Philosophy Discussion Forums

Felix wrote:'If we only consider galaxies moving away from each other "physically", not taking time into account, then no higher dimensions of space are necessary."

You lost me there... time is a measure of physical movement or change, so how can you have physical movement that does not take time into account?

lol. You can't. I was merely using that as an example. If you only consider movement, without taking into account its necessary cognitive corollary, time, then you can imagine the Universe expanding into infinite empty space. But yes, the whole point is that we must always consider time when considering motion.

Bohm2 wrote:what cosmology REALLY says is not that space stretches or expands but rather just simply that gravitationally bound systems keep getting farther away from each other. It is DISTANCE that is changing, not space.

But if the distance between gravitationally bound systems is increasing that implies that the apparent space between them is increasing, which also implies that the total volume of apparent space is also increasing. Matter/space is simply how we cognize the world. If an object increases in size, then the space that contains it will necessarily also increase in size proportionally. So if the Universe appears to be expanding, as if a gigantic sphere was expanding, then that implies that its container (space) is also expanding with it. So we can certainly say that space "expands".

Also, if distance changes that implies a change of space, since distance itself is merely a measurement of the apparent space which exists between two objects.

PhilosophyExplorer wrote: Vijaydevani said: "The universe is not expanding 'inside' anything because there is no 'outside'."

Don't be so quick to leap to this conclusion. As I said, within our universe, we can only see and sense so much and estimates exist as to its age and size saying it's finite so there must be a beyond. What that beyond is is anybody's guess so my guess is infinite, outside space. Any other guesses? (another infinite universe e.g.)

It's not a question of "leaping to a conclusion" but rather of understanding definitions and applying them properly. Vijay is simply applying a proper definition to Universe and then considering the possibilities within that framework. Note the "Uni" in "Uni-verse". "Uni" means one. A singularity. That is precisely what the term what coined to signify. It means take Everything that exists --- the known, the unknown, dark matter, other "worlds", energy, matter, higher dimensions of space, gods, devils, spirits, thought, force, WHATEVER --- and take it as one big Singularity ("Uni"). The word literally means "All", "the Whole".

Yes there is a "beyond" as far as it being the part of the Universe we don't know. Part of that is higher dimensions of space -- the fourth, fifth, sixth, and so on. That is what is outside of "space" (i.e. three dimensional "space"). Our space has only three dimensions. Why? Simply because that is all we can perceive and cognize. And what lies outside of those three dimensions of space (infinite or otherwise) which we can cognize? The fourth, fifth, and higher dimensions of space, of course.

What you are looking for is higher dimensions of space, not "other Universes". Of course we can imagine other three dimensional "Universes" existing all around our own, as each point of higher space would be perceived by us as another "universe" of three dimensions of space. But the Universe by definition includes all those dimensions of space, and all those parallel three dimensional "universes" which are in them.

Atreyu,

I regard the universe as finite and therefore bounded and limited in extent. Do you regard the universe as infinite in extent?

PhilX

I believe that a "void" would be possible but that requires a definition of "universe" that is less than universal. However I don't think a void exists. In the case where a void doesn't exist then universe would be a valid description.

IF a "Big Bang" happened, which IMHO is doubtfull, then you could define a void as anything outside its effects. If the "Big Bang Never Happened" (Name of a book and a website) , which is more likely due to erroneus interpretations of the Red Shift and the cosmic microwave background probes. Olbers Paradox was resolved by the CMBR probes. Fermi's Paradox can be resolved simply by referring to the limits of intelligence which is necessarily finite in a universe that may not be. Ocam's razor works without intelligence.

As a "Mechanist" I suspect that the universe is a mechanical device in the same way that a tree is, simply less complicated, and bigger. It takes life which is a self replicating molecule under some conditions to complicate things. Crystals also replicate and they are not too bright.

To make a universe all you need is time, energy, and a place to put it in. I see no reason to suspect that there is anything else, nor any need for it. Apparently we've always had those.

Happy Thinkin, M.

Motion. Intrinsic to the energy dominated beginning of the Universe is motion. Particles moved inside and became unstable as the singularity cooled. FWR equations deal with energy conservation and how this density material will behave. Was the energy (singularity) standing still in the middle of Space or it was travelling as a density at the speed of light… expanding and cooling with Einstein equation E=hc divided by a constant that changes with expansion or scale factor and where h is Planck’s. If we understand the facts as a single event that produced Galaxies from the clouds of cooled gases and this Galaxies are younger than the age of the singularity and in turn produce the same type of thermionic energy… we are then envision the concept of generations.

mechsmith said: "IF a "Big Bang" happened, which IMHO is doubtful, then you could define a void as anything outside its effects."

Only if you conceive of our universe as the one and only one, but not if it's just one of perhaps innumerable universes (a.k.a., multiverses) within infinite space.

Can we agree that a finite universe (in this case, uni = one, not "one and only") implies that it exists within a greater infinite Universal space?

Felix wrote:BoThere was a statement in the article Bohm2 linked to: "The universe not only has no center, it has no edge, but that does not imply that it is necessarily infinite, it could be finite but unbounded."How can that which is finite be unbound? Doesn't "finite" imply having boundaries?

No, something can be finite and unbounded:

Unbounded means that it has no "end". Normally these two words are contradictory. However, in geometry, they can be used separately. Take Earth's surface: it can be measured with a real number. Knowing Earth's radius (a finite number), we can measure Earth's surface area. It is finite.

However, if you start off in a given direction, you will never reach the end. In the 2 dimensions of the surface, you can travel in one direction and never reach the end. It is unbounded. There is no real number that can represent the maximum number of kilometres (or miles) that you can travel in one direction. Mind you, you will pass over your starting point over and over again, but that is because the surface is finite. Some people think that space is a similar arrangement, except that it is a 3-dimension volume, "wrapped" around a finite radius in a 4th dimension. You start off in any direction, you will never find an end. However, if you could travel long enough in that direction (without turning around) and if it were not for expansion, you would eventually pass your starting point. Others believe that the universe is really infinite in spatial extent (it extents forever in any given direction. Of course, if it is truly infinite, then it is also unbounded (there is no end).

o.k., but apart from the mathematical distinction, it is still "bound" because it has a finite radius: "Some people think that space is a similar arrangement, except that it is a 3-dimension volume, "wrapped" around a finite radius in a 4th dimension."

Doesn't the big bang imply this? - "Others believe that the universe is really infinite in spatial extent (it extents forever in any given direction. Of course, if it is truly infinite, then it is also unbounded (there is no end)."

The surface of the Earth is projected onto a plane x,y,z and an angular dimension. If we are to project x,y,z of the surface of the Earth then we trace an imaginary line from the North Pole (which is an area itself) thru the x point onto the plane. If the point (an area) is close to the North Pole and closer to 180 deg the projection of the point will be closer and closer to infinity. That is why there is an angular dimension; the North Pole rotates with a value that could be constant to make an angle that could not be greater than 180 and is constant and it could be as little as necessary to determine the position of a house or a car or a bicycle or a chair. So two points: A North Pole and a Satellite. Another way: a human on the North Pole dugs a hole thru the Earth to describe onto the plane an area in the South Pole as big as the standard. Point angular reference to the North Pole dugs a hole to its equivalent south pole etc. That is precisely the difference of Einstein equation. The Hubble constant is introduced in cosmology to deal with the expansion and it is a constant that changes with Time. It is like a new concept of variable constant.

Felix, your post # 20.

Certainly we can agree on the possible existence of other universes. And I suppose that they could be separated by voids and time.

Frankly I always thought that it is a bit of a conceit to regard this universe as all that there is. If this one is all that there is then infinity may be a fair description. Personally I don't know if it's infinite but I am pretty sure that it is much larger and older than is popularily assumed.

Currently our knowledge is limited by the characteristics of light. Fortunetly our imaginations have no such constraint.


Beast, I suspect that the Hubble Constant-Red Shift is merely a mechanical characteristic of light. I will explain. We will have to consider vectors (directions).

Light will be "Blue shifted" as it enters a "gravity field" between observer and emitter. It will be red shifted as it comes out of the field. Now consider the various fields that a light will pass through in fifteen billion years. It will lose more energy coming out than it gains going in. Its a lot easier and faster to go downhill than uphill due to the direction, relative to us that the field is moving the light will spend a longer time relative to us, as no time passes for the wave front or photon or whatever it is. The further away the more fields it will pass through. This is the first mechanical cause for the "Red Shift"

The second cause of the red shift is that the stronger the gravity field is around the emitter the more that the light from the emitter will be red shifted. Consequently we have "Red Giant" stars.

The third cause of the "Red Shift" is that the closer the star the easier it is to see. As stars get further and further away the bigger and brighter it must be in order for us to see it. Cohnsequently the stars visible to us at great distances must be larger and more massive. They will "self select" for red shift just because they are bigger.

Finally we get to the relative motion "shift". Just ask any State Highway Patrol. Cost me $185.00 to have a Florida cop demonstrate his to me one time. I believe in the "Doppler Effect"

The Hubble Constant is real. I does not indicate any movement that we could measure with a ruler unless we correct for the various effects that I mentioned. I have never seen any "correction table".

Interesting googling---The Harvard Tower Experiments showed that gravity affects the wave length. Red out ;blue in.

The "Hubble Deep Field Observations". (the further that we can see it the bigger it is)

The CMBR observations . They show light remarkably uniformly red shifted to the microwave spectrum thus indicating stars still further out.

"The Big Bang Never Happened" Hans Alfven phd. (They have a book and a website) (Evolving Steady State Universe)

Happy thinking, M.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Vijaydevani said:

"The universe is not expanding 'inside' anything because there is no 'outside'."

Don't be so quick to leap to this conclusion. As I said, within our universe, we can only see and sense so much and estimates exist as to its age and size saying it's finite so there must be a beyond. What that beyond is is anybody's guess so my guess is infinite, outside space. Any other guesses? (another infinite universe e.g.)

PhilX

When I said "no outside" I meant relatively. We live in reference frame which is bound by the laws of science. That is the universe we know of. As that reference frame expands it gets bigger. But what lies "outside" our reference frame we have no way of measuring simple because we will never be able to escape the laws of science. Any information of the outside will never reach us and therefore EFFECTIVELY, there is no outside. If there is an outside it is so irrelevant that it might at well not exist.

It all fits together. The Hubble constant changes it. Our conception of reality is a rapidly changing paradigm but, what is changing the most is the acceptance of new ideas. A process could go red to blue in minutes something that took lifetimes prior to the internet age. So if the expansion is real the constant of proportionality is real and the proportionality changes with time. Anyway, if the expansion happens at one tenth the speed of light there is a measurable by any process time dilation which a chart already described. It is a new paradigm when not only the ideas but the process itself moves at the speed of light. Not because we could apply Science to an observation the data changes. The rationality is describing the methods of obtaining the data and the rationale in manipulating the data and therefore the results. What I meant by the Hubble constant changing (2L and the Doppler effect) was not a criticism of the changing variable by the methodology but a real acceptance of a process which said that it does. So if a Galaxy is 70 billion light years from us then we have seen pass the light scattering barrier which is the first and then the neutrino barrier. Well… it is a new description of a ghost or a new Science based in neutrinos… and what about the Big Bang? To me it is a real process that I apply to the concept of consciousness. Red to Blue; Blue to Red… generational or Blue to Red to infinity.

I quickly reread the link on expansion. You may as well talk creation events with the local priest. The belief in the BB has blinded people who write books on physics to the obvious which IMO is that the Red Shift is simply the results of the mechanical constraints on light and is no indication that a BB ever happened.

Yes, there is a red shift. Yes, there is a rainbow. Both are simply characteristics of light. A rainbow is merely refraction and there is no pot of gold anchoring it to the ground. The red shift is merely light that has passed through a gravity field different than ours. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is merely light from more distant stars. It also validates Olbers Paradox.

The Priest who tells you that God is Love has never seen a war, or a starving baby, or a sick lamb. Or even heard about Lot's wife for that matter.

The writer, I hesitate to call them scientists, who has never taken a flashlight and a prism out to a silo is equivalent to a celibate priest telling me about sex and marrige. Kind of like Aristotle refusing experimentation.

Ah well, that's life as we know it. Best, M.

Yes, the Red Shift and Hubble Constant would work if there was a Big Bang Expanding Universe scenario. But they also work without it. Occam's Razer writ large.

Mechsmith wrote:The belief in the BB has blinded people who write books on physics to the obvious which IMO is that the Red Shift is simply the results of the mechanical constraints on light and is no indication that a BB ever happened....

What do you mean by 'mechanical constraints'? Do you mean that photons are losing energy?

Bohm2, Yes that's one way but I don't think that is the important one. The "split beam" experiments seem to show that

As for mechanical constraints. Light frequency is changed due to a gravity field. Since in relativity "c" is constant then since obviously the frequency changes then the speed of time must be different. That's basically is why we have space time. ( Harvard Tower Experiments)

But As light enters a gravity field other than the observers it becomes blue shifted as the waves become more energetic. (after all they are falling) As it leaves that field it loses energy (going uphill natch) It loses more energy, (Wave lengths become longer) They spend longer going uphill. By the time we see them they may have passed through several fields each one lengthening the wave length.

Where are the extra waves There are none. It's time that is different. The wave has past through several different speeds of time. It gets longer each one. Thats the hard part and it took Einstein some time to get his head around it.

-- Updated August 10th, 2014, 8:50 pm to add the following --

Bohm2, Yes that's one way but I don't think that is the important one. The "split beam" experiments seem to show that

As for mechanical constraints. Light frequency is changed due to a gravity field. Since in relativity "c" is constant then since obviously the frequency changes then the speed of time must be different. That's basically is why we have space time. ( Harvard Tower Experiments)

But As light enters a gravity field other than the observers it becomes blue shifted as the waves become more energetic. (after all they are falling) As it leaves that field it loses energy (going uphill natch) It loses more energy, (Wave lengths become longer) They spend longer going uphill. By the time we see them they may have passed through several fields each one lengthening the wave length.

Where are the extra waves There are none. It's time that is different. The wave has past through several different speeds of time. It gets longer each one. Thats the hard part and it took Einstein some time to get his head around it.

Mechsmith wrote:But As light enters a gravity field other than the observers it becomes blue shifted as the waves become more energetic. (after all they are falling) As it leaves that field it loses energy (going uphill natch) It loses more energy, (Wave lengths become longer) They spend longer going uphill. By the time we see them they may have passed through several fields each one lengthening the wave length.

The "tired light" model you are suggesting (e.g. photon losing energy) in this passage has been considered but ruled out because it is inconsistent with a number of findings:

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm