The universe disturbs me.

[airspirit]

Winewood: I heartily agree on chaos theory. All you have to do to understand this is to watch the look on my wife's face while watching a kernel compile ... she has no idea what is happening and it appears like random gibberish to her ... but to someone who recognizes what is happening (higher understanding), it is perfectly ordered.

[winewood]

LOL!!!! Thats priceless airspirit!

that line could stretch from one point of 4d space to the far boundary in one fell shot

Let me raise some questions about this. If energy has mass.. and that mass were stretched across a line at the speed of light, it would be X long, however would shrink or lengthen as speed decreased or increased. Mass is not created or destroyed, therfore has a finite length. However to something Millions of light years large viewing the event, it would be as if it hasn't moved at all. In reality there is only the changing of perspective. Now since perspective is what is changing, that doesnt really eliminate or change any concept of time. Because in fact the energy still has mass. Has an A point and a Z (length). The perspective is different, but the constraints are still present. We cannot percieve a beginning and an end, but change perspective and there is a definite end and beginning. Just a thought.

[Alchemy]

I apologize for my most foolish mistake of assuming you had any idea what you were talking about.

To speculate on the nature of reality with a hodgepodge of misunderstood physics, philosophy, and metaphysics is no more theorizing than a monkey flinging crap at a wall is creating a treatise on economics in Morse code.

I'm with pHaestus. Lay off the weed.

Also: Chaos theory is a misnomer, it's a body of knowledge and mapping techniques based on mathematical and applied mathematical study. You can't agree or disagree with it any more than you can agree or disagree with the Renaissance - there's no single statement or set of statements that chaos theorists ascribe to.

To say "I agree with chaos theory" or "I find holes in chaos theory" is analogous to getting a tattoo of cool Asian characters without knowing that they translate to "I'm so stupid I don't even know what these kanji mean."

Alchemy

[Copy Cat]

Winewood. Um that was not proof. Just a story of a practical example of how the sense of time depends on "good" record keeping.

I think that time being a 4th dimension is flawed ( or at worst I don't understand what a dimension is).

If you want to invent a dimension as a part of a coordinate plane so you can solve a few motion problems fine, but that does not imply that time exist.

Colors don't exist but the concept helps people identify some objects.

I almost believe space exist, and time may be a coping mechanism to explain how the universe restructures things in that space before our eyes with out becoming static or broken. Time could be the first religion
.

Airspirit you can't travel in something that does not exist (if you believe that way). Thats like trying to make unobtainium. Once you make it, it is not unobtainium.

[winewood]

Alchemy:

no single statement or set of statements that chaos theorists ascribe to

The choatic theory or application was applied to Tempus' quote

If you want to argue the deterministic nature of the universe then chaos should be your starting point.

That was a direct attempt to define a theory as it rests as a defining characteristic for the universe. Since this part of the theory is what we are discussing, I am taking approach of the chaos theory as "the Chaotic Universe". If you want to talk fractals.. do so. However don't misdefine the area of our narrowly defined discussion on chaos to your macro apporach of our conversation in an attempt to flatter your ego.

Please refer to this: http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958/adh4.htm

If im not mistaken, the original post referred to time, infinity, universe and existance. So please excuse our ignorance if you are failing to see that we are talking about a completely different scope of the theory.

[airspirit]

Alchemy:

???

What is wrong with what I have said? Any examples for us? I don't have any philosophy thrown in there except possible ramifications of what I'm saying, which are absolutely meaningless one way or the other. That was just for fun.

Honestly, many of the things that are described in physics are theoretical, especially when you get to quantum theory and many of the stranger and cutting edge branches of it such as string theory et al. Since most of the things that are tossed around are either based solely on the cause or solely on the effect, many are unproven in any form. Basically, what I threw out was something to explain both the cause and the effect. The fact that it flies in the face of some of the aforementioned unproven and derivative fringe physics shouldn't be of concern .... Now, if I was to start denying PROVABLE things that would be a different matter.

I am an avid collector of information on all subjects, particularly physics. I am also a "WHY" type person rather than a "WHAT" type person. It's nice to be able to describe a what a phone is, but I want to know how the bugger works. What I proposed was just a way to explain on a macroscale my way of reckoning ... and nothing I stated flies in the face of any PROVABLE or relatively DEMONSTRABLE cause AND effect based experimentation, but goes a long way toward explaining many of the unexplained mysteries around us.

I'm not telling you to believe me. This idea of mine has evolved for a long time building upon the things I learn, and occassionally I hit an impasse. I don't ignore real science. I don't pick and choose what I want to fit my beliefs like (for example) religious people: I try to make everything PROVABLE fit ... because I'm a "WHY" person.

If you don't like it, fine ... it doesn't bother me one bit. I do wish, however, that someone could provide a better view or theory (that doesn't include omniscient magical dieties that decide whether or not Notre Dame wins football games) or at least explain why it's wrong rather than just say "j00 SuX0rzzzz!!!11!!11!!!!!!1ONE!~!

Believe me: if you can do that, I'm all ears, man.

Winewood:

I'm not talking about the matter itself stretching as it effects d3, I'm talking about its affect as viewed from a d4 perspective. Naturally, it is in one place and one piece from our perspective, since it must (one object can not be in two places at one time simultaneously, and it won't streak out like in star trek due to laws that prevent that sort of hollywood behavior), but in a time perspective, it IS in two places at once, though in our perception we can not see the effects as they happen ... just the end results.

[Alchemy]

I rescind my comment about a monkey flinging doo and my generally elitist tone.

My point is that you're not theorizing or hypothesizing. You're speculating, but none of your speculations lead you any farther than "wouldn't it be interesting if . . . ?"

If you're looking for a Theory of Everything, or an answer to the universal Why, you won't find it in science. For that matter, science does not answer questions such as "What is the purpose of this?" or "Is there a god, and if so, what is its nature?"

The problem is that you are making incorrect and ill-informed generalizations about science and mathematics in order to assist your otherwise inarguable speculations.

If you want to speculate on the nature of the world like an English opium-eater, I won't criticize you. If you want to discuss the limitations that current scientific theory place upon the universe, I can help you. If you want me to answer specific questions about one theory or another, or the soundness of one particular aspect of your speculations, or on specific terminology, I can do those things too.

What do you want?

Alchemy

(At least I didn't accuse you of t3h 8ut secks.)

[Copy Cat]

Alchemy.

Ok. How can we test if space is real? That is not a rhetorical question. Really I am on a fence about space. It would seem important to know if things actually do exist in "real" space or if space is also a delusion. Does any thing actually move or is the universe static?

[Since87]

Copy Cat,

It is completely impossible to scientifically/logically prove that anything you perceive is "real". Does that make any practical difference to anything?

[Copy Cat]

Real is a bad choice of words. Think of compressing things. If space is "real" the objects will interact differently than if the universe has no space, and space is a series of sensory illusions.

As of now current theories suggest you can only store a finite amount of information in a defined space with out it collapsing into a singularity thus destroying all the data stored into that space, meaning the maximum amount of information you can store depends on area, and not volume before it is deleted (if black holes do delete things ). This is not true if space does not exist.

This is not the reason I don't know if space is tangible, but if time does not exist then it is hard to move, and that means you may need a static system that mimics how we see the universe, and then discover how our minds are being tricked. I think it is bad for people to say:

"Dang we can't prove it yet, or ever! Hey, lets close our eyes, put our fingers over our ears, and hum really loud until an answer falls out of the sky, and hits us on the head!"

What you say is true, but before you play to win don't you need to know the basic rules of the game?

So how can you test space?

[Since87]

Originally posted by Copy Cat
I think it is bad for people to say:

"Dang we can't prove it yet, or ever! Hey, lets close our eyes, put our fingers over our ears, and hum really loud until an answer falls out of the sky, and hits us on the head!"

What you say is true, but before you play to win don't you need to know the basic rules of the game?

Why do you think it's bad for people to say the quoted statement? If you truly disbelieved in "time" the quoted statement would just be meaningless noise.

In fact what does it mean when you say "it is bad" if you 'strongly believe that "time" does not exist'. I suggest those two beliefs cannot be held simultaneously in anything approaching a consistent understanding of the world.

I think it's foolish for people not to understand the limitations of logic, mathematics and science. Disprove Solipsism. I can't, but I don't see any particular value in beating my head against that problem, when I can just reject Solipsism and go on to doing things that have more value to me. Frequently mu is the 'right' answer.*

For all the games I'm interested in playing, accepting the existence of space and time is one of the basic rules. Under those rules I can frequently produce plausible explanations for the phenomena I see, and somewhat predict the future based on my observations.

In what practical sense can you reject the existence of space and time and do anything.

I think your statement, 'I strongly believe that "time" does not exist' is pretentious nonsense. Other statements you make are totally inconsistent with you actually holding that as a core belief.

[winewood]

Quite interesting to discuss though.

[Copy Cat]

Yeah it's a wild paradox being me, but I am cool like that.

I guess it is like calculus. A large majority does not use it to put food on the table even if they learned it in school. For them calculus only applies to things outside their occupation.

Yet they benefit from other people that do tones of calc so the average Joe does not have to.

"Future" development may depend on if time and space are actually time and space, or if they are a single dimension, or other.
To take your stance it may show us dead ends so we can do more "practical things".

Sophism really does matter on a watered down scale. Once I grad I want to do research to get rid of the monitor and keyboard, and I am not alone the palm pilot guy (yeah it sucks when you forget a name) is privately researching MMI. Will cyber sex count as real adultery, in a non religious social sense.

[Copy Cat]

Solipsism. Oops.

[KnightElite]

All of you who have no formal education in modern physics....

I recommend that you read Hawking's books:

• A Brief History of Time
• The Universe in a Nutshell

Another good book to look at is:
Time Travel in Einstein's Universe by J. Richard Gott

Read those books.... then come back .

[siavash_s_s]

dont flame me on this one, but it has been observec (not by looking ofcourse) that time goes slower around objects of greater mass. also to touch on big bang theory, there was no before as there was no time untill it exploded, and no outside since there was no space. someone explain what could have set it off? (bigbang = bullshit?)

[siavash_s_s]

to touch on that how could the universe be 1-10 lightyears from 1 side to other in 2/10 of a second? this is against einstein theroy (which recently (2001) was put even more strongly by the proof that gravity moves at speed of light) that speed of light is maximum. wouldnt this mean the maximum size of universe at 2/10 of a second would be 2/10 light seconds apart. the only idea i have is "outside" the universe doesnt have this restricition and the universe can expand ******ds at huge speeds.
also read about brainworlds they are interesting

[KnightElite]

siavash.... read Hawking's book. Particularly in The Universe in a Nutshell, he discusses how the universe could have had an inflationary stage immediately after the big bang, without violating the laws of physics.

[bigben2k]

I was going to recomend Stephen's work...