Welcome to the Lounge

Richard Deeming16-Jun-17 7:50

16-Jun-17 7:50

raddevus wrote:
And if what you say is right then why so much confidence in what Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene or Michio Kaku say? I know as much as they do.

Yes, but they know some extremely long technical words they can use to explain it! Big Grin | :-D

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer

modified 16-Jun-17 14:18pm.

raddevus16-Jun-17 7:52

16-Jun-17 7:52

Richard Deeming wrote:
Yes, but the[y] know some extremely long technical words they can use to explain it!

Haha, so true. Also, they are backed up by

Academic Theoreticians

And they are always right, because they told us so. Laugh | :laugh:

Nelek16-Jun-17 7:59

Nelek

16-Jun-17 7:59

Supercalifragilisticoespialidoso?

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

Richard Deeming16-Jun-17 8:21

16-Jun-17 8:21

If you say it loud enough, we won't notice that you spelt it wrong! Laugh | :laugh:

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer

Nelek17-Jun-17 2:05

Nelek

17-Jun-17 2:05

I don't know how to spell it on english, that's on spanish

M.D.V.

User 483504716-Jun-17 9:24

User 4835047

16-Jun-17 9:24

Quote:
And if what you say is right then why so much confidence in what Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene or Michio Kaku say? I know as much as they do.

Brian Greene doesn't deserve to be in that list imho. He is to physics, what Dr. Phil is to psychology.

modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.

raddevus16-Jun-17 9:54

16-Jun-17 9:54

Termi Nater wrote:
He is to physics, what Dr. Phil is to psychology.

harold aptroot16-Jun-17 7:58

16-Jun-17 7:58

raddevus wrote:
we know that even the energy (thus mass) is of a limited quantity in the Universe.

That is not known, unless you use the zero-energy universe hypothesis, but then it doesn't limit the amount of mass either since the net amount of energy is independent of the amount of stuff.

raddevus16-Jun-17 8:40

16-Jun-17 8:40

I'm saying something much more important here.
I'm saying that the Universe is physical.
If it isn't then we are talking about something that could even be an intelligence and then forget about understanding anything.
I'm saying that since the Universe is physical and we are physical then it has a limit.
An infinite anything instantly goes beyond physical and instantly becomes metaphysical and we cannot even hope to begin to study it.
So, if we are going to believe in a mechanical Universe then it has a limit.
If it has a limit then what is on the other sides? That is the real question.
If it doesn't have a limit (if it were infinite) then it is not mechanical and physical.

harold aptroot16-Jun-17 9:10

16-Jun-17 9:10

The rule is that measurable quantities cannot be infinite, but an infinite universe doesn't have a proper size let alone a measurable size. There is no contradiction here, an infinite universe can be physical.

Whether talking about "the other side" even makes sense depends on the nature of the finiteness

raddevus16-Jun-17 9:18

16-Jun-17 9:18

Consider this: you have a ruler made of plastic that is infinitely long.

So you hold out your ruler and it extends to infinity. What!?!

Instantly, we all know that is impossible. It's a physical thing. Only conceptually can something continue to go on forever.

Thus, the Universe, which is made up of the same basic elements that the ruler is made up of, cannot possibly be infinite.

So, the Universe has to be at least slightly less than infinite. But as soon as it is not infinite then you can reach the edge (end) and ponder what is on the other side.

jeron116-Jun-17 9:41

jeron1

16-Jun-17 9:41

raddevus wrote:
that is impossible

Would that also apply to singularities?

"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

raddevus16-Jun-17 9:59

16-Jun-17 9:59

jeron1 wrote:
Would that also apply to singularities?

I'm going to provide an answer that no other scientist would give:
I don't know. Laugh | :laugh:

However, I believe a singularity is simply the first-cause, right?
Just the point at which something begins. Again, I guess this has to be only conceptual because we have no way of testing to get back to the first-cause.
But, mostly, I don't know. Smile | :)

harold aptroot16-Jun-17 9:57

16-Jun-17 9:57

The universe isn't made out of stuff, it's filled with stuff. That's something completely different. An infinite universe doesn't have infinite rulers (or walkways or whatever) in it, there is no physical object extending forever.

raddevus16-Jun-17 10:03

16-Jun-17 10:03

harold aptroot wrote:
there is no physical object extending forever

I knew you'd end up agreeing with me. Laugh | :laugh:

EDIT

harold aptroot wrote:
The universe isn't made out of stuff

Notice how deftly I ignored your main point?
That's because I would say, "well, what is it then? Not physical? What!?" and then the discussion would continue ad infinitum. Smile | :)

harold aptroot16-Jun-17 10:38

16-Jun-17 10:38

The universe is, essentially, spacetime with fillings. It doesn't make much sense to ask what space and time are made out of. "Not physical" is not the description I'd use given that your alternative is metaphysics, but it's not like "one big physical object", more like "the space in which other things are" (plus the things, just to be all-inclusive).

raddevus16-Jun-17 11:01

16-Jun-17 11:01

This has been very good discussion. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion. I have really enjoyed it.
Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

raddevus16-Jun-17 9:21

16-Jun-17 9:21

harold aptroot wrote:
The rule is that measurable quantities cannot be infinite, but an infinite universe doesn't have a proper size

This is a very interesting point too, because it feels similar to "a system under observation changes".
As if the size of the Universe changes to finite when we find the end or measure it, but is conceptually infinite.

PIEBALDconsult16-Jun-17 8:14

PIEBALDconsult

16-Jun-17 8:14

The inability to form an infinite sidewalk from a finite amount of matter doesn't prove the universe to be finite.

raddevus16-Jun-17 8:36

16-Jun-17 8:36

I know.
I was providing something for you to walk on.
The point is if you could travel faster than the speed of light toward the end of the Universe then at some point all energy would be exhausted (not from travel but from the limit naturally created by an end of energy and you'd be at the end of the Universe. A physical thing must have an end -- a physical thing without an end is only theoretical. That is why we call it physical and not metaphysical.
And I'm not saying that only in theory does the Universe end, I'm saying in fact it does because it is a physical object (we physical objects know this and study this and have our existence in a physical Universe). The instant you say the Universe is otherwise is the same instant it becomes non-physical and my final point then is that "all bets are off".

So, the Universe (as studied by Scientists,Philosophers and Mathematicians) is a physical beast and as such has a limit and so has an end.
Now you've heard the end of this discussion. Smile | :)

Since, I've decided I am right. Yes, I'm kidding, but I do think what I've said makes sense.

The Universe, if physical -- and it is, must have a limit.
And if it isn't physical, then we aren't either. Laugh | :laugh:

Richard Deeming16-Jun-17 8:49

16-Jun-17 8:49

Let me see if I've understood your argument:

We are physical;
The universe is physical;
We have a finite size;
Therefore, the universe must have a finite size.

Is that an accurate summary?

Because if it is, I could replace "finite size" with "bumhole", and the argument starts to look rather silly. Laugh | :laugh:

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer

raddevus16-Jun-17 9:06

16-Jun-17 9:06

No.
I'm saying, The Universe is physical and mechanical, therefore finite.

I believe that most of your major scientists believe this too.
They speak of "almost" infinite but never infinite.

I don't believe anyone other than school children actually believe in any physical object that is infinite.
Infinite is just a concept, but not reality in the mechanical universe.
All physical (non-philosophical conceptual) things have limits. That's all my point is.

Richard Deeming16-Jun-17 9:16

16-Jun-17 9:16

That still leaves the question: if the universe has a finite boundary, what is beyond that boundary?

Or are you saying that spacetime is a localized concept that has no meaning "outside" of our universe? (Not that there would be an "outside" in that case. Or a "before".)

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer

raddevus16-Jun-17 9:42

16-Jun-17 9:42

Richard Deeming wrote:
That still leaves the question: if the universe has a finite boundary, what is beyond that boundary?

This too is a point I was attempting to drive toward in a logical manner.
Though I freely admit my knowledge of any of this is very, very basic.

This was an idea too that at some point studying the physical mechanical universe becomes a study of metaphysical properties (when you reach the end of the physical).