|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Looking into the past with a telescope
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
... On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:39:30 +0200, "Ioannis" wrote: To me, it looks as though "the edge" of the universe around any individual observer is simply a theoretical sphere of radius c*t where t is the age of the observer and c is the speed of light. You need to distinguish between the edge of the Universe, and the edge of the observable Universe. They aren't the same thing. You are describing the latter. Sorry, I fail to understand any such difference. FOR ME, the universe IS my observable universe. The same applies to any other observer. As such, any other universe (different from one's /observable/ universe) looks more like of a mental construct than reality, at least to me. I suspect that by what you call "the Universe", you may mean that vast (r~=13 billion ly) mental construct which sits there independent of human perception. I do not recognise the existence of any such construct separated from human perception/consciousness. [snip] Chris L Peterson -- I.N. Galidakis http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/ |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Looking into the past with a telescope
Hell all it takes for the CFH is a screw driver now!
-- There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens. The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Sidewalk Astronomy www.sidewalkastronomy.info The Church of Eternity http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html "Iordani" wrote in message ... Chris L Peterson wrote: (I remember an original Outer Limits episode about a being that could "turn" in the fourth dimension, allowing it to appear and disappear anywhere in the 3D world as if by magic.) Indeed, my reading glasses and car keys perform this trick all the time... Very interesting thread BTW. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Looking into the past with a telescope
Ofcourse there is only one true way to see what is at the very edge of
universe, and it's in the mind of every human, only some of them lack the powers to be able to use that section of their mind, and Sci-Fi writters have used it to the Nth dregree some say. and when you combine a true Sci-Fi man with an Astronomer Man and you get the being known as "Starlord". ;} -- There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens. The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Sidewalk Astronomy www.sidewalkastronomy.info The Church of Eternity http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html "Michael McCulloch" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:31:04 -0500, I wrote: On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:28:41 -0500, Davoud wrote: The problem is the edge. Why? If you were close to the edge you would never even sense it in any way since you only exist in our space-time, and any edge is by definition outside of your existence. Any edge is beyond our intuitive powers to comprehend. Well, on second thought I will backtrack on this and say the actual properties of any edge would be beyond our powers to imagine, however we can use analogies to assist our comprehension. Some theories even suggest the edge of the Universe is only a sub-atomic distance from you at this very minute! To expand on this in the context of "balloon world" just for fun: Imagine that you are a transcendent being that lives in 3D space (God of the balloon world if you will :-). You observe the inhabitants on the surface of balloon world and see the boundary or edge of their Universe. It doesn't appear mysterious or anything, just that the inhabitants of balloon world only move around on the surface of the balloon. So the balloon world appears dimensionless for all practical purposes in the 3rd dimension to you as God. For sake of argument though, let's say maybe balloon world's surface does have a dimension, but it is sub-atomic in scale. So the balloon world inhabitants do not sense it at their macro scale (but their scientists have guessed that perhaps this is the case). In the course of scientific progress, the balloon world inhabitants somehow come up with a theory that postulates a 3rd spatial dimension beyond the two dimensions in which they exist. However, they cannot visualize or observe the actual "edge" of their Universe. But, they come up with an analogy: they think of "line world". The inhabitants of line world only exist in one dimension, the balloon world inhabitants would be Gods for them, and the balloon world scientists use the analogy to comprehend dimensions beyond their own. Furthermore, what if there are many balloon worlds consisting of concentric balloon surfaces that never intersect but are only sub-atomic distances from each other. As God I could see all of the balloon worlds, but the inhabitants of each never sense the existence of all the other balloon worlds even though they are only at sub-atomic distances. So as an astronaut in balloon world, I could fly my spaceship for eternity and never find the edge of my balloon. What a waste, since all that time the edge was just a sub-atomic distance away! Many of you will recognize this as M-Theory. :-) Of course, most books present it in the context of 'branes', whereby the analogy becomes multiple Universes that exist on infinite sheets that are parallel in a higher dimension. I prefer that form of the analogy in some ways since it illustrates how our Universe could be flat (which is what the current data suggests) and appear infinite in extent. --- Michael McCulloch |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Looking into the past with a telescope
Ioannis wrote:
Sorry, I fail to understand any such difference. FOR ME, the universe IS my observable universe. The same applies to any other observer. As such, any other universe (different from one's /observable/ universe) looks more like of a mental construct than reality, at least to me. Again, let us drop down one dimension, and suppose that the universe is a simple sphere. Suppose this universe has age T, and radius R cT; that is, its diameter is increasing at much faster than the speed of light. (This is not a violation of the principles of relativity.) In that case, any individual within the universe cannot see the entire universe; all he can see is a disc centered on him with radius cT. The edge of this disc is a logical (i.e., non-physical boundary) edge, and this is the one you're talking about. The "edge" that Chris (and earlier Davoud) were talking about is a different one. I don't think "edge" is the right term, for one should not think of the *interior* of this spherical universe as being part of it. The universe proper contains only the surface of the sphere. But inasmuch as you think of the universe as a kind of inflating balloon, this edge is the surface of the balloon, not a boundary drawn logically on the surface. I suspect that by what you call "the Universe", you may mean that vast (r~=13 billion ly) mental construct which sits there independent of human perception. I do not recognise the existence of any such construct separated from human perception/consciousness. If I understand you correctly, that is an odd perspective. You mean that you do not recognize the existence of that which you cannot detect? I doubt that you mean that--could you clarify? -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Looking into the past with a telescope
"Brian Tung" wrote in message
... [snip] I suspect that by what you call "the Universe", you may mean that vast (r~=13 billion ly) mental construct which sits there independent of human perception. I do not recognise the existence of any such construct separated from human perception/consciousness. If I understand you correctly, that is an odd perspective. You mean that you do not recognize the existence of that which you cannot detect? That's right. Your "detect", above, is my "seeing with my own eyes". Information from an object outside my observable universe (r=c*t) hasn't reached me yet, therefore it's as good as non-existent (for me). I doubt that you mean that--could you clarify? You understood correctly. I don't know what "universe" means to you and Chris, but to me it is THAT, parts of which I can see NOW. Never mind the fact that what I see may be light from the construct's past. -- Brian Tung -- I.N. Galidakis http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/ |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Looking into the past with a telescope
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:52:59 +0200, "Ioannis"
wrote: Sorry, I fail to understand any such difference. FOR ME, the universe IS my observable universe. The same applies to any other observer. As such, any other universe (different from one's /observable/ universe) looks more like of a mental construct than reality, at least to me. Hmmm... when you are at home with the curtains drawn, does the rest of the world cease to exist for you? g I suspect that by what you call "the Universe", you may mean that vast (r~=13 billion ly) mental construct which sits there independent of human perception. I do not recognise the existence of any such construct separated from human perception/consciousness. The Universe is almost certainly much bigger than 13 billion ly in "diameter" (I use that term loosely, because I don't think the Universe is a 3D construct). The part of the Universe that is beyond our horizon isn't another universe, it's just a part we can't see (there are theories that posit other universes entirely). But what we _can_ see allows us to make reasonable inferences about what we can't. I don't think it's reasonable to ignore the existence of majority of the Universe. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Looking into the past with a telescope
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
... On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:52:59 +0200, "Ioannis" wrote: Sorry, I fail to understand any such difference. FOR ME, the universe IS my observable universe. The same applies to any other observer. As such, any other universe (different from one's /observable/ universe) looks more like of a mental construct than reality, at least to me. Hmmm... when you are at home with the curtains drawn, does the rest of the world cease to exist for you? g I don't know WHAT it does. For all I know, the entire universe may fall into some sort of suspended animation while I sleep and then reappear when I wake up. Since there is no way to know, your question doesn't make much sense :-) [snip] The Universe is almost certainly much bigger than 13 billion ly in "diameter" (I use that term loosely, because I don't think the Universe is a 3D construct). There we go again... Your "Universe" is a mental construct in your mind. Sorry, but we disagree on what is "existent" and what is not. I repeat: I do not recognise your "Universe" except as a mental construct, to which you have arbitrarily given the property to be independent of consciousness and perception. I don't agree! And that was "r"=13 billion ly's. "Radius". Not diameter :-) [snip] Chris L Peterson -- I.N. Galidakis http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/ |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Looking into the past with a telescope
Ioannis wrote:
That's right. Your "detect", above, is my "seeing with my own eyes". Information from an object outside my observable universe (r=c*t) hasn't reached me yet, therefore it's as good as non-existent (for me). By that reasoning, parts of the universe flicker into existence at the precise moment that you detect them. How is it that the objects there emitted the photons that allowed you to detect them? How did the photons traverse space that did not exist at the time? I'm not trying to put you on the spot; I'm just having trouble seeing the benefit of equating "detected" (*not* "detectable") with "existent." It's something you're apparently aware of, so I assume you are OK with this schema. Suppose you have a brick in front of you, which you cannot actually touch. Does the interior of the brick not exist for you? For that matter, does the brick exist, or just the photons that reach your eye, reflected from the (putative) brick? You understood correctly. I don't know what "universe" means to you and Chris, but to me it is THAT, parts of which I can see NOW. Never mind the fact that what I see may be light from the construct's past. That seems like a heck of a thing to "never mind." At the least, it would have prevented the current level of understanding of the Big Bang. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Looking into the past with a telescope
Chris L Peterson wrote:
The Universe is almost certainly much bigger than 13 billion ly in "diameter" (I use that term loosely, because I don't think the Universe is a 3D construct). You don't need the universe to be three-dimensional to use "diameter" rigorously. It just has to have a consistent metric; the diameter is then simply the greatest distance between any two points. Admittedly, consistency is a problem, since you don't measure simply between two spatial points; you have to measure between events. But three-dimensionality is surely not the problem. -- Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Looking into the past with a telescope
"Brian Tung" wrote in message
... Ioannis wrote: That's right. Your "detect", above, is my "seeing with my own eyes". Information from an object outside my observable universe (r=c*t) hasn't reached me yet, therefore it's as good as non-existent (for me). By that reasoning, parts of the universe flicker into existence at the precise moment that you detect them. Sort of. An object "comes" into existence when its photons reach the observer. Alternatively, you could imagine the observer surveying "reality" at the speed of c. (d(ct)/dt). Once an object is "detected", consciousness makes it permanent via memory. In a sense, reality's "consistency" is the result of our collective consciousness' "memory". More on that later. How is it that the objects there emitted the photons that allowed you to detect them? How did the photons traverse space that did not exist at the time? I believe that for any observer there's somebody(something) beyond him who(which) acts as a sustainer reality. For example, I was not born into the void. I was born inside my mother's reality. In a sense, this reality acted as a sustainer for my consciousness, and gave the seeds of the "space" which later MY consciousness started surveying. Think of it sort of like the shells of an onion. I'm not trying to put you on the spot; I'm just having trouble seeing the benefit of equating "detected" (*not* "detectable") with "existent." It's something you're apparently aware of, so I assume you are OK with this schema. Suppose you have a brick in front of you, which you cannot actually touch. Does the interior of the brick not exist for you? No, unless I break the brick apart and look at its exact contents. Here memory helps. It "reconstructs" the interior of the brick, based on my past experience with other similar bricks. If I see a brick for the first time, I sure as heck won't know what's inside, but somebody else may well do. Your question would be more interesting if you asked, "what if /nobody/ has/d dissected a brick? Does THEN the interior of the brick exist?" For that matter, does the brick exist, or just the photons that reach your eye, reflected from the (putative) brick? See above, re memory. You understood correctly. I don't know what "universe" means to you and Chris, but to me it is THAT, parts of which I can see NOW. Never mind the fact that what I see may be light from the construct's past. That seems like a heck of a thing to "never mind." At the least, it would have prevented the current level of understanding of the Big Bang. As far as I am concerned, the big bang was my birth. Nothing prior to my birth date can be verified directly by me or my consciousness, so the question of the big bang which YOU mean, for me doesn't make much sense. The entire history of humankind prior to anyone's birth, is taken by that observer entirely on faith. Anyway, let's stop this discussion, because we are going into metaphysics, which is OT. I am working on all this as we speak. When I finish the article, you are welcome to take a look at my website. -- Brian Tung -- I.N. Galidakis http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Saw it go past...... | Justa Lurker | Space Shuttle | 9 | December 11th 06 01:47 AM |
Keck telescope captures Jupiter's Red Spot Jr. as it zips past planet's Great Red Spot (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | July 31st 06 02:13 AM |
Blast from the past | Pat Flannery | History | 9 | August 21st 05 01:36 AM |
looking to the past | Mr Jherek Chamaeleo | Misc | 4 | January 6th 04 05:13 AM |
looking into the past??? | download the whole internet | Science | 8 | August 30th 03 11:17 PM |