johan01

This i understand.

I you say space is expanding , are the galaxies stretching or expanding as well, since they occupy space as well.

Hi All

its been a while since i thought about this so i need some insight.Here goes.

If the furthest galaxies are receeding at nearly the speed of light, then for them we are receeding at the same speed. True or false?

So then every body in space is actually moving APART " close to the speed of light " relative to any other body , PROVIDED IT IS FAR FAR AWAY"

For me its strange that , this law " hubble's law " , that implies dark matter/energy, has no inverse law or observations.

Why are there no galaxies moving toward each other at close to the speed of light. " In our Local near proximity" or even "far proximity" for that matter.

Or has this been observed , if so how fast are they approching eachother at.

Just another stupid thought.

Further more , are all galaxies , say 14 billion light years from our galaxy , moving away from US at the same speed , how constant is this recession.

Are all galaxies at 7 billion light years away also moving away from us at a constant velocity.

how accurate are all these redshift measurments.

Could gravitational lensing and "tired light theories " not play a part.

My Definition

Time is a manifestation , of energy being transferred , from one point in the universe to the other.The speed at which this transfer occurs relative to the observer , determines the magnitude of the time dialation( not sure about the spelling here) relative to the observer.

okay im beginning to get the picture, but why axiom (iii) is axiom (iv) not the same thing?

QUESTION

how can one see beams moving ?

if i shine avery powerful beam into direction x ( deep space) .

and an observer perpendicular to me is at point y .

would he see the beam propergating outward to x .

I dont see how this is possible, unless there where atoms in the beams path reflecting them my way.

But what if there were no atoms to reflect the beam? You would not see it , correct?

Has there been any experiment done , where the propergating , beam

has been captured . Say on video , like a beam reflecting back from the moon for instance?

Originally Posted by johan01

everything exists because I EXIST. because IF I DID NOT EXIST, everything around me would not exist for me.

That's quite the claim.

Originally Posted by johan01

Is this not The " secret" ?.

Well you should know, I thought everything existed, because you exist.

12-10-2008 05:07 AM

the point here is , it does not only hold for me , but for all concious beings

if you do not exist , you are nothing.

this leads to another question , the recipricol.

if i get into my space ship and travel to deep isolated space . and then i jump out.

will i be torn apart due to , near zero vaccuum?

I still cannot see the light.

is there a simple example of a " consistent" " complete" mathematical system.

if i throw some numbers and symbols randomly onto a peice of paper

am i making a statment that is false proving that the mathematical system is complete.

i think the definitions of "consistent" and "complete" are confusing for me wrt a mathematical system.

Q1

are binary numbers "consistent" -- i dont know, consistent with what?

Q2

are binary numbers "complete"-- i dont know, why would they not be?

Q3

are binary numbers considered as a mathematical system - i think so.

How does one come to an incompleteness theorem - how do you even prove such a thing?

"

Originally Posted by johan01

It comes back to my assumption. Is there any volume in the universe where there is no heat, photon, particle or information.

There isn't. First there is background radiation -- the cosmic background radiation, or the radiation from any box that is placed around it (which there will be, unless you can get a box at 0 Kelvin which is impossible). Then there are virtual particles, though I don't know if those are related to the background radiation or intrinsic to space itself.

And even if there were totally empty space, you could observe things on either side of the empty space to tell if it is expanding.

12-10-2008 02:24 AM

"

my reasoning

when we say the space between objects. and objects can be particles, photons or whatever form of energy that we can observe. or measure .

then if we say that there is no place in the universe where there is no photon (CBR) . see above

how can we have the space between the photons. to me it sounds like a contradiction.I mean how big is a photon and how much space does it require.

Can anybody help

i have been reading up on goedels incompleteness theorem, and still am not able to grasp its true meaning and implication.

Is there somewhere , where i can try and understand it , in its simplest form with a simple example or application.

regards

if the universe is expanding , surely all the laws onf conservation are violated,

"beginning"- singularity

"expansion into nothing"

open universe "the big rip"

how can we assume any of these laws of the universe if these create the paradoxes we try to answer.

Surely these laws are man made and have manifested themselves so that we can explain our small little insignificant part of the universe , with reasonable agreement amongst us.

either they are universal or they are not. So if matter or space came from the singularity , how can there be a conservation of anything or the big bang could not have happened as we believe.

your views ?

"just the space between objects expands"

is there space between objects?

would it be true to say that at every point between two objects/ matter/ energy / photons. is another point with an "object/ matter/ energy / photon". and this is true for all the universe as we know , except mabey for the singularity at the black hole.

like between any 2 rational numbers that are different , there exists another rational number.

thank you ...your response is simple yet logical and i happen to agree with your views.

so as i understand , measuring temprature is proportional to measuring motion in molexules in a closed system

pv = nrt

but heat " transfer of energy"

can pure energy exist in any other form other than photons or inside " nuclei " of atoms or rather molecules i.e nuclei and electrons

clearly im no mathematician , i mean any number that you can think of.

can anybody advise

I have not thought about heat and its definition in quite a while.

does heat exist independantly of matter and radiation or are these "mediums" required to transport " joules" as we know them.

The reason im asking , is that i cannot think of any instance where heat is not measured by transporting photons or particles from one physical state to another.

IS THIS CORRECT?

"And even if there were totally empty space, you could observe things on either side of the empty space to tell if it is expanding. "

to observe on either side of empty space , would not tell you if its expanding , the energy you are observing on either side could be moving apart, ie different coordinates to where they origionally where, but the space could be exactly the same as it was before.

the point that i was trying to make is , that space , no matter how far or dark it looks. cannot be empty of energy, not even 1 cube of planck space. because it would not exist.

and at the event horizon of a black hole .. space has a boundry , like the edge of our universe, but only here it has been torn apart by high energy densities. where at the edge of our universe it is an inverse process.

what i mean is ,

1.what is the most complete set of numbers and the axioms that define them.

2. Does this set of numbers apply anywhere in the universe?

i am trying to establish why mathematics evolved as it did on earth , and could it be different in other civilizations , because of their enviroment.

absolutly ... it is an energy resevoir where all other energy/matter jumps in and out from when they are unstable and isolated.

thanks ... sorry for the late response

i find this utterly facinating,

I hated discrete maths as a student , simply because there were to many symbols that i could not absorb and i could not grasp the logic or truth.

the above definitions just seem to simple to define classical mathematics.

I have a question

do you think these "natural" numbers we now have understood ,formed in earlier civilizations because of our own set of circumstances i.e social , economic and conciousness .

If so then after thinking about these numbers for a long time we found that this particular number set can be used by us to explain all the marvels that we extract from mathematics in our particular planet.

OR

Are there other number sets much more complicated that we will only develop in the future , depending on our enviroment.

If there are many number sets , irrational , imaginary etc .

Then is there one that encorporates all these sets as subsets of the " complete set" which is goverened by the " golden formula set". the ultimate definition of all mathematics. Anywhere in the universe.

interesting thread , ive been talking on the expanding universe , with similair thought process .

I choose 1 .

I EXIST , nothing is the absense of me. And because i exist , nothing does not exist.

I suppose one could take it further .. everything exists because I EXIST. because IF I DID NOT EXIST, everything around me would not exist for me.

Is this not The " secret" ?.

hi martin

I admit , i find it hard to exercise your view on space geometry and relationships as only that. Mabey that is all that it is , after all that is said and done.

But I have thought about space, time and matter for far to long , for it only to be a geometric relationship for me. It is a quest for truth , and all the rest is "stamp collecting".

can i now entertain you with an exercise .

"Imagine" a volume of empty space ( pure vaccum) existing without , no form of energy occupying that " space" , i.e no photons , no exotice particles , "no dark energy" whatsoever and at what temprature? Well we must assume 0 kelvin not so?

This might sound like a contradiction.

Thats because it is !

But then let us assume it does occur in our universe ,and can be isolated by coordinates , whether in deep space or in a lab for that matter . Because that is our understanding of a vaccuum to date , and supposedly this volume of coordinates are " expanding" acoording to the CBR and redshift data accumalated .

this small vaccum would mean ther is absolutely no event ( time) occuring in this isolated volume . It is eventless , massless , heatless.

But heres the point , IT IS THERE, according to us . If I walk into this " geometry" of volume , IT EXISTS around me . And tomorrow there is a bigger space ," i can now go to two places where there was only one yesterday" , i can move to coordinates where i was not yesterday.

But wait , nothing has changed since yesterday! No event has occured since yesterday in my massless , heatless , energyless volume of "coordinates" NOTHING OCCURED.

This is the paradox to me! Something is wrong.

Our definition of vaccum is meaningless, just a relationship to "nothing".

Our assumption of " empty space" existing without some form heat, energy/ matter is implausable ,and time could not progress there without change there.

Hence we might as well say that volume of coordinates does not exist, since how can you box "nothing" into coordinates. if you cannot experience it.

Our definition of empty space is flawed.

just like the conservation of mass/energy . Space cannot exist alone, of coursre then it will rip you up , like our infamous big rip theory..

One cannot have space without a purpose.It is not the carrier of the particle (whether it be a photon, or Higgs boson) it is the creator of the particle.

It comes back to my assumption. Is there any volume in the universe where there is no

heat, photon, particle or information. If there is and there may be. But then it is not space at all , it does not have a coordinate. it is like a hole in our ozone.

Or for a better analogy a black hole. Where space has broken down beyond the plank relm . Whithin that event horizon there is no energy , matter or space.

My analogy of a black hole is my clue to space quantization and the destruction of space .

My initial post

" if space can be created , can it be destroyed" - i do believe so , and this is why i say so.

imagine all the universe is a sphere of solid concrete.Full of energy and matter that likes to attract eachother. But energy can only condense to a certian quantum space and then it must "leave" since the energy itself is changing the coarsness of this space quantization around itself and even within itself , the very coordinate in space that energy is occupying is quantized to a different energy level.

When this condensation of energy becomes large the space "tears". The result is Now within our concrete sphere we have an "air bubble" , just like the outside of the sphere - which relates to "no more space there" , in the bubble that is.

As energy approaches this bubble , it starts to condense due to the space quantization levels for energy occupying it , these quanta get smaller .Until the energy eventually has to leave in the form of Gamma /Xrays and other exotic particles, at very high energies, since it cannot exist in these space quantization levels.

Similair to the particle in a box analogy. So as energy approaches the event horizon at the black hole , space becomes less and less , so it has to leave.

Because at this horizon there is no more space at all , just a bubble in our concrete universe.

All this is in my imagination , and now you may ask why can i not sleep!

"Relationships cannot be created or destroyed or expand or contract, they simply are, as long as the objects are there to be related, and they change."

i disagree with this statment , i would like to ask you a question .

There are two approaches to create relationships , First observe then satisfy the observation.

Or theorize then try and prove ( observe) your theory.

One is to understand and be in touch with the observable universe using our imagination , and derive a relationship to explain what we are experiencing . These relationships are obviously always improving as we go. But they are never always there etched in stone.

Einstein proved that the universe was expanding , but he could not observe this , so he introduced the cosmological constant to satisfy the observed emperical data of the day.

Hubble observed this but did not have the imagination to explain it with a relationship.

I say question what is fact today , the theorems that are etched in stone , are not forever. Like you said so long as everything is changing , nothing is certian.

All our paradoxes , are due to incomplete theory. There is a theory of everything but

we will never measure it, until we have experienced it.

If photons are massless , why are they drawn into black holes , and why do they show symtoms of energy loss during long stretches of travel across our great voids of space.

if C is the upper limit of velocity, why does it take so long to move information across a galaxy , never mind between galaxies.

There may be more exotic lighter particles , we dont know , but if it takes 14 billion years to establish that the universe is expanding , mabey we are the goldfish looking at world through our bowl , which is distorting all those tired photons that have been gravitationally "lensed" out of context.

And now we have all these exotic theorems that "do" preditc what we observe, but do not explain what is really happening.

As einstein said " imagination is more important than knowledge". Often I ask a child

what their definition of time, space or matter is , and you know their simple explanations are more meaningful than the pillars and theorems , explaining our 4 fundamental forces , that we are so rigorously trying to quantize

I believe einstein was once asked how he came about his great e= mc^2.

And his answer was , for many years he tried to imagine what you would experience if you hitched a ride on a moving photon.

He said he eventually came to the conclusion that time would stop. What a great deduction from his understanding of his observations.Eventually after a long time i agreed with this, because i experienced his reasoning. and his great theorems that he could derive from imagination and observation. well that is what made him so valuable to the human race.

I say there are lighter particles than photons , yet to be discovered , and the upper limits of velocity , will yet again be challenged , And when these velocities are realized , " eureuka" 14 billion light "years" will be meaningless , and the definition of an "expanding" universe with respect to our so called "empty space" will yet again change when time in its purest form is better understood.

dh

"Mathematical theorems start from a set of axioms (i.e., assumptions) and proceed to prove the theorem via a set of rules of deduction/induction"

i see your point here ...

i was thinking in terms of pure mathematics ... for example one cannot prove 0 < 1 , we use this assumption though .

good point MR Skeptic

Off the subject a bit ... on photons , do you believe that photons could have a mass , and we have still not being able to measure it yet.

Because if this is the case , then light would not be the upper limit velocity at which information could be transmitted.