01-13-2003, 10:18 AM
|
|
|
So Fucking Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hanging by the neck until dead.
Posts: 4,660
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by UnseenWorld
[B]
Quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAce
You:
By the word "space" I mean all the area outside of Earth's atmosphere and yet inside our universe.
Me:
I can go along with that, substituting "the unverse" for "our universe" for the reasons stated in my piece. I recognize that the word "universe" has different definitions in different contexts, but the idea that there can be another universe is a pretty diminished concept of what "universe" means. It reduces to just a clump stuff like any other similar clump of stuff instead of something really unique and special.
You:
I'm not sure where you get that definition of a universe. Our universe is (probably) a finite space with a certain set of rules that apply everywhere. The known universe exists in three dimensions (perhaps four, depending on what time really is). Beyond that, there could be more "space" that belongs to a different set of dimensions, runs on a different set of rules, maybe does or maybe does not interact with our "space". The idea of "universe" meaning everything that exists anywhere in any time, space or dimension is the broadest possible definition of a universe.
Me:
No, it's what the "uni" in "universe" means that has me using that definition. It means "one" (in the sense of one and only one). It's the same "uni" that's in "unique."
You:
Pick up any scientific journal or publication. The idea of multiple universes is no longer scoffed at and as scienctists explore quantum and string theories, they look more and more likely.
Me:
I don't doubt that, but that's "universe" used as jargon, not everyday speech. It diminishes the concept in much the same way that jumping from God to gods does. At any rate, by the most inclusive definition of "universe" (the one which preserves the concept of "universality"?everywhereness) there can be but one and whatever we discover just gets added to that concept. If physicists want to continue to use the term "universe" in a fashion contrary to its primary meaning in English, they are jargonizing.
You:
My statement about seeing the back of your own head was followed by a smiley face for a reason. However, it isn't that absurd an idea. As we are dealing with curved space, here, there is no reason not to think that at the edge of our universe things like light might not follw the curve back to where it started. Imagine a hollow sphere of some sort. If you put, say, a marble inside the sphere and set it in motion, it doesn't stop when it rolls to one of the walls of the sphere. Instead, it continues to travel, following the curve of the sphere as long as it has enough energy to do so.
Me:
You:
Seeing past the edge of our universe is only absurd if you go on the assumption that everything that exists exists in our universe.
Me:
As I do.
|
Yeah, this is great but it has nothing to do with explaining the Chewbacca problem. |
|
|