the universe is teasing me

[vandivx]

and I might add you couldn't enter into void in the first place<br /><br />void can't exist in reality, it is a fantasy construct (invalid extension of the concept nothing to utter, that is metaphysical nothing) and there is no evidence either logical or experimental that it exists<br /><br />I think what you answered there was speedfreeks post which I quoted (I added separating lines there now)<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[int32h]

its kinda funny... there's alot about our own planet the we dont know yet. But we still pursue for knowlege beyond this world.<br /><br />I think it's just a matter of time before earth will be our home, the universe will be our world.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Yup, it was me who said "no dark" and I will stick to it, as we are talking about <i>nothing</i>. Void as we know it in this universe might be dark, but a definition of void as absolute nothingness cannot even be dark as there is nothing to <b>be</b> dark! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />How can nothingness, with no time or dimensions, be dark? It's not <i>something</i> with no photons, it's nothing. There isn't anything for the photons <i>not</i> to be in. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[weeman]

I said a similar thing a long time ago. <br /><br />Someone had made a statement about how before the universe there might have been black nothing, because it was devoid of any matter and any light. <br /><br />I said that to say it is black, due to the absence of light, is to say that it is "something", not "nothing". Giving it a color, like black, throws out the possibility that it is "nothing". <br /><br />Which leads me to believe that none of us can actually describe total void/nothingness. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="#ff0000">"since void or utter nothing can't exist I take it that this ether background to existence always exists, it is timeless and stretches forever without end and once in a while there comes era when matter condenses out of it and life comes to be developped in it and it again vanishes one day only ether remaining behind, boundless and eternally existing"<br /></font> <br />Interesting. The "ether" background <em>always</em> exists, is <em>timeless</em> and stretches <em>forever</em> without end and <strong>once in a while</strong> there comes an era... ?? Is time passing in that ether background or not? Did time exist before the Universe? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> <br /> <br /> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"void can't exist in reality, it is a fantasy construct"</font><br /> <br />Might that be a "Universe-centric" view? Whose reality? If you mean <em>ours</em> or anyone else's within this Universe then I would have to agree. But if we are talking about reality from the view of "what was before the Universe" then it is <em>our</em> universe that cannot exist. <br /> <br />So in respect to questions about what was before the universe, we might reverse your statement to <br /> <br /><em>Our reality cannot exist in a void.</em> <br /> <br />And if we were feeling really reckless we might even say that <strong>no</strong> reality can exist in a void. <br /> <br />But my main point was that we really have no idea what was around before the universe. There might have been something else, or nothing else. If there was <em>absolutely</em> nothing else, there wouldn't even be any blackness. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

int32h:<br />Anyway this post may seem a bit intense, but what is your opinion? is there any reasonable way to explain why the universe/space and time even exist?<br /><br />Me:<br />Oh yeh, there are all kinds of ways to try to explain it...proving it is a different matter altogether. Prepare to be teased for the rest of your life. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Does the universe exist?A philosophical question.In Indian philosophy we say existence of universe is illusion.Maya.Then astronomy ends.eh,eh,eh.

 

[siarad]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As the light started its journey towards us, space was "stretching" at a faster rate at that time than the light could move, putting extra distance in between that light and us. As time went on and the rate of expansion slowed, the light progressed towards us until it finally reached us 13 billion years later<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />If space is stretching surely the constants upon which the speed of light depends will be reducing changing C. or is it more space is being made. Further as it's Spacetime, time will be running faster due to less compression of space.<br />I hope you see the difference coz the results seem important.

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="#ff0000">"If space is stretching surely the constants upon which the speed of light depends will be reducing changing C. or is it more space is being made<em>?"</em></font><br /> <br />It is more space being made, as you put it. <em>C</em> stays the same, which is why it took light around 13 billion years to arrive from an object that was only around 3 billion light years away when that light was emitted. <br /> <br /> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Further as it's Spacetime, time will be running faster due to less compression of space. <br />I hope you see the difference coz the results seem important."</font><br /> <br />Time and space are individually relative within a framework of absolute space-time but <em>proper</em> time stays the same locally. This means if a SNe 1a type supernovae has a duration of 20 days at a given distance, it will have double that duration at double that distance as we have observed, and that <em>time-dilation</em> is due to the expansion of space - light that took 20 days to emit is received over 40 days as the light has been "stretched" by a doubling in the radius of the universe. <br /> <br />That's the theory, anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Now thats a Universal tease! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Is time passing in that ether background or not? Did time exist before the Universe?"<br />==============<br /><br />yes, time is passing in ether but nobody pays heed to it when matter (and by extension intelligent life) is not around<br /><br />reason is because all the energy is contained in ether when no matter is around (that is energy existing in the form of ether expansion or contraction - after all space expansions with which we are familiar is really ether expansion because space is just an attribute (or quality if you will) of ether) and when the matter comes to existence it has taken some of that energy from ether for its formation<br /><br />possibly matter never quite vanishes in the total sense, I mean it can be that only stars and planets and comets and asteroids etc and even matter particles vanish and what is left are the so called virtual particles boiling in space vaccuum (which phenomenon physics knows about)<br /><br />and of course once you have energy you also have time - energy is activity or static or semistatic tension in ether and its distribution does and can change and change implies time<br /><br />suppose this energy somehow settled into low point distribution and nothing moved anymore, then one could say that time stopped but that doesn't mean time wouldn't exist, it would have just stopped... and so what, if energy started sloshing about in ether at some point again time would start flow again<br /><br />I can just repeat what I said before elsewhere, time is measurement of change (it can be just change in ether) which means that time is not some physical entity meaning you won't find it under your bed or anywhere else <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />when I said "void can't exist in reality" I ment it can't exist physically, perhaps that skirts that nonsense talk about 'whose reality' - reality, that is physical existence exists independently of us and so its not yours or mine or anybody's else's, I must say I don't understand what <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Which leads me to believe that none of us can actually describe total void/nothingness."<br />=================<br /><br />precisely, that's the point of it being void <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />mind you total void is like total dead, void doesn't need adjectives to make it more voidy <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br />that said I sometimes also use or am tempted to use expression like 'true void' but that's also gramatically incorrect strictly speaking<br /><br />void is non-thinkable and so it can't be described in any way and no one can have any meaningfull concept of what it might be like in positive terms except in negative ones, like what it can't be (can't be black or any color) and that nothing could exist in it etc.<br /><br />remainds me when I did some thinking years back when still in my teens trying to understand what death means, really trying to grasp the utter finality of it and I came to conclusion that one can't comprehend it first-hand, with direct insight so to speak because if you actually managed to grasp the meaning of death fully with all its import you would at the same time drop dead because your brain would collapse, sort of like electric circuit shortcut that destroys the circuit<br /><br />we are as living enities so fixed on life (fixation on life par excellence) that comprehension of death (non-existence of our own or even other people's life) would destroy us, that is our brain would self-destruct if it came to the point of being able to trully comprehend the death, it is really like trying to comprehend nothingness or void or infinity, those thoughts contains nihilism and it is impossible for us to grasp them (no wonder G. Kantor went cranky after pondering infinity)<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[adrenalynn]

Define dark.<br /><br />Dark doesn't exist. It's a concept. It's a concept of the absense of photons impacting eyeballs (or sensors to replace said eyeballs). Assuming we violate the "void" and put eyeballs into a void, the eyeballs would perceive nothingness as being dark. Ergo, dark would exist, because dark is not physical, it's conceptual. Light is, on the other hand, physical (photons). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[majornature]

So...dark means in which photons the don't give off light for the eye to absorb...? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

You are of course correct, that dark or blackness doesn't exist, as it is the concept of the absence of photons being detected. So we can say that wherever we put our eyes, if there are no photons we would perceive the nothingness as being dark.<br /><br />The only point I was making is that if there were <b>absolutely</b> nothing before the big bang it would not even <i>be</i> dark, as we would have no space to be perceived as being dark.<br /><br />As you say, you have to violate the void and put your eyeballs there in order to perceive it. But if the void has no dimensions, you simply cannot put your eyes there without creating some space of your own, which <i>would</i> be dark, but it's not void any more.<br /><br />Nothingness means no space either!<br /><br />It's all a bit silly I suppose, but if you want to consider the concept of absolute nothing, you shouldn't consider it to be dark, as that implies space in my opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="#ff0000">"the idea of void is worse than that of a unicorn say because for all I know unicorns may potentially exists somewhere on other planets but void can't exist anywhere by definition, also in talking about void and what it would look like etc"<br /></font> <br />That's right, void cannot <em>exist</em>. <br /> <br />If someone asks "What existed before the Big-Bang?", we might try to speculate upon many possibilities, one of which is that nothing <em>existed</em> before the Big-Bang. <em>Nothing</em>. <br /> <br />It is a concept that cannot exist, but if nothing existed then that is what we are making a futile attempt to contemplate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

to elaborate further, if void can't exist that means that there must be something everywhere at all points in space and at all times and hence ether comes in per necessity <br /><br />particles of light and matter and gross bodies of matter can't fill up every cranny and nook of space of themselves and so the ether idea comes in, it exists everywhere even when no matter is there<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[adrenalynn]

Another possibility is that something existed before the big bang... It really had to in order for there to be "space" as we know it. And that something was Potential. Pure energy. Our universe (and probably others) was incredibly tiny (Plank constant kinda tiny), and the tremendous energy pushing it apart caused the expansion.<br /><br />So then the big question becomes: What made the state pre-big-bang unstable? And the bigger question: Where'd the coupled forces/potential energy come from? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[nexium]

Perhaps we are stretching the meaning of void far beyond the perception of the word that most people hold. If we consider a cube of space one plank length on each edge, most of them are absolutely empty most of the time, by definition. That the cube had a passing photon, a trillionth of a picosecond ago, does not negate it's present emptiness. For larger volumes, are we not being overly picky saying it has an average of a few photons per cubic millimeter, even though it is otherwise void? Would anyone care to estimate the average number of photons per cubic millimeter, for the universe? What pecentage of the photons in our solar system have a longer wave length than one kilometer = 300,000 hertz? Neil

 

[vandivx]

void is NOT vacuum, it is much more than that, it means nothing in true metaphysical sense (or existential sense if you find the term metaphysical too heavy), that is not just no particles but no space, no fields, no nothing, not even the (hypthetical if you will) ether<br /><br />discussion of void is stuff for philosophy of science which means it concerns the very basis of physical sciences, vacuum (absence of particles of matter) on the other hand is subject of (experimental) physics<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Another possibility is big bang theory is wrong.Quasi stady theory is right.Unicorn was a mythological story.It can never exist in this planet ,other planet or any where in universe

 

[adrenalynn]

Steady-State Theory "was a mythological story.It can never exist in this planet ,other planet or any where in universe"<br /><br />Time to get over it. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I'm not entirely convinced the BB is the answer to how the Universe came about. It is the answer that apparently has the best evidence and support...now. But in two decades, what if some major new discovery replaces the BB with another theory? A theory that two decades hence, has the best evidence supporting it? For this reason, I never entirely ruled out the SS theory or some variation thereof.<br /><br />It may even be some combination of BB, SS and a few others tho I doubt will ever really know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[majornature]

Will everyone toughen up here? The universe has always teased us and moreover pleased us... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>