Quote:
On 2002-11-24 20:25, JS Princeton wrote:
Quote:
On 2002-11-24 18:26, heusdens wrote:
I think from our discussion we have minor problems in understanding, because of the use of different terminology. I for example use matter in a more general way (not just mass having objects, but also energy, fields, whatever can be grasped as being material), and also motion.
|
Jargon is a somewhat debatable issue, but consider this. When physicists talk about "motion" they mean motion as measured from a rest frame. What you are describing is something else entirely. Particle and nuclear physics indeed involves complex interactions and exchange diagrams that may look a lot like "motion" but they are not "motion" in the sense objects move in the universe.
|
You are right I interchange philosophical terms with scientific terms, which don't have the same meaning.
So my statement was that matter is never in an unchanging state, even at the lowest levels. So, changes take place within matter continously, which I see as a evolving in an everlasting way, without begin or end.
Because every outcome of the state of the material world is based on a previous state of the material world, this questions the possibility of a beginning. Or stated otherwise, the beginning itself questions our notions of what matter, space and time realy is.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Take for instance the nucleus of an atom, where protons and neutrons reside. Well nothing at rest here, the proton and neutron interchange particles (so called gluons, if I am correct), and which causes the proton to become a neutron, and vice versa. I would call this phenomena also motion. In fact, matter (anything material) is never at rest.
|
"At rest" would mean that there is a zero derivative of the position of the particular particle. Indeed, the nucleus remains immobile in its rest frame. It is not "in motion" at all. You have to be rigorous when using these terms. Right now you are being too sloppy.
|
(See above)
Quote:
Quote:
|
Has void space existence of it's own? I don't think so. I think the GR theory of Einstein just shows us how connected matter is with spacetime.
|
No, empty sapcetime also is dealt with. It is a solution to Einstein's Equations. In fact, if you enter the metric for empty spacetime you get a very interesting set of solutions known as the Milne Universe. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Quote:
|
Matter has no meaning without spacetime
|
This is true
Quote:
|
and spacetime has no meaning without matter.
|
This is untrue.
Quote:
|
You might think of a void space of having existence of its own, but your reasoning is ultimately derived from an existing (material) world, which contains (almost empty) voids.
|
No, it is derived through theoretical considerations of Einstein's Equations.
Quote:
|
But could you think of an existing world, which would be just totally empty space? Please go ahead and try to think of it.
|
Milne Universe, as I've said twice before.'
Quote:
|
What I was merely trying to say is that existence has no alternative. There is no "negative" existence or "non" existence.
|
There absolutely is. What happens to your lap when you stand up? It ceases to exist. However, this is an ontological question rather than a physical one. There is no a priori reason, though, for accepting your postulate that existence means existence is all that can be. This is a topic both Leibnitz and Kant struggled with, actually.
|
I think that any philosophical issue or debate has been done before. Even the BB theory has had it's philosophical predecessors. About tje Kant/Leibniz topic:
I can remember that I had to struggle with this idea myself, and what strikens is of course that when you mentally struggle with this issue, and try think of what would be left of the world if you get rid of anything material that constitutes the world, utimately you arrive at the fact that this also excludes your own being from the world.
The cognition I have from this struggle is that our being is ultimately dependend on everything material in this world, and that we couldn't be here or exist otherwise. When relativizing the existence of the material world, in consequence one must relativize one's own existence. And that is a position
one cannot realy hold. I have never looked into this issue from philosophical literature, but from my own point of view, I regard this outcome as some form of basis of our material existence and our consciousness, I conceive of it in a way that this cognition is somehow "hardwired" into our brains, as the basis of our existence and consciousness about the world.
Quote:
Quote:
|
You cannot think of a mere "nothingness" as being in existence.
|
Ontologically, yes you can. It's kind of like saying that the "vacuum" has substance. It doesn't have substance in any sense other than the fact that we define our coordinates to exist in that place. That and the fact that there is a stress-energy tensor associated with it that allows us to solve the Einstein Equations. But if I'm beginning to sound like a repeating record it's because you refuse to listen to what I'm saying.
|
I think that is because we hold different positions in this issue.
Well, your argument is that ontologically you can think of another universe as empty space, because in your mind you can substitute empty density into the Einstein equations. Well, I am pretty sure that in such a world there wouldn't be a you who could conceive that.
I can of course also have in my mind a notion of a theoretical world, inhabited by mathematical entities or other ontological categories. But I would not hold that for an "existing" world, or as something that could have existence of its own. This is to be understood also as a derivate from my cognition of the material existence which constitutes me.
Quote:
|
This link is one way to jump into the Many Worlds Hypothesis. It is not, however, anything more than a metaphysical game treatment of these issues. We cannot say yea or nay with regards to this issue. Science is right now mute as to the mystery of existence, and therefore I shall comment no further on it.
|
I brought only that page up for that issue. His thesis about this state-space of all possible worlds in my view excludes the one we happen to live in: one which doesn't have a beginning.
Quote:
Quote:
About the alternative redshift-distance explenation, I found this page dealing with such effects:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBA...ng.html#Author
I don't know if this holds true, and in fact I can imagine that this argument has been succesfully been dealt with in the BB theory,
|
This is a very incomplete and inappropriate critique of Big Bang Theory. It may not be the intent of this page to provide a complete interpretation of the "plasma" universe, but it certainly doesn't do a convincing job at demonstrating how the proposed mechanism.
|
I brought it up solely for demonstrating a possible mechanism for non-doppler redshift, and not as a complete critique on the BB theory. The issue was about if such a mechanism could in fact exist, and I tried to answer that in showing a possible mechanism.
Quote:
Quote:
|
but - apart from the fact that in explenations of the BB theory, it is said that such effects (like the 'tired light' theory) have been succesfully excluded - I did not see a good explenation of why such an effect can be excluded. If you have such material, that deals with this issue, I would be happy if you can show me.
|
Absolutely. The problem is that the expansion of the universe has all kinds of other implications that cannot be explained by the "plasma" explanation. I already outlined these in this thread.
|
Well, that is true. If one brings down the doppler-redshift in BB theory, and comes up with another explenation, all other things in BB theory will fall with it.
I don't suspect that would happen all of a sudden, cause I hold it the theory has been tested on most of these attempts, but in theory it could not be excluded neither.
So, the sole reason would be for bringing it up, to find a satisfactory answer from BB theory. Is this issue/alternative regarded as of the category "tired light"?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-24 23:21 ]</font>