Register

Log In

Is God a space waster?

Page 2 of 3 [ 46 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

05 Dec 2009, 11:05 am

Sand wrote:

b9 wrote:

Sand wrote:

b9 wrote:

Quote:

Is God a space waster?

space can not be wasted because it can not be destroyed or mutated into anything else.
space will always remain when it's contents have long gone.

Educate yourself. The material is available. You have a lot to learn about space and time and matter.

i never made any reference to "time" or "matter".

i think i know what you are referring to as to the inaccuracy of my statement about space.

i know that it is theoretically and conceptually valid that space can be warped and distorted. it can be compressed depending on the objects (matter (which is only bound energy)) that are within it.

i know the "trampoline" analogy of a bowling ball on a trampoline that flexes the surface fabric into a concavity, and flinging a marble at the right angle to that concavity will result in the marble orbiting the bowling ball. when i first heard that analogy, i thought that always the marble would orbit in a relatively rapid decay and soon hit the bowling ball. then i realized that in frictionless space, the motion would be eternal and not diminishing like a marble that experiences friction on the trampoline fabric on earth in that crude analogy.

i know that it is not "gravity" that is pulling me toward the earth, but it is "space" pushing me toward it.

but i said that space was immutable. i did not say that space was featureless.

like if i say about an indestructible elastic sheet "it is indestructible and immutable", then it is a true statement even though the dynamic reality of the sheet is changeable. it can be stretched and pulled and crunched up, but it always remains essentially the same elastic membrane no matter what distorting forces are applied.
that is a 2d description. imagine it on a 3d scale.

it is all very well to rely on the speculation of scientists and "thinkers of note" to provide the educational substance that people feed upon to understand the universe.
i like to read lots of things.

i also like to ponder reality in isolation from anything i have ever read or heard. even though i am sure i have no special insight or talent, it is interesting to ponder things in the quietude of sterile, relaxed, and idle speculation.

i do not have to prove what i say if it is just an idea i have.
i do not quote things i have read or learned externally. that would be kind of parroting i guess i think.

i see "space" as an infinite amount of points.
points have no width or depth or height. they do not exist in physical reality, yet all space is composed of them.
they are only theoretical, and yet the "room" in which all manifestation occurs is due to them.

i see "points" as "coordinates" on an infinite 3d cube grid of "potential location" .i see "points" as "possibilities of occupancy by singularities of reality".

there are an infinite amount of "points" in even the space occupied by a neutrino, and so it is absurd to even try to "quantify" space.

i think that the presence of matter in space makes space look like it is effected by the matter. in the trampoline analogy, space is the "helpless membrane" that has to yield to "mass".
i think it is a 2 way street. i think that if "points" of "possibilities of occupancy by reality (substance)" were compressed for any other reason (one that is not dreamed of yet), then "reality" (substance) would automatically migrate to the areas of highest possibility compression for their occupation.

this means that ripples in space probably create matter (by rolling energy into itself) rather than matter creating ripples in space possibly.

so for that reason i still believe that space (comprised of "points"(that are theoretical and thus indestructible (in the same way that the truth of 1+1=2 is indestructible))) is the eternal overlord of all manifestation and it is endless and timeless and no energy is required for it to be. it is inevitable in a universe where inevitability exists.

space can not be changed into anything else because it is composed of nothing but potential locations for the occupation of every bit of all reality.

i am sorry i posted in this thread as i did not notice it was in the PPR section. i thought i was just giving a quip like answer in the general area of the forum.

i have my own ideas of space and i have them because i am happy to think about it.
i also have read lots of stuff and i think it is not worth exchanging internet articles that i have read as a debate in this thread.

i like to try to talk from my own wobbly feet.

anyway that is all.

As long as you're happy, what else could matter?

not much i am afraid

wesmontfan
Snowy Owl

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Near Washington DC

08 Dec 2009, 11:07 am

Vexcalibur wrote:

Have you ever wondered, if God really created earth, so we then built his kingdom, in earth. Why did he waste so much space AND time? I mean, there are not only millions of stars out there, there are actually s*hitloads of galaxies out there... we are not even sure whether this is the only universe or not. Just the size of a galaxy is incredibly large, we would take years to go from this planet to the closest star if traveling in light speed!.

We are a incredibly small point in space... And we are also an incredibly small point in time... nevertheless the universe is so big that there is a "light horizon" meaning that there are parts of the universe we cannot see, because they are so far away that the light from them didn't reach us yet...

So my question is, why would God bother creating all so much space and taking so long just so we had a planet in which to build a kingdom of Christian values?

IT Doesnt even end there. On the atomic level he wasted alot of space. Your body is made of atoms. The space between atom is vast relative to their size.

Take away that spece- and youd be the size of the head of pin.

And then the atoms themselves are made mostly of empty space. Both electrons and atomic nuclei are tiny compared to the distance between them-camparable to the ratio of the size of planetary orbits to the size of the actual planets and stars.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

08 Dec 2009, 11:12 am

Like a soufflé, whipped cream, or a meringue/macaroon, then? Lots of "air", but worth it? :lol:

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Dec 2009, 11:28 am

According to accepted cosmological theory there was a time when the universe and all space came into existence. An approximate date has been assigned to the event, the "big bang", and before that there was no space. That doesn't mean there was no matter or energy in space, it means space itself did not exist.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

08 Dec 2009, 11:42 am

Sand wrote:

According to accepted cosmological theory there was a time when the universe and all space came into existence. [ Before that ] space itself did not exist.

Maybe why so many myths refer to gods breathing life into things.

.

ManErg
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,090
Location: No Mans Land

08 Dec 2009, 11:44 am

There's no such thing as space. Just places where humans haven't detected anything....yet.

_________________
Circular logic is correct because it is.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

08 Dec 2009, 11:51 am

space is not a physical object, and it is not a force.
space can not be brought into being, or removed from being.
there could be no time when space did not exist because time is in space

it is difficult (impossible) to try to wrap an equation around a circumstance where one of the variables is "infinity".

space is a universal precursor to all existence, yet space is not in existence to a complete degree since it is just a matrix of potential locations for occupation of manifestations of reality.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Dec 2009, 12:17 pm

b9 wrote:

space is not a physical object, and it is not a force.
space can not be brought into being, or removed from being.
there could be no time when space did not exist because time is in space

it is difficult (impossible) to try to wrap an equation around a circumstance where one of the variables is "infinity".

space is a universal precursor to all existence, yet space is not in existence to a complete degree since it is just a matrix of potential locations for occupation of manifestations of reality.

I'm terribly sorry but neither time nor space existed before the big bang. Simply put, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Dec 2009, 3:02 pm

b9 wrote:

space is a universal precursor to all existence, yet space is not in existence to a complete degree since it is just a matrix of potential locations for occupation of manifestations of reality.

First of all it is spacetime, not space. Second it is bendable and warpable.

ruveyn

wesmontfan
Snowy Owl

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Near Washington DC

08 Dec 2009, 11:00 pm

My theory is that space is in fact a thing.

I used to think that if you got to the edge of the universe the galaxies and stars would peter out and there would be nothing but blackness.

But it occured to me one day that actually not only would matter and energy end at the universe's edge, but empty space itsself would also end.

The fact we cant imagine the absense of all 3-energy matter AND empty space is because we are made up of those things ourselves.

So beyond the edge is nothing-not even empty space. the universe is this little bubble of energy matter and space.

And einstien showed that empty space was something-because he showed that it was bendable and warpable. So Im building on einstein by suggesting this.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Dec 2009, 11:10 pm

wesmontfan wrote:

My theory is that space is in fact a thing.

I used to think that if you got to the edge of the universe the galaxies and stars would peter out and there would be nothing but blackness.

But it occured to me one day that actually not only would matter and energy end at the universe's edge, but empty space itsself would also end.

The fact we cant imagine the absense of all 3-energy matter AND empty space is because we are made up of those things ourselves.

So beyond the edge is nothing-not even empty space. the universe is this little bubble of energy matter and space.

And einstien showed that empty space was something-because he showed that it was bendable and warpable. So Im building on einstein by suggesting this.

There is no "edge of the universe" just as there is no edge of the surface of the Earth. The universe is a four dimensional manifold. You have much to learn.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2009, 4:22 am

wesmontfan wrote:

I used to think that if you got to the edge of the universe the galaxies and stars would peter out and there would be nothing but blackness.

.

There is no edge. Think of the surface of a sphere as being all there is. Relative to that (topological) space there are no boundary points.

ruveyn

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

09 Dec 2009, 9:27 am

Sand wrote:

b9 wrote:

space is not a physical object, and it is not a force.
space can not be brought into being, or removed from being.
there could be no time when space did not exist because time is in space

it is difficult (impossible) to try to wrap an equation around a circumstance where one of the variables is "infinity".

space is a universal precursor to all existence, yet space is not in existence to a complete degree since it is just a matrix of potential locations for occupation of manifestations of reality.

I'm terribly sorry but neither time nor space existed before the big bang. Simply put, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

well i am even more terribly sorry, but there is only speculation as to what (if anything) existed before the "big bang". you may consider the speculation of people you admire to be gospel truth, but i hold an open mind, and i also consider my conceptual idea of universal existence.

you may say that my mind is insignificant compared to accomplished thinkers, and that i should desist thinking in any way other than what is thought by people smarter than me, but the fact is they are not sure of the validity of their theories.

simply developing a mathematical model that is consistent with a theory is not exceptionally difficult, and so if a reader of a theory is bamboozled by mathematics, and believes that "equations" that are consistently supportive of the validity of a theory are "eternal truths" then they will be convinced of the reality of unproven theoretical conjecture.

one has to build a mathematical scaffold around a theory in order for anyone else to climb onto it to inspect it.

but proof only comes with empirical evidence that is gained through experimentation.
-----------------------

people do not come up with theories of reality by working with no idea from mundane mathematical foundations, and finally building a mathematical structure that explains the universe.
they ponder and speculate at a conceptual level, and that is where the genius of insight is manifest. once a person sees what they believe to be true, then the next step is to quantify it and describe it in mathematical "phrases".
mathematical "phrases" can be used to also describe fallacies of concept.

you are entirely incorrect in your presumption that there is "proof" that space and time did not exist before the big bang.
i know that it is difficult for a mind to conceive of "no space" and "no time". this is possibly why you presume i have "no idea" what i am talking about.

you believe that someone has "proved" that there was a "time" when "time" did not exist.
just exactly "when" did "time not exist"? (joke).

so, in my own neural logic (which you can denigrate as you wish), if there once was "no space", then "where" did it pop into existence? if there was once a "time" when time did not exist, then "when" did time start?

the conceptual reality of the theory seems to be is that if there is nothing happening, then there is no time, and if there is nothing in existence anywhere, then there is no space.

i very much believe in "big bangs", but i do not believe there was only one.
i think that the dynamics of all the laws and all the energies (including matter which is bound energy) and all the possibilities in the universe can be compressed into a singular point with no width or length or height (that means it is compressed into non existence), and then trip the infinity/0 trigger and be re manifested with incomprehensible force.

i see empirical evidence that galaxies that are further away from us seem to be traveling faster away than closer galaxies.
but that would only be conceptually true if we are at the location of where the big bang happened. where are we in relation to the epicenter? if we are among the furthest emigrants from the big bang area, then how would the observation that all distant galaxies are moving faster away from US apply?

maybe the red shift is attributable to the dissipation of the energy in the blue part of the spectrum in it's journey to our telescopes.
sunsets look red because the higher frequencies of light are dissipated through the increased obstruction of more air to shine through before it gets to the eyes.

throughout the billions of light years of space between the observed galaxies and our doppler analysis instruments, there may be much dark matter and dust and other obstructions that will cause a deflection of higher frequency waves. high frequencies are very uni directional and do not travel easily around obstacles.

anyway, i have to say you sound like a person who wears a suit of armor composed of books.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

09 Dec 2009, 9:37 am

ruveyn wrote:

b9 wrote:

space is a universal precursor to all existence, yet space is not in existence to a complete degree since it is just a matrix of potential locations for occupation of manifestations of reality.

First of all it is spacetime, not space. Second it is bendable and warpable.
ruveyn

space is not time and time is not space and i do not know what you mean.

also i have already acknowledged in a previous post that it is "bendable and warpable" (tautology of yours).

this part of the forum is very unfriendly and you are unaccomplished guard dogs of a barren yard.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

09 Dec 2009, 9:41 am

b9 wrote:

Sand wrote:

b9 wrote:

space is not a physical object, and it is not a force.
space can not be brought into being, or removed from being.
there could be no time when space did not exist because time is in space

it is difficult (impossible) to try to wrap an equation around a circumstance where one of the variables is "infinity".

space is a universal precursor to all existence, yet space is not in existence to a complete degree since it is just a matrix of potential locations for occupation of manifestations of reality.

I'm terribly sorry but neither time nor space existed before the big bang. Simply put, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

well i am even more terribly sorry, but there is only speculation as to what (if anything) existed before the "big bang". you may consider the speculation of people you admire to be gospel truth, but i hold an open mind, and i also consider my conceptual idea of universal existence.

you may say that my mind is insignificant compared to accomplished thinkers, and that i should desist thinking in any way other than what is thought by people smarter than me, but the fact is they are not sure of the validity of their theories.

simply developing a mathematical model that is consistent with a theory is not exceptionally difficult, and so if a reader of a theory is bamboozled by mathematics, and believes that "equations" that are consistently supportive of the validity of a theory are "eternal truths" then they will be convinced of the reality of unproven theoretical conjecture.

one has to build a mathematical scaffold around a theory in order for anyone else to climb onto it to inspect it.

but proof only comes with empirical evidence that is gained through experimentation.
-----------------------

people do not come up with theories of reality by working with no idea from mundane mathematical foundations, and finally building a mathematical structure that explains the universe.
they ponder and speculate at a conceptual level, and that is where the genius of insight is manifest. once a person sees what they believe to be true, then the next step is to quantify it and describe it in mathematical "phrases".
mathematical "phrases" can be used to also describe fallacies of concept.

you are entirely incorrect in your presumption that there is "proof" that space and time did not exist before the big bang.
i know that it is difficult for a mind to conceive of "no space" and "no time". this is possibly why you presume i have "no idea" what i am talking about.

you believe that someone has "proved" that there was a "time" when "time" did not exist.
just exactly "when" did "time not exist"? (joke).

so, in my own neural logic (which you can denigrate as you wish), if there once was "no space", then "where" did it pop into existence? if there was once a "time" when time did not exist, then "when" did time start?

the conceptual reality of the theory seems to be is that if there is nothing happening, then there is no time, and if there is nothing in existence anywhere, then there is no space.

i very much believe in "big bangs", but i do not believe there was only one.
i think that the dynamics of all the laws and all the energies (including matter which is bound energy) and all the possibilities in the universe can be compressed into a singular point with no width or length or height (that means it is compressed into non existence), and then trip the infinity/0 trigger and be re manifested with incomprehensible force.

i see empirical evidence that galaxies that are further away from us seem to be traveling faster away than closer galaxies.
but that would only be conceptually true if we are at the location of where the big bang happened. where are we in relation to the epicenter? if we are among the furthest emigrants from the big bang area, then how would the observation that all distant galaxies are moving faster away from US apply?

maybe the red shift is attributable to the dissipation of the energy in the blue part of the spectrum in it's journey to our telescopes.
sunsets look red because the higher frequencies of light are dissipated through the increased obstruction of more air to shine through before it gets to the eyes.

throughout the billions of light years of space between the observed galaxies and our doppler analysis instruments, there may be much dark matter and dust and other obstructions that will cause a deflection of higher frequency waves. high frequencies are very uni directional and do not travel easily around obstacles.

anyway, i have to say you sound like a person who wears a suit of armor composed of books.

No need for a bookish suit of armor. Just read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". It will help.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

09 Dec 2009, 9:54 am

Sand wrote:

No need for a bookish suit of armor. Just read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". It will help.

ok i will.
i know that he considers that black holes are actually "brown" holes (ie: they fritter away over time), and i am interested to see his description of what radiance is able to surpass light velocity to evaporate a black hole.

will he say that the escape velocity from a black hole is less than the speed of light? if so, then why do they emit no light or any other energy? is there something that is "ethereal" and not bound to the speed of light that is the reason for energy leakage and dissipation of black holes?

i will get the book and i am done with this discussion until i am interested to contribute further.

Page 2 of 3 [ 46 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to: