" (2) The idea that Mach expressed, that inertia depends on the mutual attraction of bodies, is contained, to a first approximation, in the equations of the theory of relativity; it follows from these equations that inertia depends, at least in part, upon mutual actions between masses. Thereby Mach's idea gains in probability, as it is an unsatisfactory assumption to make that inertia depends in part upon mutual actions, and in part upon an independent property of space. But this idea of Mach's corresponds only to a finite universe, bounded in space, and not to a quasi-Euclidean, infinite universe. From the standpoint of epistemology it is more satisfying to have the mechanical properties of space completely determined by matter, and this is the case only in a closed universe.
(3) An infinite universe is possible only if the mean density of matter in the universe vanishes. Although such an assumption is logically possible, it is less probable than the assumption of a finite mean density of matter in the universe. "
So if we have a infinite universe that should mean that the topology of space should change constantly right. Which should mean that we would be able to observe it in f ex. the flight of photons from 'different time scaled' objects.
Also we have the expansion in every point. Shouldn't that too be expressed in what happens to those photons we observe. Maybe you have a better idea of how we could observe it by lasers f ex?
Much depends on definitions.
If you define 'Universe' as the sphere that we are currently able to sense - 'Hubble sphere' - then it appears to be a 'finite' construction, and thus 'must' have a 'beginning', hence 'Big Bang' hypothesis. However, this relies on the 'fact' that Humans are currently 'all knowing', that we are 100% sure that the 'Hubble sphere' IS the entirety of whatever we will ever call 'Universe'.
Also, the definition of 'Infinite' is far from 'clear' in the minds of the majority of people. Certainly, people here seem to be having difficulties with the idea that Space exists 'Infinitely', that is, in 3 dimensions. The implications for this are huge, and become 'politically charged', or 'emotionally invested', which stops people understanding the necessarily existential.
The most plausible explanation I have yet found, is that it is our understanding that is 'expanding', and not Space itself, which simply 'moves' (vibrates). The 'expanding' assumption comes from, is an extension of, our previous efforts to understand, which have all involved 'beginnings'. When you take this notion away, many more plausible explanations fall into place.
It does not matter what people 'believe', and our definitions/descriptions are only used so that we may agree on the most plausible explanations, otherwise, why bother to communicate at all, if it is just to defend your 'opinion'? Defence is not communication.
People assume they know what others are trying to convey with words like 'Universe' and 'Infinite', but this is not so.
g.
If you define 'Universe' as the sphere that we are currently able to sense - 'Hubble sphere' - then it appears to be a 'finite' construction, and thus 'must' have a 'beginning', hence 'Big Bang' hypothesis. However, this relies on the 'fact' that Humans are currently 'all knowing', that we are 100% sure that the 'Hubble sphere' IS the entirety of whatever we will ever call 'Universe'.
Also, the definition of 'Infinite' is far from 'clear' in the minds of the majority of people. Certainly, people here seem to be having difficulties with the idea that Space exists 'Infinitely', that is, in 3 dimensions. The implications for this are huge, and become 'politically charged', or 'emotionally invested', which stops people understanding the necessarily existential.
The most plausible explanation I have yet found, is that it is our understanding that is 'expanding', and not Space itself, which simply 'moves' (vibrates). The 'expanding' assumption comes from, is an extension of, our previous efforts to understand, which have all involved 'beginnings'. When you take this notion away, many more plausible explanations fall into place.
It does not matter what people 'believe', and our definitions/descriptions are only used so that we may agree on the most plausible explanations, otherwise, why bother to communicate at all, if it is just to defend your 'opinion'? Defence is not communication.
People assume they know what others are trying to convey with words like 'Universe' and 'Infinite', but this is not so.
g.
Thanks for your reply Gorgeous :)
As you say our consciousness is one of the pillars of our observing.
But space time have existed without us and will do so after us too.
Which doesn't hinder that you might be right in that our understanding is 'expanding'
But what I'm questioning is a simple thing.
1. Whatever way we look at our universe there should be proof for if it is expanding , finite, infinite, etc if we studied the way light moves through our universe.
as light climbs invisible hills and dives down those valleys the path should change depending on if we are a closed/open system etc.
Also the expanding in every point people refer to should show itself here.
I'm not sure how one should handle the experiments though, it all depends on what rate of change there might be.
It would have to be thought over most judiciously as there could be two 'forces' acting together, finite/infinite and expanding.
And setting up a system of lasers observed over time seems a sane approach.
Also there might be other ways to notice gravitational changes.
But i think it should be possible.
In fact i believe it would be possible to just use still 'point' readings of gravity to see if they change in different points, then you would have to exclude possible variations by moving bodies etc but what you had left should be able to point :) us.
Would 'bent light' be possible to use as a gravitatational detector?
If you allowed light to move in circles covering a full sphere then you should have a extremly sensitive gravity detector or?
If you get what i mean here :) Not one but many making that sphere.
As you say our consciousness is one of the pillars of our observing.
But space time have existed without us and will do so after us too.
Which doesn't hinder that you might be right in that our understanding is 'expanding'
But what I'm questioning is a simple thing.
1. Whatever way we look at our universe there should be proof for if it is expanding , finite, infinite, etc if we studied the way light moves through our universe.
as light climbs invisible hills and dives down those valleys the path should change depending on if we are a closed/open system etc.
Also the expanding in every point people refer to should show itself here.
I'm not sure how one should handle the experiments though, it all depends on what rate of change there might be.
It would have to be thought over most judiciously as there could be two 'forces' acting together, finite/infinite and expanding.
And setting up a system of lasers observed over time seems a sane approach.
Also there might be other ways to notice gravitational changes.
But i think it should be possible.
In fact i believe it would be possible to just use still 'point' readings of gravity to see if they change in different points, then you would have to exclude possible variations by moving bodies etc but what you had left should be able to point :) us.
Would 'bent light' be possible to use as a gravitatational detector?
If you allowed light to move in circles covering a full sphere then you should have a extremly sensitive gravity detector or?
If you get what i mean here :) Not one but many making that sphere.
QUOTE
But what I'm questioning is a simple thing.
1. Whatever way we look at our universe there should be proof for if it is expanding , finite, infinite, etc if we studied the way light moves through our universe.
1. Whatever way we look at our universe there should be proof for if it is expanding , finite, infinite, etc if we studied the way light moves through our universe.
It is the same for 'detecting' anything that doesn't actually exist, like 'gods' for example. All we will do is uncover more and more information to the contrary. Then, there will come a critical point whereby there is SO MUCH evidence that our fantasies do not actually exist, that we will be forced to recognise the Truth of the matter.
As you say, there is already enough evidence to suggest that the 'whole universe' did not 'begin' at some point. It is just a question of whether we have invested too much of our valuable time in 'belief' or not.
g.
For example: Infinite expansion requires infinite energy. Infinite=imaginary.
Or energy as a by-product of expansion which takes no energy. If expansion is constant acceleration why matter accumulates? To fit the idea we need acceleration, deceleration and acceleration. One cannot just invent the way things happened.
How can anything resist infinite expansion? How can there exist a time for acumulations to take place if everything is going appart at immense speeds? I am aware that expansion can be contraction into hyperspace but what is hyper-space then? Where does it come from? Hyper-bang? Infinite recursions into infinite directions and no answers whatsoever. Or should one say - Infinite answers with center being consistency.
When, where and how? Answers we have or so it seems: Never, nowhere and undefinable. Isnt it simpler to assume when where and how universe happens does not exist. It always existed for example and it changes. It always changes.
Or energy as a by-product of expansion which takes no energy. If expansion is constant acceleration why matter accumulates? To fit the idea we need acceleration, deceleration and acceleration. One cannot just invent the way things happened.
How can anything resist infinite expansion? How can there exist a time for acumulations to take place if everything is going appart at immense speeds? I am aware that expansion can be contraction into hyperspace but what is hyper-space then? Where does it come from? Hyper-bang? Infinite recursions into infinite directions and no answers whatsoever. Or should one say - Infinite answers with center being consistency.
When, where and how? Answers we have or so it seems: Never, nowhere and undefinable. Isnt it simpler to assume when where and how universe happens does not exist. It always existed for example and it changes. It always changes.
Ok Gorgeous. but before saying it doesn't exist it would be good with some proof, right.
Sh* Majkl, you sound P* off here :)
And those are good questions.
The idea of dimensions we can't and won't see is irritating.
But the universe seems to be best explained by such concepts.
The idea of 'light spheres' floating in space keeping within a configuration created by constant contact via lasers to their siblings, doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be still at rigid points in space.
As long as we know the forces surrounding them in form of rest mass, we can count on that.
They can be allowed to move somewhat.
What would be interesting if it worked would be their internal readings of gravity as well as 'the whole grids' 'deformation' in space.
If it was possible that is :)
It might show us 'hidden' dimensions in form of expanding etc.
-----------
F ex let us assume:) that there will be no 'deformation' seen.
That might mean that there are no expansion in 'points'
alternatively that everything is expanding/growing.
Which in its turn would make expansion meaningless as nothing really would change, right :)
Sh* Majkl, you sound P* off here :)
And those are good questions.
The idea of dimensions we can't and won't see is irritating.
But the universe seems to be best explained by such concepts.
The idea of 'light spheres' floating in space keeping within a configuration created by constant contact via lasers to their siblings, doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be still at rigid points in space.
As long as we know the forces surrounding them in form of rest mass, we can count on that.
They can be allowed to move somewhat.
What would be interesting if it worked would be their internal readings of gravity as well as 'the whole grids' 'deformation' in space.
If it was possible that is :)
It might show us 'hidden' dimensions in form of expanding etc.
-----------
F ex let us assume:) that there will be no 'deformation' seen.
That might mean that there are no expansion in 'points'
alternatively that everything is expanding/growing.
Which in its turn would make expansion meaningless as nothing really would change, right :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Mar 26 2008, 07:45 PM)
Which in its turn would make expansion meaningless as nothing really would change, right 
It may seem as if a was p**ed.
The idea is more like - that by using hyper-dimensionality you can go into as many dimensions as you want and thus the problem is the explanation itself. What are we explaining actually kind of question. Does anybody in this world have any idea? Like you cannot say this is a ball. You actually cannot say anything about it but you got the ball in your hands. What is that ball kind of questions. WHat is anything? But if i leave these waters...
To your point. Yes..if i understand what you are saying is that if everything is expanding the proportionality stays the same so it doesnt make a difference whether its contracting or expanding as change equals 0.
Additional point about expansion in the context idea of expanding space. If space expands light gets indirectly affected by this. Thus light does not expand. It takes longer and longer to get from point to point on a continuum. So light is contracting in comparison to space. It is becoming smaller and smaller. Now what one does not get is this unchangeable light thing. Everything is changing and deforming except light. Its weird to say the least.
If there was un-proportional expansion there is a possibility that light would have longer wavelengths because of expanding space alone. Thus speed of light would not be reduced because of that. It would just stretch light. Thus light would be directly connected to space if its not space itself. But this is yet another quack i guess. If there is some kind of medium even if medium being light itself there is some kind of comprehension but no medium is just beyond for me.
It may seem as if a was p**ed.
The idea is more like - that by using hyper-dimensionality you can go into as many dimensions as you want and thus the problem is the explanation itself. What are we explaining actually kind of question. Does anybody in this world have any idea? Like you cannot say this is a ball. You actually cannot say anything about it but you got the ball in your hands. What is that ball kind of questions. WHat is anything? But if i leave these waters...To your point. Yes..if i understand what you are saying is that if everything is expanding the proportionality stays the same so it doesnt make a difference whether its contracting or expanding as change equals 0.
Additional point about expansion in the context idea of expanding space. If space expands light gets indirectly affected by this. Thus light does not expand. It takes longer and longer to get from point to point on a continuum. So light is contracting in comparison to space. It is becoming smaller and smaller. Now what one does not get is this unchangeable light thing. Everything is changing and deforming except light. Its weird to say the least.
If there was un-proportional expansion there is a possibility that light would have longer wavelengths because of expanding space alone. Thus speed of light would not be reduced because of that. It would just stretch light. Thus light would be directly connected to space if its not space itself. But this is yet another quack i guess. If there is some kind of medium even if medium being light itself there is some kind of comprehension but no medium is just beyond for me.
Brilliant Majkl. What you wrote about light is perfectly correct.
If we are expanding in every point then either light follow space time's specifications and grow with it.
And/Or
" If there was un-proportional expansion there is a possibility that light would have longer wavelengths because of expanding space alone. Thus speed of light would not be reduced because of that. It would just stretch light. Thus light would be directly connected to space if its not space itself "
Or it does not in which case we should observe a 'shrinking' of waves which would make them seem more 'energetic' right.
If we are expanding in every point then either light follow space time's specifications and grow with it.
And/Or
" If there was un-proportional expansion there is a possibility that light would have longer wavelengths because of expanding space alone. Thus speed of light would not be reduced because of that. It would just stretch light. Thus light would be directly connected to space if its not space itself "
Or it does not in which case we should observe a 'shrinking' of waves which would make them seem more 'energetic' right.
If you think of 'light' as the radiation of a frequency, instead of the 'physical thing', 'particle', 'photon', or whatever label you want to give it, it then becomes easier to visualise as a wave.
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/w...wavemotion.html
This is a good site that explains how waves 'move', and although this is mostly based on 'sound', the same principles apply.
If you then see the entirety of what exists, Space, as a mostly 'rigid' kind of medium, that pulsates/vibrates with its own internal energy, it is possible to see 'light' in another way. 'Light' is, then, one of the many frequencies of Space that manifests as an apparently 'separate' thing, as Humans conceptualise it, but NOT in actuality.
g.
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/w...wavemotion.html
This is a good site that explains how waves 'move', and although this is mostly based on 'sound', the same principles apply.
If you then see the entirety of what exists, Space, as a mostly 'rigid' kind of medium, that pulsates/vibrates with its own internal energy, it is possible to see 'light' in another way. 'Light' is, then, one of the many frequencies of Space that manifests as an apparently 'separate' thing, as Humans conceptualise it, but NOT in actuality.
g.
I'm not that far from your thinking Gorgeous :)
I think of space time as a (3d) surface in time.
Normally what one might call a surface is thought as one/two dimensional kind of just to allow us a 'grip' of the idea of it.
How about if our whole universe was that :) topologically speaking with time giving us 3d effects.
Now I'm not saying that it is so, but I do not think space to be any different than ourselves.
I think of space time as a (3d) surface in time.
Normally what one might call a surface is thought as one/two dimensional kind of just to allow us a 'grip' of the idea of it.
How about if our whole universe was that :) topologically speaking with time giving us 3d effects.
Now I'm not saying that it is so, but I do not think space to be any different than ourselves.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.