• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design

.13. said:
Thanks, that seems to make sense.

I don't want to derail this thread much, but it doesn't really seem to be going anywhere anymore so here goes. This got me thinking.

That explanation doesn't apply for neutronstars does it? Because they are comprised of neutrons.(?) So when 2 of those come to contact there has to be something else instead of photons?
Click to expand...

I think this would be the nuclear strong force. I think.
 
hammegk said:
Guess who said this "One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be."
Click to expand...
Source of the quote, hammegk?
 
hammegk said:
Guess who said this "One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be."

What a bunch of doofs.;) Although if you haven't finished high school and possibly first-year physics, ignore that.
Click to expand...

Possibly a quote taken out of context? Maybe one that is erroneously attributed to Hawking? We need to see the source.
 
Knowing hammegk's general laziness, I found it myself.

This would have been written long before the lecture in uruk's link. Old data, hammegk.

eta: Checked Amazon to be sure. The first edition of A Brief History of Time must have come out in 1988, since the 10th anniversary came out in 1998. I've not seen the new edition, so I don't know if hammegk's quote is in that edition as well.

I'd call hammegk a "doof", but maybe he hasn't read anything since the '90s.
 
Last edited:
Taffer said:
I think this would be the nuclear strong force. I think.
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be no force keeping the neutrons apart. So when those stars come to contact neutrons would eventually go close enough to eachother and nuclear strong force would bind them togeter. And the stars wouldn't slide through eachother. Is that what you mean?
 
Taffer said:
Care to name some names? Space/time pretty much rules out a "before" to be before the big bang, you know.
Click to expand...
Or, maybe the problem is that we have a hard time thinking outside of the box? For example, let's say we had an infinite amount of space. And that's all we had, except for a single cardboard box, 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot, somewhere out in the middle of it. (I guess that's where it would be?) So, within that box we would have 1 cubic foot of space, correct?

Now, since we are given a set of parameters by which to define space (within the box), we now have the means by which to measure time, correct? However, if we take away the box, we've just lost the only space-time coordinates we have, and consequently, are no longer able to measure time.

In which case we need to ask, what's the difference between an infinite amount of space with a cardboard box in the middle (with finite dimensions that is) versus an infinite amount of space without a cardboard box in the middle? The fact is, nothing has changed, except the cardboard box is no longer there, correct? So, wouldn't the space that the cardboard box occupied still be there, albeit we wouldn't be able to differentiate between it and the surrounding space? Hmm ... what does that say about time then, if it was wholly contingent upon that which, for all intents and purposes, is "imaginary?"
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Now, since we are given a set of parameters by which to define space (within the box), we now have the means by which to measure time, correct?
Click to expand...
No. Given the parameters you've provided, we do not have the means to measure time. There is insufficent metrics.


Iacchus said:
However, if we take away the box, we've just lost the only space-time coordinates we have, and consequently, are no longer able to measure time.
Click to expand...
What you're alluding to, without realizing it, is a hyper-spacetime that our spacetime sits within. It has been brought up before, by me at least, as definitely a possibility. It need not, as you imply, be infinite in span and, frankly, it causes some problems if it is. However, (1) there is currently no evidence to support such a thing and (2) if it is not infinite, it leads to back to the question of what happened before the beginning of ...hyper-time, for lack of a better word.

The answer to (2) would be, of course, to propose a hyper-hyper-spacetime that hyper-spacetime sits within. But then, what was there before that? We would need a hyper-hyper-hyper-spacetime, and so on and so forth.

This isn't thinking outside of the box. It's trying to take thinking that is already outside of the box and shove it back into terms we understood inside the box.

In this case, inside the box thinking is that time goes on forever, both into the past and into the future. Understanding that time is finite is out of the box thinking. What you are proposing puts layers of extra unsupported garbage to force it back into the box of infinite time. Finite spacetime describes what we see just as well and is much simpler. Occam's Razor applies.
 
Upchurch said:
No. Given the parameters you've provided, we do not have the means to measure time. There is insufficent metrics.
Click to expand...
Why, because there are no sentient beings that inhabit it in order to do so? What if it was inhabited by sentient beings, who had the means by which to measure it? ... i.e., relative to their own "circumstances" that is.

What you're alluding to, without realizing it, is a hyper-spacetime that our spacetime sits within. It has been brought up before, by me at least, as definitely a possibility. It need not, as you imply, be infinite in span and, frankly, it causes some problems if it is. However, (1) there is currently no evidence to support such a thing and (2) if it is not infinite, it leads to back to the question of what happened before the beginning of ...hyper-time, for lack of a better word.
Click to expand...
Yes, I made reference to something similar to this in other thread which, of course you just replied to.

The answer to (2) would be, of course, to propose a hyper-hyper-spacetime that hyper-spacetime sits within. But then, what was there before that? We would need a hyper-hyper-hyper-spacetime, and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...
An infinite number of "hyper-spacetimes?" Yes, it must in fact be expanding into "something," correct?

This isn't thinking outside of the box. It's trying to take thinking that is already outside of the box and shove it back into terms we understood inside the box.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is thinking outside of the box, because if we establish the fact that we are living inside of "something," then, for all intents and purposes, there must be an outside to it.

In this case, inside the box thinking is that time goes on forever, both into the past and into the future. Understanding that time is finite is out of the box thinking. What you are proposing puts layers of extra unsupported garbage to force it back into the box of infinite time. Finite spacetime describes what we see just as well and is much simpler. Occam's Razor applies.
Click to expand...
So, what exactly is space expanding into then?
 
Iacchus said:
In which case we need to ask, what's the difference between an infinite amount of space with a cardboard box in the middle (with finite dimensions that is) versus an infinite amount of space without a cardboard box in the middle? The fact is, nothing has changed, except the cardboard box is no longer there, correct? So, wouldn't the space that the cardboard box occupied still be there, albeit we wouldn't be able to differentiate between it and the surrounding space? Hmm ... what does that say about time then, if it was wholly contingent upon that which, for all intents and purposes, is "imaginary?"
Click to expand...

If you're saying that space and time exist outside the universe, then, according to current leading theories, you're wrong. Time and space are meaningless outside our space-time "bubble".
 
Belz... said:
If you're saying that space and time exist outside the universe, then, according to current leading theories, you're wrong. Time and space are meaningless outside our space-time "bubble".
Click to expand...
Yet space is supposed to be expanding. How does it do this, if there is "nothing" outside of it to expand into?
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, it is thinking outside of the box, because if we establish the fact that we are living inside of "something," then, for all intents and purposes, there must be an outside to it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you could talk about the "inside" of the universe in the same way as we talk about the inside of a box.

So, what exactly is space expanding into then?
Click to expand...

Itself.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not sure you could talk about the "inside" of the universe in the same way as we talk about the inside of a box.
Click to expand...
Why not? They both have finite boundaries don't they?

Itself.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe I meant to say the Universe then? So, what is the Universe expanding into? ... Empty space? ... Or, as Tricky would have us believe in the other thread, Nothing?
 
Last edited:
You are still correct, if you read it "there is nothing it is expanding into." In fact, you are correct anyway, but your phrasing was easier for Iacchus to misunderstand.
 
.13. said:
There wouldn't be no force keeping the neutrons apart. So when those stars come to contact neutrons would eventually go close enough to eachother and nuclear strong force would bind them togeter. And the stars wouldn't slide through eachother. Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

I believe the nuclear strong force keeps them apart, but I could be totally mistake. It's been many years since I studied phsyics.
 
Tricky said:
This answer is more correct than mine. I apologize for contributing to Iacchus' fantasy that nothing is a thing.
Click to expand...
Oh, really, I never claimed that it was. In fact it seemed more along the lines that others were claiming this was so.
 
Mercutio said:
You are still correct, if you read it "there is nothing it is expanding into." In fact, you are correct anyway, but your phrasing was easier for Iacchus to misunderstand.
Click to expand...
So, then, you are saying that space has always existed and, that the "Big Bang" which, for whatever reason, some of us equate with the beginning of the Universe, is expanding into empty space? If not, then what exactly is the Universe expanding into?
 
It'll take me too long to read this entire thread, so I apologise if anybody has already asked this:

What the **** are you guys talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom