FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Hammer278]

At its most fundamental level, time is useful only to define a change of state. If there is no change, ergo, time becomes unnecessary.

this is probably the easiest way to summarize the thread.

[LRW]

At its most fundamental level, time is useful only to define a change of state. If there is no change, ergo, time becomes unnecessary.

this is probably the easiest way to summarize the thread.

But time is irrelevant to my opening question. If nothing existed, time is irrelivent. The question really boils down to, "what would exist if nothing existed"?

[What's Burning?]

At its most fundamental level, time is useful only to define a change of state. If there is no change, ergo, time becomes unnecessary.

this is probably the easiest way to summarize the thread.

But time is irrelevant to my opening question. If nothing existed, time is irrelivent. The question really boils down to, "what would exist if nothing existed"?

This is where is becomes about existentialism, it doesn't matter since you wouldn't be here to ponder the question. And no, the association with time isn't irrelevant since nothing would imply no possibility for change until there IS something.

[LRW]

At its most fundamental level, time is useful only to define a change of state. If there is no change, ergo, time becomes unnecessary.

this is probably the easiest way to summarize the thread.

But time is irrelevant to my opening question. If nothing existed, time is irrelivent. The question really boils down to, "what would exist if nothing existed"?

This is where is becomes about existentialism, it doesn't matter since you wouldn't be here to ponder the question. And no, the association with time isn't irrelevant since nothing would imply no possibility for change until there IS something.

But Im not talking about the possibility of change. Im not talking about creating tennis balls from thin air. Im just trying to ponder how 'nothing' could exist.

I'm obviously not explaining my thoughts clearly enough. Which was my initial fear when posting.

[Big Azza]

At its most fundamental level, time is useful only to define a change of state. If there is no change, ergo, time becomes unnecessary.

this is probably the easiest way to summarize the thread.

But time is irrelevant to my opening question. If nothing existed, time is irrelivent. The question really boils down to, "what would exist if nothing existed"?

This is where is becomes about existentialism, it doesn't matter since you wouldn't be here to ponder the question. And no, the association with time isn't irrelevant since nothing would imply no possibility for change until there IS something.

But Im not talking about the possibility of change. Im not talking about creating tennis balls from thin air. Im just trying to ponder how 'nothing' could exist.

I'm obviously not explaining my thoughts clearly enough. Which was my initial fear when posting.

Did you check out the link at the end of my post before? http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html


This is how scientists explain that something came from nothing.

[What's Burning?]

maybe there is no answer since we live in a plane of existence where "something" does exist. it would be like trying to explain a third dimension to someone that lived in a two dimensional world.

anyway, pass the dutchie.

[LRW]

Did you check out the link at the end of my post before? http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html


This is how scientists explain that something came from nothing.

No, not yet BA. Im at work, so cant really look at the video. Will check it out later. But I dont want us getting hung-up on how we became. Thats not really my question.

maybe there is no answer since we live in a plane of existence where "something" does exist. it would be like trying to explain a third dimension to someone that lived in a two dimensional world.

anyway, pass the dutchie.

See. Its great what conversations we can have when certain people aren't here.

[Hammer278]

I tried imagining what you're talking about, and yeah it does seem depressing. I wonder though, WHY would you think such thoughts??

Essentially you're saying the universe needs to be a complete vacuum where air, sound, light doesn't exist. Why not say 1 big black hole consumes everything...and that be the end of...this galaxy. We have many others out there though.

[stonemonkey]

I tried imagining what you're talking about, and yeah it does seem depressing. I wonder though, WHY would you think such thoughts??

Essentially you're saying the universe needs to be a complete vacuum where air, sound, light doesn't exist. Why not say 1 big black hole consumes everything...and that be the end of...this galaxy. We have many others out there though.

Not a complete vacuum, that would imply space. Empty space is pretty easy to imagine although it probably doesn't really exist anywhere, at the moment of the big bang everything, all the matter and energy AND SPACE was a single point.

[LRW]

I tried imagining what you're talking about, and yeah it does seem depressing. I wonder though, WHY would you think such thoughts??

Essentially you're saying the universe needs to be a complete vacuum where air, sound, light doesn't exist. Why not say 1 big black hole consumes everything...and that be the end of...this galaxy. We have many others out there though.

Not a complete vacuum, that would imply space. Empty space is pretty easy to imagine although it probably doesn't really exist anywhere, at the moment of the big bang everything, all the matter and energy AND SPACE was a single point.

Yes

[stonemonkey]

One of the models for the universe and it's expansion I find easiest to grasp is the hypersphere.

Imagine in the 3D world we percieve, there's a round balloon with an infinitely thin skin, that skin can be thought of as a 2D surface curving through 3 dimensions and those dimensions are perpendicular to each other but tangential to the surface of the balloon. Now imagine a 2D entity living in that 2D surface, it has no concept of up or down or of anything that exists inside or outside of the balloon, as the balloon expands the 2D surface expands and all the entities on that surface get further away from each other.

In the case of the hypersphere things get a little more difficult to imagine, the surface is 3 dimensional curving through 4 or more dimensions and each of those 3 perpendicular dimensions is tangential to the surface of the hypersphere. We can move any direction through those 3 dimensions but we can never move off that infinitely thin surface of the hypersphere and no matter what direction we look we can't look away from or towards the centre of the hypersphere either, we can only travel/look along a tangent to the surface.

I have no idea if that makes any sense to anyone else. It is probably not the most popular model but I think it can go some way to giving the idea of trying to imagine more than the 3D world we percieve.

[What's Burning?]

and space doesn't mean simply the macro level, it also works on the micro level.

since we're all in a very enlightened mood here today, enjoy this I've shared it before, but it never gets old for me.

[LRW]

One of the models for the universe and it's expansion I find easiest to grasp is the hypersphere.

Imagine in the 3D world we percieve, there's a round balloon with an infinitely thin skin, that skin can be thought of as a 2D surface curving through 3 dimensions and both those dimensions are tangential to the surface of the balloon. Now imagine a 2D entity living in that 2D surface, it has no concept of up or down or of anything that exists inside or outside of the balloon, as the balloon expands the 2D surface expands and all the entities on that surface get further away from each other.

In the case of the hypersphere things get a little more difficult to imagine, the surface is 3 dimensional curving through 4 or more dimensions and each of those 3 dimensions is tangential to the surface of the hypersphere. We can move any direction through those 3 dimensions but we can never move off that infinitely thin surface of the hypersphere and no matter what direction we look we can't look away from or towards the centre of the hypersphere either, we can only travel/look along a tangent to the surface.

I have no idea if that makes any sense to anyone else. It is probably not the most popular model but I think it can go some way to giving the idea of trying to imagine more than the 3D world we percieve.

Nope. But I have had a bottle of Cab Sav. diagrams would REALLY help

[stonemonkey]

One of the models for the universe and it's expansion I find easiest to grasp is the hypersphere.

Imagine in the 3D world we percieve, there's a round balloon with an infinitely thin skin, that skin can be thought of as a 2D surface curving through 3 dimensions and both those dimensions are tangential to the surface of the balloon. Now imagine a 2D entity living in that 2D surface, it has no concept of up or down or of anything that exists inside or outside of the balloon, as the balloon expands the 2D surface expands and all the entities on that surface get further away from each other.

In the case of the hypersphere things get a little more difficult to imagine, the surface is 3 dimensional curving through 4 or more dimensions and each of those 3 dimensions is tangential to the surface of the hypersphere. We can move any direction through those 3 dimensions but we can never move off that infinitely thin surface of the hypersphere and no matter what direction we look we can't look away from or towards the centre of the hypersphere either, we can only travel/look along a tangent to the surface.

I have no idea if that makes any sense to anyone else. It is probably not the most popular model but I think it can go some way to giving the idea of trying to imagine more than the 3D world we percieve.

Nope. But I have had a bottle of Cab Sav. diagrams would REALLY help

Just think of a 2D entity living on the 2D surface of an expanding balloon with no concept of up or down or height, all the entity knows of and can ever know of is what's on that 2D surface of the balloon with every point on that surface getting further away from every other point as it expands. This model is like that but it's a 3d surface of a hypersphere curving through 4 dimensions.

There are other models with space curving in other ways or is flat which give rise to different properties as to whether space is finite or not but no one really knows.

[LRW]

One of the models for the universe and it's expansion I find easiest to grasp is the hypersphere.

Imagine in the 3D world we percieve, there's a round balloon with an infinitely thin skin, that skin can be thought of as a 2D surface curving through 3 dimensions and both those dimensions are tangential to the surface of the balloon. Now imagine a 2D entity living in that 2D surface, it has no concept of up or down or of anything that exists inside or outside of the balloon, as the balloon expands the 2D surface expands and all the entities on that surface get further away from each other.

In the case of the hypersphere things get a little more difficult to imagine, the surface is 3 dimensional curving through 4 or more dimensions and each of those 3 dimensions is tangential to the surface of the hypersphere. We can move any direction through those 3 dimensions but we can never move off that infinitely thin surface of the hypersphere and no matter what direction we look we can't look away from or towards the centre of the hypersphere either, we can only travel/look along a tangent to the surface.

I have no idea if that makes any sense to anyone else. It is probably not the most popular model but I think it can go some way to giving the idea of trying to imagine more than the 3D world we percieve.

Nope. But I have had a bottle of Cab Sav. diagrams would REALLY help

Just think of a 2D entity living on the 2D surface of an expanding balloon with no concept of up or down or height, all the entity knows of and can ever know of is what's on that 2D surface of the balloon with every point on that surface getting further away from every other point as it expands. This model is like that but it's a 3d surface of a hypersphere curving through 4 dimensions.

There are other models with space curving in other ways or is flat which give rise to different properties as to whether space is finite or not but no one really knows.

Yeah, ive still had a bottle of red. I'm with you on the 2d entity on a 2d balloon. But then my brain gives up. I WILL revisit this tomorrow and work it out.

Cheers for your input.

I'm glad I haven't been COMPLETELY been laughed off the forum.....