Have any of you ever thought of "what is"the universe? Not how most people see it as God or the Big Bang...but actually THOUGHT about the universe? So, here's my question:
"What" is the universe...what lies beyond the galaxies floating around, does it ever end..what is the "nothingness" thats in between stars and galaxies"

_________________
"Some people come into our lives and quickly go. Some stay for awhile and leave footprints on our hearts. And we are never, ever the same."

That's a bit of an odd question. It's like asking 'what is a cow?': what you see is what you get.

What lies beyond? Well if you go far enough you will eventually get back to the start point so you can't really talk about beyond the universe (unless you are a certain power tool at 'the other place').

What I want to know is if space can really be defined as 'matter'? Because I though matter was the stuff separated by space.

And where did it come from? Stephen Hawking (and others) think the universe formed itself from nothing. But is nothing matter too? Materialists (and those who think materially without realizing it) are just speechless, as there is no material solution to the problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwMKFboFkxM

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

If I understand cavediver at all, matter is something like a wrinkle in the "fabric" of space. (What lay people call "fabric", physicists call "fields".)


That's a very outdated notion.


"Nothing" is a concept that's best left alone until you understand what "something" is.


Don't ruin another thread with the same ole same ole nonsense.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

Cavediver has 'fielded' these questions and more over at EvC. He is by far and away the best person to ask.

But I would argue that you would be very hard pressed indeed to be able to point at 'nothing'.

If I understand cavediver at all, matter is something like a wrinkle in the "fabric" of space. (What lay people call "fabric", physicists call "fields".)

Very good. You are making progress.

So are fields matter? Or do they manifest matter?

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

When we talk about anything observable, it is fields interacting with fields.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

What happened to matter?

Is the definition of matter; FIELDS?

Is nothing real anymore! OMG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYHrjg5r ... re=related (the original is always a better version )

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

As I said earlier, my understanding is that "matter" is just a wrinkle in the field.


"Nothing" would just be the unwrinkled field between the wrinkles.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

You have unwittingly (twice now... or is it three?) constructed a sentance that contains the uncertainty principle.

And you have displayed exactly why attempting to explain what the universe is (and in particular it's base units) in material terms is simply tantamount to babbling incoherently. And this is also so mathematically. And that is why Hawking and others have come to the rediculous conclusion thus far, that the universe formed itself from nothing. Rather than stick his foot in his mouth, Robert Jastrow simply admits he is missing something. And I have no doubt that his theistic friends are doing everything in their power to encourage him to open his mind to what should be an obvious answer. For some reason, many people refuse to go there until the chess game is over. But it is never over... never.

ok... I'm rambling... let have some fun with your reply Ringo. Even if we don't agree, and no concession is in sight, we can at least entertain ourselves and forget about the debate. This is just too good!



Ah yes... so, matter is the wrinkled part... and the unwrinkled part is what? Nothing?

Is nothing also material?

Whoa... I am confused... So... there are fields, matter (which is wrinkled fields), and nothing. And all of it is matter? None of it is immaterial?

Yeah... well... now Anglagard knows why marijuana is illegal. I defer to the YouTube video that captures it all... whoa man! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYHrjg5r ... re=related

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Not at all. The Uncertainty Principle is about uncertainty in observations. All I've said about observations is that they are fields interacting with fields.


"Nothing" is really no different than "something".


"Immaterial" would mean that it couldn't interact with anything material.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

Yet.. you are certain about that observation?

I think the fields between your goalposts need some real water.



Well, two letters at least!



So wrinkled fields, cannot interact with unwrinkled fields? But you already said that things observable are fields interacting with fields.

If 'matter' is the wrinkled field, then the 'immaterial' is the unwrinkled field. Otherwise matter is really only wrinkled matter.

I's just fields Ringo. And the fields (in the right pattern) create what is material. They interact with one another without problem.

Do you see what happens when you try to take something with a dual nature, and try to make it singular?

The same thing happens with God. And the Trinity beautifully reflects this same principle. And no suprise that the creation would reflect His nature. That is what we would expect if what many mistakenly think of supernature (as seperate) is in reality indivisibly connected with and revealed in the physical.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

And as an aside, that is when modern science began in earnest Ringo. When men sought to find more of the creator and his genius revealed logically in nature.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

I agree. Yet jar demands we put the designer on the table... Try putting nothing on the table!

Yet... 'the guru of materialiism, Stephen Hawking said just that (less than 3 minutes into the video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c&NR=1

And I have made the comment earlier (maybe in another thread) that it is more logical to posit an immaterial designer (especially in light of scientific evidence of the immaterial), than nothing as an intitial cause.

Both solutions are hopelessly metaphysical. But Hawking is more woo woo in his thinking than the religious folks he is too proud to 'associate with'.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

You continue to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Uncertainty Principle.


Things observable are the wrinkles in fields interacting with the wrinkles in fields.


No. Matter is the wrinkle. The "immaterial" is a fiction about the field.


The dual/singular "nature" is just a convenient fiction.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

I think the Beatles understand it better than you, though they take (or took) the 'pantheistic on dope' interpretation (ot to be confused with the 'pantheist interpretation').

Anyway... so the unwrinkeld portions of the fields are not observable? It is only the wrinkled portions (the matter) that is observable?

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns