My (unfinished) thoughts on the Universe

I have a brilliant joke about mexicans...if you're offended by such jokes you have one minute to say. Otherwise, I told you so

 

try going up to Canadians then maybe.

 

I've not been to canada, I think you have a less crippled education system than we do.

 

Very interesting post. I still don't follow the logic (not questioning the information).

The highlighted above seems to me an interpretative leap. What if you needed an infinite black hole to consume infinite matter?

I think I might do some research on it.

 

So what? Do you think they don't have information that you do not possess? Why the validation games?

Like I said, you don't need them! You're important even if you're not better than everyone else. Not to mention the fact that they are right about the universe and all of you doctrinaires wrong.

 

it depends on your interpretation of infinite

the biggest number with a proper name is 10^600 and some people view that as the fall off for infinity.

True infinity (mathematic perspective, like true vacuum) is something that there is no end to.

the mass of a black hole (any black hole) is "infinite" because it doesn't really work with physics as they are at present (hence m theory, string theory, etc)

because a black hole is small enough to be in the domain of quantum physics

but massive enough to be the domain of proper physics

and they don't overlap properly.

if you're thinking from the standpoint of math (a lot less boxes in math than in physics) then by the simple merit of there being a speed (that is not C) that the "outer edge" of the universe is traveling into the abyss proves that there is a finite amount of matter\energy (you can choose one to use interchangeably if you'd like)


because there is, at least supposed to be infinite space outside of the universe (honestly, since there is nothing out there there isn't anything out there, but that's physics semantics, and you don't care for them. and I honestly think that one is insane)

 

but, the universe ISN'T actually infinite.

the thing is, that physics, and metaphysics, and all of those things LOVE to put shit in boxes

I like math, I think like an engineer, engineers like things how they are. there isn't anything outside the universe, and the distinction between inside, and outside is just "stuff" "no stuff yet"

so, since you can put all the stuff in one container (that would be immeasurably big, yes, but it would be finite in that it would have boundaries) the universe is finite.

 

There you go...And now suddenly it seems there are contradictions within physics. Why am I not surprised? Ok.

I do mean true, mathematical infinity. And I think the abyss or outer edge notion is too cute to be true. Just because infinity is not observable, does not mean it's not there. Though logically, there can be no outer edge to the universe.

That's the problem with equating information with knowledge. Science is only valid if one admits it's inherent incompleteness. Matter in its most extreme behavior isn't observable according to laws.

That's when our own subjectivity comes into play. And we can intuit infinity.

 

it's a contradiction in LANGUAGE, not action.

it's a silly semantic that they use because physics applies only to this closed system, as far as we know, gravity is radically different outside (doubt it)

And the idea is too "cute" Are you serious?

how is that even an argument?

 

It's not an argument. But much more of one than infinite space that has an edge.

Holy canoli. I may be a dilettante, but I can think!

Edit: So there are no contradictory theories within Physics? I find that hard to believe. How about Chaos Theory, does it fit in perfectly with all that other stuff?

 

I'm arguing that matter and energy are finite, I don't give a shit about space.

space is irrelevant until there ceases to be enough energy to maintain the universe as it is (more thermodynamics)

or until we crash into something (which would be fascinating, and entirely possible.)

 

Well, I do. And if there is no edge to space and the universe expands into a positive vacuum and contracts into a negative one (black holes), then there must be infinitely becoming matter along with infinitely becoming space.

The logic behind all that information is a major fail.

 

it's not becoming matter.

it's just getting filled with the limited amount of matter we have.

in effect, though it is x light years from here to andromeda now (I am so not looking this shit up)

it will be Y in ten trillion years

and Y is always > X

 

Btw: hence the red shift/

 

I don't mean becoming as in being created or added. I've already said that. I mean becoming since matter/energy fades in and out of existence as it constantly shifts.

Which makes both true nothingness (which would have to be in order for edgeless space to contain finite matter) and true being impossible!

This is logic leading to a paradox. That's when science (which can only observe finite, regular systems) bows way low.

 

The thing is it doesn't strictly fade in and out, that's just the easiest way to explain it.

it's the whole "light is a particle and a wave" it has photons, and it's an electromagnetic wave, and it's simply that language is inadequate to explain some stuff, because language just isn't designed to

I mean, for gods sakes, particle, and wave are the only two words that exist, to describe a situation that doesn't really work for that.

(limited subset situation, it's like using only legal terms to describe life, you'd get into trouble fast, using only language that is designed to describe, life, to describe math <or even law for that matter> becomes convoluted, pretentious, and confusing)

Matter "fades in and out" in that parts of it aren't strictly there all the time, but, A given part will be there at all times (at least probably) (it's part of that heisenberg thing) because there is stuff going on that we don't get yet (I point back to gravity, and dark matter)

the matter is there, and the parts of it are still "there" in that they are still acting on it, it is simply that they are not, themselves observable.

and, honestly, this is where I get a bit more sketchy, because it's quantum physics, and I'm not going to start giving a shit about this until M theory\string theory\whatever is worked out.

but, it's still there, just not, it's like


you're in your car, driving down the street, and your car ceases to be there, you can still act on your accelerator, and acting on the accelerator causes your car to act on you


but, it's just not QUITE there, and then, it comes back, and it's with you, and not back where it left from.

so it's not precisely strobing, but something that we don't really get quite yet, well, quantum physics has math on it, but, like I said, don't care until it has a bearing on what I plan on doing.

 

I admire your level of information and I'm learning much with you here. But I still think your positivism gets you every time and you start saying inane things like it's not quite there, but there is definitely something that is always there but isn't, and we know it's there but we can't observe it and we will once science works every fucking universal riddle out. C'mon.

As if scientific theories ever gained finality or were able to observe/describe chaotic and/or paradoxical phenomena.

In point of fact, language is apt to describe every single closed system acting according to regular laws. So, if your little universe is such a system, you should be able to describe exactly what it does.

Problem is, matter/energy is chaotic in its most extreme behavior and that is when (and only when) language and logic (and therefore science) are inapt to describe it.

Furthermore, I do not buy the impartial objectivity of science and I think it suffers from an extreme Christian bias in some corners of academia. And that may explain the reluctance of mainstream scientific theories to admit to the contradictory nature of phenomena.

Since Christianity has a linear, dualistic Platonic bias.

 

I don't think you can actually prove chaos.


And this is where I think our thought processes strongly diverge.

Chaos is a myth, or something that exists only in systems beyond that which is known.

and there is no reason to believe chaos does, or could exist.

 

God agrees with this thread.

 

My turn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory