Space and Time

[Kmal]

We never encounter 'space' without 'time', or 'time' without 'space.' A year measures the amount of space the earth moves around the sun, and the space the earth travels in one orbit gives us the time we call a 'year.' This is the space time continuum. (any speculation about the other planets being earth in the future and past is up to you) As per quantum physics, everything is happening at once, at the same time, just in a different place in time.

I dont think the 'universe' is shrinking-- I think we are getting pulled closer and closer to the sun, per gravity. I suppose this would make the big bang theory viable-- a huge explosion that makes a star, our sun in this case, scatters all the material that is needed for planets, and gravity does the rest. Certain distances from the sun, and certain materials on a rock that is now orbiting the star, would create a sweet spot for life.

So help me think guys-- does gravity influence time and space? What does all this imply? Anything to add to my theory?

 

[AhSver]

Ohh... Well, the Universe moves towards entropy, chaos so that it is constantly expanding. It's still debatable whether the Universe eventually shrink back to the low entropy or continue to expand.
I think you will find some answers from this amazing video, please check it out, it is worth it! It's right up the alley of your question.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_distant_time_and_the_hint_of_a_multiverse.html

For some reason it appears to be broken, you just have to delete extra spaces in your browser address line in the word "multiverse." Not sure why it doesn't get shared normally.

 

[Faye]

Time is the change of space.

Gravity is extremely complicated and I'm not sure whether I have reliable information on it or not. My understanding is that the whole universe is full of energy, even in places where there is nothing, and that this energy somehow pulls things together. I can't comprehend the infiniteness of it though.

 

[Kmal]

Ohh... Well, the Universe moves towards entropy, chaos so that it is constantly expanding. It's still debatable whether the Universe eventually shrink back to the low entropy or continue to expand.

Applying the theory of relativity you dont have a universe without an observer. This is what I was illustrating in the OP; a verbal separate of the same thing. Even the universe seen outside of us, is actually seen through the nervous system.
The link you provided me says the link is not found.

Time is the change of space.

Gravity is extremely complicated and I'm not sure whether I have reliable information on it or not. My understanding is that the whole universe is full of energy, even in places where there is nothing, and that this energy somehow pulls things together. I can't comprehend the infiniteness of it though.

You're separating time and space; would you perhaps elaborate why? You're also separating the universe and the observer. The infiniteness is within you; to become aware, then to become aware of being aware, and then aware of becoming aware of being aware, ad infinitum.

 

[AhSver]

That's why underneath the link I wrote to delete extra spaces in the word multiverse. . .

 

[Kmal]

nice! it's a very interesting watch! i'll have to research entropy-- it's not making sense at this moment, or its not seeming relevant. would you like to give a try of explaining it to me?

 

[AUM]

nice! it's a very interesting watch! i'll have to research entropy-- it's not making sense at this moment, or its not seeming relevant. would you like to give a try of explaining it to me?

The basic way to describe it is as a system of disorder, especially for the laws of thermodynamics. High entropy systems has more disorder, meaning less energy to do work. Low entropy are systems more organized and able to do work.

An easy example would be water. In a high entropy state, the water is evaporated, it cannot do any work because the molecules have been dispersed throughout the atmosphere, you cannot do anything with it.

Water on a low entropy state such as liquid, you can pour into a machine to make it work, you can drink it and so on.

Edit: Oops, I just realized that you asked AhSver directly for an explication. Sorry.

 

[AhSver]

It is a random movement of molecules and not just: every single particle out there. If they would be still the entire time would stay still. Time in a sense is a change. The faster the movement of the particles, the faster time goes by and the amount of random probabilities increases. Probability of particles to collide I should say, the Milky Way system for example happens to be in such place in the universe with such level of entropy the life came to be. Freakin' a lot of factors had to be happening. Equilibrium just like in Physics or Chemistry, or any other science means the lack of movement. At such stage if particles stay completely still the time freezes. As the Universe expanded the movement of particles started to increase caused by some super complex processes which won't even dare to try to get into. Gravitation is the by product of the force particles carry.. Heh I think Wiki article could do a much better job than me

 

[Kmal]

in that video, that man talked about dark matter, and how its constantly exerting pressure on everything. since we are seeing the universe through our nervous system, and the mind and its contents are functionally identical, i'm thinking that dark matter is consciousness; and that would mean consciousness is energy. which would also mean we can affect events with thought.

 

[whytiger]

I'm pretty sure that dark matter is a type of particle. Are you sure you're talking about dark matter and not dark energy? Dark matter has been observed mainly in galaxies and is thought to be important in galaxy formation. Interestingly, it is not observed much in globular clusters which can be the same size as galaxies. This is one reason why it is probably a special type of particle. Dark energy, on the other hand, exerts negative pressure on everything, in a sense it is the tension of the fabric of space and time itself.

 

[bickelz]

Ohh... Well, the Universe moves towards entropy, chaos so that it is constantly expanding. It's still debatable whether the Universe eventually shrink back to the low entropy or continue to expand.

Entropy increases in a closed system. It has to be closed. If the universe is an open system, it's not necessarily increasing in entropy.

What the second law of thermodynamics really gets at is that you cannot have a perpetual motion system.

I dont think the 'universe' is shrinking-- I think we are getting pulled closer and closer to the sun, per gravity.

Einstein found that the universe was expanding, not shrinking. Although, a shrinking universe was what everybody's hypothesis was at the time.

So help me think guys-- does gravity influence time and space? What does all this imply? Anything to add to my theory?

Mass influences space, that's been proven. Massive objects bend space. I think that was another Einstein proof.

 

[Kmal]

Einstein found that the universe was expanding, not shrinking. Although, a shrinking universe was what everybody's hypothesis was at the time.

Mass influences space, that's been proven. Massive objects bend space. I think that was another Einstein proof.

I dont know; since the perception of the universe cannot escape the confines of your nervous system, i postulate that the universe is made up of consciousness.

So then, could consciousness exist without space/time and gravity? Is consciousness a result of space/time? Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[bickelz]

I dont know; since the perception of the universe cannot escape the confines of your nervous system, i postulate that the universe is made up of consciousness.

Wut? The universe is basically emtpy. It's a blank slate, an open ended platform with certain rules that cannot be broken; which gives it a language.

So then, could consciousness exist without space/time and gravity? Is consciousness a result of space/time? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Not really but I'll take a stab at it.

Think of space and time as a base operating system. It's the most fundamental part of what you build from it. It's a foundation.

You take the space-time continuum and build up, gradually making a system that becomes increasingly more complex.

So, everything is a result of space time, given that it is the base foundation for the universe. That may be an incorrect assumption though.

 

[ishootiscore04]

Ironically, the "stuff" that we most often think about is matter and energy. Even though it seems like there's tons of it out there, it actually only makes up less than 1% of our universe. Dark Matter (15% i think?) and Dark Energy (something like 80 some% i htink) makes up the rest. Dark Matter is pulling everything together, but dark energy pushes everything further apart. the stuff has so little known about it (hence the name dark) that people can only speculate what it really IS. my theory is that dark energy are the "ripples" in space time from the so called "big bang" and dark matter is the force that once everything to be calm again (think of gravity in retrospect with a wave in a pond, it wants it to calm down and be flat again). just a thought

i like whytigers idea of dark matter being the "fabric" of space and time itself. if you think of it that way, then dark energy is the "energy of the wave" from the big bang.

 

[Kmal]

Wut? The universe is basically emtpy. It's a blank slate, an open ended platform with certain rules that cannot be broken; which gives it a language.

Not really but I'll take a stab at it.

Think of space and time as a base operating system. It's the most fundamental part of what you build from it. It's a foundation.

You take the space-time continuum and build up, gradually making a system that becomes increasingly more complex.

So, everything is a result of space time, given that it is the base foundation for the universe. That may be an incorrect assumption though.

what IS the universe? all you know of is this galaxy and all the stars you see in the night sky is galaxies. how do you know its empty?

i agree with the space time as a foundation-- consciousness would then be a result of that? is it the chicken or the egg? because you need consciousness to observe the space time continuum-- another infinity loop.

 

[Joonas]

The universe isn't a part of your conciousness and your conciousness has nothing to do with what the universe actually is.
And for something to be observed, it has to exist first.

 

[Kmal]

The universe isn't a part of your conciousness and your conciousness has nothing to do with what the universe actually is.
And for something to be observed, it has to exist first.

what? has your perception escaped the confines of your nervous system? do tell me what you think the universe actually is- i'm interested.

as to whether the chicken came first, or the egg-- i'm not in the business of declaring that; just discussing it.

 

[Joonas]

what? has your perception escaped the confines of your nervous system? do tell me what you think the universe actually is- i'm interested.

as to whether the chicken came first, or the egg-- i'm not in the business of declaring that; just discussing it.

I don't think that the problem is in defining the universe, just in our way of looking at it. You seem to be a relativist that thinks about everything according to how you, anyone or anything is able to perceive it as, while I believe in absolutes.

If a car is gray (in reality), and I perceive it as a red car (this is my perception of reality), it doesn't actually change the gray car into a red one, even if I and everyone else in this whole universe thought it was red. It will still be gray.

 

[Kmal]

I don't think that the problem is in defining the universe, just in our way of looking at it. You seem to be a relativist that thinks about everything according to how you, anyone or anything is able to perceive it as, while I believe in absolutes.

If a car is gray (in reality), and I perceive it as a red car (this is my perception of reality), it doesn't actually change the gray car into a red one, even if I and everyone else in this whole universe thought it was red. It will still be gray.

The car doesnt have a color until you define it. There is no such thing as a color anyway, until someone [you, in this case] defines them. This is the limit of language, and semantics! mostly-- What would you have called a tree before someone [creator of the english langauge, no less] else called it that before you?
You see a shoe -- I see a sneaker
You see a hot girl -- I see a decent looking girl
You see gray -- I see red

Or are there only certain absolutes; namely grounded in 'common sense?'

 

[Joonas]

The car doesnt have a color until you define it. There is no such thing as a color anyway, until someone [you, in this case] defines them. This is the limit of language, and semantics! mostly-- What would you have called a tree before someone [creator of the english langauge, no less] else called it that before you?
You see a shoe -- I see a sneaker
You see a hot girl -- I see a decent looking girl
You see gray -- I see red

Or are there only certain absolutes; namely grounded in 'common sense?'

So would it be fine if I didn't use adjectives or well known objects then? They do not make a difference to begin with, so that's fine with me.

Something exists and everyone observes it either accurately or inaccurately. In my previous example, everyone observed it inaccurately. What I mean is that there's two kinds of truth, the perceived and the absolute. We can perceive whatever we wish, but it will never affect the truth of the matter.