Freelancer Community Network


Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.


To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport

Answer me this...

This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.

Post Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:26 am

Answer me this...

If Space expands with the speed of light, would there be a way to transverse the border of our universe (imagining for an instant that such a border even exists!) And should such a border exist, wouldn't it be impossible to get past, as its likely matter gone down to the absolute zilch (0K or -273C)

(Yes I know, its Ol' Loc up to his mind-boggling tricks again and Yes I still exist whether that is in your imaginaion or for real I'll leave up to you to decide )

*munches on a rabbit drumstick*

anyway, discuss

Post Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:48 am

Even though we cannot see the "edge" of the known universe..
some still assume it has limitations and try to support that assumption
with scientific speculation. (One being that the whole of the universe began
with the big bang) . I haven't seen any thought given to what must have
occupied that space surrounding the focal point before that suggested event.
Until they can actually find this "edge" of space, speculations about the universe
having a limit are still invalid assumptions.

Post Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:54 am

well, if thats the case, the Universe in itself is limited, as even expendanding with the speed of light, it'll still not exist beyond an estimated 15 billion lightyears (the estimated age of this universe)

As for science, if philosophers for ages have tried to give even one speck of definition to the Universe, other then that its a huge ****-off void, Id say understanding it will be useless for times to come.

One doesn't necessarily need to *understand* the universe to try and get a bit of comprehension of it, sure it would help, but its not really needed.

Post Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:05 am

You claim the border expands with the speed of light, therefore you already have your answer: You, as a human being, cannot exceed the speed of light (you cant even reach it - or better, if you reach it you no longer exist the way you have existed so far since there is no more time), so the logical conclusion is: Its impossible.

Post Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:57 pm

Current hypothesis is that as dark matter continues to make our universe expand and as such expansion continues to accelerate, at some point in the distant future 50+billion(?) years from today, the universe will be ripped apart and such ripping ultimately will be our total annihilation.

So figuring out a way to traverse our universe must overcome accelerating expansion. We'd need more dimensions hitherto undetected by us to see whether they afford us with what seem to be insurmountable facts about the four dimensions that we know.

Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:32 am

why do you say that space expands at the speed of light? in the first moments of the Universe, space expanded much faster than the speed of light even though matter itself did not and cannot move faster than the speed of light. Your statement infers that space expands at a constant rate, but we don't know that this is so, and it probably doesn't. the rate of expansion may slow down or even stop. And it really doesn't matter as far as your question concerns the "border" of space, because for all intents and purposes we have to think of space i.e. the Universe as closed, whether it actually is or not, because once you got near "the edge" you simply would run out of space to fly into - you could never reach an actual "edge" as such, and without space there's no time so you couldn't actually even perceive an edge as you can't exist out of time.

The only way that space could be considered infinite is if the rate of expansion was constant and went on forever, but no matter how far you travelled, were such a thing possible, if you travelled faster than the rate of expansion (which would be impossible if space is expanding at the speed of light as you say) you would eventually reach where the "limit" of space was "at" at that time, and the caveats of paragraph 1 would apply. providing that you could live that long.

as to what came before or lies beyond, well these are questions physicists and cosmologists cannot answer - there's no way to get evidence, is there? the only time I ever heard a physicist answer "what came before the Big Bang?" was that there existed <span style="text-decoration: underline">"fields of potential"</span> - whatever those are! I like to believe that these are God or the workings of God, and similarly, what I believe lies outside the physical Universe, if anything can be said to exist outside of existence itself, is God, or at least a realm of existence where God might manifest himself more fully ( or indeed manifests himself at all, as some might say) But those are only my beliefs, unsupported by facts but a lot of wishful thinking; and when I mention God I'm not imaging some white-haired dude with a beard who looks like Charlton Heston. But probably a rational answer will be forthcoming before too long. I really don't know how someone can look up at the nights sky and see the gloriousness displayed and not think that God created it all for the astonishment and awe of mortal creatures, and as a challenge for us (or any other intelligent life that may exist) to try to determine how it all works. I don't believe for a second that it all "just happened" but as far as explaining how it all works, science isn't doing a bad job so far and we have to proceed on the basis of what we can observe, deduce experiment and conclude. I truly fail to see this *false* dichotomy between science and faith, I've never had a problem with either- science and dogma on the other hand, that's a different matter.

I am rather interested in the concept of the "heat-death" of the Universe myself but of course this theory is only applicable if space continues to expand forever or halts. Which is where Comrade Indy's discussion of "dark matter" comes in.

And stop hurting our brains now! You can't travel faster than light, you can't go beyond space, and you can't live forever. Ye cannae break the Laws o' Physics, Cap'n!



Edited by - Tawakalna on 10/4/2007 12:44:57 PM

Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:50 pm

awww! but little toby maxwell down the road got to break the laws of physics for his birthday, its not fair! *sniffles*

Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:09 pm

Interesting for sure.

If nothing can go faster then the absolute, why can a universe expand faster from the get go? after-all, the big bang is seen as an explosion, a rapid expansion of matter. How come said matter could travel faster then light when light is the absolute?

As for Laws of physics, I would define a Law as laid down by us, Man. As such, how can such a law be finite, when even our own laws are subject to much discussion and revising? I would prefer to call them absolutes, the absolutes of Physics.

What lies beyond our Universe, it might be hard for us to get our brains around it, but even nothingness is something, if even the anti-state of our current state.

As for what started my ponderings, and perhaps a little extra fuel for the discussion: Imagining the Tenth Dimension

>-Edited out for the sanctity of discussion-<

Edited by - Locutov on 10/4/2007 3:07:22 PM

Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:03 pm

1. imagine if you can an inflating balloon with some dots painted on. As the balloon expands, the dots move outward but they also move apart. As the space itself rapidly expands, the movement of the dots from the centre increases at that rate, but the effect of the spatial increase is to accentuate their speed relative to each other. Or raisins in a cake, or air bubbles in bread - the raisins or bubbles don't move much themselves but the stuff around them moves much faster. The area in which these things can exist expands much faster than the things themselves can actually move. But the analogy ends because the balloon, the air, the cake, and the bread are all matter - we're actually talking about space.

it's estimated that in the initial moments of the Big Bang, the rate at which space increased in size may have in an order of several thousand times the speed of light, but the matter within was constrained to the constant speed of light. I know that it seems paradoxical, but in the conditions of a Universe rapidly expanding from an infinitesmal point to about a metre in diameter, paradoxes abound.

of course, it's misleading to talk of outside and inside because the only reference point could ever be inside, there actually being no outside as such. such dimensions are defined by virtue of being in space, in the universe - they wouldn't exist outside and you could never experience it to find out, because you wouldn't exist either. more on this in a sec.

2. you are misinterpreting the use of the term "law" in this sense. Laws of physics are models by which the workings of physical phenomena can be measured and understood. Laws of jurisprudence or religion are social constructs designed to control and inhibit human behaviour. Your conflation of the two is misleading and inaccurate, and from it you're deriving a false conclusion which you're using to support an assumption.

3. you may be thinking of nothingness as more space beyond some sort of wall but with no matter in it, no stars, planets, or dust, just a big black void that you float in. the point is that you can't float in or get into it in any way because it doesn't exist to be got into. it's the absence of anything including dimension even if there are no reference points. you could never even experience it, even assuming that you could get there, because you couldn't exist there for even a fraction of a nano-second, which also wouldn't exist because there'd be no time. All that it's possible for you to experience is inside the sphere of existence which is the universe (a metaphorical sphere, it's actually a twisted funnel shape) Again, very difficult concept to get your head around. It's not like there's some wall or surface there, or some sort of temporary limitation like the sound barrier - it's the limit at where all space, time, and matter can even exist.

4. God's existence can be neither proven or disproven, either case can be postulated, rebutted and defended. it's a pointless argument, and each person finds his answer within a subjective judgement which for believers like me, is faith. I'd say on a purely rhetorical basis, it's easier to deny the existence of God than it is to affirm it, although it depends on your audience - I'd hate to deny the Biblical account of Creation at a fundamentalist meeting in the Mid-West, for example, no matter how many facts I had at my disposal or how right I was - they'd tear me to pieces! I know what i believe, but i would never impose it on other people as being what they should believe and why they're wrong not to (unless you live in Tawakalnistan, in which case people believe whatever i tell them to!) However it's often fun, always instructive whatever the outcome, and occasionally the right thing to do, to point when someone's supposed faith or rather, the actions that belief may compel them to take, or they think that they're supposed to take, is in grievous error.

It isn't an argument we should really get into, though, because it ALWAYS leads to upset and bother, Loc, you know this of old, even if that's never the intent. Someone always hits back with a nasty argument and it ends up in flames and being locked and people fall out and never speak again. let's not go back there, shall we? it's enough to say that, you're right, no-one has ever disproven the existence of God. Nor proven it either - that's what faith is all about. What kind of faith would it be if it needed undeniable proof to support it? it wouldn't be faith at all, would it. and faith, i should remind all concerned, is a virtue, and virtues get their value from being exactly what they are, and don't need facts or reason to support their existence, which is seen from the effect they have. Do i need a justification to help a sick or injured person other than it's the right thing to do, or to give money to the poor and needy, other than i might help alleviate their plight? of course I don't, the act in itself is proof of it's value. Similarly, I don't need proof to justify my faith in God and His Angels to myself, the rewards and effects of faith are enough in themselves. I have no need either to impose that on the world around me and use God to find excuses with the way the world is - because that sort of faith is a long wait for a train that doesn't come, and it's a cold comfort for those in need. But faith sustains hope and charity, and these are the noblest of all the virtues, and the greatest of these is faith. So i don't have a great deal of time for people who debate the existence of God or whether their interpretation of Him is the correct one or whether their version of (what they claim to be) His laws when billions are starving or lack the basic stuffs to live and support their families.

(sorry i didn't mean to go on for quite that long!)

Edited by - Tawakalna on 10/4/2007 3:09:32 PM

Edited by - Tawakalna on 10/4/2007 3:22:20 PM

Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:35 am


universe will be ripped apart and such ripping ultimately will be our total annihilation


How? I mean literally, what will annihilate us? Any links? :O

Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:30 am



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indy11:
universe will be ripped apart and such ripping ultimately will be our total annihilation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chips:

How? I mean literally, what will annihilate us? Any links? :O




It is called the
Big Rip
and I misspoke earlier. Dark energy not matter.



@Taw:

The real point about science is that it cannot prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural.

I know that many atheists rely upon what science has revealed to us about how our material world works and I do not disabuse the idea that science has undermined a lot of so-called truths or assumptions about our existence as represented in sacred texts but that's just nitpicking in a way.

The true question of whether there is or isn't a supreme being just isn't in the deck of cards that is dealt when one engages in scientific inquiry. And such a card, a joker if you will, should not be in that deck.




Edited by - indy11 on 10/5/2007 7:49:55 AM

Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:01 am

any pseudo nuclear scientist should be familiar with the name Roger S Jones - very interesting blend of physics and philosophy, comparing this and that...some of it is just garbage imo but it does have lots of thought experiments that even i could follow (i remember when i first grasped the significance of duality, reading 'dancing wu li masters') and is not so out of date (quantum physics really hasn't moved a whole lot has it?)

never enter into a debate expecting your opponent to stand on your argument. science cannot disprove or prove the existence of God, because it's outside their lightcone so to speak....unless there is some master scientist who lives forever even before God and after the End who keeps track of it. Likewise faith and religion cannot deny a mustard seed's existence or move a mountain. Religion and science are only compatible in the sublime sense of fully understanding the creation strengthens our beliefs, and if it destroys some of them so what - all that matters in the end is truth eh?

so i guess i'm a Pantheist this month

Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:05 am

thank you boys for the clarification. You're both so much better at saying these things than I am

Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:49 pm

How's this radical thought for you to ponder on....


We are all gods...but just don't realize it yet.
In that, we could travel from here to there ... anywhere ...
in the blink of an eye.

Science and technology won't get us to the stars...
it was always within us to do so.

That we would be the creators of worlds...by our will..
and by our will, travel to visit these creations we make.

Sometimes, dreams are but a dim glimpse of what could be.

Post Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:48 am

you're talkin' 'bout that astral projection malarkey, aren't you?
Next

Return to Off Topic

cron
Hosted by The-Starport
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.