# AN Ending Universe



## Eldo (Jan 1, 2005)

*Eldo here.*

*Though I believe that the universe is not expanding, even if it is as many scientists say, then the universe is finite, it has an edge.  I cannot concieve an infinite universe.  Infinite numbers yes, but an infinite universe sorry no.  *


----------



## Alexa (Jan 1, 2005)

And what do you think we can find beyond that edge ?


----------



## Eldo (Jan 1, 2005)

Hello Alexia.

God!


----------



## Leto (Jan 1, 2005)

Genuine questions here : what facts makes you think universe is finite ? Or is it a belief you have and you can't explain ?


----------



## Neon (Jan 3, 2005)

Well I believe his point is that if scientists can quanitatively say the universe is expanding, then there obviously must be some "bounds" to which one knows it's expanding by.  In other words, an infinite universe could neither expand nor contract.  I've read some theories saying that upon ultimate expansion, it will then begin a long cycle of contraction upon which point we may experience another big bang.  IMO, the universe is so huge that either way it is near enough to infinite in size.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Jan 3, 2005)

I don't know, the articles I've read lately in science magazines have actually started to make more sense in convincing me that the universe IS still expanding. However, the mind-boggler is still there, in what Alexa said...whether you buy that or not, what is BEYOND the edge, should such an edge exist? I asked my mother this when I was about five years old, and she said 'nothing'. I remember that infuriating me. The human mind simply can't wrap itself around the concept of nothing. There has to be SOMETHING.


----------



## Leto (Jan 3, 2005)

Neon said:
			
		

> Well I believe his point is that if scientists can quanitatively say the universe is expanding, then there obviously must be some "bounds" to which one knows it's expanding by.  In other words, an infinite universe could neither expand nor contract.  I've read some theories saying that upon ultimate expansion, it will then begin a long cycle of contraction upon which point we may experience another big bang.  IMO, the universe is so huge that either way it is near enough to infinite in size.


IIRC, lately there's two scientific theories : one says universe expand and will keep on going, i.e. finite verging on the infinite, one says universe expand currently but will contract at some time, ie finite. 
Plus, there's still theories (or beliefs as I'm not aware of recent scientific credential to them) negating big bang and expansion and either says the universe is infinite or is finite.


----------



## Fitz (Jan 9, 2005)

I just want to ask what you people mean by "an edge"? Do you mean like a point in the universe where matter stops existing? Or a point where the universe can't expand beyond? If that makes any sense


----------



## TransparentFog (Jan 12, 2005)

So what IS the universe? Is it only the matter? Or is it the space too? There could be infinite space, because if there wasn't, then what would there be? Would it be a wall, or would space turn into the color brown or what? That's why I think the space in the universe is unlimited but the matter is not. 

almost unrelated tangent
Another possibility is that the universe is not unlimited, but that you still can not get to the end of it. How? Well, take Earth for example.  You can start flying in one direction and keep going until the ends of time, and never reach the end.  In that way a circle is an example of the infinite.  so my thought is, maybe the universe is round. If it IS expanding, then maybe all that expansion will seem to disappear one day, only to come flying at us from the completely opposite direction!! In my intelligent and educated opinion; that would suck.


----------



## Maryjane (Jan 12, 2005)

_*I believe the universe is spherical in shape and is still expanding since the onset of the big bang. Scientists believe the universe should be at a period where it should now be slowly retracting or imploding back on itself but with new technology in radioscopes and other infra red and ultra violet and other radiation detection devices orbiting somewhere between us and Mars they have discovered it is still expanding because of dark mater which repells gravity and gravitational ripples thus pushing galaxies apart. The universe continues to expand yes because there is an outer limit to our expanding universe but that does not mean that space and time stops at the edge of the universe, space and time can be affected by gravitational rippels of massive black holes that react on space time like a fluid and it is full of mater and energy, like plankton floating in ocean water, infinite space is not empty and it has been postulated that in the infinity of space and time one may find more universes out there, like looking at all the stars and galaxaies here in our universe, infinity itself may be an infinity of quantum layers of reality like the skins of an infinite onion. And now new evidence seems to indicate that all that exists is a hologram and no mater how many times you break down this hologram into parts each of it's parts is as complete as the whole. Each piece is as infinite as the whole, and distance itself is but an illusion.
*_


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 16, 2005)

My own way of viewing the Universe is this: it is made up of matter separated by space. It is expanding into an area that lacks any matter and is, therefore, not part of the Universe (until the Universe expands into it). Therefore, beyond the edge of the Universe, there is.... nothing...Rightly or wrongly, that's how I see it


----------



## Maryjane (Jan 16, 2005)

_*I find it hard to beleive that eternity is 99.9% nothing. If that is so then where did the .1% come from. One can't have something comming out of nothing. Yes the sum of all the parts equaling zero or everything contained within eternity yes. But energy or the potential for energy was always there, just needing a particular nudge to start it in motion. The nudge again Eistein called it Gods thought made into mater and energy in the either of creation, A full eternity, God din't fool around leaving empty gaps, he utilized all there is in Aleph and Yod where Aleph being infinite could not be in one place created Yod in Alephs own image as stated in the Quabala. *_


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 16, 2005)

I should probably state that God does not exist in my Universe  

So what do we have?
Energy at rest to energy in motion. The beginning being a moment of critical mass. Perhaps the expanding universe is misleading - perhaps it has been expanding and contracting for all eternity? This would account for the mass (energy) you mention. Maybe breathing would be a better analogy.

Perhaps a more pertinent question would be: what was there before the Big Bang? The answer to this would probably give us an insight to what lies beyond the expanding universe.

Just Brainstorming


----------



## Maryjane (Jan 17, 2005)

_*By all means Foxbat keep rihght on braistorming it's the only way to expand ones knowlege and wisdom. Anyway It gets lonely when everytime I post somthing on these subjects I end up with a dead thread. 
 I just beleive that this universe is not alone or like what you are proposing that this universe is in itself infinite or that infinite space is filled with parallel universes or diferent levels realety each containing it's owm space time continuuum, so that creation has no end thus no begining but a perpetual recycling of each realety. Atomic to subatomic reealities with subatomic realities withing subatomic realities where time, space and distance become irelivant, an ilusion, a holografic eternity adinfinitum. 
*_


----------



## Michael (Jan 17, 2005)

TransparentFog said:
			
		

> almost unrelated tangent
> Another possibility is that the universe is not unlimited, but that you still can not get to the end of it. How? Well, take Earth for example. You can start flying in one direction and keep going until the ends of time, and never reach the end. In that way a circle is an example of the infinite. so my thought is, maybe the universe is round. If it IS expanding, then maybe all that expansion will seem to disappear one day, only to come flying at us from the completely opposite direction!! In my intelligent and educated opinion; that would suck.


I think Einstein wrote a paper about the possibility of a spherical universe to explain how a universe can be finite but "without bounds."  Although a sphere does not have an edge, it does have finite and measurable dimensions.


----------



## Michael (Jan 17, 2005)

Although many scientists currently believe you can get something from nothing, I am not inclined to agree.  Apparently, they seem to feel that Occam's Razor ("The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one") supercedes the old axiom, "You cannot get something from nothing."  To me, however, it is simpler to say that God is everything, both within and beyond the universe, and no--you cannot get something from nothing.


----------



## Maryjane (Jan 17, 2005)

_*Yes a spherical universe with an limited outer boundery to a density  of mater and energy contained within the sphere but where space continues infinitly  and even this vacuous void  between, lets say other universes or paralel universes would contain a certain amount of mater and energy so that space is never a complete 100% vacuume,  The universe would apear from a disatance  like an air  bubble  coming up from  the bottom of the ocean growing ang getting bigger as it floats up to the lesser preasure as it nears to the surface, an expanding universe.


*_


----------



## Maryjane (Jan 17, 2005)

_*Take a look at this link guys and gals some reasly interesting stuff in here

*_ *World Science*
http://www.world-science.net/index.htm_* 
*_


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 18, 2005)

Thanks for the link Maryjane  

More brainstorming: what about Entropy? As stated by the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - a spreading of energy through temperature (heat). As heat is radiation then this could also include ionising radiations and, therefore, most of the energy out there. So, perhaps due to entropy, the universe will eventually spread itself so thinly  to become almost nothingness. And what about kinetic energy? (that which keeps an electron from being attracted into a nucleus- the kinetic energy has to be stronger than the nuclear force). If that dissipates then the characteristics of all atoms will become void.

Perhaps an Ending Universe is not in a sense of distance as in an edge but one of time due to entropy?

Now I'm off to take acouple of aspirin


----------



## TGirlPaula (Jan 18, 2005)

I've read some theories saying that upon ultimate expansion, it will then begin a long cycle of contraction upon which point we may experience another big bang. IMO, the universe is so huge that either way it is near enough to infinite in size 
So, perhaps due to entropy, the universe will eventually spread itself so thinly to become almost nothingness. 

*Then the cycles resume whereupon parallel universes once again collide creating a new big bang, new heavens and new earths. Each cycle of each new univere radiating outwards like overlaping gravitational ripples radiating from massive black holes or to put it simpler like the circular ripples of raindrops in a pond overlaping one another   *


----------



## Maryjane (Jan 18, 2005)

*Post above was posted by Maryjane under Paula's log in *

*Always mess up with dum log ins when I use someone elses computer, sorry  *


----------



## Leto (Jan 18, 2005)

Girls above, you're even more confusing than usual.
good day to you both.


----------



## Maryjane (Jan 18, 2005)

*Hi Leto *
*That makes two of us that's twice today I messed up on dum log ins. Not use to have to relog in in my name into stuff so I don't think of it   *


----------



## Eldo (Apr 18, 2005)

Leto

Thanks for expanding on my point.  Sorry I was not able to use the forum recently so that I could explain it myself, but you expressed yourself beautifully!


----------



## Eldo (Apr 18, 2005)

I thanked Leto I meant to thank Neon.


----------



## Eldo (Apr 22, 2005)

Well, I meant that if something (the universe) is able to or is actively expanding it means that outside the bounderies of its expansion ( for it must have a boundary if this is happening) something must exist, whether it is nothing or God or anything else.  So to have these two different areas there must exist a point of contact where these two areas touch.  This is what I referred to as the edge.


----------



## Neon (Apr 22, 2005)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> More brainstorming: what about Entropy? As stated by the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - a spreading of energy through temperature (heat). As heat is radiation then this could also include ionising radiations and, therefore, most of the energy out there. So, perhaps due to entropy, the universe will eventually spread itself so thinly to become almost nothingness. And what about kinetic energy? (that which keeps an electron from being attracted into a nucleus- the kinetic energy has to be stronger than the nuclear force). If that dissipates then the characteristics of all atoms will become void.
> 
> Perhaps an Ending Universe is not in a sense of distance as in an edge but one of time due to entropy?


 
Just to expand on this thought. Entropy is not necessarily the "spreading of energy", it's a measure of disorder for a system. More to the point, entropy is a measure of energy that is no longer able to perform useful work within a given environment. Also, for each process, entropy will increase or remain the same (but only stays the same in an idealized reversible process which as humans we can't achieve). Thus, one could argue that energy will eventually achieve a point where it will be completely useless. Perhaps the big bang is such an event to re-invigorate energy and make it useless once more.


----------



## Neon (Apr 22, 2005)

Oh Eldo you're quite welcome


----------



## Bladecutter (Apr 27, 2005)

*I believe there is another universe beyond this universe* where apes own humans 0.o

Planet of the apez!! RAWR!!   

*IMPORTANT*The text in bold italic underlines is SERIOUS, the rest is just my additions...*IMPORTANT*





			
				Foxbat said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link Maryjane
> 
> More brainstorming: what about Entropy? As stated by the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - a spreading of energy through temperature (heat). As heat is radiation then this could also include ionising radiations and, therefore, most of the energy out there. So, perhaps due to entropy, the universe will eventually spread itself so thinly to become almost nothingness. And what about kinetic energy? (that which keeps an electron from being attracted into a nucleus- the kinetic energy has to be stronger than the nuclear force). If that dissipates then the characteristics of all atoms will become void.
> 
> ...



What??? I understood only half of what you said...


----------



## Neon (Apr 27, 2005)

Neon said:
			
		

> Perhaps the big bang is such an event to re-invigorate energy and make it useless once more.


 
I meant to say, "make it energy useful once more."


----------



## PERCON (May 29, 2005)

Who's ever said the big bang was the only one?

Think about it, the universe started from a compacted state, gas particles etc all packed into a tiny space then KABOOM, from what I've learned in my lifetime so far is that in order to make something go boom either something has to hit it hard or there needs to be a chemical reaction made up of stuff hitting into other things, usually quite hard. Basically the big bang could have been created by the end of a previous universe, as the matter of the universe collapsed inwards all that matter collided and another 'big bang' happened sending out new matter fused from the old stuff, when that universe eventually collapses inwards another universe is created from that 'big bang'. So the 'universe' never, ends it is a constant cycle and every death of a universe sparks a new universe, like the death of the phoenix, sparking new life from the ashes.

_PERCON_


----------



## NSMike (May 29, 2005)

Ah, somebody played Anachronox.


----------



## lucifer_principle (May 30, 2005)

Little known fact that we forget is that everything is generalized. 
1+1 = 2, the statement looks simple enough but its generalized because why not 0.9 or 1.1, and since 1 is between 0.9 and 1.1(0.9,1,1.1) the statement above is a generalized statement. Mathematics also has some degree of subjectivity and its an exemplification that we work with what ever resource we see or have. The purpose of this is to show people that 1 as authoritative as it appears to some people is still an estimation or approximation. Which I think is the way of the universe. You are always going to be estimating when it comes to the universe, thats why its called the universe, unless you believe in an absolute like God or some kind of energy where all else energy comes from. The delimmer is yours


----------



## Eldo (Nov 11, 2005)

It is not a matter of not being able to explain my theory or that I have this theory because I cannot explain it. I am a christian and believe in God. So it is my decision to have this explanation. I do not fault anybodies theory just because I do not agree with their beliefs. I do not reject science and say it is rubbish just because I believe in The Book of Genesis, for example.


----------



## Eldo (Nov 11, 2005)

Leto

You must understand that not everyone believes in science.  I believe in God.  I do not say someone's theory is rubbish because I don't agree with it.  it is just a matter of disagreement.  I respect people's opinion's whether they agree with science or religion and because I believe God surrounds the universe and that it is finite it does not meen I have this theory because I have no other explanation.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 14, 2005)

Before the big bang, there wasn't- since there was no spacetime, no time, thus no before. Similarly, outside the universe, no space- no frontiers. 
The conventional simplification is to imagine the two dimensional "shadow" of the universe projected  onto the surface of a spherical balloon, which we then inflate for a few billion years- no limits, no need for empty balloon into which to expand- now imagine it to be a three dimensional surface expanding into a fourth dimension. Outside the the universe there isn't nothing (that's not a double negative, by the way) because the universe has no outside- it's closed. No darkness where the light hasn't yet reached, because there isn't even anywhere to be dark, and no wavefront advancing into emptiness because, although the available space to put light in is expanding at the speed of light, the light itself is travelling (also at the speed of light, as is it's wont) around inside the universe, perfectly happy not considering that every section of the universe is the edge, or none of it is.(sentient light might consider that it's taking longer to get about- but since special relativity states there's zero duration at light speed probably not. Just a bit of Cherenkof swearing when it goed through a region with a lowes speed limit)

An actual infinite expanding universe (except in the way the  previous description is infinite but bounded, having no limits but not containing an infinite volume of space) is more difficult to visualise. An infinite space, containing an infinite quantity of matter  relatively homogenously distributed (oh, clumping a bit into nebulas and galaxies and things, but fairly regular withall) where the overall density is reducing over time is a difficult concept, and one that can't be explained away by a big bang (not that I'm absolutely wedded to the big bang theory, or the expanding universe for that matter (while nice theories they do not lend themselves to experimental verification- it could well be that in fifty years one or both of them look like phlogiston theory)


----------



## asdar (Nov 14, 2005)

If the universe is expanding they should be able to take 3 solar systems and find their vector and figure out, on paper at least where the center of the universe is. 

You might want more than three to try and take out the possibility of collision induced changes of direction but mathmatically the direction change could never be more than 90 degrees unless there were more smaller bangs and they could be accounted for statistically pretty easily.

I won't attempt to disprove God but with the science I'm given I think the universe seems to be an ever expanding sphere. 

I think that the atom is to a molecule the way a molecule is to a world the way a world is to a solar system is to a galaxy is to a universe is to something else. What else I won't say but even give that as the case at some point there has to be a boundary to contain it all and the question would still be what's beyond that last boundary even if I'm right.

The whole thing goes back to the question of reality. I _know _that I exist so if there is a universe I'm an important part of it. It's possible that you all are fake and that I'm dreaming and when I wake up from this long and creative dream things will make sense and boundaries won't be so intimidating.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 15, 2005)

asdar said:
			
		

> If the universe is expanding they should be able to take 3 solar systems and find their vector and figure out, on paper at least where the center of the universe is.
> 
> You might want more than three to try and take out the possibility of collision induced changes of direction but mathmatically the direction change could never be more than 90 degrees unless there were more smaller bangs and they could be accounted for statistically pretty easily.
> 
> ...



Go back to the balloon please (I like balloons as models. When the student seems to lack concentration you burst one- immediate improvement. Inconvenient with a universe) As it expands, everything moves away from everything, no center, no "point of origin" Any point in the universe can be taken as the center, accurately. (normally it's where I'm standing, but I'll compromise if you like and move it to Greenwich)

And if you took any set of stellar systems we can see, you'd just get that they're rotating round the center of the galaxy- and we know where that is. You can use that as the center of the universe if you like- I admit it simplifies calculations relative to using my left ear, and it's true, because everywere's the center of the universe, see?


----------



## Gwydion (Jan 11, 2006)

space is infininate in my mind. thats why i dont ever plan on going into space. infinity scares me, as does immortality.


----------



## cornelius (Jan 11, 2006)

infinate, or more precisly the next best thing to infinite. I wouldn't worry about a lack of space here. 
"Is there an end?" is about the same question as "how did it begin?" 
If there is no end, there is no middle, as the wise Chris says ( or at least that's what I can make of it).
think of the universe as a limited space now ( there is no proof in this theory, it's just a question)
suppose we are not in the middle, but somewhere on the edge, it would make the "ending" part much more simple, if we would find the end we are in that is. it should move us from " is there an end " to " how big is the universe", which at this stage of knowledge is the same question.

Damn, I've gon cross-eyed...

What am I saying here, you ask? I don't no either...
think I'll skip this threads from now one and leave it to the Brains.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 11, 2006)

It would seem that the concept of an unbounded non infinite space is only accessible to mathematicians (oh, I admit to being a defrocked mathematician)
Anyway, the universe we can detect (there might be considerably more that we can't) is big enough that the difference between that and infinity is only of any interest to an unfrocked mathematician or a cosmologist, just as the difference between a hundred billion years and eternity is of merely intellectual interest.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jan 11, 2006)

So, Chris, I've always wondered...how do they defrock a mathematician? Break his slide rule right in front of him? Pour water on his graphing calculator until it starts smoking and sparking? 

As far as the amount of space in the universe...I can't imagine that at all. I've got a book out of the library right now (_Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution_, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith), which contains some Hubble Telescope photos of deep space. One of them has hundreds of specks of light in the frame. The caption explains that almost every one of those specks is a galaxy in itself, each as it was between 3 and 10 billion years ago. "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" indeed. That much space and that many potential places just boggles the imagination.


----------



## dreamwalker (Jan 12, 2006)

_Space is big, very big - deal with it_

heh

Thankfully I suffer from restrictive clostrophobea, so i'm only thankfull to the extent of how vast space actually is.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 12, 2006)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> So, Chris, I've always wondered...how do they defrock a mathematician? Break his slide rule right in front of him? Pour water on his graphing calculator until it starts smoking and sparking?
> 
> As far as the amount of space in the universe...I can't imagine that at all. I've got a book out of the library right now (_Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution_, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith), which contains some Hubble Telescope photos of deep space. One of them has hundreds of specks of light in the frame. The caption explains that almost every one of those specks is a galaxy in itself, each as it was between 3 and 10 billion years ago. "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" indeed. That much space and that many potential places just boggles the imagination.


Slide rule? *Engineers* have slide rules (slight accent on my present occupation, as if the subspecies should never have bothered crawling out from under its dank stone) No mathematicians are supposed to be capable of doing it all in their heads; and they didn't succeed in breaking that.
They merely chucked me out for never having done any work (though they passed me through the first year university exams, and I never did any work in the first year, either (at least, none of their work)
The worst punishment was the university careers departement organising an interview for me as a ststistics specialist with an insurance firm (sadistic, that) Fortunately, this failed, and I went on to become me. 
But mathematicians don't worry about *numbers*. It's only relationships- if something isn't infinite, it's finite (even if large) and if there was a big bang, and the universe has been expanding at the speed of light ever since, then the universe is extremely, unimaginably big - but not infinitely so.
And the bit about being an exmath (which would make a polimath what?) is to be able to - not exactly imagine, but conceive of - this space being non infinite, but without boundaries, no edges. And of course, no effective center, no "point from which everything that is anything flew out".
Sorry if that makes your brain hurt, Cornelius. I don't seem to be cut out for popularisations.


----------



## GrownUp (May 2, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> It would seem that the concept of an unbounded non infinite space is only accessible to mathematicians


 
Oh no. The concept is open to all. To all! Hurrah.

We know space bends, that's how gravity works. So if space bends around on itself it has no edges and boundaries. Nothing to do with being infinite.


----------



## j d worthington (May 20, 2006)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> It would seem that the concept of an unbounded non infinite space is only accessible to mathematicians (oh, I admit to being a defrocked mathematician)
> Anyway, the universe we can detect (there might be considerably more that we can't) is big enough that the difference between that and infinity is only of any interest to an unfrocked mathematician or a cosmologist, just as the difference between a hundred billion years and eternity is of merely intellectual interest.


Hmmmm. I'll take issue with that (at least to some degree). I'd say that it's much more easily accessible to mathematicians; the rest of us simply have to go through a lot of dizziness, headaches, and feeling very much like we've wandered through the looking glass for a few years in dealing with the concepts. Once we've been turned inside-out a few times, presto! it's easy. And, no, I'm not being sarcastic. This was my experience in getting my head around these concepts. With this sort of thing, who the heck needs drugs??? 

(But, oh, boy, what a really neat thing it is once you begin to get a glimpse of it -- WOW!)


----------



## Milk (Jul 1, 2006)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link Maryjane
> 
> More brainstorming: what about Entropy? As stated by the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - a spreading of energy through temperature (heat). As heat is radiation then this could also include ionising radiations and, therefore, most of the energy out there. So, perhaps due to entropy, the universe will eventually spread itself so thinly to become almost nothingness. And what about kinetic energy? (that which keeps an electron from being attracted into a nucleus- the kinetic energy has to be stronger than the nuclear force). If that dissipates then the characteristics of all atoms will become void.
> 
> ...


 

Actually I believe something kind of similiar, or maybe im not interpreting what you posted correctly. Ill put it simply

Disorder increases.
The Universe is expanding.

But the rules of thermodynamics trump everything, no theory can match up to them they are laws. Laws trump theory.

This is just my idea Ill allow myself some exceedingly gross generalizations )

The more spacial coordinates a universe has the more possibilities for the stuff in it to reside in different spots. This is more random, this is more entropy. 

Ill put it another way.. this deck of cards you are trying to put in order is scattered on a dining room table. The cards are all in random spots on the table, but its a 3 by 5 foot table so it wont be tough to gather them all up and organize them. Well... now consider that table expanded to a football feild size. There is a greater amount of places these cards could be located on the football field then the dining room table. The disorder has increased in the football field, because of the increase in possible places for the cards to be found. 


Well considering disorder can never decrease and the size of the universe is increasing, then maybe its to make room for more entropy for more randomness of location. Maybe its the disorder itself that actually expands the universe?

looking at it another way

Disorder increase and the universes expansion are the two arrows of time itself. Its been said that a humans perspective is a third arrow of time but I say thats just disorder increase since brains produce heat. Even thinking about disorder will burn calories and produce more disorder. There is no action that takes place without heat dispersal and thus more disorder. And what is time but a series of actions one after another?

a: increase in disorder
b: universes expansion
c: time itself

So in summary if a= c and b= c could it actually be that a =b ?!????


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 1, 2006)

Actually, this was posited several years ago (late 90s, I think, or very shortly after 2000) as being the case, in a sense. There's an Oxford study going on this, I believe, that Time, as such, doesn't exist, it's a point of perception linking an almost infinite set of universes through which our consciousness travels, and this gives us the idea that time itself exists _as an attribute of physical entity_, when it may not. However, as one physicist (who seemed to think the theory had considerable merit) put it, this doesn't go far enough, either. In his words, when you get down to it, "Then space has got to go as well."

Also, a disagreement in terminology has arisen over the years. I don't believe it's referred to any longer as the "laws" of thermodynamics -- most references I've seen have tended to avoid the use of the term "laws" because of the idea in modern science that nothing is an "unalterable law" -- it is just a fact that nothing we have been able to see/test has, _so far_, gone against a particular trend or assumption based on all previous experience/testing. But if something _does_, and that something _can be repeated_, then we're looking at a different ball-game, so to speak. They've even ceased to call it the "law of gravity" in most scientific writing (or, from what I've seen, all scientific writing for some time). This is also why, despite the fact that all the verifiable evidence supports evolution, it is still given the name "the Theory of Evolution"; that, and the fact that the _exact mechanisms_ (not the general idea) of evolution sometimes undergo revision.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 1, 2006)

All I can add to this discussion is this: I've just finished Hawkings' _A Brief_ _History Of Time_ and I now know what I would like on my tombstone ....................._None The Wiser  _


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 1, 2006)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> All I can add to this discussion is this: I've just finished Hawkings' _A Brief_ _History Of Time_ and I now know what I would like on my tombstone ....................._None The Wiser  _


Oh, I'm not too sure about that. When I picked up *The Universe in a Nutshell*, I look at the length of it and decided it'd take a day or so -- wrong. I'd periodically have to stop, reread, and do some serious pondering/visualization (especially as much of this was either completely new to me, or I only knew the vaguest bits about some of it). Took me two weeks, roughly, to begin to feel I was getting some of that filtering through my noggin. And a refresher course now and again, I think, would do me no harm. This stuff is just, as Chris notes elsewhere, so "counter-intuitive" that it takes a while -- and sometimes your understanding -- or at least mine -- doesn't actually seep through until much, much later, when one day, just wandering mentall, it all clicks, and the little light bulb goes on and I think "That's what that means! Of course!" ... And then feel like an idiot for not getting it in the first place; you see, now it all does make sense, so of course I must have been dense, right????

Of course, the down side is that, if this happens in the middle of the night, and you have someone else in the bed with you, you may spend the rest of the night (at least) on the sofa, but -- hey! at least you'll understand the universe a little better....


----------



## Milk (Jul 1, 2006)

Yes I understand the distinction between law and theory. I didn't know that scientists arent using the word law much anymore however. That being the case Thermodynamic 'laws' would transcend the classification of either.


I have read from various sources* that if a 1000 scientists had a theory that somehow disagreed with the laws of heat, then they would all be completely wrong. Its one of those 'trumps everything' concepts. So I would go so far as to say that the three laws of thermodynamics are a tautology** (a science of self evident truth) beyond laws and theory. Similiar to saying that 2+2 = 4, or even like proposing a 'theory' (or law) that trees are trees.

*One decent book about thermodynamics is "As time passes Warmth Disperses" this was specifically where I read "if 1000 scientists disagreed..." This book has a decent chapter biography about Lord Kelvin which I thought was completly fascinating.  An interesting guy.

**Tautology: a statement true by virtue of its logical form.


Also, my idea wasnt claiming that there is no time, but that possibly a=b. That the expansion of the universes arrow of time might be one in the same, or for the purpose of, the arrow of time labeled the increase in disorder. 

For me, the proof that a human being's innate concept of time is the arrow of time ascribed disorder increase is that human brains are heat sinks. So I see two arrows of time. Expanding Universe and disorder increase. The idea is that these two arrows may be one in the same.


----------

