How The Universe Will End - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / How The Universe Will End (9320 Views)
Praise The Universe.... I Finally Became An Atheist! / The World Will End Tomorrow - Christian Group Predicts / Do You Believe The World Will End on 21:12:12? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)
| How The Universe Will End by viaro: 10:47am On Dec 07, 2009 |
What is this topic doing in the Religious Board? Well, maybe it should be here until there's enough to open a motherboard for Philosophical and Science discussions. Some of us have noticed that it is not only in Religion that people think about beginnings and origins of Life and our Universe. Many questions have been asked, answers have been proffered, and yet the debate rages on, fuelled by more questions and politics than answers. Out of this scenario, new religions, philosophies and worldviews are born as varying expressions of the same questions that plague man. However, at the other end of the pendulum sits a complementary question: How will the Universe End? It is not so much now a matter of 'when' the universe will end, but how that would occur - and what would follow. This is not some religious apocalyptic drama being rehearsed in the corridors of science and philosophy; but a question that has become even more dramatic as to challenge the way we all think, regardless our worldview or religion. Among other hypotheses, there are two basic theories about how the universe will end. One predicts an inward-rushing, squashing-together of all things; and the other foresees an explosion of sorts where everything (matter, energy, spacetime) would fly apart and then dissipate into nothingness. Do these sound scary? Hang on: there might be some 'gospel' tucked in the equations as well. Scientists who make these Now, viaro is not making things up - just do some research and find out for yourself. More to follow, but for now: any comments from readers? |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by noetic15(m): 11:21am On Dec 07, 2009 |
how will the universe end? . . . . . . 1. I think that our film makers and conspiracy theorists already have an answer to this poser. That IMO explains why we have movies and theories that postulate the invasion of the planet by Aliens. While there is NO tangible proof that aliens do exist or intend to invade the earth. . . . .we are made to believe that we are not alone and are subsequently targets of more advanced beings who also reside on this planet. My submission is that the alien invasion theorist is an anti-Christ movement designed to down play the role of Christ and the final battle He returns here to fight after the rapture. I might be wrong. . .but who is right? 2. To arrive at a well thought out answer, perhaps we need to ask that how did the universe start in the first place. If the universe kicked off by virtue of an inorganic evolution of species and a random assemblage of a conducive environment for evolution. . . . . . then we can sit back and conclude that the universe would end by another sort of a random "de-evolution" at a time no man can tell. Not only is this "de-evolution" not scientific, its predecessor (evolution) was also more un-scientific. But if the universe was a Godly creation as the bible tells it to be. . . . . then we can be rest assured that there would be a rapture and an "alien" invasion led by Jesus Christ, to put an end to all things. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 11:45am On Dec 07, 2009 |
Thanks, noetic15. As I already hinted, there are several (or many?) hypothesis about how the Universe would end, which was implied in my 4th paragraph by: 'Among other hypotheses', but picked out just those two that are commonly debated in science currently. You've added one more with the twist of Alien Invasion conspiracy theory, which is not discussed as other scientific theories about cosmology and apocalypse. Even so, it might be that your second point does not quite square with the whole subject: noetic15: No, I don't think it's about evolution, that argument is new to me entirely. Evolution of species is quite a different thing from origin of the Universe - they are not confused, especially because I don't quite know of anyone who assumes the Universe might have "kicked off" by inorganic evolution of species. What?!? On the contrary, cosmological theories are different in nature, where we look at such things like the Big Bang, Milne universe (or Milne model), the Ambiplasma of Plasma cosmology, Oscillating universe, etc., etc. Species come late in the cosmological timetable, and could not be used to argue the idea of how the Universe might have kicked off. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by noetic15(m): 12:03pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
viaro: I get ur point quite rightly. What I attempted to illustrate by highlighting the "alien invasion" hypothesis is to draw a line, in stating clearly that many of these theories are IMO products of confusionists whose sole aim is to present the "truth" in a watered down version for the sole intent of deceiving. It all eventually bugs down to "belief" . . . .as none of the hypothesis is provable scientifically.
I jumped the gun. . . . . cos I actually meant to refer to the big bang, but chose to describe evolution (evolution IMO is an aftermath of the big bang thats why I used the word "Conducive environment" in my last post). cos I had certain people in mind  I was expecting them to jump on me and start a chain of never-ending debates That aside, . . . . The big bang analogy which is the atheistic credence to the begining of life (if assumed to be true) does not complete the story. IF it explains the begining of the universe and calls it a "random and accidental" occurrence . . . .then one can infer that the demise of the universe would also be a "random and accidental" demise. My point is that for a theory (on the end of the universe)to hold water it must be able to scientifically explain the front and back end of the universe i.e how the universe began before it explains how it would end. but of course our scientific theories cannot explain this mysterious fact. . . .that leaves us to the BELIEF party pertinent with religion. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 12:21pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
Let's see: noetic15: Lol, okay then. I jumped the gun. . . . . cos I actually meant to refer to the big bang, but chose to describe evolution (evolution IMO is an aftermath of the big bang thats why I used the word "Conducive environment" in my last post). cos I had certain people in mind Guessed as much. That aside, . . . . Aside the atheistic thingy, what I was looking forward to is a discussion where worldviews are kept at the back seat and do not form the basis of the answers to the topic. That was why I had tried to present it as what is being discussed in science and philosophy currently. Indeed, between these paradigms, people would throw in their own slants of the '-isms' of their worldviews: atheism, theism, deism, paganism, etc. . that's humanity for you: we can't just help ourselves sometimes, lol. However, as to this line in yours: IF it explains the begining of the universe and calls it a "random and accidental" occurrence . . . .then one can infer that the demise of the universe would also be a "random and accidental" demise.. . it does not necessary follow that the same pattern be observed or posited between the beginning and the end. It does not follow in religion, for if we take Christianity as an example, would we say that the beginning must also be like the end? Hardly. For one, the basic testimony is that God created all things by simply speaking them into existence; but not so with how the universe ends, for it will come to an end by a fiery cataclysm. It just does not follow that the end must follow the same configuration as its origin. My point is that for a theory (on the end of the universe)to hold water it must be able to scientifically explain the front and back end of the universe i.e how the universe began before it explains how it would end. but of course our scientific theories cannot explain this mysterious fact. . . .that leaves us to the BELIEF party pertinent with religion. That may be true. . only a probability ratio in that. yet, we understand that even though science cannot explain the 'how' of the mystery, it has made very plausible attempts at explaining the 'what' of the mystery itself. Which is why in the same enterprise of science and philosophy, man is able to now begin to look at how the Universe might possibly end. . with the interesting subscript that humanity will live for eternity! |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by Tudor6(f): 12:28pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
Theres a section called "General Discussion" you know, its for topics that don't fit into any of the existing childboards. Holding the admin to ransom to provide you phil&sci board is just time wastage. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 12:45pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
^^^Well, I thought about the general board as well, but decided that this board might interest some of us who think about the universe in these things. I apologise if my OP sounded like I was holding the admin (or mods) to ransom on the proposed board, but good observation - thanks. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by DeepSight(m): 1:28pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
Viaro - What is spacetime? I have serious problems with the ideas circulating regarding that "fabric." I was astounded to watch on Nat Geo the other day that Time Travel may be possible if we can fold spacetime and thus pass through wormholes. My astonishment arose not from the proposition regarding wormholes but the proposition regarding "folding" spacetime as shown below. It surprised me that any scientost would miss the fact that such a folding must perforce result, if it were possible at all, in the total dismemberment of the universe as it is known. What exactly is spacetime? Because i hold a different personal view that space and time are infinite, intangible, self existent, and not created by the big bang, or at the moment of the big bang. Wwhere is Kag? She made a most preposterous statement sometime ago - that time may have began after the inflation of space. I am sure she missed her own use of the word "after" which connotes already existing and self-xistent time. That statement was a contradiction i cannot get over till date, but she seems to have fled from this forum. Please Viaro, help me out on spacetime. Thanks. From Wikipedia -
|
| Re: How The Universe Will End by DeepSight(m): 1:31pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
As per -
|
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 3:02pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
Good afternoon, Deep Sight. You have added very good substance to this thread - a good place to start, as I supposed, which was at the back of my mind when opening this thread. Not to stretch things, let me just focus on spacetime and then come back to show the missing link in your doubts. Suffice to say that the doubts arise when we take both the mathematics and the physics out of the postulations and let things run in our local ideas. So: spacetime (the two references below are harvested from various sources): The theory of relativity says that time cannot be treated absolutely separately from space, only in one observer's relative view. So space and time together describe a four dimensional universe.1 In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions.2 In our common experiences, we know of time as 'time' (ie., the 'when' of events), and we often think of the 3-dimensions as the only dimensions of our reality. However, in physics and mathematics dealing with the theory of relativity, there are other dimensions - and the combination of space and time in a single continuum to form the 4th dimension is what has been referred to as spacetime. The 4th dimension is something very different in nature from our common understanding of 3-dimensions. We are becoming increasingly aware now that gravity, for instance, is not a force (as was initially supposed by Isaac Newton), but rather is "a consequence of the distortion of space and time"3. This is why gravity is not constant in all points of the universe, but is relative - in that, one would find gravity behaving differently in various locations(?) of the Universe in which we live. Gravity - 'a consequence of the distortion of space and time', one wonders: any examples? Yes, indeed. Since we know that gravity is not constant throughout the Universe, we find that what someone weighs on earth will be different on another planet. An example: consider a man who weighs just 82kg on Earth, that same man would weigh about 11,480,000,000,000kg on a Neutron Star (140 billion times more!!). What has happened here is that the 'gravity' we all think about in common ideas on Earth is relative and will produce very differently elsewhere in the Universe. The same with time - and space: and that is where the 4th dimension comes in. Quoting an article that essentially captures this in the Guardian online: 'According to the theory, matter and energy distort space-time, curving it around themselves. 'Frame dragging' theoretically occurs when the rotation of a large body 'twists' nearby space and time. It is this second part of Einstein's theory that the Nasa mission has yet to corroborate'3 This 'bending' and 'twisting' of space and time produce phenomena that astound the human mind - such phenomena as in the example you gave of Wormhole (a theoretical structure in spacetime that forms a tube-like connection between two separate regions of the universe), Blackholes (a region of space from which nothing, including light, can escape), as well as Whiteholes (the hypothetical time reversal of a blackhole)4, etc. So, in brief, time and space can be combined into a single continuum to become spacetime, and from these are resulting phenomena in the Universe that we ordinarily imagine impossible. Which is why I need to comment on this part of yours: Deep Sight: No. Such a folding is theoretically possible without affecting the Universe as a whole. The examples above (Wormholes, Blackholes, Whiteholes) should be helpful. ______________ Notes and References: 1 Contemporary Physics Education Propject, CPEP source: [url=http://www.cpepweb.org/main_universe/glossary.html#spacetime[/color]]http://www.cpepweb.org/main_universe/glossary.html#spacetime[/url] 2 Wikipedia: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime[/color]]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime[/url] 3 The Guardian: 'Einstein was right: space and time bend' source: [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe[/color]]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe[/url] 4 'While a blackhole acts as an attractor, drawing in any matter that crosses the event horizon, a whitehole acts as a source that ejects matter from its event horizon. The sign of the acceleration is invariant (unchanged) under time reversal, so both black and white holes attract matter. The only potential difference between them is in the behavior at the horizon.' ~ Wikipedia. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by noetic15(m): 3:11pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
viaro: The above does not represent my views. I never implied that the begining has to correspond to the end. . . . but the subject of the begining must have answers to the end. peharps the thread should talk about why anyone subscribes to any of the lingering hypothesis on the end of the universe. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by DeepSight(m): 4:05pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
Hi Viaro. Thank you for your response. It was helpful, but my fears and concerns still remain. I understand what space is said to refer to. I also have some understanding (limited of course) of what time is said to refer to. I appreciate the connection between these two, and thus the term "spacetime continuum." My concerns are - 1. Is Spacetime actually a "fabric" as described by scientists? I can accede to space as being imbued with properties which may lend credence to its description as a "fabric," and although i accept that space and time have a relationship i cannot accept that time is in anywise is a "fabric" or together with space constitutes a fabric of any description. I would be more comfortable describing space as imbued with certain qualities of a fabric and describing time as an infinite continuum. This is because I am certain that time is absolutely intangible. Note that the description of spacetime as a fabric by scientists is the factor that leaves the room open for time travel - as a fabric can be waded through - forwards or backwards, upwards or downwards. If time is strictly an intangible continuum only (which is my take) then although it may be possible to see the past through transmission of images embedded in light, it will not be possible to "go" there physically in anywise. 2. Is spacetime created by the big bang, or at the moment of the big bang? I positively deny that it is: and i am aware that in saying this i am swimming against the tide of global scientific thinking. I perceive space and time as infinite, self existent factors which could not be said to come into existence at any point. In this respect if indeed spacetime was created by the big bang, or at the moment of the big bang, i ask - INTO WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDING? INTO WHAT HAS IT BEEN EXPANDING ALL THIS WHILE? In my humble view, it is expanding into infinite, self-existent space. This runs contrary to the scientific supposition that space is a fabric created by the big bang and is the substance of this universe. 3. You stated that folding space-time would not result in the cataclysm that i suggested. Please look again at the picture i posted above and reflect on these - a. When you fold the fabric, will there not be corresponding movement of the cosmic bodies contained within the fabric? b. Will such movement not represent a major shift in universal alignment and this trigger the cataclysm i suggested? c. If the folding will not result in the movement of cosmic bodies i imagined, then clearly, such cosmic bodies will be left in the lurch, with no "spacetime" within which to remain, as the fabric would have shifted away from the locus of such bodies, and such bodies would evaporate, or fall away into outer nothingness, as it were. In my view the latter is rather implausible, and i would stick with the former - theoretically - that such a "folding" will result in movement of cosmic bodies and that could be apocalyptic. However that is supposing spacetime to be foldable in the manner suggested. I am not certain, and being of limited human knowledge, i cannot say if that is workable. Let me make one clarification - the foregoing does not mean that i discard the existence of wormholes. I think there will be all sorts of holes in the universe, permitting all manner of transitory movements across galaxies and outer reaches; but i do not see how that can be by "folding" spacetime in the manner suggested - my reasons are as above. Maybe i am the one being limited in my thinking? Please help. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 4:09pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
noetic15: Apologies, I didn't mean to misrepresent you. I might have wrongly inferred from this line of yours: IF it explains the begining of the universe and calls it a "random and accidental" occurrence . . . .then one can infer that the demise of the universe would also be a "random and accidental" demise.. . I understand that was not your idea; but whoever might be thinking that way clearly has it wrong. peharps the thread should talk about why anyone subscribes to any of the lingering hypothesis on the end of the universe. Yes, and more. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 6:06pm On Dec 07, 2009 |
@Deep Sight, I think your concerns are quite simple to address, because the basic point at which these concerns are hinged is quite simply as I'd observed: we tend to see things in our local ideas when we take out the mathematics and physics from the models. Deep Sight: Perhaps one reason why scientists describe spacetime as a fabric is because of the theory behind it. Today they speak of 'cosmic string' - a hypothetical 1-dimensional (spatially) topological defect in various fields. Ordinarily, these cosmic strings are thought of as 'impossibly heavy, one-dimensional, thin tubes'. Dr. Karl, in an article on Fabric of SpaceTime, explains that cosmic strings are - '. . so heavy because they have stuff from the Big Bang trapped inside them. According to our second theory, these strings make up the fabric of Space-Time, just like thousands of little threads make silk'1 Another thing we have to understand here is that the 4th dimension does not treat either property of space and time as a separate: rather, together they form a continuum, in just the same analogous way in which our 3rd dimension is a combination of height, length and width. If these measurements are taken apart on their own, the sense of a 3rd dimension is lost; and just in that way would the 4th dimension not make sense to anyone who treats them separately for time and space: it is a continuum. This is because I am certain that time is absolutely intangible. Well, if that is how you think about things like this, could I ask if 'light' is intangible? Why is it 'tangible'. . why not? What's the difference? Tangibility is not something we just sit on the edge to talk about, such as to conceptualize anything on the basis of whether we can touch, hold, or collect something in a container. In this sense in consonance with the way you think, could you say for definite when light came into existence and what it is in essence? Or, in the other way you formulate your assertions: has light always been in existence, regardless how far you travel? How do you know that your answer is the plausible one? Note that the description of spacetime as a fabric by scientists is the factor that leaves the room open for time travel - as a fabric can be waded through - forwards or backwards, upwards or downwards. If time is strictly an intangible continuum only (which is my take) then although it may be possible to see the past through transmission of images embedded in light, it will not be possible to "go" there physically in anywise. Look again: you have seperated 'time' from the 4th dimension of 'spacetime' - that is why your problem persists. But if you see the 4th dimension as a single unit in terms described as a 'fabric', you ca perhaps then begin to see where the possibility lies. Now, is time 'strictly' an intangible continuum? Is time described theoretically in mathematics and physics as a 'continuum' in the strict sense? I am not so sure that is the way it is discussed in quantum physics or the theory of relativity. The same thing with space - if that also is an 'intangible continuum in theory of relativity', it would prove elusive to study in the first place. It is perhaps because they are not thought of in the manner you see them, that is why scientists speak about them as a 'fabric' that could be effected in such a way as to make time-travel possible. 2. Is spacetime created by the big bang, or at the moment of the big bang? I positively deny that it is: and i am aware that in saying this i am swimming against the tide of global scientific thinking. I perceive space and time as infinite, self existent factors which could not be said to come into existence at any point. You know what the problem is here? You're making your case on very weak grounds that borders on religious thinking than on scientific grounds. It is quite plausible indeed that both time and space existed at some point - very plausible - otherwise they would be nothing for scientists to work with in quantum physics and the study of phenomena that birth blackholes, whiteholes, and wormholes. Even so, gravity would not even behave differently in various parts of the Uinverse; and no one would have been able to study the nature of gravity and arrive at the idea that it is a ''consequence of the distortion of space and time''. However, for your own theory to hold at any point, it would not be sufficient to deny these things and just assert your personal beliefs about them. That would even be counter-productive to your understanding - as it would affect everything about space and time that you might desire to study or peruse. Yet, it would also not be sufficient for me to say the above and leave the question unanwered: 'Is spacetime created by the big bang, or at the moment of the big bang'? I would agree with Einstein in his general theory of relativity, where he posits that space-time was born at the beginning of our Universe. Were that not the case, how would we be able to make any calculations and mathematical predictions about an expanding Universe? How would anyone conceive of the various behaviour of gravity in various parts of the Universe? I don't know: do you? In this respect if indeed spacetime was created by the big bang, or at the moment of the big bang, i ask - INTO WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDING? INTO WHAT HAS IT BEEN EXPANDING ALL THIS WHILE? Good question - but another question I've always asked myself is this: 'what is space; and how large is SPACE itself?' Deep Sight, how do you define 'space' scientifically? As we have seen above, a continuum known as the 4th dimension is a combination of space and time into spacetime. How is this even possible if space is 'nothing' or 'intangible'? String theory would not even be possible if this idea about 'space' is the dominant one. Our concept of 'space' as merely wide expanse needs updating, because it is not necessarily so. In my humble view, it is expanding into infinite, self-existent space. This runs contrary to the scientific supposition that space is a fabric created by the big bang and is the substance of this universe. True, that runs contrary to science - but how do we know that your own postulations are a better alternative? How do you know for certain that space is both self-existent and infinite? Do you know the implication of what you're supposing, scientifically? Well, I don't - but I could take a wild guess: if space was infinite, what would be its properties? Is this 'space' an open or closed system - or just infintley boundless? Then what is the cosmological property that keeps the universe in place such that planetray bodies are not spiraling out of their orbits? On the other hand, if space is self-existent, what did it contain - and for how long did it contain that 'something' before the universe sprang into existence? What is the nature and property of that very thing that was inside this 'space' from which we have the universe today? 3. You stated that folding space-time would not result in the cataclysm that i suggested. Please look again at the picture i posted above and reflect on these - I don't remember where I might have said that; and as far as 'cataclysm' goes, I think it was in my response to noetic that that word was mentioned, to show that 'the end must follow the same configuration as its origin' just does not follow. a. When you fold the fabric, will there not be corresponding movement of the cosmic bodies contained within the fabric? Yes - that is one of the theories that explain the orbits of planetray bodies. b. Will such movement not represent a major shift in universal alignment and this trigger the cataclysm i suggested? No, not necessarily. Take the blackhole, for instance, as a hypothetical case. It is believed that blackholes are the result of 'the defomation of spacetime caused by a very compact mass'2. Yet, howsoever it behaves, the center of a blackhole (known as a singularity) where 'matter is crushed to infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and spacetime has infinite curvature'. As if that is not enough, there are also believed to exist such things as supermassive black holes and black holes in tiny 'dwarf' galaxy such as VCC128. All these happen inside this phenomenon called the blackhole without adverse effect on the Universe as a whole. c. If the folding will not result in the movement of cosmic bodies i imagined, then clearly, such cosmic bodies will be left in the lurch, with no "spacetime" within which to remain, as the fabric would have shifted away from the locus of such bodies, and such bodies would evaporate, or fall away into outer nothingness, as it were. Not quite. Stephen Hawkings is credited with the Hawking radiation that describes what you're trying to say. One website describes it this way: 'Can the concepts of relativistic quantum field theory be carried over to curved space-times - the kind of space-times with gravitational sources described by general relativity? The answer is a cautious "yes". The most notable step in this direction was taken by the British physicist Stephen Hawking in the 1970s.3 Please scroll down to references and access the link to read more. In my view the latter is rather implausible, and i would stick with the former - theoretically - that such a "folding" will result in movement of cosmic bodies and that could be apocalyptic. But just where is your equation (or formular) for deducing these ideas 'theorectically'? Where's the physics and mathematics? However that is supposing spacetime to be foldable in the manner suggested. I am not certain, and being of limited human knowledge, i cannot say if that is workable. But who could say anything with cocksure certainty about these things, when we don't know how the center of the blackhole looks and behaves like? Let me make one clarification - the foregoing does not mean that i discard the existence of wormholes. I think there will be all sorts of holes in the universe, permitting all manner of transitory movements across galaxies and outer reaches; but i do not see how that can be by "folding" spacetime in the manner suggested - my reasons are as above. Well, perhaps if we get to grips with understanding that the 4th dimension is a continuum and not something to be picked separately for time and space, that would help. The bending of spacetime also is understood to occur theoretically inside blackholes (as in the above). I apologise for the delay in my reply (what can I do when my babe is here) _________________ Notes and references: 1. Dr. Karl, ABC Science, online here. 2. Wikipedia on Blackhole 3. Elementary Einstein: 'Evaporating black holes?' |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by DeepSight(m): 10:18am On Dec 08, 2009 |
Hi Viaro. Thank you for taking the time to respond. You are going to have to be patient with me on this one. I accept already perhaps i am the one with the flawed understanding and i am willing to be disabused of my misapprehensions if any. I thought abit about our last exchange above and i decided that words alone cannot pass accross the concern i have in mind. Please have a look at the image below: i have inserted some markers which i intend to use to discuss -
|
| Re: How The Universe Will End by DeepSight(m): 10:19am On Dec 08, 2009 |
Now you can see the purple x marks? Those marks represent galaxies and cosmic bodies within the space-time fabric. Confirm it is correct for me to suppose that the spacetime realm contains cosmic bodies as i have indicated in the image above. The Yellow arrow on the left of the image is pointing towards an empty place where the upper part of the folded fabric would have been lying before it was folded. Now that part would have been to the left of the image as the arrow points. Are you with me thus far? But when the fabric is folded, we have that part moving upwards and coming above the lower part of the fabric. You will see i have tagged the upper part "Y" and the lower part "X". Now the Y portion in the process of the folding has moved a major shift to from the place indicated by the yellow arrow to its present place above X. In so doing, i must assume that it necessarily moves with all the cosmic bodies lying within it indicated as small purple x marks. I hope you can apprehend now what i am saying: that the folding must perforce entail a major cosmic realignment as the cosmic bodies within Y would have moved from the place indicated by the yellow arrow to the current position of Y. Note for emphasis that whereas the cosmic bodies within Y would previously have been to the left of the X area, they are now above it. Can you conceptualize what sort of movement of the cosmos is being talked about here? What must occur during the said "folding?" What distortions of "spacetime" and the cosmos must be involved in this? This is no small movement. The Universe has essentially been remodelled. I cannot imagine such a massive structural realignment of cosmic bodies without significant cosmic effects. But assuming that there were none. Are you suggesting to me that for every single wormhole to be created, this massive cosmic realignment with its attendant effects must take place? Also there are other questions - 1. What is the "empty" space marked as "Z" in the image? I have used red spots to indicate the other empty areas. These are supposedly outside the fabric of spacetime. But DO NOT TELL ME THAT SUCH "EMPTY SPACES" ARE NOTHING, BECAUSE YOU WILL NOTE THAT IT IS THROUGH THAT VERY "EMPTY SPACE" THAT THE WORMHOLE IS FORMED BETWEEN Y AND X! 2. Z is clearly what the "universe" is expanding into. I propose that Z is infinite and self existent space. Reason being that it is boundless (as much as we can conceive) and constitutes a trajectory openness in all directions which exists even if there were no "spacetime" (the fabric in the image). What do you say to this? Z is thus unlimited, and together with eternity inherent in it (given that it has no time, or is timeless: thus is infinite time) is the start point ffor understanding the oneness of infinity which i moon on and on about. I know this is crap for you, and i state it beforehand so that you needn't lash me. Am i making some sense now? |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 11:25am On Dec 08, 2009 |
@Deep Sight, I've seen your posts and will attend to them in due course, Please be patient, I also hope to add some illustrations harvested from the net to make a few points clear.  |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 3:16pm On Dec 08, 2009 |
Okay, I have some time now. Permit me to follow you carefully here. Deep Sight: Okay, let's move on and see. The Yellow arrow on the left of the image is pointing towards an empty place where the upper part of the folded fabric would have been lying before it was folded. Now that part would have been to the left of the image as the arrow points. Are you with me thus far? Yes, I'm with you. But when the fabric is folded, we have that part moving upwards and coming above the lower part of the fabric. You will see i have tagged the upper part "Y" and the lower part "X". Yes. Now the Y portion in the process of the folding has moved a major shift to from the place indicated by the yellow arrow to its present place above X. In so doing, i must assume that it necessarily moves with all the cosmic bodies lying within it indicated as small purple x marks. So far so good. Below is possibly something you might be thinking about: [img]http://poietes.files./2008/08/worm-hole.jpg[/img] Apologies for the haste: I couldn't take the time to source for a smaller image.  I hope you can apprehend now what i am saying: that the folding must perforce entail a major cosmic realignment as the cosmic bodies within Y would have moved from the place indicated by the yellow arrow to the current position of Y. Note for emphasis that whereas the cosmic bodies within Y would previously have been to the left of the X area, they are now above it. Can you conceptualize what sort of movement of the cosmos is being talked about here? It isn't always 'above', but let's just follow along you point. What must occur during the said "folding?" What distortions of "spacetime" and the cosmos must be involved in this? The second question first: the 'cosmos' is not distorted by any 'folding' of spacetime. And the first question: what 'must' occur is the formation of various phenomena - blackhole, whitehole, or wormhole. It all depends on the particular path that the 'folding' assumes. This is no small movement. The Universe has essentially been remodelled. I cannot imagine such a massive structural realignment of cosmic bodies without significant cosmic effects. The small movement does not affect the Universe, and that is why the Universe is not remodelled. A small part of the universe is experiencing these phenomena, but that does not necessarily affect the Universe as a whole. The amazing thing is that there are numerous such blackholes and many parts of the universe; as well many scientists believe that there are super massive blackholes in the center of active galaxies - yet all these do not result in remodelling of the universe itself as a whole. But assuming that there were none. Are you suggesting to me that for every single wormhole to be created, this massive cosmic realignment with its attendant effects must take place? The effects are observed only in the regions where the phenomena occur, as noted several times. We have to be careful what we mean by 'massive cosmic realignment' and not envisage that to mean that the Universe/cosmos is remodelled. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 3:17pm On Dec 08, 2009 |
Also there are other questions - No, the 'empty spaces' are not 'nothing', so be rest assured. But even so, the 'empty space' is part of the universe; and the whole model in the photograph is simply an artistic representation of the theory. In the case of a wormhole in particular, there would be two 'mouths', and it is only when these two mouths meet at a certain gravity that the 'joining' (the 'throat') is formed. It is not as if the whole thing just appears at once. Below are a few examples of other models from the net:   2. Z is clearly what the "universe" is expanding into. I propose that Z is infinite and self existent space. Reason being that it is boundless (as much as we can conceive) and constitutes a trajectory openness in all directions which exists even if there were no "spacetime" (the fabric in the image). What do you say to this? Well, my thinking is somewhat different. 'Z' in your image is the other parts within the universe, and the model itself is only a small part of that universe where the wormhole is taking place. I suppose that what has happened here is that you thinking the 'folding' represented by the model is the universe, which you suppose is 'expanding' into the regions of 'Z' and the red dots. Not so - because all those marked parts are still parts of the Universe itself.  The 'space outside wormhole' is still part of the Universe itself, for thr wormhole is not the universe (as you well know). So I think that it is wrong to infer that the dark parts represented by your 'Z' and red dots are 'what the "universe" is expanding into'. As such, the 'Z' parts being the same Universe cannot be said to be self-existent, otherwise you might be arguing for a Universe that was not created but existed all by its own. Z is thus unlimited, and together with eternity inherent in it (given that it has no time, or is timeless: thus is infinite time) is the start point ffor understanding the oneness of infinity which i moon on and on about. I know this is crap for you, and i state it beforehand so that you needn't lash me. No, amico mio. . you are not talking crap at all (even if others might assume so). The small point of turn here is that 'Z' is wrongly inferred, and that is why you might have thought it was self-existent. Since it is the part of the Universe where the wormhole occurs, that universe (our universe) was created at some point, and thus was not self-existent. Am i making some sense now? You made sense and afforded me time to think carefully. I'm indebted to you. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by DeepSight(m): 3:38pm On Dec 08, 2009 |
Thanks Viaro, but I am not sure we are on the same page yet. The Green part (green linear lines) of the image represents the fabric of space-time. It is that Green Part that the words "Space outside of wormhole" appear on. That greenery is teh spacetime fabric. The black part i marked "Z" is not within spacetime. Please try to go back to the image carefully again. Observe the line along which the light ray is indicated to have to travel, if movement is not through the wormhole. It is traveling a line within spacetime. Thus it is clear that Z is not within spacetime. At all events we should begin to wonder what it means to "fold" spacetime, because i believe that locked in that word may be the secret to understanding the nature of "Z." The 'space outside wormhole' is still part of the Universe itself, for thr wormhole is not the universe (as you well know). So I think that it is wrong to infer that the dark parts represented by your 'Z' and red dots are 'what the "universe" is expanding into'. "Space outside wormhole is not Z!" Wwe do know that 'space outside wormhole' is still part of the Universe itself but Z is outside the green spacetime fabric altogether!. My thoughts are further firmed up when we reflect that cosmic bodies lie within the spacetime fabric as i indicated in purple x marks. They do not lie in "Z." This point must be sealed if we for example pick a sheet of paper or a piece of cloth. If you will fold it, you will recognize immediately what i am talking about. This, i recognize, is a vastly limited example only. The second question first: the 'cosmos' is not distorted by any 'folding' of spacetime. I have serious problems with this, and i think i will have to do a diagram to force the point. I will be right back. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by AKO1(m): 3:45pm On Dec 08, 2009 |
viaro: That's actually a good idea. You could suggest it to Seun. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 4:05pm On Dec 08, 2009 |
Brilliant, and just a small point here still keeps us thus far. Deep Sight: Agreed. That greenery is teh spacetime fabric. The black part i marked "Z" is not within spacetime. Please try to go back to the image carefully again. Agreed again. Observe the line along which the light ray is indicated to have to travel, if movement is not through the wormhole. It is traveling a line within spacetime. Thus it is clear that Z is not within spacetime. Agreed yet again - illustrated below:  the light-bluish blob/dor is the light that is travelling simultaneously on the 'fold' At all events we should begin to wonder what it means to "fold" spacetime, because i believe that locked in that word may be the secret to understanding the nature of "Z." What it means is simply the behavour of gravity acting on spacetime. The 'space outside wormhole' is still part of the Universe itself, for thr wormhole is not the universe (as you well know). So I think that it is wrong to infer that the dark parts represented by your 'Z' and red dots are 'what the "universe" is expanding into'. The region marked 'Z' is still part of the universe, it is not something other than the universe. Perhaps this would help: [img]http://www.intensivemath.com/bigQ080208_15523a.jpg/bigQ080208_15523a-full;init:.jpg[/img]  The simple thing to understand here is that all these phenomena (blackhole, wormhole, whitehole) occur within the Universe itself. Thus, the 'Z' marked in your picture is still the parts within the universe, and it makes me wonder if the 'universe is expanding into the universe'. This point must be sealed if we for example pick a sheet of paper or a piece of cloth. If you will fold it, you will recognize immediately what i am talking about. This, i recognize, is a vastly limited example only. I understand that example and have come across several other examples of the 4th dimension as it is not only time-travel that it could apply to. Below again for a few examples of its application:  'Virtual human puts doctors inside their patients' 'Researchers say they have developed the most detailed model of a human yet, a movable "4D" image that doctors can use to plan complex surgery or show patients what ailments look like inside their bodies. Called CAVEman, the larger-than-life computer image emcompasses more than 3,000 distinct body parts, all viewed in a booth that gives the image height, width and depth. It also plots the passage of time - the fourth 'dimension.  Scientists Predict How To Detect A Fourth Dimension Of Space 'Charles R. Keeton of Rutgers and Arlie O. Petters of Duke base their work on a recent theory called the type II Randall-Sundrum braneworld gravity model. The theory holds that the visible universe is a membrane (hence "braneworld" embedded within a larger universe, much like a strand of filmy seaweed floating in the ocean. The "braneworld universe" has five dimensions -- four spatial dimensions plus time -- compared with the four dimensions -- three spatial, plus time -- laid out in the General Theory of Relativity.' I have serious problems with this, and i think i will have to do a diagram to force the point. I will be right back. Okay. Everyone has serious problems with models though. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 4:07pm On Dec 08, 2009 |
A_K_O: Good thinking. I hope to do so when more people begin to post about such subject, otherwise it may just be a board that would die a natural death if there not enough people interested in such subjects. What do you say? |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by DeepSight(m): 3:45pm On Dec 09, 2009 |
Hi Viaro, how's your day going? Now take a look at the rough image i have created below. Where - T = Spacetime Y, X, A, B = Galaxies Z = Outside spacetime. Can you kindly take sometime and tinker with (edit) this image to show how it might appear when T is "folded" to create a shortcut between X and Y, through a wormhole, perhaps. When you do, this, please be so kind as to indicate if A and B may have moved within spacetime, and their new locations. I think this excercise will help elucidate my point. Thanks for the trouble.
|
| Re: How The Universe Will End by DeepSight(m): 3:50pm On Dec 09, 2009 |
Bear in mind also that you said - The small movement does not affect the Universe, and that is why the Universe is not remodelled. A small part of the universe is experiencing these phenomena, but that does not necessarily affect the Universe as a whole. And assuming x and y to be at opposite far reaches of the universe, please consider if it can be rightly said that the "folding" of spacetime required to acheive a shortcut between the two will be a "small movement" only, and will not remodel the universe. Can it be said that a "small part" only of the universe will be experiencing the said phenomena? Thanks again. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 5:19pm On Dec 09, 2009 |
Hello Deep Sight, my day's been surprisingly busy but great. I've logged in for quite a while now, left my desk to attend to something I'd thought was a breeze - but no, it's gonna take quite some time for me to sit and play around on Nairaland. So, I'll take off for now and come back later to give a few answers to the interesting observations you proposed. Enjoy. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by Nobody: 10:43pm On Dec 09, 2009 |
the universe is infinite and doesnt have an end per se. However, The current scientific consensus of most cosmologists is that the ultimate fate of the universe depends on its overall shape, how much dark energy it contains, and on the equation of state which determines how the dark energy density responds to the expansion of the universe. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by Nobody: 10:51pm On Dec 09, 2009 |
Big Crunch |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by justcool(m): 1:57am On Dec 10, 2009 |
Honestly the first time I read about the idea of folding space I had the same questions that Deepsight have. I struggled with the picture before I arrived at a conclusion that satisfied me only a little. That picture presents many problems: 1) The Universe does not lie on a flat time-carpet like the picture showed. 2) Even of it does, you cannot fold this carpet without disrupting many bodies in the universe. Such folding will cause a catastrophic chain of event that can possibly destroy all the bodies(Planetry bodies) in the universe. 3) If the universe lies on a flat carpet, like the pictures depicts, then folding a part of it will raise the folded part to a height or depth where the universe may not be able to function. Think about it, if the universe operates on a flat carpet, then that height or range is the height most comfortable for the formation and functioning of the universe. Raising any part of the universe into foreign heights may result in catastrophe. I will give an example, imagine a yeast that is growing like a carpet on the surface of a body of water. The surface of this water provides the best environment for the yeast to grow and function. If you fold the yeast, thereby raising a part of the yeast above the surface of the water, the yeast usually dies. 4) In that picture, the carpet depicts space-time, notice that it has arrows pointing to a direction. This is understandable because the carpet moves, representing the passage of time. Now notice that the folded part is moving in the opposite direction to the unfolded part. How can this be!! So the wormhole has to have one mount in the normal forwarding moving time(Carpet), and the other mouth in a backward moving carpet, ie a place in the universe where time moves backwards. I personally think that that picture is just a form of giving shape to an idea, thus a figurative picture that does not necessarily comform to reality. Its like when you paint a picture of a straight street. Parallel lines(two side of the street) are drawn in such a way that at infinity they meet. This helps to fool the brain into seeing perspective or dept on a flat surface of the picture. But when you take this picture literally, then you might be expecting that there is a place in reality called infinity where parallel lines meet. This does not comform to reality because in reality parallel lines can never meet. So that's the way to see the pictures of space-time: It is only a rendering or a depiction of an idea on a picture. Imagine the idea of time as a forth dimension is very difficult to depict on a two dimensional picture. The idea of using a carpet with arrows to represent the passage of time is very understandable; but the idea of folding this carpet to appear as if one layer is ontop of the other is very missleading because actually, no layer is on-top or above the other. At first I thought that the folding into a circle represents the idea that time passes eternally. It is folded to us because we observe it on a two dimensional picture. Imagine a planet that revolves around a star, when depicted in a picture the circle of revolution becomes small. To the observer of the picture it appears the planet goes on two lines, one on-top of the other, and in opposite direction. But the truth is that to a small creature who cannot observe the circulation of the planet from afar; to such a creature, the planet only moves forward and never in a opposite direction or in a circle. Imagine if no stars or planets can be seen from the earth, then there is no way men on earth could know that the earth is in circulation. The best conclution that men can arrive at it that the earth move perpetually in a staight line. All I am saying is that you need an object outside a particular movement as a refrence in other to be able to tell correctly the nature of the particluar movement. That's the problem with dipicting the universe, we cannot see a universe outside our universe to use as a refrence to the movement of our universe. I will give an example: Imagine a tire spinning on its axis. If you put a red mark on the circumfrence of the tire. You will observe that as the tire turns, the red mark starts from east to north to west to south then back to east. Representing this in a two dimensional picture, the movement from east to north to west will appear in opposite direction to the movement from west to south to east. It appears on a picture, as if one movement in on-top of the other and in opposite direction. Now imagine an ant on this tire, to the ant, the tire just goes perpetually forward. If there is a worm whole with a mouth on the north side of the tire, and the other mouth on the south side, then this ant can be transported from north to south via this wormwhole in a split second faster than the rotation of the tire. Then such an ant has travelled in time. Because in a while at the south(Today) it has journyed to the north(Tomorrow). I thought this is what the picture is trying to potray. This is the only way I can make the spacefolding issue reasonable to me. I have a lot of problems with space folding. I dont think humans can fold space and I dont think space can be folded without catastrophy. @ Deepsight, I don't know if what I wrote above throws any light. What do you think? I don't even know if I was able to express what I have in mind. This issue is very difficult to express by writing. I don't know how to upload personally drawn pictures to this forum,(like you do) other wise I would have tried to express by drawing. Anyway what I wrote is my humble opinion, I could be very wrong. I have my personally invented idea of how one can, scientifically travel through time(I don't mean spiritually or non-physically), and atleast percieve the events that happened millions of years ago. I think my idea is better that the one in question. If you guys want to hear my idea, I will share it so that you guys can analyze and tell me what you think of the idea. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by justcool(m): 3:31am On Dec 10, 2009 |
Suffice also to say that this idea of going back in time through a wormhole, spacefolding, and etc is just a misguided speculation, it is very impractical. Apart from the fact that no living thing can survive the enormous pressure of passing through a wormhole, the very idea of passing through a warmhole to be in the past is based on a very wrong assumption, the assumption that time passes. This assumption is very wrong because in reality time does not pass, time stands still. What we call the passage of time is only a duration of an event, and not TIME itself. The idea that time passes, ie that time pushes us along as it passes, makes one look for ways to bridge the speed of time and thus travel to the future or return to yesterday. The idea that time passes as the picture of space-time depicts makes one think that time is like a conveyor belt, and we stand on it and it pushes us forward. As it pushes, it pushes us into today, then today passes and continues moving away from us while tomorrow approaches us. That means since I was a boy yesterday, if can return to yesterday I will be a boy again. This idea is wrong. My going from boyhood to manhood is not as a result of time passing me by per-se, rather it is as result of me moving(changing) while time stands still. What I call the movement of time is only the duration it took my biologicall process to go from boyhood to manhood. This is why to scientists, time is different in various parts of the universe. What they call time is only a reference to the measurement of the speed of light. One must understand that this is only a measurement of a duration of a process. If we imagine light to be particles, it logically followes that in areas of extreme gravity light can only pass slower. To scientists, time is slower in such areas. But all these measurements are within the universe. The real time which existed before the universe has to be independent of the measurement of duration which we call time. The real time is outside the universe and its independent of what we humans call time. it is eternal. The very fact that scientists are talking about how long the big bang took and how long the universe might last, while at the same time talking about time as being a dimension of the universe, thus formed at the formation of the universe; shows that there are two different things. You cannot meansure the duration of the life of the universe (the time it took to be formed and destroyed) with the time that is formed by the universe because this time is relative to the universe, ie it could be faster at the beginning and slower at the end, and besides it different in various parts of the universe. So when one talks about the duration of the life of the universe (the time it took to be formed and destroyed), one must be talking in relation to the real time. The time that stands outside the universe. I really don't know who to explain this. It is very much like motion. Consider a man on an airplane, he can get up and walk 50feet to the restroom. In relative to inside the airplane, he had walked 50feet. lets say that this man walks 50feet an hour, so in relative to inside the airplane he had travelled 50ft. But in relative to the outside world he could have travelled 1000 miles because the airplane travels 1000 miles an hour. So the real Time does not move. It is the same time that saw me as a boy, the same time today sees me as a man. The time remained the same, only my biological process and my form had changed from the form of a child to the form of a man. So even if I reverse my biological process and return to childhood, I had not travelled in time. The Truth is that time remained what is was. Let us return to man in an airplane; Lets assume that the airplane is going southward, the man can walk northward within the airplane in the false belief that he is actually walking north. But all the while he was speedily heading southwards. If he cannot look out of the window to use stationary and outside objects as reference he will remain in the delusion that he had actually walked northward. He can also live in the delusion that he is siting situationalrily, just because in-reference to his immediate environment(inside the plane) he is stationary. We in the universe are like the man in an airplane with no view of the outside. Any reference we make with objects within our universe only gives us a false idea. Conclusions drawn from such observations may be true in relation to our immediate environment, but such conclusions remain limited and does not apply to all. So when we try to describe the whole exsistance in the light of such limited conclusions, we could be dead wrong. Our scientific perception of time is only draw from the observation of our universe, this perception is very limited. Mankind still do not know enough about time to manipulate it. At this stage the most truthfull thing to say is that mankind does not even know what time is. Wheather we have the ability to know what time is, or wheather it is possible to manipulate it is a different thing altogether. I believe that at this point in our development, toying with this idea is a waste of time. Only from a spiritual (or nonphysical) view can we see the physical universe better because we will be at a point of reference not within the physical universe. Lets say that the spiritual time or spiritual perception of time is closer to the real Time. But as long as we are humans, even in the spiritual, we may never really see from the real time. Because the entire creation is only a process that took place in time, thus time existed before creation. Only God (if you believe in him) knows what the real time is. We creatures in creation, our perception of time is only limited to our perceiving organs(be it spiritual, ethereal, or physical) and relative to our position(be it physical, beyond, or spiritual) with creation. Much like the man inside an air plane with no windows to the outside. Time is like the the Truth. They are both eternal and stand outside creation. They are one and only found in the creator. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by olabowale(m): 6:08am On Dec 10, 2009 |
and Quran says that the earth will be folded. maybe we should ask the christians to tell us what the Bible says. We campare it to what the Quran says. We compare it to what science is hypothesising as end of the world. Quran is certain about the ending events. The Bibe is quite about it. Science is just guessing, like the usual hypoheticals. Science can firm up ideas, but not the idea of the end of time, which it can not get 100%. |
| Re: How The Universe Will End by viaro: 11:21pm On Dec 10, 2009 |
@Justcool and tpia, My indebtedness to you both for those nice contributions. I trust they shed light on certain issues we hitherto might not have considered. |
Is Celebrating Halloween Harmless? / Create Your Own Spells,manifest Your Will! / Covenant Christian Center Members Meet Here
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 228 |