The problem with that though, is that they're not expanding into "not-anything," but rather, "something" instead.
The problem with that though, is that they're not expanding into "not-anything," but rather, "something" instead.
With the balloon analogy, the entire universe is the surface of the balloon. So, no, it is not expanding into anything.
Yes, that would tend to coincide with what I know.
Oh, does that mean there's a big void right in the middle of it then?
It would tend to coincide with what you believe, Iacchus.
*sigh*
Iacchus, for there to be a void, there has to be space/time. If the universe is just the surface of a balloon, there is no space/time 'inside' the balloon, thus there is no void. There is nothing.
Taffer already got the obvious one...(grrrr!)....
So, Iacchus, are there any things you "believe" but do not "know"? If so, why is this not one of them? (yeah, go figger, we are still looking for evidence...)
What, prove to the ants in the ant farm that I'm running the show? No, I don't think that would be possible, not unless there was something transcendent about ants that can be elevated to a higher state, so it can be revealed to them. If you to go the thread, The God of the Universe, I try to explain why such things aren't so easily discernable, at least this was my intent. Thus far though, that hasn't really happened.
TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 6,925
If you can't prove there is a spiritual world that our material world is expanding into, then i think this entire discussion is moot.
I have also followed The God of the Universe, and there is nothing usefull concerning a proof in there either.
But i'm glad you have finally realized that you can't prove it.
Yes, it would almost take a miracle for this to happen wouldn't it?
And there is your proof. Because even if it did happen, you would still want proof.TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 6,925
Yes, it would almost take a miracle for this to happen wouldn't it?
That isn't a proof.
What I'm saying is I can't prove anything to you, outside of what you can't prove to yourself. So I really don't see that there's much else to discuss at this point.
Last edited:
There was a farmer, had a dog...
kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,628
e-eye-e-eye-ooooh brother....
Has anybody urged Iacchus to read "Flatland"? This might start those rusty gears in the head to start aturnin'.
I don't think it would be worthwhile to do an entire course on spatial geometry just to get him to understand the analogy between a two-dimensional+time manifold and the four-dimensional manifold we exist within...
ETA: Many here might not think that I know this stuff. I do and I understand it well. It's just not worth the effort to impart years of learning into a simpleton (and recapitulate all of the basics long forgotten). I haven't the time to perform a k12+undergraduate training on someone who hasn't even done the basics. You're all trying very hard and the explanations are exquisite. But one needs the grounding in math, physics, and other studies to grasp these notions. Obviously, Iacchus has very little to none!
Has anybody urged Iacchus to read "Flatland"? This might start those rusty gears in the head to start aturnin'.
I don't think it would be worthwhile to do an entire course on spatial geometry just to get him to understand the analogy between a two-dimensional+time manifold and the four-dimensional manifold we exist within...
ETA: Many here might not think that I know this stuff. I do and I understand it well. It's just not worth the effort to impart years of learning into a simpleton (and recapitulate all of the basics long forgotten). I haven't the time to perform a k12+undergraduate training on someone who hasn't even done the basics. You're all trying very hard and the explanations are exquisite. But one needs the grounding in math, physics, and other studies to grasp these notions. Obviously, Iacchus has very little to none!
Last edited:
kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,628
Well, I highly recommend 'Flatland' by Edwin A. Abbott.
1. It's in layman-speak.
2. It's only 108 pages.
3. You can get it for a couple bucks. It is also available free from the "Project Gutenberg" (http://www.gutenberg.org/).
4. It is a treatise on what it's like to be a denizen of a two-dimensional 'universe' and shown that there is a 'third' dimension. This is done in a way to allow some form of understanding or conception of higher spatial dimensions (beyond the three in which we exist).
Sorry if I may have come accross as if there was actually anything of any significance to my existence. But then again if I didn't, whose standpoint would I be speaking from? If you wish to speak to me, then perhaps you should learn to speak to me?
Last edited:
So, what you seem to be saying is that the whole Universe is self-contained and that nothing exists outside of it, correct? If so, then I've gathered this much all along. This is why I asked early on if the Universe was expanding into empty space, to try and understand what this reference to "not-anything" was all about. While I agree, if there is no empty space, then what in fact are we thinking of? For all intents and purposes, it would appear to be nothing.
Last edited:
This looks like a good reference book. And, while I may not take advantage of it at this time -- not to say there won't come a time! -- I am sure there are other folks around here who may find it useful. Thanks!
If you mean that universe is its own container and not in the thermodynamical sense then yes. Exactly correct.
And not just appear.
I understand. I hope discussing these things on this message board helps. Keep thinking about these things and ask questions if needed. I'm sure people will be happy to help out if you are genuinenly interested. Don't be affraid to ask because some question may seem stupid to some people. You'll get answers for them. Just don't come out asserting yourself, that will put some people off.