Limits to knowledge?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Dinosaur, Jul 12, 2015.

  1. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    By the selfsame bullshitters?...Sounds like "Yoru're just a bit confused"
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No it's not. The BB happened everywhere at once. It was also the evolution of space and time "as we know them". Although it is said that before the BB there was "nothing", perhaps its more correct to say before the BB there was nothing of which we can understand at this time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That is speaking from ignorance and is entirely silly.
    Are you aware what a scientific theory is? It is never really a "faitre complei" certainly, although some scientific theories are as close to certainty as one could wish for. Evolution for one is certain.
    Again, do you have any evidence to support such a scenario?
    More baseless assertions. We certainly still have mysteries to solve, but with continued machines like the LHC and the HST we are also achieving great results and learning in the process.

    Another baseless assertion with no evidence at all.
    There are many things that are allowed for by the laws of physics and GR, all we need to do is find the technology, develop the maths to maybe control space time itself one day. Who knows?

    Would you rather have us going back to swinging in the trees?
    Perhaps you are unaware of the first venture by mankind into space [Earth orbit] via Satellites? Are you aware of the benefits Satellites has given many sciences?...Meteorology, Agriculture Communications etc etc...and the benefits that have gone into reducing famine and hunger etc.
    Not perfect yet by a long way, but far better than we had.

    Finally I'll leave you with this little quote.

    A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

    Winston Churchill
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Sounds like its you that is confused.
    Without science my friend, you would be still swinging in the trees with your cousins.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    You're a lot confused. You've made that perfectly clear with the content of your collective posts. IE bullshit.
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    He thinks he's on a mission from God.
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I think we all realize that The Matrix was essentially a documentary of the future of mankind.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    But with worse music than the Blues Brothers.
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    In GR, space-time is not dependent on time, but only on mass and distance. Only the final mass-density-geometry is important for defining space-time. How this well forms in time does not change the space-time reference. We can do it slow or fast, in quantum steps to save time, continuous or discontinuous in time, but in the end the same space-time reference will appear. Time is defined by mass and distance.

    Say we factor out distance, by starting with a mass point. What we will do is add more and more mass to that point. In this case, changes in space-time will be independent of both time and distance.

    The theory that the BB happened everyone at once, means mass had to appear everywhere at once, with mass and distance defining time. The error that is being made the erroneous assumption that space-time is independent of mass, when mass is the key to time.
  13. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Space and time are actually not what you think, especially space space is not really space-we're talking about fields here, not space itself. If there was nothing before the big Bang, than how than the universe/existence exist in un-existence, since there is nothing outside the universe-that's fairy tale for small kids universe/existence can exist and expand only in existence, not in non-existence/nothing as you claim-facts.
    It's the beginning that we know, but we can't know what's outside-Big Bang did happen in space, however, however we cannot see it outside of the Big Bang and outside the expanding universe because it is too big/large.

    Space is not virtual particles that appear and dissappear, actually they are not created rom nothing-they created from vacuum, and unstable nothing-that's not nothing it's something-quantum energy fields-and since these virtual particles are simply matter and anti-matter (like pair of virtual electron and virtual positron), they are created directly from quantum energy fields; a true space is simply 100% empty, no vacuum no energy, no matter, no time.

    We are not talking about scenarios, we are talking about the real world here-and you ignore everything-you are not very smart at all-I'm not surprised at all form someone who lives in the lab.
    Don't sell me this mumbo-jumbo all over again-about the evidence there are evidences all over the globe you simply want to ignore it.
    Because even know we have problems with ever more complex understanding you cannot have infinite knowledge in the finite brain-that's the same as saying that we can progress infinitely on the finite planet like Earth, quantum physics is the upper limit of physics, since we can never understand it, only accept it and deal with it.

    Sorry, but nothing is achieved, just statistical mumbo-jumbo that can easily be manipulated to justify billions of dollars.

    What are talking about-math does not answer why the universe was created and how it was created is just a mere hypothesis, hypothesis means nothing if it can't be proven, and the Big Bang can't be proven unless you simply witness the moment of the Big Bang.
    What is the meaning of the universe at all and similar those fundamental questions math cannot and will not answer ever.
    Like said you cannot control space-time itself-you can only control energy fields.
    You live in a fantasy because of the enrgy needed for this-and all the energy needed that we use today is destroying us and our planet.

    I don'r care any of it-my business is computers, and unfortunately I have to live with high-tech gadgets and never relax, however I'd like to go to Canada or Alaska and live there in piece, and what's wrong going back to swinging in trees-believe it or not there are so many people who want that life-but cannot afford it, but they are stuck with scientific and technological totalitarism and making money for living the way they can-it's science and technology plus politics fault for this.

    I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist, if the bomb approaches to you you would still say there is a possibility it turn left-that's not optimism that's being ignorant on something that is inevitable and you cannot change-like I said I'm realistic optimist, not utopistic optimist like you are.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    FYI - this is somewhat of a non sequitur - the explanation does not actually explain the statement you make.
    I think you also need to be careful about referring to the Hubbly Volume as our "universe" - as we can currently see well beyond it: the observable universe is c.46 billion LY radius, whereas the Hubble Volume is c.14 billion LY in radius, which is even slightly larger than the age of the universe, due to the assumptions used in establishing the Hubble constant.
    FYI - I have a Hubble Volume that is ever so slightly different from yours, which will be ever so slightly different from one in the next solar system along, etc. The hubble volume is unique to the observer who is located at the centre of the sphere. So it is not just "possible" but "certain" that there are other Hubble volumes out there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This is certainly true since the Hubble volume is merely the spherical region of the universe at which things are still receding (due to the expansion of the universe) at less than the speed of light. Anything beyond this sphere is permanently lost to us (not withstanding some means to travel faster than c) as light leaving it now will never reach us. But that object still exists, and will have its own Hubble Volume.
    It also seems our universe is accelerating, and doing so faster than our Hubble Volume, so things are dropping out of our Hubble Volume.
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I see that you have abandoned the technology of sentence structure and periods.

    I feel sorry for all of the PhD students out there that will soon find there is nothing more to discover in science (at least that we can understand) so they will be trapped in the university forever. It just doesn't seem fair!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Sorry. My points are:
    • 1. The matter and energy that comprises our Hubble Volume (or our "universe") is traveling outward at a finite velocity
    • 2. It has been expanding for a finite time
    • 3. Therefore, its dimensions are finite.
    There's no way that the radius of our universe can be infinite.
    Fine. But unless our understanding of cosmology and the history and dimensions of our universe (or whatever you want to call it) are catastrophically incorrect, it is finite, and light from the most distant parts of it will reach us in a time interval that is finite, even if it is very large.
    You're using the term much differently from the other writers from whom I learned the phrase. Sorry.

    They teach that the Big Bang occurred at a point, and everything that we now count as our "universe" has been speeding away from that point. If you think the place where the Big Bang occurred is seventeen miles southwest of the place where I think it occurred, the difference is hardly worth discussing.
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    You're just another scientific illiterate crank. If you were a realist I'd expect you to know what you're talking about. You're a bullshitist.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Space is not really space?? Time is not really time??Any reference supporting that? Or is this just another fairy tale?
    Perhaps English obviously being your second language, you need to read what I said again......Or at least obtain or search for another reputable online link.
    Let me tell you again....The BB model of Universal evolution tells us that in the first instant, the BB was the evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] as we know them, coupled with a "property" of spacetime we call the Superforce....the period where we think that the four known forces today were all united into one. In fact at that time, matter was unable to exist due to the extremes of temperatures and pressures.
    In actual fact we know nothing about the original instant of the BB, but our theories and models do enable us to describe and or predict at least as far back as 10-43 seconds after the event.
    A future QGT may one day reveal the how and why of the BB.
    Until then all we are able to do is speculate about that point of evolution, and the why and the how along with logical extrapolation from the first Planck instant at 10-43 seconds, to the event we call the BB.

    Of course if you disagree with that generally accepted explanatory scenario, please show a link supporting whatever it is you are saying, which at this stage is still very confusing.

    Word salad.
    Virtual particles are virtual particles that appear from the vacuum that is spacetime and are not real anyway. Who said anything different?
    Anyway the following may help you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Perhaps you can pin point what part of what I said is mumbo jumbo".
    Sure I'm not very smart, I'm only an amateur, but from your posts so far, I'm a rung or two further up the ladder than you.
    Let me state it again......
    That is speaking from ignorance and is entirely silly.
    Are you aware what a scientific theory is? It is never really a "faitre complei" certainly, although some scientific theories are as close to certainty as one could wish for. Evolution for one is certain.

    What science has done is actually push the need for any deity/God/creation event, back to near oblivion, so much so that even the Catholic church now recognises the BB and evolution to at least maintain a semblance of credibility.
    Is this what offends you? Just asking.

    So, you also indulge in conspiracy theories I see?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If you are talking about the money spent on science and space exploration I would suggest that you need to get your facts straight and stop ignoring the evidence that abounds around you.
    Like I said, if it weren't for science, you would still be in the trees with your evolutionary cousins.

    The universe did not need a reason to evolve. It just did. As to why and how exactly we do not as yet know.....which in itself immediatlly blows a hole in your first silly claim you made about there being nothing new to learn.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Gee, where to start. The BB is not an hypothesis. It is a well supported scientific theory of the evolution of spacetime/Universe we inhabit.
    Again it appears you are totally ignorant as to what a scientific theory is.
    The second part of your claim is rather childish. We don't need to be there to observe the BB occurred. We are here, and the overwhelming evidence points to us being here due to an event that happened 13.83 billion years ago.
    How do we know the stars we see are just other Suns?
    How do we know we orbit the Sun?
    These questions along with many others are answered through science, the scientific method and peer review, which it seems you have trouble accepting.
    Do you have any references to support those claims, along with any of your other claims?

    Obviously as others have commented on, it appears useless debating with you, but I'm a stubborn old bastard.
    The only fantasy is that you are creating yourself. All my claims are supported by reputable links.
    Your claims are unsupported nonsense in the main.
    Wow! Be my guest, and if I can help in getting you to devolve and get back into the trees just let us know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I apologise for inferring you are an pessimist. It goes far deeper than that I suggest. But please don't insult mine or anyone else's intelligence by suggesting you are a realist. Nothing is further from the truth.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  19. brucep Valued Senior Member

    It's the observable universe. It fits right into the time cone whose lightlike boundary separates between observable events and non observable events. The observable universe is finite and expanding. The entire universe is predicted to be infinite in extent. It had a beginning. It's flat. And Omega=1 to some very small error bar. Just as Eternal inflation predicts and what the WMAP and Planck experiments measured during experimental analysis of the CMBR. Eternal inflation makes predictions for the event which started what we call the Big Bang. The prediction is derived from GR and quantum field theory.
  20. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    As the incredible dependence and addiction of the Millennials in being frequently linked to others via their mobile devices and future implants continues... As their "I've never been alone in my thoughts and never known anything but being constantly connected to my family, friends, and community" descendants integrate ever more into hive-minds... As the immersion in simulated computer-game environments rages on as opposed to engaging life in the "real world"... As robots and AI become smarter and take care of all the manufacturing, development, maintenance, and caveman drudgery of holding together and expanding across space what human civilization started...

    ...Then just about anything could be made possible in virtual reality. Which is where most of the information-based offspring will reside of the eventual generations of transhuman parents who vow thusly: "I don't want to have and raise literal biological children in this awful external or technology-independent world of ailments, accidents, torments, still unforeseen occurrences, aging, and death in which our ancestors were historically mortal or non-resurrect-able".

    Accordingly, it then becomes kind of irrelevant what is further technologically possible in the original cosmos. Once such technology reaches the point where complex functional structures of oozing and fixed nanotech / picotech machine units become the processing-substrate for full-fledged fantasy realities "where magic is allowed to be possible". Or at least, what would seem like sorcery or viable pseudoscience as far what those infomorph inhabitants would perceive; the appearances of extrospective events as opposed to the unsightly mechanistic guts and regulatory principles of the natural universe undergirding those computed phantom realms. The latter being what those individual instances of simulated conscious beings would collectively experience. Not the hidden provenance making them possible, aside from the lingering artilects and work-bots of that higher level legally allowing them to glimpse its "transcendent" horrors from time to time by uploading a virtual human's data patterns into an android body.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    You are correct that our Hubble Volume is finite.
    But technically those things are not "traveling" outward. They are expanding away from us. They are not technically moving away from us (although there will be relative motion due to gravity etc) but it is the space between that is expanding.
    There are parts of the universe that are not within our "observable universe" and thus certainly not within our Hubble Volume (the observable universe being considerably larger).
    The earliest light we will ever be able to see is from c.350-400k years after the Big Bang, so there are parts of the actual universe (of which even the observable universe is just a part) we can never be aware of other than to know it logically exists. Light from those parts can never reach us. Ever. That is why the furthest we can see back in time is c.13.4 billion LY when the age of the universe is put at c.13.8 billion years. And the furthest we have managed so far is 13.1 billion LY (I think). But the light we are seeing are from objects that are now c.45+ billion LY away.
    Either you misunderstood what they were referring to, or they were wrong. But no need to apologise.
    The Hubble Volume is any volume centred on an observer beyond which things are expanding away from them faster than the speed of light. Since there is a spatial difference between me and you, our Hubble Volumes are technically different, yet practically identical (on the scale of a few billion LY, a mere few thousand KM is irrelevant). But somebody 5 billion LY away will have a rather different Hubble Volume to us.
    Not sure where or who you learnt your cosmology from, but you seem to imply that there is a single central point to the Big Bang? That everything is expanding from this central point?
    There is no centre. The Big Bang occurred in all places at the same time (t=0), at least according to the Standard Model. To someone sitting 5 billion LY away, they will see everything expanding away from them the same way that we see everything expanding away from us. They will have a different Hubble Volume and a different Observable Universe.

    Current theories suggest the universe is possibly flat and thus infinite in size, and so we have terms such as Observable Universe, or Hubble Volume, to describe the volumes that are relevant to us, but each term does have specific and different meanings.
    brucep and paddoboy like this.
  22. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    From my Post #1
    In Post # 13 Fraggle Rocker commented on the above as follows.
    As far as I am concerned, the above POV indicates a belief in magic. Consider the requirements for such transportation.

    In the absence of any equipment at the destination, a human being is transmitted or assembled at a remote destination. It is implied if not explicitly stated, that the transmission is FTL.​

    As a literary convenience in a SciFi story, it is barely acceptable. As a prediction of future technology is is unbelievable.
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Agree mostly with what you said, just to clarify a point re Hubble Volume and Observable Universe......
    The Observable Universe is of course that part of the universe centered around any observer, governed by the speed of light and the time in which it can reach us.
    Hubble volume is also that part of the Universe centered around an observer, and is governed by the spacetime expansion rate at less then "c".
    This volume is smaller than the Observable Universe and its outer parameters are where galaxies appear to be moving away at "c" due to spacetime expanding at "c"
    The following links may explain it better...will explain it better!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Share This Page