MarkE

Edge of the universe split from A centre of mass of the Universe.

Recommended Posts

What about an edge surrounding the Universe, acting as a black hole edge? This would explain the accelerated expansion, because the closer a galaxy approaches this massive edge, the faster it will be attracted to it.

Edited by MarkE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MarkE said:

What about an edge surrounding the Universe, acting as a black hole edge. This would explain the accelerated expansion, because the closer a galaxy moves towards this massive edge, the stronger and faster it will be attracted towards it.

This was posted in mainstream Science and should be discussed as such.

Surely you should develop such hypotheses in Speculations?

(Where I'm sure there would be interest in discussion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, studiot said:

This was posted in mainstream Science and should be discussed as such.

Surely you should develop such hypotheses in Speculations?

(Where I'm sure there would be interest in discussion)

@geordief didn't join that discussion. But you're right, let's not speculate about that here.

Edited by MarkE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no natural candidate for what might cause what has been called dark energy but the current best guess is: the zero-point energy of the vacuum. One difficulty with this assumption is that the zero-point energy of the vacuum is extremely large compared to the observed cosmological constant. In GR, mass and energy are equivalent, because both produce a gravitational field, and therefore the hypothesised vacuum energy of quantum field theory should have led the Universe ripping itself to pieces. This obviously hasn't happened and this issue (the cosmological constant problem) is still a mystery in physics.

Could dark energy therefore not be energy at all, but merely an attraction of massive bodies towards the edge of the Universe, which acts like a huge SMBH, but inside out? I've always had a problem with the idea of an '"infinite"' Universe, with matter and energy everywhere, forever, how far you might go into the distance/past (because that would imply that the Universe has never started).

Edited by MarkE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you propose that this edge

 

1) Interacts with radiation?

2) Works with expansion - is it also expanding (and perhaps getting thinner) or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are ALL making assumptions about the shape of the universe, and assuming it has an edge, which may not be correct. It has now been shown in the lab that wormholes / extra dimensions exist.  https://www.sciencealert.com/magnetic-wormhole-that-connects-two-regions-of-space-has-been-created . These can connect  a point in space to every where else in space. The concept of space just existing in space time coordinates with nothing else is a bit old hat.  Having said that Einstein and co  predicted ER and EPR bridges over a 100 years ago, along with things like white holes, which could be the source of dark energy and the expansion of the universe. etc.  In a zero energy universe -ve energy + +ve energy = 0. This could be mass/energy + dark energy = 0 . or gravity + dark energy = 0(same thing) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MarkE said:

Could dark energy therefore not be energy at all, but merely an attraction of massive bodies towards the edge of the Universe, which acts like a huge SMBH, but inside out?

Sigh. (This idea comes up so regularly and is so wrong.)

Newton's Shell Theorem.

Or: Gravity doesn't work like that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, interested said:

It has now been shown in the lab that wormholes / extra dimensions exist.

No it hasn't. Maybe you should read the article you posted, instead of just the headline.

It is not really a wormhole (it just behaves in a similar way) and there are not extra dimensions: "This created the illusion that the magnetic field must be travelling through some kind of extra dimension."

8 hours ago, interested said:

These can connect  a point in space to every where else in space.

You have said this before. It obviously isn't true.

"A wormhole is effectively just a tunnel that connects two places in the Universe."

9 hours ago, interested said:

The concept of space just existing in space time coordinates with nothing else is a bit old hat.

Space is 3 of the dimensions of space-time, so I'm not sure what this means.

9 hours ago, interested said:

hite holes, which could be the source of dark energy

You keep saying this, too. I assume it is just one of those random things you have made up as you have never provided any evidence for it.

9 hours ago, interested said:

In a zero energy universe -ve energy + +ve energy = 0. This could be mass/energy + dark energy = 0

Nope. Dark energy has to be positive energy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 3:31 PM, studiot said:

How would you propose that this edge

1) Interacts with radiation?

2) Works with expansion - is it also expanding (and perhaps getting thinner) or what?

1) Just like the black hole information paradox, radiation becomes mass, "information" gets lost.

2) It will become more massive, not unlike the increasing Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. But if something like Hawking radiation would also occur is of course beyond my scope, but I assume that mass can be conversed into radiation to balance this natural process out. The famous "inflating balloon" analogy would be inside out by the way (instead of all galaxies in the Universe being located on an actual surface).

6 hours ago, Strange said:

Newton's Shell Theorem.

Or: Gravity doesn't work like that.

I guess you don't support any modified gravity theories?

Edited by MarkE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarkE said:

1) Just like the black hole information paradox, radiation becomes mass, "information" gets lost.

2) It will become more massive, not unlike the increasing Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. But if something like Hawking radiation would also occur is of course beyond my scope, but I assume that mass can be conversed into radiation to balance this natural process out. The famous "inflating balloon" analogy would be inside out by the way (instead of all galaxies in the Universe being located on an actual surface).

 

So where is all this radiation, that is presumably extra to any that we can already account for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MarkE said:

1) Just like the black hole information paradox, radiation becomes mass, "information" gets lost.

2) It will become more massive, not unlike the increasing Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. But if something like Hawking radiation would also occur is of course beyond my scope, but I assume that mass can be conversed into radiation to balance this natural process out. The famous "inflating balloon" analogy would be inside out by the way (instead of all galaxies in the Universe being located on an actual surface).

I guess you don't support any modified gravity theories?

A universe that is expanding outward via a Schwartzchild  will not be homogeneous or isotropic. Expanding outward is unto itself a preferred direction. Observational evidence does not support this.

MOND isn't currently well accepted as it cannot account for the same range of observational evidence that LCDM can. Mainly it cannot account for early large scale structure formation. It was this problem that led MOND to include a dark matter variation later on which defeated the purpose of MOND in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Strange said:

No it hasn't. Maybe you should read the article you posted, instead of just the headline.

Yes I recognised it was a magnetic shunt and regretted posting the link about 6 months before I posted it, when I first saw the claim. I should have referenced EPR and ER bridges and not complete crap, which I had been reading on another forum. 

 

12 hours ago, Strange said:

"A wormhole is effectively just a tunnel that connects two places in the Universe."

You keep claiming this, without ever backing up your claim.  Exotic energy is required to keep a worm hole open, this has the same characteristics as dark energy, ie it repels whereas gravity attracts. There is absolutely no mathematical or philosophical reason why a worm hole should connect two points/singularities in a universe except in science fiction.  You are trying to connect two singularities at opposite sides of the universe. An EPR allows quantum tunneling of particles , an ER is on a larger scale and allows flow from a singulrity to all of space time via an ER bridge requiring dark energy to keep it open to all of space time. (I mighty extend this idea to all particles/energy in the universe not just singularities, the math is terrible probably :) ) There is madness at the end of the tunnel  

12 hours ago, Strange said:

You have said this before. It obviously isn't true.

Yes it is, it is obviously correct.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Space is 3 of the dimensions of space-time, so I'm not sure what this means.

Space time is 4 dimensions, not 3  :) , EFE allow additional dimensions can be included.  The various string theories have many more dimensions. Einstein played with them view EPR and ER one month later. Einstein was not a dummy.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

You keep saying this, too. I assume it is just one of those random things you have made up as you have never provided any evidence for it.

Dark energy and the cosmologioal constant are fact  according to standard theories what are you referencing.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Nope. Dark energy has to be positive energy. 

What is +ve to one is negative to another, mathematically it is only a point of reference . If dark energy is +ve ,gravity is negative energy. and vice versa. In the end they are simply differences in potential energy.

What is classed as zero energy is a bit interesting at points in between dark energy and gravity. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

A universe that is expanding outward via a Schwartzchild  will not be homogeneous or isotropic. Expanding outward is unto itself a preferred direction. Observational evidence does not support this.

The Swarzchild black hole assumes mass that is not spinning, a primordial black hole is something else. Do you have an opinion ref what space time was before the expansion of space time as implied by Alan Guth or possibly the BB which I understand is now a little dated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, interested said:

You keep claiming this, without ever backing up your claim. 

I just quoted the scientist from your article.

But: "A wormhole can be visualized as a tunnel with two ends, each at separate points in spacetime" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole)

2 minutes ago, interested said:

Exotic energy is required to keep a worm hole open, this has the same characteristics as dark energy,

Nope.Dark energy is just energy, not "exotic" energy or matter.

2 minutes ago, interested said:

There is absolutely no mathematical or philosophical reason why a worm hole should connect two points/singularities in a universe except in science fiction.

It is, as you said, a result from the mathematics GR. (Whether or not it represents reality is another matter.)

4 minutes ago, interested said:

an ER is on a larger scale and allows flow from a singulrity to all of space time via an ER bridge requiring dark energy to keep it open to all of space time.

Please provide a citation for " from a singulrity to all of space time".

Please provide a citation for "requiring dark energy to keep it open to all of space time".

Otherwise I will have to conclude that this is just more stuff you are making up on the fly.

9 minutes ago, interested said:

Yes it is, it is obviously correct.

Then you will have no problem providing a reference for it?

10 minutes ago, interested said:

Einstein played with them view EPR and ER one month later. Einstein was not a dummy.

Einstein played with what?

11 minutes ago, interested said:

Dark energy and the cosmologioal constant are fact  according to standard theories what are you referencing.

But you keep claiming that white holes are the source of dark energy. Either provide a reference for this or admit it is more sh*t you have made up.

12 minutes ago, interested said:

What is +ve to one is negative to another, mathematically it is only a point of reference . If dark energy is +ve ,gravity is negative energy. and vice versa. In the end they are simply differences in potential energy.

I suppose that posting incomprehensible gibberish is one way of ending the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
Interested
  13 hours ago, Strange said:

Space is 3 of the dimensions of space-time, so I'm not sure what this means.

Space time is 4 dimensions, not 3  :) , EFE allow additional dimensions can be included.  The various string theories have many more dimensions. Einstein played with them view EPR and ER one month later. Einstein was not a dummy.

.

Try reading what Strange said a bit more slowly, then you might see the error in your reply.

By the way, Spacetime is not just any old unrestricted set of 4 axes.
It is subject a a restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about spinning, a Schwartzchild BH though doesn't exist that we have ever found know of any? Either way the directional components to gravity itself in a BH is anistropic itself which doesn't match observations. One day you might actually listen to what I have stated in your previous threads on this topic and try to actually understand the mathematics behind your claims instead of regurgitating the same poor claims based on older attempts prior to WMAP data.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, studiot said:

So where is all this radiation, that is presumably extra to any that we can already account for?

Could you explain your question a bit further please?

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

A universe that is expanding outward via a Schwartzchild  will not be homogeneous or isotropic. Expanding outward is unto itself a preferred direction. Observational evidence does not support this.

Why should this be the case? A black hole doesn't seem to have a preferred direction of attraction towards celestial bodies, so why would a black edge have a stronger gravitationally attraction in one particular direction of the Universe (causing this anisotropy)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Could you explain your question a bit further please?

 

I listed two quotes where you mention/introduce new radiation at this edge of the universe of yours and asked why we don't see it.

Note when I asked about the interaction of the radiation from within the universe with the edge, I was rather expecting a suggestion of reflection.

Does this help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarkE said:

Could you explain your question a bit further please?

Why should this be the case? A black hole doesn't seem to have a preferred direction of attraction towards celestial bodies, so why would a black edge have a stronger gravitationally attraction in one particular direction of the Universe (causing this anisotropy)?

Gravity always attracts hence a one directional force. A BH will always be attracted to nearby celestial objects. Here is the thing, whenever you have a continuous attractive force you get mass density distributions of a gradient. Hence the Poisson equations which describe the Newton limit to gravity is a gradient potential (a type of vector field). A field with no inherent directional components on average is a scalar field.

 Now how can this be detectable, the answer is via temperature. Under the gas laws, when you have a gradient field where every particle species is involved in particular. Which spacetime does, (lets use spacetime instead of gravity). Then you have a non uniform mass distribution, which has several effects. Higher mass density means higher temperature, it also means that light paths are also affects which we see as redshift in particular gravitational redshift in this instance.  This also causes distortions and is described via a curvature term under the FRW metric. This is literally what is being described by Universe curvature. It is the mean free path null geodesic of light that is being described as curved. Spacetime crvature caused by higher mass density is also curved and thus also causes distortions such as gravitational lensing.

 Now we have this handy object in space, the CMB. This object had a particular significance, it provided us via WMAP to seek those distortions to decide on a curvature k for the universe in general. This turned out to be significantly flat, so flat that two or more lightbeams in parallel will remain in parallel as they approach us. Positive curvature those beams will converge, negative curvature they will diverge.

 This is the supportive evidents that we are not under some gradient gravitational potential as well as these curvature terms also apply under GR (though care must be taken on the choice of metric signature lol -+++ or +++-. Evidents for temperature gradients is easy enough, as you approach a star for example the temperature rises, well this also occurs with an accretion disk hence the jets. This shows there is also a mass density gradient.

Recall the above mention of WMAP and you can add Planck to that list. Much of the BH universe models literally lost a huge popularity when that data was released not to say those models aren't still around today but they have significantly lost favor. It is incredibly difficult to justify a seemingly homogeneous and isotropic when you involve either a WH or a BH. Not when you consider that Schwartzchild BH's are incredibly unlikely. Thanks to conservation of angular momentum anytime a BH feeds, it gains rotational energy. The accretion jets themselves are a result of that rotation being applied.

 Well a rotating body in space imparts its rotation through tidal locking on other nearby particles causing them to orbit. this then imparts more particles to join in. This then also affects both redshift and temperature. A simplistic formula for the thermodynamics Pv=nRT. As the density increases so does the pressure and temperature.

So how does one maintain a homogeneous and isotropic universe inside or outside a massive BH or WH...? I've seem attempts some are seemingly plausible right up until you study how a BH feeds. It isn't continuous.... Its intermittent as material becomes available. Ths changes both rotation speed, as well as the amount of available mass. Hence should also change temperature and redshift.

See where I am coming from, we see literally no evidence that can remotely be identifiable to support a BH type universe model. Instead we see plenty of evidence that makes it further and further unlikely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Strange said:

Nope.Dark energy is just energy, not "exotic" energy or matter.

In order to keep a wormhole open, exotic matter or energy is required that repels ie it is the opposite of gravity. Dark energy repels it therefore  fits the requirement to maintain a wormhole.  Matter inside a wormhole would cause it to contract, out of existence, exotic matter(dark energy) keeps it open and allows it to expand.

Space expands and contracts like a wormhole migt do, due to gravity and exotic energy. Leaving me with the impression that we exist inside a wormhole , Over layered with space time,. I

In terms of a control system space appears to have developed from an unstable system which can be achieved by allowing +ve feedback, which could easily be achieved with an extra dimension.. 

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Please provide a citation for " from a singulrity to all of space time".

You put the idea in my head. A BH is the exact opposite of a WH connected by a wormhole.  

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Please provide a citation for "requiring dark energy to keep it open to all of space time".

LMGTFY http://www.andersoninstitute.com/wormholes.html yes that is not an answer to your question, but some of it is interesting :) Entering the throat of a worm hole in space time caused by a BH of sorts, mass less or otherwise and emerging from the other side seems a little difficult. You may just get stuck in the wormhole. never reaching the surface of the white hole.  Nikodem Popalaski has something to say on this matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Popławski but he may be getting carried away.

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

Who said anything about spinning

You did on the quantum fluctuation thread I started and you alluded to a none spinning mass less BH and gave me the Popalawski link, which put ideas in my head.  This may have sent me up the garden path :) Sorry BUT we might exist inside a mass less BH/WH combination being expanded by a wormhole, which appears as space time in our reference frame.  etc 

Edit Just reading down the response to mark E, I  might change my mind.:)

 

 

Edited by interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, interested said:

Dark energy repels

No it doesn't. Or, at least, not in the way you think. The reason that dark matter causes expansion is fairly complicated but if you could somehow "get" some dark and stick it in a wormhole, it would not act as exotic matter.

1 hour ago, interested said:

Space expands and contracts like a wormhole migt do, due to gravity and exotic energy. Leaving me with the impression that we exist inside a wormhole , Over layered with space time

Just no. You seem to have assembled bits and pieces you have read into a meaningless jumble without understanding them.

1 hour ago, interested said:

which can be achieved by allowing +ve feedback, which could easily be achieved with an extra dimension.. 

You are very fond of saying that almost everything can be "easily be achieved with an extra dimension" yet you never provide any support for this. If it were so easy, one imagines someone would have developed a model along these lines. The nearest is probably Kaluza-Klein theory, but that has been largely abandoned as not being very useful. 

1 hour ago, interested said:

You put the idea in my head.

I can't imagine how. It is very obviously nonsense.

Quote

 A BH is the exact opposite of a WH connected by a wormhole. 

That is one point (the singularity of the black hole) to one other point (the singularity of a white hole). NOT "all of space".

And also note that there is no reason to think that singularities, white holes or wormholes exist (and good reasons to think they don't).

1 hour ago, interested said:

LMGTFY http://www.andersoninstitute.com/wormholes.html yes that is not an answer to your question

Indeed it isn't. In fact, it (like everything else) contradicts almost all your claims.

1 hour ago, interested said:

Sorry BUT we might exist inside a mass less BH/WH combination being expanded by a wormhole, which appears as space time in our reference frame. 

Please stop making up this bollocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, interested said:

In order to keep a wormhole open, exotic matter or energy is required that repels ie it is the opposite of gravity. Dark energy repels it therefore  fits the requirement to maintain a wormhole.  Matter inside a wormhole would cause it to contract, out of existence, exotic matter(dark energy) keeps it open and allows it to expand.

Space expands and contracts like a wormhole migt do, due to gravity and exotic energy. Leaving me with the impression that we exist inside a wormhole , Over layered with space time,. I

In terms of a control system space appears to have developed from an unstable system which can be achieved by allowing +ve feedback, which could easily be achieved with an extra dimension.. 

You put the idea in my head. A BH is the exact opposite of a WH connected by a wormhole.  

LMGTFY http://www.andersoninstitute.com/wormholes.html yes that is not an answer to your question, but some of it is interesting :) Entering the throat of a worm hole in space time caused by a BH of sorts, mass less or otherwise and emerging from the other side seems a little difficult. You may just get stuck in the wormhole. never reaching the surface of the white hole.  Nikodem Popalaski has something to say on this matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Popławski but he may be getting carried away.

You did on the quantum fluctuation thread I started and you alluded to a none spinning mass less BH and gave me the Popalawski link, which put ideas in my head.  This may have sent me up the garden path :) Sorry BUT we might exist inside a mass less BH/WH combination being expanded by a wormhole, which appears as space time in our reference frame.  etc 

Edit Just reading down the response to mark E, I  might change my mind.:)

 

 

I also recaall during that thread I had also mentioned the unlikelyhood that the universe exists I a BH or WH with much the same reasons I posted here. I gave you the info on Poplowskii so you can study the problem and make an informed opinion for yourself. Poplowskii ran into several of the problems I mentioned above. He took a considerable effort to try and address these problems. However he also couldn't cover early large scale structure formation and as more and more data came in from Planck he has slowed down much of his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mordred You're mentioning the CMBR, but this a smal anisotropy, suggesting that galaxies are indeed attracted to the edge of the Universe equally in all directions, exactly what you would expect if the gravitational attraction of an edge behaves like a black hole.

Why do you think that, to make statements about what's beyond the Universe, we need to only look at our observable Universe? The Universe wouldn't be able to keep on expanding if it's already infinite. Take something like expanding metal, like a cube of aluminium. It has a surface area which forms a border for the matter contained inside. So the Universe must have, far far away from where we are, a border for all the matter and energy it contains. Why? Simply because if the Universe has no border, then what lies beyond all the matter in the Universe? Nothing? Well, than that’s the border I’m talking about. That's deductive reasoning, rather than reasoning only by means of empirical observations. How could there be no border/edge?

The question is how matter and energy behaves close to that border, and how it is attracted or repulsed by it. So why would anyone introduce a new kind of energy, instead of assuming that it behaves like all other large-scale cosmic attractive forces: SMBHs? Since gravity is the smallest force in the small quantum microcosm, but the largest force in the macrocosm, it seems plausible that in even larger scales gravity should be an even more and more attractive force, that's why I'm considering a black edge (meaning a border/edge that has an attractive force just like a BH), explaining why we're being ripped a part more strongly every day, because all galaxies are moving towards it (we call dark "energy"). Is this answering your questioning about the interaction of the radiation from within the Universe with the edge, @studiot?

Astronomers have observed about 1,000 galaxies with redshifts larger than 1.5. That is, they have observed about 1,000 objects receding from us faster than the speed of light, because the Hubble distance is not a constant, it's in fact increasing (infinitely?). The radiation of the cosmic microwave background has traveled even farther and has a redshift of about 1,000. When the hot plasma of the early universe emitted the radiation we now see, it was receding from our location at about 50 times the speed of light. Do I understand this? No I don't. Do you?

My main point remains that the Universe has to have a border or edge somehow. Because if not, then what lies beyond the matter and energy of our Universe?

Edited by MarkE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MarkE said:

@Mordred You're mentioning the CMBR, but this a smal anisotropy, suggesting that galaxies are indeed attracted to the edge of the Universe equally in all directions, exactly what you would expect if the gravitational attraction of an edge behaves like a black hole.

Why does it suggest that?

Why would expect that? If there is an edge, why would you be equally attracted to one that is close to you as to one that is very far away?

13 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Why do you think that, to make statements about what's beyond the Universe, we need to only look at our observable Universe? The Universe wouldn't be able to keep on expanding if it's already infinite.

Why not? I can look at the infinity of numbers between 1 and 2, and then expand my scope and look at the numbers between 1 and 3. 

13 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Take something like expanding metal, like a cube of aluminium. It has a surface area which forms a border for the matter contained inside. So the Universe must have, far far away from where we are, a border for all the matter and energy it contains. Why? Simply because if the Universe has no border, then what lies beyond all the matter in the Universe? Nothing? Well, than that’s the border I’m talking about. That's deductive reasoning, rather than reasoning only by means of empirical observations. How could there be no border/edge?

Why is it reasonable to think there is something "outside" of the universe?

13 minutes ago, MarkE said:

 My main point remains that the Universe has to have a border or edge somehow. Because if not, then what lies beyond the matter and energy of our Universe?

Remove the second unsupported assertion and the first is far less compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarkE said:

My main point remains that the Universe has to have a border or edge somehow. Because if not, then what lies beyond the matter and energy of our Universe?

This looks like outdated philosophy, namely rationalism. Rationalism is the idea that one can derive how the world is, based on thought alone. This idea was already refuted by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of pure reason in 1788. (Just reflect for a moment what Kant could have meant with that title...).

Your idea is discussed in the chapter called The antinomy of pure reason, namely that of boundaries of (time and) space. Kant proofs both "The world has a beginning in time, and in space it is also enclosed in boundaries", as its opposite "The world has no beginning and no bounds in space, but is infinite with regard to both time and space", showing that by reason alone it is impossible to know what is true.

Kant tried to overcome the tension between pure empiricism and pure rationalism. Both on itself do not lead to any justified truths. In modern day speak: in science we need theory building and observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eise said:

Your idea is discussed in the chapter called The antinomy of pure reason, namely that of boundaries of (time and) space. Kant proofs both "The world has a beginning in time, and in space it is also enclosed in boundaries", as its opposite "The world has no beginning and no bounds in space, but is infinite with regard to both time and space", showing that by reason alone it is impossible to know what is true.

We already know that the first statement is true, the Universe started about 14 billion years ago. Therefore the second statement can't be true. Do you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now