- Joined Apr 16, 2010
When you have theory (String theory, the multiverse and other ideas of modern physics ) that's 'impossible' to test, it's unscientific.See how utterly stupid that is? When you replace intellect with math.......the result is always stupid.
What you're really saying: "When you replace intuition with math, the result is always non-intuitive."When you replace intellect with math.......the result is always stupid.
Space is not "nothingness", it is made of the same stuff as matter, just at a lower energy state. (Incidentally, the notion of space as empty nothingness is far less intuitive to me than thinking of it as somethingness with specific properties.)What is the basis for the assumption that nothingness(space) came into existence with somethingness(matter)?
You're visualizing this as if the universe is a volume inside another bigger space, getting filled with more stuff and growing. The universe is everything -- it is not embedded in anything -- and it has precisely the same amount of stuff in it now as it did at the beginning; no extra stuff is being pumped in. When cosmologists say that the universe is expanding, they mean that the distance between very far objects (much greater than galactic scales) is getting larger. Essentially, the geometry of space (the metric) is changing. The good news, however, is that at galactic scales and smaller, gravity dominates: whatever is in our neighborhood now will always be in our neighborhood.They say the universe is expanding out. So the mass is getting less dense. What about space? Is it getting less dense too? Where is the expanding space coming from? The universe is not adding more matter.......so how is it adding more space? Where is the space spigot? What is pumping space into this balloon? The space and the time came with the matter......remember?
Consider your logic. You said that time is a property of displacement, but displacement is a measure of space! So, according to your own definitions, space is indeed necessary for time.Time is a property of displacement........it is the duration of displacement........not the length of displacement.
The length or space of displacement can be zero.......but the time of displacement can never be zero.
Space is not necessary for time.
Okay, but even supposing we do at some point nail down some finite set of "intrinsic" principles, that still isn't enough! Because the mere interaction of these creates more complex "emergent" mechanisms which must in turn effectively be treated as laws in their own right. For example, no simple equation could possibly explain the fact that a specific density of mass spontaneously results in the formation of a main-sequence star, or that a similar configuration of neutrons results in a pulsar, or that an even denser configuration of mass yields a black hole from which nothing escapes...oh except for when they are exceptionally massive, in which case these weird jets of material are ejected from the poles, etc, etc, etc.Well that's a pessimistic view! I assume that at some point we are going to discover that the universe is governed by some incredibly simple equation, like x=y+42 or something.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|(NEWB and hobbyist) found a thing and would like advice on programming to do something else...||General Electronics Chat||3|
|I could use some crtique on a voltage controlled circuit thing||Analog & Mixed-Signal Design||10|
|Interview question: what is the first thing you do?||Programming & Languages||28|
|Arduino PLC is a real thing now||Automation, Robotics & Control||27|
|What Is This Thing?||Off-Topic||21|
by Kate Smith
by Jake Hertz
by Jake Hertz