Infinity Hypothesis

[Mordred]

I stated I would find some references to ideal gas law usages in Cosmology applications. This coverage is decent without excessive complexity.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CCMQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.damtp.cam.ac.uk%2Fresearch%2Fgr%2Fmembers%2Fgibbons%2FSPCnotes.pdf&rct=j&q=ideal%20gas%20law%20cosmology%20pdf&ei=MqW4VKjUB8vYoATEw4DgAw&usg=AFQjCNGPVyfYvYkuu5dntQ9P4dnaJ-HArQ&sig2=2g3SCjSAu_n5CaiVEYQIGA

 

If you look under the textbook style articles under the link in my signature. There is further applicable articles. One I posted earlier. The article I just posted is easier to relate to though.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Mordred

[swansont]

 

okay, let me try a little better analogy.

 

imagine a ball inside an inflated balloon, bouncing back and forth. As the balloon deflates, the frequency of the ball rises. The more it deflates, the higher the frequency, the faster the time. Eventually the balloon and the ball will stop, and time ends. No motion, no energy. That is where we are contracting to. But a piece of matter has many many layers, and they are extremely far apart proportionately.

 

Our perception of the universe is along the outside of the balloon wall. That defines our time, and distance in our universal perspective.

 

it's just an analogy.

 

Still not seeing it. We perceive the universe as the balloon wall? That's a surface, and the universe has 3 spatial dimensions. What does the ball represent? Any you say that matter has many layers — where are they in your analogy?

[Strange]

Our perception of the universe is along the outside of the balloon wall. That defines our time, and distance in our universal perspective.

 

This is very similar to the balloon analogy sometimes used to explain cosmology. Your balloon is deflating, therefore distances should be getting smaller. That is not what we observe.

 

it's just an analogy.

 

Even as an analogy, it seems to be contradicted by evidence.

[andreasjva]

 

Because I have been taking a stance that an empty universe possesses no value,

 

I had a better definition written in a later post that might help clear up the confusion. It's a fairly long post so it's easy to spot. In principle though, I would not entirely disagree with your objection. The potential for a universe does exist in an empty universe though, for the simple fact that we exist. An empty universe itself is only a potential state in my view. In other words, it's not real. What more or less keeps this universe going is its potential not to exist. The universe seems to fight against being an absolute state (1) or nothing (0). Also keep in mind, this is more of a mutiuniversal point of view, although I don't like exceeding the thoughts beyond our own. Too complicated imaginatively speaking, and entirely beyond any chance of observing it. What's important is ours. We are more or less a virtual universe within the totality of the universe, so we can exist or not exist. The force that created us is perpetual expansion, and that force reacts with a counter force, contraction. or gravity as we call it. It is probably driven by nothing, literally, or absolute 0, which surrounds the totality of the universe. There is an infinite amount of nothing to draw on, so the total universe just keeps expanding into it. There is no definable beginning to the process, and no foreseeable end. We do have a beginning, and end, because we are merely a virtual state.

 

I hope this helps you understand my viewpoint better.

 

This is very similar to the balloon analogy sometimes used to explain cosmology. Your balloon is deflating, therefore distances should be getting smaller. That is not what we observe.

 

Isn't that the difficult part to accept in relativity? You can't necessarily trust what you observe, because everything is relative to something else. Is it so hard to consider our scale is nothing more than a relative perspective? We use relative objects to analyze relative things, which confirms the illusion that everything is static, when in fact the opposite may be the underlying reality in which we live. If you didn't have that relative static perspective, the universe would be somewhat incomprehensible. I am simply following the reasoning of relativity. Science assumes those weights they have sitting in a vault possess a static value. I don't think anyone has explored the other possibility. In fact, everything that Einstein has taught should lead us to question it. How do we know for certain? All matter is more likely just empty vacuum anyway. It's not real in a physical sense. Matter itself is merely motion. It's not like we could throw a bunch of atoms in a mortar and pestle, and grind it up into an energy powder. Energy isn't a physical substance. Science assumes each piece of matter comes equipped with a lifetime battery more or less, and that battery was energized at the big bang. Isn't that more or less the idea science assumes in the standard model? And they want to know where the mass comes from. Mass is relative.

 

it would definitely be a hard perspective to accept, and equally as difficult to prove.

 

 

Your balloon is deflating, therefore distances should be getting smaller.

 

That all hinges on whether or not the relative items we use to take the measurements is static. I suggest everything is relative, including the scale of the universe. A billion years ago, our atoms could have quite possibly been the size of basket balls or even planets in comparison to today's substance. Can you tell me with absolute certainty this isn't the truth? Of course not.

Edited January 16, 2015 by andreasjva

[Strange]

 

Isn't that the difficult part to accept in relativity? You can't necessarily trust what you observe, because everything is relative to something else.

 

The fact that some things (not everything) are relative does not make them hard to measure. If anything, it makes them easier. If you want to know how fast your car is going, the only thing that matters is its speed relative to the road; you don't care about the Earth's movement around the Sun, the Sun's orbit around the galaxy, etc.

 

A billion years ago, our atoms could have quite possibly been the size of basket balls or even planets in comparison to today's substance. Can you tell me with absolute certainty this isn't the truth? Of course not.

 

 

You can, of course, describe expanding space in terms of shrinking matter instead. This alternative choice of coordinates doesn't change anything, just the way you describe it. It adds complexity (such as the speed of light no longer being constant) and most people find it less intuitive. But when you have mastered GR you will be able to publish any number of articles reanalysing things in these terms. If anyone cares.

[andreasjva]

 

Still not seeing it.

 

Well, that's the best I can do for now, so you'll have to live with it. Sorry. You'll either get what I'm trying to say or you won't.

 

You can, of course, describe expanding space in terms of shrinking matter instead.

 

And that is precisely what I'm doing.

 

 

If anyone cares.

 

That's a two way street. Some people head north, and others south. Doesn't really concern me a whole lot, because I like the direction I'm headed.

 

But when you have mastered GR you will be able to publish any number of articles reanalysing things in these terms.

 

And once science masters GR, one photon at a time, maybe they'll figure out what it all means, and clue us in.

Edited January 16, 2015 by andreasjva

[Strange]

And that is precisely what I'm doing.

 

It is not "precisely" what you are doing. You are strggling to articulate some half-formed notions by way of confusing analogies. Those who understand the maths and science have done it precisely (you can find papers describing cosmology in these terms).

[andreasjva]

 

The fact that some things (not everything) are relative does not make them hard to measure. If anything, it makes them easier. If you want to know how fast your car is going, the only thing that matters is its speed relative to the road; you don't care about the Earth's movement around the Sun, the Sun's orbit around the galaxy, etc.

 

Isn't that what it's all about? The closer you are to the things that surround you, the more relative (and relevant) they become to you. As I said, reality would be incomprehensible without a relative perspective. The further away something is the less relevant it is to your perspective and existence. That's a pretty good thing when considering the sun. It doesn't look all that big from where we're sitting. Actually, it's exactly where it needs to be.

[Strange]

 

Isn't that what it's all about? The closer you are to the things that surround you, the more relative (and relevant) they become to you. As I said, reality would be incomprehensible without a relative perspective. The further away something is the less relevant it is to your perspective and existence. That's a pretty good thing when considering the sun. It doesn't look all that big from where we're sitting. Actually, it's exactly where it needs to be.

 

That is more a matter of significance. For example, you don't need to worry about the moon's gravity when weighing ingredients for a cake, but you do when calculating tides. The relative effects are the same in both cases but in one they are insignificant.

 

 

All matter is more likely just empty vacuum anyway. It's not real in a physical sense.

 

So when you slam your finger in the car door, it doesn't hurt because it isn't physical?

 

 

Science assumes each piece of matter comes equipped with a lifetime battery more or less, and that battery was energized at the big bang.

 

Does it? Where do you get that from?

 

 

Mass is relative.

 

It doesn't seem to be. Do you have any evidence for that claim? (I assume we are talking about real mass, i.e. rest mass.)

[andreasjva]

 

It is not "precisely" what you are doing.

 

It is precisely what I am doing. Whether or not someone reading this understands it precisely is another matter. Partially my fault I suppose, but it's difficult to explain.

 

That is more a matter of significance. For example, you don't need to worry about the moon's gravity when weighing ingredients for a cake, but you do when calculating tides. The relative effects are the same in both cases but in one they are insignificant.

 

Changing adjective doesn't change the meaning. Things that are further away have less relevance, or are less relative to us. I didn't say no relevance. Of course the moon has an impact on us.

 

So when you slam your finger in the car door, it doesn't hurt because it isn't physical?

 

Pain is an illusion. It's a series of electtrochemical reactions that signals your brain through your nervous system to respond with a definition of pain.

[Strange]

 

It is precisely what I am doing. Whether or not someone reading this understands it precisely is another matter. Partially my fault I suppose, but it's difficult to explain.

 

You are not doing it precisely because you are doing it in words and by way of analogy. There is no way that can be precise.

 

Changing adjective doesn't change the meaning. Things that are further away have less relevance, or are less relative to us. I didn't say no relevance. Of course the moon has an impact on us.

 

I think they have very different meanings.

 

For example, velocity is always relative. But it may or may not be significant; for example, when calculating the speed at which your car is moving relative to the Earth, then tectonic movements are probably insignificant. In other contexts (the famous CERN OPERA neutrino experiemtn, for example) those movements might be significant.

 

Mass, on the other hand is not relative, but a given mass may be significant or not (independent of whether it is large or small).

Edited January 16, 2015 by Strange

[Mordred]

Couple of points first for clarity whether you wish to define expansion as increase in volume or shrinking matter is fine. Personally don't agree with the latter but that's unimportant.

 

We need to clarify both model systems do not require an outside to our universe as both methods work for both finite and infinite models.

 

As of yet we can only conjectured if the universe is finite or infinite. When you see the term universe on literature this is describing our observable portion which is also the region of shared causality. In the infinite or finite universe case the shared causality is an important factor.

 

For example if you had some influence outside our observable universe its influence is limitted by c. So it cannot immediately influence the universe everywhere at the same time.

 

Neither information or influence can travel faster than c.

 

As a result modelling a system as a finite defined by causality is a perfectly acceptable methodology.

 

Conjectures of what is outside what we can measure is highly controversial and conjectural. In many ways more philosophy than science.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

 

Things that are further away have less relevance, or are less relative to us.

 

Clear up this misunderstanding and I think you'll be better off. Relevant and relative are completely different in this context. Take the furthest away "thing" you can think of, and measure its motion relative to Earth. This is the measurement I want, so how does its distance from me decrease the relevance of what I want to know? It really doesn't, does it?

[andreasjva]

Strange, you're just playing word games at this point.

 

You saying something is less significant, and me saying something is less relative is literally the exact same statement worded differently.

 

Me saying it's precisely what I'm doing is precisely what I'm saying I'm doing. Am I doing it with precision? NO.

 

Don't be difficult.

Edited January 16, 2015 by andreasjva

[Strange]

Strange, you're just playing word games at this point.

 

You saying something is less significant, and me saying something is less relative is literally the exact same statement worded differently.

 

Sorry, but I think the concept of "significance" is a very important one to grasp. It is completely unconnected to magnitude or to whether something is relative or not. That is all I am trying to explain.

 

A value may be very large or very small in absolute terms.

It may be very large or very small relative to you.

It may be an absolute value or may only be defined relative to something else.

It may be significant or not significant.

 

Any given measurement could be any combination of the above.

[Phi for All]

Strange, you're just playing word games at this point.

 

You saying something is less significant, and me saying something is less relative is literally the exact same statement worded differently.

 

Me saying it's precisely what I'm doing is precisely what I'm saying I'm doing. Am I doing it with precision? NO.

 

Don't be difficult.

 

Seriously, definitions in science are MUCH more precise than in any other area. Words need to have those meanings, and people need to agree upon them if we're to discuss ideas using words instead of math.

 

It's like you're saying, "I don't speak your language (math), so I'll speak my native tongue, but I'll use words with definitions you aren't familiar with. Will that make me easier to understand?"

[Delta1212]

Strange, you're just playing word games at this point.

 

You saying something is less significant, and me saying something is less relative is literally the exact same statement worded differently.

 

Me saying it's precisely what I'm doing is precisely what I'm saying I'm doing. Am I doing it with precision? NO.

 

Don't be difficult.

You're confusing the word relative with the word relevant. That isn't want relative means.

[swansont]

 

It is precisely what I am doing. Whether or not someone reading this understands it precisely is another matter. Partially my fault I suppose, but it's difficult to explain.

 

Mostly. You carry the burden of relaying information in a clear way, and this isn't happening. Further, there is little rigor to your idea. If all you have are analogies, you are not following the guidelines for posting here.

[andreasjva]

 

Clear up this misunderstanding and I think you'll be better off. Relevant and relative are completely different in this context. Take the furthest away "thing" you can think of, and measure its motion relative to Earth. This is the measurement I want, so how does its distance from me decrease the relevance of what I want to know? It really doesn't, does it?

 

Whenever we observe any distance greater than 0, we are looking into the past. We are looking at a result. We then make a prediction that it will continue to be that way in the future. If we decide to go there, the closer we get, the more accurate we are in our prediction, because it is more relative to us. The further away something is, the less we can trust those prediction, because the less relative those objects are to us. For all we know, half the galaxies in the universe may not exist anymore. The relevance you question becomes somewhat more obvious, don't you think? What you thought was there may no longer exist, so what you thought you knew about that object is irrelevant, although one could find meaning in the history of the object itself.

[Phi for All]

The further away something is, the less we can trust those prediction, because the less relative those objects are to us.

 

There is no such thing as "less relative". You either measure something relative to something else, or you don't.

[Strange]

 

Whenever we observe any distance greater than 0, we are looking into the past.

 

True. But in everyday life, that is rarely significant.

 

If we decide to go there, the closer we get, the more accurate we are in our prediction, because it is more relative to us.

 

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things we can understand equally well whether they are near or far.

 

For all we know, half the galaxies in the universe may not exist anymore.

 

We understand a lot about the lifecycle of stars. We know that they don't just disappear, so no.

[andreasjva]

 

Seriously, definitions in science are MUCH more precise than in any other area.

 

Yes, you are right. I won't argue that.

 

I am saying mass is relative in my view. In fact, I'm saying the entire universe is built on a relative perspective, including time and motion.

[Strange]

I am saying mass is relative in my view.

 

OK. You have said that. Now can you justify it? Currently, mass (*) does not appear to be relative; it is independent of location, state of motion, etc. So in what sense are you saying it is relative?

 

(*) i.e. rest mass, the "real" mass of an object

[andreasjva]

 

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things we can understand equally well whether they are near or far.

 

Of course. I think you miss the point. The further away something is the less certain we are about its actual state. That doesn't mean we are wrong, or can't predict its state. In most cases we would be highly accurate, but not necessarily flawless.

 

 

We understand a lot about the lifecycle of stars. We know that they don't just disappear, so no.

 

Well, technically, no, they don't just disappear. Of course not. You know what I meant though.

[Strange]

Of course. I think you miss the point. The further away something is the less certain we are about its actual state. That doesn't mean we are wrong, or can't predict its state. In most cases we would be highly accurate, but not necessarily flawless.

 

And you can quantify that uncertainty and dertermine if it is significant or not.

 

You know what I meant though.

 

Apparently not.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Strange