|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 15, 2011 11:07:32 GMT 1
What is the universe expanding (or should I say 'inflating') into?
I have seen people say, oh it does not expand into anything because there was nothing outside of it to begin with. Well, that's all very well but a) the universe 'exists' yet b) it is expanding into 'non-existence.' How can that be? Surely 'exist' and 'non-exist' are mutually exclusive, aren't they? Can we truly say that something does not exist?
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 15, 2011 18:57:03 GMT 1
What is the universe expanding (or should I say 'inflating') into? I have seen people say, oh it does not expand into anything because there was nothing outside of it to begin with. Well, that's all very well but a) the universe 'exists' yet b) it is expanding into 'non-existence.' How can that be? Surely 'exist' and 'non-exist' are mutually exclusive, aren't they? Can we truly say that something does not exist? No-ne knows. There are hypotheses, all of them curently unverifiable, and all based on mathematical models that cannot be explained in plain English which means that no-one has a clue, basically. |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 15, 2011 22:14:38 GMT 1
What is the universe expanding (or should I say 'inflating') into? I have seen people say, oh it does not expand into anything because there was nothing outside of it to begin with. Well, that's all very well but a) the universe 'exists' yet b) it is expanding into 'non-existence.' How can that be? Surely 'exist' and 'non-exist' are mutually exclusive, aren't they? Can we truly say that something does not exist? No-ne knows. There are hypotheses, all of them curently unverifiable, and all based on mathematical models that cannot be explained in plain English which means that no-one has a clue, basically. Well, according to STA they have a clue, nay. But she still cannot overcome the question as to how something existing (space and matter) can expand into something not existing.  |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 15, 2011 22:24:04 GMT 1
Wrong. You've been told many times before, space isn't expanding INTO anything................................
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 15, 2011 22:26:25 GMT 1
End of discussion, abacus is wasting time yet again........................
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 15, 2011 23:51:58 GMT 1
Wrong. You've been told many times before, space isn't expanding INTO anything................................ I have been told this many times, yes, and it makes no more sense now than it did then. 'Something' and 'nothing' are mutually exclusive, so that 'nothing' cannot be a valid idea when you have 'something.' Why? Because 'nothing' is an end of thinking and, therefore, science. Think of 'nothing' as a kind of 'placeholder' for ideas yet to come because, as said, something and nothing cannot coexist in a scientific world. The alternative is to suppose that magic is at the heart of science. Do you believe in magic STA? Something and nothing can never coexist STA. It's a law. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 16, 2011 3:18:13 GMT 1
And now abacus thinks he can use this pseudo-logic to disprove Einstein......................
Must be NICE to be that smart................
If you don't understand, WHY can't you accept that maybe you just don't understand, but that einstein was probably right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 16, 2011 8:17:27 GMT 1
No-ne knows. There are hypotheses, all of them curently unverifiable, and all based on mathematical models that cannot be explained in plain English which means that no-one has a clue, basically. Well, according to STA they have a clue, nay. But she still cannot overcome the question as to how something existing (space and matter) can expand into something not existing. Well STA can accept whatever dogma she wishes- I have no problem with that in the same way as I have no problem with voodoo-fetish religious worshippers (as long as they stay well away from me) There is simply no point in explanations that no-one understands and we are suposed to follow like sheep wherever exotic and oddly idiotic mathematical logic leads us (presumably because hard sums are impressive), even though mathematical concepts such as infinity (that are so generously bounced around in Cosmology) evidently have no reality! |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 16, 2011 16:21:56 GMT 1
And now abacus thinks he can use this pseudo-logic to disprove Einstein...................... Must be NICE to be that smart................ If you don't understand, WHY can't you accept that maybe you just don't understand, but that einstein was probably right. You haven't actually addressed my argument STA |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 16, 2011 17:27:24 GMT 1
Because there isn't one. Vague statements like something and nothing can not exist don't mean anything.
Because what else you've said boils down to:
and you don't believe it. Probably because you don't understand it. You not understanding something is not much of an argument................
Basic misunderstanding of cosmology, that expanding space has to be expanding INTO something,. that there MUST be some hyper-emptiness which then becomes 'filled' with space as space expands.
Which is the wrong picture, based on false analogies with expanding objects within a spacetime, where 'empty' space becomes 'filled' if an object expands. But what holds for objects within a spacetime doesn't have to hold for spacetime itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 16, 2011 17:28:56 GMT 1
As I already said, you are just repeating what you've said many times before. You don't get it, and argument from incredulity isn't an argument. Nor is vague statements about something and nothing..................
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 16, 2011 17:48:57 GMT 1
As I already said, you are just repeating what you've said many times before. You don't get it, and argument from incredulity isn't an argument. Nor is vague statements about something and nothing.................. Well, I think it's a deep philosophical point that you always refuse to become embroiled in and I suppose as a scientist you would. However, there's no point in continuing this dispute because we hold totally polarised views on this. You agree that spacetime has four dimensions, yes? Well then, according to the standard model there isn't even a dimension for spacetime to expand into, which seems a very strange notion. All I would repeat is that something and nothing are a contradiction in terms so it seems impossible to assert that something (space and matter) is expanding into 'nothing' pre-existing.' |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 16, 2011 18:55:00 GMT 1
Because it doesn't need ANYTHING to expand into, extra emptiness, extra dimensions , nothing (you've slipped here actually, your usual refrain is that space need extra dimensions in which to CURVE or BEND).
It isn't a 'deep philosophical point', it's the same BASIC error over and over again.
You're just pretending, as you have before, that you have found some deep objection, whereas actually, its pants.
Don't you get tired of repeating the same nonsense? I think so, because you slipped here talking about dimensions..............
End of discussion, seems you can't even remember what your supposed objections were the last time you came out with this.................
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 16, 2011 19:33:36 GMT 1
Well not really because you have not even brought possible additional dimensions into the discussion. It might be that our spacetime universe is an integral part of a higher dimensionality matrix which may be essential for inflation to take place. Not proven, no, but you can't just shrug off such ideas since the multiverse is no longer a joke among serious cosmologists.
Just because you can't touch it, see it, smell it, does not mean it does not exist. Remarkable how naive you really are STA.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 16, 2011 19:59:23 GMT 1
Same nonsense you repeated before! Expandions does not NEED extra emptiness or extra dimensions, is not the same as saying there MAY be extra dimensions.
There very well may be, but not because they are NEEDED for space to expand into/curve in, or any other of the obvious stuff you keep repeating from previous threads.
At least the Alcubierre warp-drive thread was slightly novel, this is just thrice-recycled repeats of your previous threads, and like many repeats, nowhere near as entertaining the third or fourth time round. In fact, rather like watching repeats of last years weather forecast, uninformative and useless.......................
End of discussion.
|
|
