What is "spacetime" really?

[lawcat]

 

Flow and viscosity in liquids is, as I claim, somewhere between solid and gas phases that have corresponding 'viscosity parameters' these are elasticity and plasticity in solids, and viscosity in gases; liquids retain their volume unlike a gas; viscosity and plasticity (not elasticity) are also retained.

 

You don't have to claim that. There are plenty of warrants (facts) on that.

 

These three parameters are tied fundamentally to charge distribution in general; magnetic interactions are in a dual space. Polarity and ionization, in all three matter phases, is generally what 'orders' them; frictional and resistive 'forces' prevent the free flow of heat, charge or magnetic flux through any medium.

 

There are reactive forces too, which are much more pertinent in free space and QM.

 

All are described in terms of potential; potential is another very general term for many things, abstract and physically real.

 

Potnetial is intrinsic in all static mass. See E= mc2.

 

 

Since we only can "know" that any information we receive, from any such experiment/empiricism will always be space and time "codes" - length, mass, charge, any potential is always "received" or recorded in terms of arbitrary units of space and time.

 

Arbitrary is something unreasoned. The measured units are well reasoned. Even the references for measurement are rarely arbitrary, if the measurer is to be taken seriously.

 

The "I word", in my experience, often gets an unfair opinion or two; mentioning that information cannot be transferred from one place to another unless work is done (because information has to be "encoded" physically), sometimes gets responses that indicate to me, at least, that there is some confusion, or misconception. The subject isn't mysterious or peculiar, it's pedantic: there is no way to store information, other than in a physical medium, therefore information requires physicality, the flow of information (communication) requires energy (as work), or there is no flow possible.

 

Storage is static; flow is dynamic. Flow is point-uncertain; it is usually averaged, and segemented for representation purposes.

 

Shannon's theories uncover something basic about our experience and the universe itself - but what?

Something simple and obvious, and something a few physicists appear happy to ignore. But then it is one of those background things we take for granted. After you've acknowledged it's reality, you can put it in the background; however it does not "go away". So what can we ignore that is always there?

 

(Another hint: I believe I know what, but I'm not going to say just yet - it might be a misunderstanding, which is a common response I get at times, when trying to discuss it.)

 

Do tell :)

 

I do not think we need go farther than E=mc2. The equation basically tells us that, to convert the full potential energy of the mass m into E, the mass must be converted to photons, which are massless. The summ of all massless particles, derived from mass m, traveling at speed c, will have the kientic energy equal to full potential energy of mass m.

 

But, if photon has no mass, how can it have energy at E=mc2. The answer must be that time has energy, since c requires that there be time. Therefore, everything has energy, mass or massless, because time imparts energy.

[Boof-head]

The measured units are well reasoned. Even the references for measurement are rarely arbitrary, if the measurer is to be taken seriously.

This is really the only pertinent thing you've said. However, since you say measured units are well reasoned, perhaps you could expand on how the units of time (and distance) that we measure with these rulers, are exact rather than arbitrary lengths of time and distance?

 

Are you saying time or distance are always based on fundamental units like say, "atoms" of time?

 

P.S. there is nothing unreasoned about arbitrary measurement; if you know time and distance are 'arbitrary' in terms of "having any value", then you deal with it, this is reality - space and time are real, not in an arbitrary way.

 

But, measurement of space and time are definitely arbitrarily fixed - against the local apparent evolution of time, in an imaginary background of "universal time", which on examination of structure in that universe, is deduced (in a Sherlockian way) to not exist after all - at least there is no reason the model of lightcones on a null-curve has a preferred direction; yet we perceive one.

 

So there is something wrong here - either the model is or our perception is. One of them has to be reconciled with arbitrary observers, arbitrarily observing arbitrary units of time, in an apparently positive "distance scale".

 

I do not think we need go farther than E=mc2.

That would be nice; but unfortunately Einstein's result requires measurement of time and distance, this is why c has arbitrary units - we can scale them to a distance scale which has units of "the distance from the earth to the sun", for instance.

[lawcat]

Are you saying time or distance are always based on fundamental units like say, "atoms" of time?

 

P.S. there is nothing unreasoned about arbitrary measurement; if you know time and distance are 'arbitrary' in terms of "having any value", then you deal with it, this is reality - space and time are real, not in an arbitrary way.

 

Nothing is arbitrary about scientifically chosen references. Chosing anything other than what we have would be arbitrary because it would defy reason--for example if we chose Neptune rotation for measuring time, instead of decay of an atom.

 

But, measurement of space and time are definitely arbitrarily fixed - against the local apparent evolution of time, in an imaginary background of "universal time", which on examination of structure in that universe, is deduced (in a Sherlockian way) to not exist after all - at least there is no reason the model of lightcones on a null-curve has a preferred direction; yet we perceive one.

 

Lightcones are just a representation; why rotate the monitor or a piece of paper, when you can rotate the reference?

 

So there is something wrong here - either the model is or our perception is. One of them has to be reconciled with arbitrary observers, arbitrarily observing arbitrary units of time, in an apparently positive "distance scale".

 

I don't understand your beef with scientific measurements. If it ain't broke, do not try to fix it.

 

unfortunately Einstein's result requires measurement of time and distance, this is why c has arbitrary units - we can scale them to a distance scale which has units of "the distance from the earth to the sun", for instance.

 

Unfortunately, everything requires measurement. The question under A.E. is not whether we should use meters or seconds, but wether the measurements are always linear; or, always follow some curve; or sometimes follow some curve; in such a way that linear assumptions will lead to incorrect results.

[maddog]

* Category theory is abstract, a measure-space. this is a natural model for empirical physical system with random variables (in it)

I once knew of a friend who was an Algebraist and studied Category Theory and Algebraic Geometry. It was he who taught me all about Normed Spaces, Division

Algebras and Froebenius Theorem. ;)

 

* Cartesian products of measure-spaces are 'in-spirit' tensor products; these carry joint states of 2 or more separate probabilities (independence / certainty relation)

 

Spin, in QM is a no-brainer; you have left and right handedness which are also encoded in spin; therefore, since you are "handed", you have spin.

A 'particle' spinning on an axis, like a top does, can only spin to the left or right; visualizing it is easy, if you consider a spinning weight on a string - it spins left or right handedly (or as we say, in a clockwise/anticlockwise fashion).

Using your right hand rule, and your right hand, you can align this spin-direction with the orientation of your thumb; using your left hand orients the anti-spin direction.

 

Spin is spin (classically), or 'self' angular momentum; QM spin isn't classical (it's part of a particle's matter-wave), but evolves classically in measure-spaces.

Cartesian products you are referring to for Spin in QM are Spinors. In fact in 1967

Roger Penrose used Spinors as a launching point to create a variation called Twistors

(which are Sp(2, 4) Spinors). Twistors have become popular of late though they still

don't quite work with M-Theory or LQG.

 

[Note: I hope this isn't too off topic] :)

 

maddog

[Michael Mooney]

The Cosmos is, by definition, a closed system, as it is "all that is".

Entropy is NOT the sum total of all matter and energy as implied by MM.

Entropy is a measure of order/disorder of that matter and energy.

If a Cosmos had all its matter and energy at one point, then entropy would be maximum.

If a Cosmos had all its matter and energy equally spread out everywhere, with no gradients, then entropy would be minimum.

 

First, you have it backwards.

From The Free Dictionary on Entropy:

"1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.

2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.

4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

 

So, if the universe just kept expanding and dissipating matter/energy, " toward a state of inert uniformity"... it would just "run down"... the state of maximum entropy.

 

If, on the other hand, there is enough mass in the universe (the "missing matter/energy" is found) all of it will be "caught in the universal gravitational net" (at the extreme of its expansive phase) and brought back for another in a perpetual series of bangs and crunches.

 

Actually I know very well what entropy is and I never implied that "Entropy is... the sum total of all matter and energy"

The sum total of all matter and energy in the universe is never increased or diminished. It is presently in the process of expanding *toward* maximum entropy, but if there is enough mass for *critical cosmic mass* for gravitational reversal, it will all come back and start over again... with *no loss.*

 

Michael

 

Moderation Note: Subsuqent discussion regarding the entropy of cosmology has been moved to 19314

[Michael Mooney]

Maintaining something as "absurd, prima facia" in the face of a developed argument is the logical fallacy "I asserted it, therefore its true. Thus, the opposite conclusion is absurd." I could maintain that an eternal universe is "absurd, prima facia," and then where would we be? This is not a good way to make your case.

 

More interestingly, you have stated that IF it could be shown that simultaneous now wasn't compatible with a constant speed of light, then your ontology must be wrong. Modest has provided for us D.F. Comstock's argument of this incompatibility. So, either show us where Comstock went wrong, or acknowledge that your ontology needs to be modified.

 

We can dance around the finer points of logic all you want, but at the end of the day, whoever believes that the cosmos at first did not exist and then came into existence *ex nihilo" has the mind set of believing in the divine magic of "creationism."

 

It goes like this... rough paraphrase: In the beginning "darkness was on the face of the deep"... (i.e., there was nothing... total void... no cosmos, no nothing.)

Then "God" said "LET THERE BE LIGHT," and there was light. Then "He" went about the business of creation, making all there is. Cool.... if you are a religious believer.

 

If you are a scientist, on the other hand, a cosmological theorist to be specific, the above simply will not do. If you think "all there is" once was not, then it is up to you to explain, or at least render a reasonable theory, as to how it all appeared out of nothing "nothing" being here defined as no cosmos or any part thereof being yet in existence.

 

Just more rhetoric about "sure it could all appear out of nothingness" just does not cut the mustard, ontologically speaking. (And the Higgs field does not explain how "something" comes out of "nothing"... the most basic violation of ontological inquiry!)

 

If you you don't get this, you don't get nothing about theory of cosmic origin.

 

BTW: Back when Hawking was espousing his "Singularity" theory of cosmic origin, I publicly debunked him.... in the science forum of "Myspace," and several months later he abandoned that theory and joined forces with the M-theory camp... (and wrote an endorsing intro to the new book by Turok et.al.... the title of which eludes me but can be easily nlooked up.

He had claimed that cosmos originated as "infinitely dense mass" in a "point of zero volume." It simply defies all reason and common sense to posit that everything in the universe started as such "infinite density in a zero volume point," his primordial cosmic "Singularity."

So... in this case " Cuz Hawking said so" (or theorized as such) does not validate the theory. And "something out of nothing" is still and always will be belief in magic rather than sound scientific theory.

 

Michael

[modest]

First, you have it [entropy] backwards.

 

While I am no expert on thermodynamics (in fact, I'd bet my house Pyrotex knows far, far more on the subject then I) I also think he may have his entropy a bit backwards. His point about increasing entropy nevertheless stands.

 

We can dance around the finer points of logic all you want, but at the end of the day, whoever believes that the cosmos at first did not exist and then came into existence *ex nihilo" has the mind set of believing in the divine magic of "creationism."

 

These are not the finer points of logic. These are the big points that hit most people (who know anything about logic) over the head like a sledgehammer. Science (by way of the big bang) does not claim the universe was created from nothing. It only says "this is how much something we know about. The laws of physics break down before this point so it becomes nonsensical to speak of before".

 

This avoids Kant's antimonies in a way that your argument does not. Read:

 

Kant points out that philosophy, or the use of reason, can seem to lead to contradictions. For instance, it can seem (and did to Descartes) that the world must have a beginning or limit in space and time. After all, doesn't everything have a beginning and/or end? But it can also seem (and did to Aristotle) that the world must be infinite in space and time. After all, what would be beyond the limit of space, or before time began?

 

Kant argues that his distinction between noumena and phenomena helps us to avoid such paradoxes. Space and time are not things in themselves (noumena) nor are they objects we experience (phenomena). They are forms that our experience takes or features of the way in which our minds present the world to us. To talk about the beginning or limit of space or of time is to mistakenly treat space and time as if they were objects of some kind.

 

Kant's antinomies

 

And, Kant is quite right. To either demand that time must be finite or infinite is neither good logic.

 

It goes like this... rough paraphrase: In the beginning "darkness was on the face of the deep"... (i.e., there was nothing... total void... no cosmos, no nothing.)

Then "God" said "LET THERE BE LIGHT," and there was light. Then "He" went about the business of creation, making all there is. Cool.... if you are a religious believer.

 

How you treat time so to does the christian bible treat God—infinite with no beginning. You don't want to play this game. If you start accusing people of making metaphysical claims, believe me—you've made a great number.

 

If you are a scientist, on the other hand, a cosmological theorist to be specific, the above simply will not do. If you think "all there is" once was not, then it is up to you to explain, or at least render a reasonable theory, as to how it all appeared out of nothing "nothing" being here defined as no cosmos or any part thereof being yet in existence.

 

If you knew more about cosmology you wouldn't be making these errors. Big bang cosmology does not claim that the universe came from nothing. It makes no claim as to what the universe came from or what there was before the beginning or even if there was a before. All it says is that we can describe things in a meaningful way after a certain point (T=0). Before that is just an unknown.

 

And even theorists who have tried to explain from what the universe came like the Hartle-Hawking universe model (which is what I believe you're referring to later in your post) it still doesn't claim the universe came from nothing.

 

If you you don't get this, you don't get nothing about theory of cosmic origin.

 

Oh, look, you reified "nothing" again :)

 

~modest

[NomDePlume]

We can dance around the finer points of logic all you want, but at the end of the day, whoever believes that the cosmos at first did not exist and then came into existence *ex nihilo" has the mind set of believing in the divine magic of "creationism."...Just more rhetoric about "sure it could all appear out of nothingness" just does not cut the mustard, ontologically speaking. (And the Higgs field does not explain how "something" comes out of "nothing"... the most basic violation of ontological inquiry!)

 

You are, of course, deliberately distorting my points, and not at all providing an argument. Saying "it sounds religious," and saying "it doesn't cut the mustard" are not actual objections. Once again, you have reverted to "I assert it, so its correct." This is not how arguments are made and points debated.

 

Also, you miss the point completely about the Higgs field, which is unrelated to creation out of nothing. The point of bringing up the Higgs field was to show that there are models and ontologies in which there is no void, merely a field of Higgsy stuff filling all space. This was related to the other, separate discussion about properties and a void.

 

I assert my argument again, so you don't have to turn back the pages of the thread- if we follow back the chain of cause and effect, we are left with two options-

 

1. at some point there was an uncaused effect

2. the chain goes on forever in infinite regress.

 

These are the only two options. The first option contradicts cause and effect, the second option contradicts the increasing entropy observations. In this sense, both choices suck. However, both cause and effect and increasing entropy are based on induction, and may fail at some point.

 

You choose to believe that entropy fails somewhere, I choose cause and effect. I can make arguments as to why I think this is the better pick, but they will be aesthetics. Your ontology is NOT more logical.

 

Saying something over and over does not make it so.

 

Also, you ignored what I thought was the more interesting point in my post. I've reproduced it below

 

More interestingly, you have stated that IF it could be shown that simultaneous now wasn't compatible with a constant speed of light, then your ontology must be wrong. Modest has provided for us D.F. Comstock's argument of this incompatibility. So, either show us where Comstock went wrong, or acknowledge that your ontology needs to be modified.

[maddog]

It goes like this... rough paraphrase: In the beginning "darkness was on the face of the deep"... (i.e., there was nothing... total void... no cosmos, no nothing.)

Then "God" said "LET THERE BE LIGHT," and there was light. Then "He" went about the business of creation, making all there is. Cool.... if you are a religious believer.

 

If you are a scientist, on the other hand, a cosmological theorist to be specific, the above simply will not do. If you think "all there is" once was not, then it is up to you to explain, or at least render a reasonable theory, as to how it all appeared out of nothing "nothing" being here defined as no cosmos or any part thereof being yet in existence.

Here your preaching to the choir with your eyes crossed or something. Your also mixing

analogies. Cosmology does Not attempt to redo the Biblical Creation tale (though it does

make a good approximation). For one in Cosmology one never Starts at T=0. Period.

Now cosmologists may talk about a time (very near T=0; such as T=10E-6). This is

still greater than 0. So is not EXACTLY the Beginning (like the bible). Not equivalent.

 

Just more rhetoric about "sure it could all appear out of nothingness" just does not cut the mustard, ontologically speaking. (And the Higgs field does not explain how "something" comes out of "nothing"... the most basic violation of ontological inquiry!)

I don't think you can get this. This is a facet of QM called Vacuum Fluctuations where "Nothing"

can spontaneously create Something. Admittedly this is on a quantum scale in size and

time. So we are not talking about some magical macroscopic objects appearing and

disappearing. This is typically spurious particles created with their annihilators and in

the next moment they may annihilate each other or not.

If you you don't get this, you don't get nothing about theory of cosmic origin.

I get you don't!

BTW: Back when Hawking was espousing his "Singularity" theory of cosmic origin, I publicly debunked him.... in the science forum of "Myspace," and several months later he abandoned that theory and joined forces with the M-theory camp... (and wrote an endorsing intro to the new book by Turok et.al.... the title of which eludes me but can be easily nlooked up.

He had claimed that cosmos originated as "infinitely dense mass" in a "point of zero volume." It simply defies all reason and common sense to posit that everything in the universe started as such "infinite density in a zero volume point," his primordial cosmic "Singularity."

So... in this case " Cuz Hawking said so" (or theorized as such) does not validate the theory. And "something out of nothing" is still and always will be belief in magic rather than sound scientific theory.

This is quite a claim (the one where you "debunked [Hawking]"). Can you point me to

the links in MySpace where this "debunking" occured.

 

Infinite Density in Zero Volume sound very suspicious for Hawking to espouse (I know he

is not well at the moment). It is likely you might be glossing over a limit being taken there.

You can do a lot of math with a limit that is completely impossible without. Infinity/Zero

is meaningless. So I will consider Hawking here a more credible witness about something

said/quoted than what you remember. A citation, quote of text, reference to a paper

would be acceptable. Wild claims aren't really worth my time. :)

 

maddog

[modest]

Yet another objection (to the classical "Bang/Crunch" theory) is the dynamic of the "Bang" itself... which I have addresssed in brief several times on this thread as the "multiple bangs and crunches cosmic juggling act" as a series of up-scaled supernovae-like bangs sending out cosmic matter like "supernova remnants" even as more matter is collapsing inward.

 

You've consistently shown multiple misconceptions regarding cosmology which are difficult in the least to address in this forum because it's ridiculously off topic. If you're serious about this subject then you should step over to the Astronomy and Cosmology forum and open a thread on cyclic universe models (or the topic of your choice).

 

As the misconception above is slightly related to space and time, I will address it. It is a common misconception to think the big bang is like an explosion of matter out into space like a supernova. This is not the case. The big bang is an expansion *of space*. This is addressed in most all introductory texts dealing with common misconceptions of big bang theory:

The Big Bang was not an explosion akin to the detonation of a nuclear weapon or the violent explosive throws of a supernova. These types of explosions occur within space-time.

 

The Big Bang on the other hand was an explosion of space-time itself. This means that the Big Bang cannot be an explosion at a single point that spews out matter from there (concentrically if you will). There are a number of different observations that support this scenario and we will look into them shortly.

 

Common misconceptions -- The Big Bang

 

 

I think it was Pyrotex who observed that this thread is a bungled up mess, and I volunteered that your consistent mangling of my meaning is a primary cause.... and I cited the most recent example at the time.

You first brought up cosmology in this thread—repeatedly. :)

 

But, yes, I agree it is a bungled up mess.

 

Again I ask you to get off my case, as you show no comprehension of my meaning intended in any given post, as above.

 

If you stopped assuming everyone is misunderstanding you and started assuming their replies are relevant to what you're talking about then this thread might just move forward ;)

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

My replies in context in bold:

 

You are, of course, deliberately distorting my points, and not at all providing an argument. Saying "it sounds religious," and saying "it doesn't cut the mustard" are not actual objections. Once again, you have reverted to "I assert it, so its correct." This is not how arguments are made and points debated.

I challenge all serious cosmologists to account for the origin of "everything there is **IF** it is not a perpetual cycle of "Bangs" and "Crunches." To simply assert that no one can know the origin simply ignores the question.

 

Also, you miss the point completely about the Higgs field, which is unrelated to creation out of nothing. The point of bringing up the Higgs field was to show that there are models and ontologies in which there is no void, merely a field of Higgsy stuff filling all space. This was related to the other, separate discussion about properties and a void.

It was not I who proposed that the Higgs field could be a model for a cosmology of something out of nothing. I simply pointed out the intrinsic absurdity of the assertion.

 

I assert my argument again, so you don't have to turn back the pages of the thread- if we follow back the chain of cause and effect, we are left with two options-

 

1. at some point there was an uncaused effect

2. the chain goes on forever in infinite regress.

 

Classically the claim is for an"uncaused cause" creating cosmos. This is exactly the same as saying "God is the Uncaused Cause/Creator Who created it all."... and anyway you slice it, it still ain't science.

#2 requires jumping out of the linear thinking paradigm, which is obviously beyond you. No beginning... no end... perpetual, eternal cycles.

 

These are the only two options. The first option contradicts cause and effect, the second option contradicts the increasing entropy observations. In this sense, both choices suck. However, both cause and effect and increasing entropy are based on induction, and may fail at some point.

Check my piece on entropy above. Works really well once you realize that nothing is created or destroyed but only changes form... and the "cosmic gravitational net" with the "missing matter" found will bring *it all* back to continue the cycle eternally.

 

You choose to believe that entropy fails somewhere, I choose cause and effect. I can make arguments as to why I think this is the better pick, but they will be aesthetics. Your ontology is NOT more logical.

 

It is once you get out of the "linear thinking" box and accept that there was no "beginning of time" when the universe popped out of that Magic Hat!"

 

Saying something over and over does not make it so.

Saying the cosmos came out of nothing doesn't make it so either.

 

Also, you ignored what I thought was the more interesting point in my post. I've reproduced it below

 

Modest's examples typically ignore what I'm saying and assert the accepted textbook explanation for the phenomena in question.

 

If you will put the argument in your own words, I will address it.

ichael

[Boof-head]

Going backwards...

Unfortunately, everything requires measurement. The question under A.E. is not whether we should use meters or seconds, but wether the measurements are always linear; or, always follow some curve; or sometimes follow some curve; in such a way that linear assumptions will lead to incorrect results.

Yes, if we didn't measure space and time there would be no information to record anywhere. This is the fundamental whatsit I was referring to earlier, or at least a version of it.

 

It implies that information is fundamental; except fundamentally we use units to measure it (space and time units) that we invented. We pulled them out of thin air, in actuality.

 

If this is not the case, there is a fundamental unit of time, and a fundamental unit of space as distinct measurements, just sitting around for us to use, so we wouldn't need to decide "what space or time are", it would be self-evident.

 

Since we do make this decision (every instant), Sherlock Holmes tells us "we do not know what space or time are", so logically, we do make arbitrary decisions in this regard (constantly). If not, there would be no decisions to make, no appearance of a flow of time, nothing to decide - no free will, no "existence" since no time to "do it" in.

 

Lightcones are just a representation; why rotate the monitor or a piece of paper, when you can rotate the reference?

I don't understand your beef with scientific measurements. If it ain't broke, do not try to fix it.

Sure, they're just representative of just your entire history in time and space, no biggie right?

I don't understand why you say you don't understand "my beef" with measurement. A lot of scientists have these "beefs" every day when they measure things - it's called accuracy. This is something quite dear to scientific minds, and something of a holy grail.

Nothing is arbitrary about scientifically chosen references. Chosing anything other than what we have would be arbitrary because it would defy reason--for example if we chose Neptune rotation for measuring time, instead of decay of an atom.

Everything is arbitrary about chosen references, scientific or prosaic. If we chose the earth's rotation instead of atomic decay, this would be arbitrary and completely irrelevant, except for something I mentioned - accuracy.

Therefore, until we built atomic clocks (during the period we used the earth's rotation as a reference) time was "less accurate", or at least measuring units of time lacked the accuracy it does now.

 

Can you tell me how long a second is, perhaps?

[NomDePlume]

Michael, I will show you once more how you are refusing to actually argue your point, rather just asserting obviousness.

 

I assert my argument again, so you don't have to turn back the pages of the thread- if we follow back the chain of cause and effect, we are left with two options-

 

1. at some point there was an uncaused effect

2. the chain goes on forever in infinite regress.

 

Classically the claim is for an"uncaused cause" creating cosmos. This is exactly the same as saying "God is the Uncaused Cause/Creator Who created it all."... and anyway you slice it, it still ain't science.

#2 requires jumping out of the linear thinking paradigm, which is obviously beyond you. No beginning... no end... perpetual, eternal cycles.

 

Notice now- you did not argue with my logic, you did not provide an argument of your own. Rather, what you did is equated my possibility 1. with religion (=bad) and equated possibility 2. with "jumping out of linear thinking" (=good). Neither of these address the meat, or the point of the argument.

 

I'm trying to suggest that neither 1. uncaused effect, nor 2. the chain goes on forever in infinite regress can be decided based on logic without induction.

 

To proceed, you must give a LOGICAL reason to choose one over the other (saying one is non-linear thinking is IS NOT A REASON TO CHOOSE ONE OVER THE OTHER).

 

I assert strongly that choosing whether to have thermodynamics fail over cause and effect is a question of personal aesthetics. It is not something that can be decided on logic alone.

 

I further assert that the above is moot- we have already agreed that a proper ontological model cannot contradict experimental data. Your ontology (as Comstock has shown), is incompatible with a constant speed of light, and hence we are arguing over spilt milk.

 

Michael- I have been very patient, and tried to lay out my claims clearly. If you will not begin to address the points instead of just characterizing anyone who doesn't agree with you as "incapable of getting it" I am going to stop talking to you, and suggest others do the same. Consider that you have accused every single person in this thread of not understanding you- why do you think that is?

 

As a word of advice on style and communication, always assume people you talk are brighter than you are, and work hard to convince them of your point. Don't really on personal authority to try to push a point across.

[Michael Mooney]

NomDePlume:

Notice now- you did not argue with my logic, you did not provide an argument of your own. Rather, what you did is equated my possibility 1. with religion (=bad) and equated possibility 2. with "jumping out of linear thinking" (=good). Neither of these address the meat, or the point of the argument.

 

Notice how you are avoiding answering the question... How does an "uncaused cause" differ from a belief in the magical appearance of the cosmos "out of nothing"... byt he "hand of a Creator?"

The argument against cosmos from nothing or from an uncaused cause is that such a belief is, frankly, stupid, absurd, unscientific and in total avoidance of the cosmological question of origin.

 

I'm trying to suggest that neither 1. uncaused effect, nor 2. the chain goes on forever in infinite regress can be decided based on logic without induction.

 

To proceed, you must give a LOGICAL reason to choose one over the other (saying one is non-linear thinking is IS NOT A REASON TO CHOOSE ONE OVER THE OTHER).

 

Ontologically, to say that it all came back from the last expansion through a gravitational reversal and implosion... over and over... is a possible explanation for where it all came from. What is the alternative? It all came from "who knows what?" Would you say that is sufficient for a theory of cosmological origin?

 

I assert strongly that choosing whether to have thermodynamics fail over cause and effect is a question of personal aesthetics. It is not something that can be decided on logic alone.

 

I further assert that the above is moot- we have already agreed that a proper ontological model cannot contradict experimental data. Your ontology (as Comstock has shown), is incompatible with a constant speed of light, and hence we are arguing over spilt milk.

The law of conservation says that nothing is created or destroyed. Do you agree? This means that there is no loss of anything, cosmically speaking. So the second law of thermodynamics, so clearly valid for "isolated systems" in which there is "space" outside the system for, say heat to escape into... making the isolated system "lose steam" ... entropy... is not valid for cosmos as a whole... in which no energy/matter is ultimately lost.

Can you even 'wrap your head around" this difference?

 

Michael- I have been very patient, and tried to lay out my claims clearly. If you will not begin to address the points instead of just characterizing anyone who doesn't agree with you as "incapable of getting it" I am going to stop talking to you, and suggest others do the same. Consider that you have accused every single person in this thread of not understanding you- why do you think that is?

 

I feel that I have been very patient with you as well. Your "patience with me" implies your superiority in understanding these issues... requiring patience to help me understand the Truth (as you see it.) I freely admit that I feel the same toward you.

 

I suggest you address my every point in this post point by point... as I have done regarding you.

As a word of advice on style and communication, always assume people you talk are brighter than you are, and work hard to convince them of your point. Don't really on personal authority to try to push a point across.

 

Much as I hate to appear arrogant yet again, I am and will remain radically honest and frankly do no hold humility to be a virtue. It's just a case of sour grapes when someone is in over their heads intellectually.

 

It would be totally disingenuous of me to " always assume people you talk are brighter than you are..." It is a fact that a 178 IQ (my WAIS) is one out of over ten million in rarity of occurrence. This fact alone means that the *probability* is that no one here is even close to smart enough to understand what I am saying. Just think about that for a moment before you and everyone else here get all steamed up over it yet again and just itching to crucify me for the scientific equivalent of blasphemy... intellectual arrogance. Guilty as charged. So what about the substance of my arguments?

 

":Something out of nothing?"

Malleable "spacetime" as an entity?

Space as emptiness without "properties?"... like shape, expandability...?

Infinite space. What would a boundary be? What beyond the boundary?

Time as... see all my arguments above... so then "what dilates?"

 

These questions are the "substance" of this *ontological inquiry* for those of you who have lost track of the thread subject.

 

Michael

[modest]

Michael, I don't see any specific arguments in your post above so I don't feel there's much to respond to. You don't seem to understand that big bang cosmology is built on the idea of expanding spacetime. It does not work as you wish to describe it (as matter expanding out into space). This is no doing of mine. Like I said, you'll see it explained in ALL introductory texts on the big bang.

 

If you want to accept big bang cosmology as you have done in this thread then you are accepting the foundation it is built on which is general relativity and the idea of expanding spacetime. You cannot properly blame me for explaining the theory to you. Any book or website will tell you the same.

 

If you wish to reject the idea that space can expand then you must necessarily object to theories built on that framework which includes big bang cosmology. None of that has anything to do with what ontology I will accept or not. Your entire previous post is one big ad hominem. If you can't present an argument for your position then that is no fault of the site moderators.

What Is Expansion, Anyway?

 

When some familiar object expands, such as a sprained ankle or the Roman Empire or a bomb, it gets bigger by expanding into the space around it. Ankles, empires and bombs have centers and edges. Outside the edges, there is room to expand into. The universe does not seem to have an edge or a center or an outside, so how can it expand?...

 

The expansion of our universe is much like the inflation of a balloon. The distances to remote galaxies are increasing. Astronomers casually say that distant galaxies are "receding" or "moving away" from us, but the galaxies are not traveling through space away from us. They are not fragments of a big bang bomb. Instead the space between the galaxies and us is expanding. Individual galaxies move around at random within clusters, but the clusters of galaxies are essentially at rest. The term "at rest" can be defined rigorously. The microwave background radiation fills the universe and defines a universal reference frame, analogous to the rubber of the balloon, with respect to which motion can be measured.

 

Misconceptions about the Big Bang -- March 2005 Scientific American Magazine

 

The expansion of the universe is one of the most fundamental concepts of modern science yet one of the most widely misunderstood.

• The key to avoiding the misunderstandings is not to take the term “big bang” too literally. The big bang was not a bomb that went off in the center of the universe and hurled matter outward into a preexisting void. Rather it was an explosion of space itself that happened everywhere, similar to the way the expansion of the surface of a balloon happens everywhere on the surface.
  
  
• This difference between the expansion of space and the expansion in space may seem subtle but has important consequences for the size of the universe, the rate at which galaxies move apart, the type of observations astronomers can make, and the nature of the accelerating expansion that the universe now seems to be undergoing.
  
  
• Strictly speaking, the big bang model has very little to say about the big bang itself. It describes what happened afterward.
  
  

 

Cosmic Confusion Overview

 

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

 

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to investigate why the above quotes and my insistence on their validity is true then you should start a thread in the Astronomy and Cosmology forum regarding that topic. You could do that or you could accept the many sources I've now given you.

 

Either way, if you continue to insist that the universe can expand in a big bang / big crunch cycle without the expansion of spacetime then you need to present a source backing up that claim. Doing so is a site rule.

 

~modest

[Boof-head]

It goes like this: spacetime is a product, a continuous result in time.

 

So spacetime = space + time

Then what is the sum? We are, or our experience is, c.f. Kant &c.

 

When you have a product, Boole tells you you can no longer select either original term; something is lost.

You can recover one or the other but not both, unless you copy them somewhere.

 

When measuring spaces we use time. Measuring time is 'complex' because we only have space to do it in and with, in the sense we use objects with spatial extent.

 

Newton, of course, thought the stars were connected to a fixed background, or rather connected together by gravity in a rigid 'timeless' lattice. We know the lattice is expanding, generally, which means: over large areas.

 

Small areas look Newtonian.

[NomDePlume]

Michael, this is your last chance to have an actual discussion with me- respond to the substance of my arguments, or I am leaving this. You have, for the third or fourth time in a row, failed to present actual arguments.

 

Notice how you are avoiding answering the question... How does an "uncaused cause" differ from a belief in the magical appearance of the cosmos "out of nothing"... byt he "hand of a Creator?"

 

Because its an irrelevant question. Just as the question "how is your cyclic cosmos different from the Hindu religion's cyclic cosmos?" Just because an ontology can be used by some religions doesn't make it wrong. Nor does it make it right- it has no bearing whatsoever.

 

The argument against cosmos from nothing or from an uncaused cause is that such a belief is, frankly, stupid, absurd, unscientific....

 

Then it should be easy to deal with it logically instead of yet another no-argument. "Its stupid, absurd," etc is NOT an argument, its a thinly veiled ad-hominem.

 

The law of conservation says that nothing is created or destroyed. Do you agree? This means that there is no loss of anything, cosmically speaking. So the second law of thermodynamics, so clearly valid for "isolated systems" in which there is "space" outside the system for, say heat to escape into... making the isolated system "lose steam" ... entropy... is not valid for cosmos as a whole... in which no energy/matter is ultimately lost.

 

It is my understanding that entropy is only tangentially related to energy and matter. And I know for a fact it applies to the whole universe.

 

The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy increases for closed system i.e. systems with nothing escaping or entering. If heat escapes, the system isn't closed, it will cool, and entropy will decrease.

 

Now, as I've said- whether we decide to keep the first law of thermodynamics (energy is always conserved) which implies an eternal universe. OR the second (entropy always increases) which implies a universe with a beginning is entirely aesthetics. When/if you actually agree with this statement we can begin discussing the reasons for aesthetic choices.

 

I feel that I have been very patient with you as well.

 

You have not- you haven't explained any of your points, haven't made actual arguments and you have insulted me fairly regularly. This is not being patient.

 

I suggest you address my every point in this post point by point... as I have done regarding you.

 

I try to capture themes rather than every point. It keeps the conversation from becoming unwieldy. I have made an exception for this post.

 

It would be totally disingenuous of me to " always assume people you talk are brighter than you are..." It is a fact that a 178 IQ (my WAIS) is one out of over ten million in rarity of occurrence. This fact alone means that the *probability* is that no one here is even close to smart enough to understand what I am saying.

 

No, it would be communication. If you assume your audience is too dumb to get it (which you have implied over and over again with nearly every person in this thread), then you aren't communicating. Do you see how this hinders getting your point across?

 

I will now be "radically honest" with you- I am unimpressed by claims of genius. If you are a genius, use your genius powers of persuasion to convince me by making a brilliant argument. I feel as if you are trying to set yourself up as an authority in order to convert the logical fallacy of "I assert it therefore its true" into an appeal to authority.

 

So what about the substance of my arguments?

 

Your main argument is that "I asserted it, therefore its true." You have repeatedly avoiding addressing any of the details of my logic, even when I have laid it out as clearly as I can.