Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by spy66

What i have underlined in you comment is that you say that we use the infinite within math and physics. Thereby we already know it exists theoretically. So the dimension cannot be ruled out when we talk about the beginning of finite existence. Its just that we first have to agree on where the beginning is. And i guess that would be the absolute emptiness of space.

It's also important for them to realize that the term "space" has many different concepts involved as well. What we theoretically know of as "space" is the area in which the universe exists as opposed to the physical regions between known, measureable matter which is also called "space". Although it would add a great deal of vocabulary in, we should incorporate the differences in the theoretical and physical senses to prevent the errors that are made when generalizing a concept.
The absolute emptiness of space would be in the theoretical construct, not the physical construct as the physical construct would not yet exist in the beginning of things, it is part of what resulted within the theoretical space.
I see that you do have a good handle on the concepts!

I guess we all have different approaches to view space. I do agree that how you describe them are very important if you like others to fallow the concept, so that they can both learn and make a contribution to make the pieces fit.

The absolute emptiness of space would be in the theoretical construct, not the physical construct as the physical construct would not yet exist in the beginning of things, it is part of what resulted within the theoretical space.
I see that you do have a good handle on the concepts!

The problem here is that a absolute empty space is not a "theoretical construct", That to will confuse people.

Before we had the construct of physical space. The space we today call the theoretical space was the only physical space. This space has never disappeared. But we talk about it and treat it as if it dosent exist anymore.

The irony is that we use the infinite in math and physics. But we argue that it hasn't been proven to exist. I see a lot of irony in that with people.


I also agree in the way you described the space between physical knows. Because i think a lot of people don't pay attention to details like that. I did a experiment with some people just to prove just that with this image.
I asked them how many dimension do they see: They all said two. They left out the dimension surrounding the two knows.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I see what you are saying. I think our theology plays into the idea of existance/nonexistance before the big bang. We have the creation mindset that causes us to think that there was no existance before the intervention of the creator.
I can see how that wouldn't have to be the case and there could have been an existance, just not the existance we are familiar with.
Thank you for pointing that out!

Hopefully we can continue to learn from each other.
I do have to admit that your English is exceptional concerning it's not your primary language. I applaud you for that.
I like the example of the paper. It's a flat, 2 dimensional surface, but in order for anything to be represented on it, the writing utensil must come into contact with it. We could even look at it deeper and see it as adding a third dimension of sorts, even though the extent of the dimension is very miniscule. The lines that are drawn do have a depth to them on top of the plane of the paper, yet still connected to it (microscopic as that depth may be).
So, without the interaction of the two different "voids", nothing can be created in the void of the paper.
Our visual perception of the paper remains in 2 dimensions, even though we can represent 3 dimensions on it. That implies that we can represent the 4 dimensions in our 3 dimensional space and when we include time as the 4th dimension, we should be able to represent the 5th dimension and so on. ...although we don't presently know what the component of the 5th on up would be, if we knew them, we could incorporate them into the previous model to get to that model.

What are your thoughts on the magnitude of the number of dimensions? Would there be infinitely many or would there be a finite number? I can see how each could be argued but with our present abilities, I'm not certain that we could exclude one of the possiblities.
I see it as the possibility of infinite dimensions does exist, but we are not able, dut to our physical existance in this once-void, to move beyond a finite number of them. Presently, we can conceptualize 4 and extend that thought on to more, but I feel there must be a finite number that is accessible to us in our universe due to the addition from another void (whether that be a creator or some other force) in order to create what we are and know of into this void. Just as the paper was limited to 2 dimensions for the purpose of drawing, we would be limited to some number for the purpose of the forming existance that we are now a part of. ...of course we could also wad that paper up and it is transformed into 3 dimensions, throw it across the room and the time it takes to travel would transform it into 4 dimensions....
Does what we consider to be "life" actually exist due to the interaction of a dimension higher than what we are able to percieve? I am back to brainstorming now...

edit to address your edit.
Very interesting concept with the wave frequency! with each dimension represented by a wave, the lowest having the greatest frequency and changing as the dimensions increase would produce a frequency that was straight and unmoving as the result... very, very interesting!

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

I asked for clarification. You gave it. I understand your meaning as for example, you believe energy cannot be added nor subtracted from the system, but it still can expand infinitely such as the space between the photons, you explained to me about earlier, will keep expanding after all the energy in the Universe has been reduced to spares radiation.

That's essentially right. The energy of expansion is vacuum potential energy, so the total energy content of the universe is conserved. Eventually, it dies out, but, at the moment, a majority of the expansion is possibly driven by the interaction of antimatter in the large-scale voids with regular matter in the filaments. This, too, will eventually die out.

"Die out?" Does that mean there is no more evolution in the transformation of energy from one form to another, meaning, just lone photons as spars radiation suspended in space and time between vast distances as you mentioned?

Originally posted by PurpleChiten


edit to address your edit.
Very interesting concept with the wave frequency! with each dimension represented by a wave, the lowest having the greatest frequency and changing as the dimensions increase would produce a frequency that was straight and unmoving as the result... very, very interesting!

edit on 7-6-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

So, without the interaction of the two different "voids", nothing can be created in the void of the paper.
Our visual perception of the paper remains in 2 dimensions, even though we can represent 3 dimensions on it. That implies that we can represent the 4 dimensions in our 3 dimensional space and when we include time as the 4th dimension, we should be able to represent the 5th dimension and so on. ...although we don't presently know what the component of the 5th on up would be, if we knew them, we could incorporate them into the previous model to get to that model.

I have underlined a portion of you explanation above. Because, its not really how it takes place. Its not a interaction between the paper and the pencil/pen that form the new dimension. Its in reality the paper that must form the new dimension by it self. How it is done, i will explain a bit later.

I just had to point this out since i am not sure that is how you understood the concept.

The other thing is time. Time must have started before the new physical dimension took shape. Because it takes time to shape something. So physical time is not the 4th dimension. Time is the time the infinite dimension uses to form the first dimension. But as soon as the first clock starts a new clock is also started. "This is going to get pretty complicated". But to make it a bit easier to grasp, think of compression and expansion. They both take time, but the two are where different. Because expansions represent our physical clock. The compression does not.
We live in a physical dimension that is expanding.

I guess this will get you thinking

I will comment on the rest on this page, But you can look at this meanwhile. It takes time to do all this.

What are your thoughts on the magnitude of the number of dimensions? Would there be infinitely many or would there be a finite number?

Well, i like to say that the infinite can house them all. So there is a finite amount of finite dimensions. There can never be a infinite of them. When one becomes infinite it has become what it used to be. To become means: when the dimension has expanded the distance from being a finite to being infinite. There are two ways to look at this distance. And the distance is different depending on where you observe the distance from. If you measure the distance from the infinite, finite energy will be right there. If you observe the distance from earth, the infinite will seam very very far away. If you draw a circle on a paper and earth as a dot in the middle, you will understand.

Originally posted by spy66

I have underlined a portion of you explanation above. Because, its not really how it takes place. Its not a interaction between the paper and the pencil/pen that form the new dimension. Its in reality the paper that must form the new dimension by it self. How it is done, i will explain a bit later.

I just had to point this out since i am not sure that is how you understood the concept.

Yes, I see what you are saying, my rewording didn't have the effect I was hoping for, more of an extension of an idea to another possibility I believe.

The other thing is time. Time must have started before the new physical dimension took shape. Because it takes time to shape something. So physical time is not the 4th dimension. Time is the time the infinite dimension uses to form the first dimension. But as soon as the first clock starts a new clock is also started. "This is going to get pretty complicated". But to make it a bit easier to grasp, think of compression and expansion. They both take time, but the two are where different. Because expansions represent our physical clock. The compression does not.
We live in a physical dimension that is expanding.

I guess this will get you thinking

I will comment on the rest on this page, But you can look at this meanwhile. It takes time to do all this.

I was probably over-generalizing there, I see what you mean by it not being the 4th dimension since it is relative to where it exists.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Yes you can actually create and destroy energy, even Hawking now believes the energy for the Universe came from 'nothing'. If you don't believe that then I would like to hear you idea of where it came from... let me guess, it was here all along right?

edit on 7-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

You are misinterpreting Hawking. Please provide the source of this claim, as it is incorrect.