Is there an end to the univers?

**Sebastiani** · 12-18-2002

I think napkin meant diperse, anyway. Lasers are concentrated, but not as much as you think. A laser shot from just 10 miles away wil experience a spread of 5-50 feet - at least! Thus, from several billion miles away, the spread would be huge (though obviously more concentrated than an incandescent source).

David really hit the nail on the head though. Human conception is artificial, logic is limited, and thus just as labeling something as "empty" and "void" is contructing a "something", imagining "the end of the universe" is just as futile as visualizing the size of the sun. Inconcievable.

**PJYelton** · 12-18-2002

Oh, I agree that lasers disperse. I guess I was talking about a perfect laser shot in an ideal (from a physics sense) universe would reach us from a billion light years away with the same intensity.

**sentienttoaster** · 12-18-2002

I myself do not think there is an end to the universe. I have a couple of theories, I think that it could just loop itself, or that when you come to the end, you will get disoriented and turn yourself around and keep going in the direction you just came from!

**Sebastiani** · 12-18-2002

Originally posted by PJYelton
Oh, I agree that lasers disperse. I guess I was talking about a perfect laser shot in an ideal (from a physics sense) universe would reach us from a billion light years away with the same intensity.

I see what you mean. Anyway, lasers are fascinating stuff. Did you know that you can carry your voice on one directly?

**minesweeper** · 12-18-2002

If what Einstein said is true about space and time being one and the same thing (i.e. the space-time continuum). Does that mean if you were to travel to the edge of space, you would also travel to the 'edge' of time? And which 'edge' would it be? Or is this just another thing our minds can't comprehend?

**Sebastiani** · 12-18-2002

What Einstein meant was that time and space can no longer be considered separately. This is not really relavant to two observers standing in the same reference frame, but rather, two observers in separate reference frames. If you are moving at 99% the speed of light relative to me, and I were to gaze into your spacecrafts window and at your watch, it would appear that both you and the watch were motionless. In fact, I would be viewing the nanoseconds of your life. On the other hand, were you to peer down at me, it would appear that all phenomena on earth was moving at a breakneck speed, literally watching the seasons pass as each were a single frame of film in a movie. I this sense, your two-o-clock would be incompatible with mine.

By the way, his theories have been proven, and so can be considered fact.

**minesweeper** · 12-18-2002

>>By the way, his theories have been proven, and so can be considered fact.<<

hmmmmm.....I thought it was still a grey area, as they dispprove newton's theory of gravity. All to do with the orbit of Mercury round the Sun I think. It's in 'A Brief History of Time' if I remember. I mean they may have been proven, I don't really know. I just thought some people doubted the disprovability of newtonian gravity.

**Clyde** · 12-18-2002

"Human conception is artificial"

As opposed to....... natural?

"logic is limited"

Based on what?

"and thus just as labeling something as "empty" and "void" is contructing a "something""

That doesn't make the label innacurate, merely our ability to imagine it.

**Sebastiani** · 12-18-2002

Einstein never sought to disprove Newton. His theories are merely "specialized" cases of newtonian physics that are more accurate than newtons for high-speed physics. Interestingly, Einstein derived his theories mostly from the studies of Max Planc, Maxwell, and other experimental physicists. His real gift then was bringing together the results of many into a cohesive theoretical work, and to my knowledge, Einstein never had a lab other than his armchair. Pretty impressive, really.

**Sebastiani** · 12-18-2002

>>"Human conception is artificial"

>>As opposed to....... natural?

If I ask you to imagine you were dying, you could construct a conceptual image, but this is not experiencing the "thing itself". Thus, conception by definition artificial.

>>"logic is limited"

>>Based on what?

What comes first, a chicken or an egg? Logic cannot solve this problem and infact, were you to propose the problem to a computer, it would fall into an infinite loop. Thus, logic is limited.

>>"and thus just as labeling something as "empty" and "void" is contructing a "something""

>>That doesn't make the label innacurate, merely our ability to imagine it.

You're right but the point is, you can only imagine in an existential sense, not in a "void" sense.

**minesweeper** · 12-18-2002

Oh yeah I'm not doubting what he did, fabulous really, especially the radical, previously unthought of nature of his theories. When I read about relativity in 'A brief history of time', I don't know, it kind of just made sense. All I was saying is that in that book it mentions something about the orbit of Mercury (it's certainly the orbit of something about something else). Apparently the orbit's orientation changes slightly over time and this is not predicted by newtonian gravity but it is by Einstein theories. Because of this, Einsteins theories ruffled a number of feathers in the world of Physics. But yeah, one clever guy, probably the cleverest.

**Sebastiani** · 12-18-2002

I'm sure at some point in the future, someone will come along and prove his theories to be mere approximations of even more superior theories.

**Clyde** · 12-18-2002

"If I ask you to imagine you were dying, you could construct a conceptual image, but this is not experiencing the "thing itself". Thus, conception by definition artificial."

...... hrrmph i do not think the terms artificial or natural are usefull in this context, imagining != experiencing.

All of our perceptions are internal models, we do not percieve reality as it is, but to label them 'artificial' seems to be implying something else, having said that its just a semantic point.

"What comes first, a chicken or an egg?"

The egg.

"Logic cannot solve this problem"

How is it then, that i solved it?

"were you to propose the problem to a computer, it would fall into an infinite loop. Thus, logic is limited"

Logic is not limited, the question is flawed (or atleast, the classical way of approaching the question is flawed), because it makes an invalid assumption.

"You're right but the point is, you can only imagine in an existential sense, not in a "void" sense."

Agreed.

**Clyde** · 12-18-2002

" Apparently the orbit's orientation changes slightly over time and this is not predicted by newtonian gravity but it is by Einstein theories"

I think what you are talking about (i may be completely off) is the way we can see light bend around a massive obect (like a planet), simply using Newtonian mechanics the bend predicted falls short of the one observed, using relativistic theory we get accurate predictions (its to do with light following curved space)

**Sebastiani** · 12-18-2002

"What comes first, a chicken or an egg?"

The egg.

"Logic cannot solve this problem"

How is it then, that i solved it?

"were you to propose the problem to a computer, it would fall into an infinite loop. Thus, logic is limited"

Logic is not limited, the question is flawed, because it makes an invalid assumption.

Touche!

...... hrrmph i do not think the terms artificial or natural are usefull in this context, imagining != experiencing.

All of our perceptions are internal models, we do not percieve reality as it is, but to label them 'artificial' seems to be implying something else, having said that its just a semantic point.

That's a good point. A better word than 'artificial' might be 'non-actual'. I just mean that conception will never measure up to what is being concieved of.