’ for the physical reality happens to be a pure vacuum until parts of it are filled with the physical reality, at which point it ceases to be a pure vacuum.

The spatial reality can be conceptualized by imagining constructing a three-dimensional lattice having three axis of X, Y and Z comprised of rigid rods of a known finite length, which never bend or change shape, and which are parallel to each other along an axis and at ninety degrees to rods along other axes; this latticework will have no boundaries because there is no limit to the number of rigid rods which can be attached to the latticework.

Thus, the spatial reality is the unbounded stage for the physical reality.

Liquidrage quote: [quote]As I posted eariler in this thread, space is a property (or at the least a menifestation of) the basic building blocks of the universe. There is no reason to believe that the universe actually takes up any space whatsoever. It really does appear to be a world built on *math*.

I don't consider this subject to be "philosophical". Science is attempting to answer these questions and has actually made many strides in the past 150 years.<hr></blockquote>

The universe consisting of the spatial, temporal and physical realities does indeed take up space--space which is taken up by the physical reality existing in the spatial reality.

[Liquidrage]

I had this whole big reply ready when I finally realized...
You're just making shit up as you go along.

[crocodile deathroll]

[quote]Originally posted by Bob K:
<strong>crocodile deathroll quote:

This article only refers to time dilation which I referred to when I spoke of the affects of changes of velocity/gravity upon the rates of functioning of mechanical clocks producing less measurement of time resulting in lower face readings than the face readings of similar earthbound clocks.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

What is so special about "Earth bound clocks? what about Mars bound or neutron star bound clocks
I sure there would be very strong discrepancies between these. Will the real absolute time clock then please stand up!

There may some die hard scientists who still believe in absolute time, but these are very much in the minority probably in more the those diehards who still support the Fred Hoyle's discredited steady state theory

CD

[Bob K]

Liquidrage:

Liquidrage quote: [quote]I had this whole big reply ready when I finally realized...
You're just making shit up as you go along.<hr></blockquote>

The theory of invariable time-intervals has been in development for some time and has been posted on my website.

See <a href="http://www.bobkwebsite.com/opphysthreerealities.html" target="_blank">http://www.bobkwebsite.com/opphysthreerealities.html</a>

<a href="http://www.bobkwebsite.com/invriabletimeintrvls.html" target="_blank">http://www.bobkwebsite.com/invriabletimeintrvls.html</a>

If you want to refute the theory of invariable time-intervals, prove that invariable time-intervals do not exist, that they cannot be created through (A) the use of motion/gravity-sensing clocks which self-adjust to compensate for detected changes of velocity/gravity or (B) the use of radio signals to synchronize clocks not on earth to other clocks on earth, or, otherwise, to synchronize clocks in different reference frames.

To refute the theory of invariable time-intervals you will have to create an operational definition of time that explains/describes what people do when they ‘do time’ and therefore how they use time and therefore how time is measured.

To you, space is dependent upon the existence of the physical reality--matter/energy. You obviously have never asked this question: What would there be if there were no matter/energy and therefore no physical reality? The obvious answer should be, and is, an infinite pure vacuum.

Because the physical reality is, according to scientific observations/experiments, infinite in duration [infinite in time] but finite in quantity, therefore, while the infinite duration does not impose limits upon the presence of the physical reality within the spatial reality the finite quantity clearly shows that the physical reality cannot be spread throughout the infinite/boundless expanse of the spatial reality and that, therefore, in the spatial reality there have to be areas which are free of the physical reality and therefore pure vacuums, that, therefore, outside of wherever the physical reality clumps there are to be found pure vacuums.

A pure vacuum is absolutely free of the physical reality and, therefore, when scientists observe something coming from an apparent nothing they are in fact observing something coming from something but have not been able to determine what the something is, which, as I have shown, is a force field of some kind, as, for example, in the Casimir effect, an electromagnetic field.

I have never denied that when variable time-intervals are used as in clocks which are affected by changes of velocity/gravity there is a effect of apparent time-dilation, but I have stated clearly that this time dilation occurs only because of the increase of inertial mass which causes a slowdown in the rate of functioning of machines and organisms, i.e., a space clock slows down because an increase in its velocity produces an increase in its inertial mass which produces a decrease in its rate of functioning [it ain’t ticking as fast as it did when it was on the surface of the earth] which produces a smaller/lesser face reading/time measurement than a similar earth clock and therefore the appearance of time dilation. Thus, instead of merely accepting the idea that time dilation occurs, I have wondered why it occurs and in answering Why does time dilation occur? I have found that it occurs because a change of velocity/gravity produces an increase in inertial mass which causes a decrease in the rate of functioning which causes an increase in the time-interval of mechanical/atomic clocks and lower/smaller face readings/measurements of time-intervals.

The speed of light is the same for all observers. This is, however, an apparent and not an actual phenomenon, for the perception of the speed of light is the same while the speed of light is nevertheless 186K mps only in the K zero reference frame when that reference frame is free of gravity and otherwise is in actuality 186K mps less the speed of a spaceship.

Light Source X: Lightray A----------------------------------&gt;|Target Y

Light Source X: Lightray B----Spaceship------------------&gt;|Target Y

************************Light Source: Spaceship: Lightray C----&gt;|Target Y

Note: Spaceship (A) could be traveling at a uniform velocity parallel to Lightrays A and B; (B) could be accelerating or decelerating while traveling parallel to Lightrays A and B; (C) could be traveling at a uniform velocity, accelerating or decelerating while traveling nonparallel to Lightrays A and B. And Target Y is the same target for all lightrays.

Lightray A is emitted simultaneously with Lightray B, does not enter and exit the spaceship but travels parallel to Lightrays B and C and strikes Target Y.

Lightray B is emitted simultaneously with Lightray A, enters and exits the spaceship [but is not affected by any physical phenomenon within the spaceship such as gravitational or electromagnetic force fields], travels parallel to Lightrays A and C, and strikes Target Y.

When Lightray B enters the spaceship it triggers a Light Source within the spaceship that triggers Lightray C which exits the spaceship and travels parallel to Lightrays A and B.

Question: Do Lightrays A, B and C all strike Target Y simultaneously?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Why?

Answer: Because once emitted the speed of a lightray is independent of the speed of its source and any reference frame if within a reference frame there are no gravitational or electromagnetic force fields.

If physical phenomena are identical in all reference frames then the speed of light past the center of mass of the spaceship would have to be an actual 186K mps instead of 186K mps less the speed of the spaceship and Lightray B would have to strike the Target Y ahead of Lightray A, which would mean that during its transit of the spaceship Lightray B would have had to have speeded up and thus have become superluminal [faster than 186K mps] relative to Lightray A and exited the spaceship ahead of the position of Lightray A, which is a physical impossibility.

Thus, the speed of light is an apparent phenomenon and the same for all observers in all reference frames.

To the observers in moving reference frames, because they are subject to the effects of changes of velocity/gravity which produce an increase in their inertial mass and a decrease in their rates of functioning which produce a longer time-interval [the same phenomenon as in so-called time lapse photography], they experience the speed of light as passing, for example, a spaceship’s center of mass at 186K mps, and, thus, for them, the speed of light is the same, but in reality/actuality the true speed of light passing the spaceship’s center of mass is 186K mps less the spaceship’s speed.

There is a theory of variable time-intervals which Einstein used when he stated on page 99 of his book, [b]Relativity[b], “Mechanical clocks serve for the definition of time,” mechanical clocks or atomic clocks--not motion-sensing/self-adjusting/self-compensating or synchronized by radio signals--subject to the affects of changes of velocity/gravity produce variable time-produced the current relativistic conceptualization of physics.

Now there is a theory of invariable time-intervals.

If the theory of invariable time-intervals requires a reconceptualization of theoretical physics, then so be it.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

[Bob K]

crocodile deathroll:

Bob K quote: [quote]This article only refers to time dilation which I referred to when I spoke of the affects of changes of velocity/gravity upon the rates of functioning of mechanical clocks producing less measurement of time resulting in lower face readings than the face readings of similar earthbound clocks.<hr></blockquote>

cd quote: [quote]What is so special about Earth bound clocks? what about Mars bound or neutron star bound clocks?

I sure there would be very strong discrepancies between these. Will the real absolute time clock then please stand up!<hr></blockquote>

Whenever variable time-intervals are used, as in clocks which are affected by changes of velocity/gravity, then similar clocks in different reference frames will show different face readings/time measurements and therefore the phenomenon of time dilation.

Whenever invariable time-intervals are used--howsoever that happens [by (A) clocks which are motion/gravity sensing and self-adjusting/self-compensating or (B) clocks which are synchronized by radio signals]--all similar clocks will show the same face readings/time measurements regardless of their reference frames [imagine that similar invariable time-interval clocks could survive the massive gravity of black holes or any other physical phenomena].

Thus, any kind of clock which is set to an invariable time-interval measures Absolute Time and thus becomes an Absolute Time Clock.

With the arrival of the Absolute Time Clock, time as measured by an Absolute Time Clock is independent of space and becomes Absolute Time, or Universal Time, which becomes the temporal reality, thus space becomes Absolute Space, which becomes the infinite spatial reality.

Because of the invariable time-interval we have reason to intuit the spatial reality and the temporal reality.

By knowing of the existence of matter/energy and its infinite duration and finite quantity we have the physical reality, and from knowing the existence of the spatial and temporal realities we have reason to intuit that the physical reality fits into the spatial reality but otherwise, because it has its own dimensions--its finite quantity--and its own duration--its infinite duration, the physical reality is independent of both space and time and therefore the spatial and temporal realities.

Thus we have the three independent realities: (1) the spatial reality; (2) the temporal reality; (3) the physical reality.

And with the three independent realities we have the universe, as all there is, as all that exists.

[crocodile deathroll]

The problem is with Earth time is, the Earth is slowing down its rotation so it has become a highly inaccurate time keeper so we have to turn to something that is much more universal like the beating cesium atom, that is much more accurate, so it is not true to define a universal second as being strictly a 1/86,000th of an Earth day but 9,192,631,770 beats of a cesium atom. Soon a Earth second may some day have to be adjusted to 9,192,631,771 beats of a cesium atom then 9,192,631,772 beats 9,192,631,773 beats etc with would be inevitable over the years as the Earth gradually slows down. But we will still use 9,192,631,770 beats of a cesium atom as the benchmark for a universal second. Where ever we travel or settle in the universe the universal second and not the variable Earth second will be the benchmark and it is only from the observers point of view and not the view of some atomic clock on a remote a far away planet that really matters, because our biological clocks will totally ignore that and instead be dilated along with every other physical object including cesium atoms on the space craft he/she is on no matter what velocity he/she is travelling at.

crocodile deathroll

[Hans]

[quote]Originally posted by crocodile deathroll:
What is so special about "Earth bound clocks? what about Mars bound or neutron star bound clocks
I sure there would be very strong discrepancies between these. Will the real absolute time clock then please stand up!<hr></blockquote>

If one was to syncronize two atomic clocks, place one on the ground and the other in an airplane, fly the plane at several hundred miles per hour for several hours and then land the plane and then compare the clocks one would find that the clock on the plane ran slower than the clock on the ground. Yet, surprisingly, they both exist at the same point in time. We don't have one clock somewhere in the past. They both exist here and now in the present.

Both clocks seem to follow an independant duration of time regarless of there histories.

Curious!!

[crocodile deathroll]

I