Information & knowledge

[cyberman]

An object with mass in space-time has done the moving

Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.

All three of which are objects with mass in space-time

[Andy]

An object with mass in space-time has done the moving

Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.

All three of which are objects with mass in space-time

It's an analogy.

[cyberman]

An object with mass in space-time has done the moving

Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.

All three of which are objects with mass in space-time

It's an analogy.

I know

[Andy]

An object with mass in space-time has done the moving

Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.

All three of which are objects with mass in space-time

It's an analogy.

I know

So run with it.

[cyberman]

An object with mass in space-time has done the moving

Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.

All three of which are objects with mass in space-time

It's an analogy.

I know

So run with it.

What is the analogy meant to achieve?

[Andy]

That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.

[cyberman]

That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.

So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?

[Andy]

That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.

So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?

Via expansion, we haven't. If anything, I'd say we've gotten closer as the sun increases in size.

Expansion only has a noticeable effect when the distance between objects is so far apart that the gravitational pull from those objects on one another is weaker than the rate of expansion. This is why it's predicted that the Andromeda galaxy will eventually merge with the Milky Way (and perhaps some other smaller galaxy clusters), but anything further away will continue to increase in distance due to expansion.

[cyberman]

That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.

So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?

Via expansion, we haven't. If anything, I'd say we've gotten closer as the sun increases in size.

Expansion only has a noticeable effect when the distance between objects is so far apart that the gravitational pull from those objects on one another is weaker than the rate of expansion. This is why it's predicted that the Andromeda galaxy will eventually merge with the Milky Way (and perhaps some other smaller galaxy clusters), but anything further away will continue to increase in distance due to expansion.

Anyway, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion - I agree the universe is expanding. I just don't agree with jeremyp when he says that the universe is infinite. We seem to have drifted

[Andy]

That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.

So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?

Via expansion, we haven't. If anything, I'd say we've gotten closer as the sun increases in size.

Expansion only has a noticeable effect when the distance between objects is so far apart that the gravitational pull from those objects on one another is weaker than the rate of expansion. This is why it's predicted that the Andromeda galaxy will eventually merge with the Milky Way (and perhaps some other smaller galaxy clusters), but anything further away will continue to increase in distance due to expansion.

Anyway, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion - I agree the universe is expanding. I just don't agree with jeremyp when he says that the universe is infinite. We seem to have drifted

Because you were questioning something going faster than light.

I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite - ie the objects, but space itself is infinite. If space stopped expanding, then we could perhaps say that space is finite and that there is a limit to the distances between objects.

[cyberman]

That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.

So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?

Via expansion, we haven't. If anything, I'd say we've gotten closer as the sun increases in size.

Expansion only has a noticeable effect when the distance between objects is so far apart that the gravitational pull from those objects on one another is weaker than the rate of expansion. This is why it's predicted that the Andromeda galaxy will eventually merge with the Milky Way (and perhaps some other smaller galaxy clusters), but anything further away will continue to increase in distance due to expansion.

Anyway, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion - I agree the universe is expanding. I just don't agree with jeremyp when he says that the universe is infinite. We seem to have drifted

Because you were questioning something going faster than light.

I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite - ie the objects, but space itself is infinite. If space stopped expanding, then we could perhaps say that space is finite and that there is a limit to the distances between objects.

This differs from jeremyp, who believes that the contents are infinite. This is the basis of his belief that there is life on other planets.

[Jack Knave]

Hi everyone,

The pictures of Pluto are amazing and all praise to the scientists and engineers who made it possible. Ok....but this raises the question....what is its usefulness? We live in an age of information ..... more and more information without really having any better understanding of the universe and our lives.

I know the usual argument is about crossing frontiers.....'people said the same thing about Columbus and his journey....look how useful it was'.....and so on 

Actually, the comparison is not very meaningful considering the nature of the cosmos and natural human limitations.  The original motivation for space exploration was about doing better than the Soviet Union and a little later it was about finding other places to colonize if the earth becomes uninhabitable.  Now we know that we cannot possibly colonize any other planet in the solar system let alone other exoplanets. We now realize (I hope) that we are rooted to the earth and better look after it well if we want to continue to exist. Moving to other planets and exoplanets is out of the question.

One point is that all information is not necessarily knowledge. By knowledge I mean something that helps us grow intellectually and is also useful to us in our lives.  Knowledge should be  about forming a big picture view of life in general by adding relevant information wherever necessary.....and our lives should figure in it in some way....IMO.  Random information can be more of a clutter.

Secondly, people  can get addicted to information. Some people can actually start believing that all information is knowledge and derive pleasure from acquiring such information.  Intellectual need is also just a need like hunger, sleep or sex. It is possible to get addicted to the pleasurable sensation we experience when we satisfy these needs.  The same thing can happen to the intellectual need also. Many people  could begin to think that information is an end in itself...at any cost. This is questionable.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

What I think you are referring to is meaning and significance for a persons life. Science for the most part just gives us facts and useful 'toys' to make our lives easier but it doesn't provide us with meaning and guide for our lives.

[Leonard James]

What I think you are referring to is meaning and significance for a persons life. Science for the most part just gives us facts and useful 'toys' to make our lives easier but it doesn't provide us with meaning and guide for our lives.

As the most intelligent form of life on the planet, it is up to us to find meaning and significance in our lives. I doubt that any other form of life is even capable of doing so, let alone interested in it.

Whether life has either significance or purpose I strongly doubt, but we are certainly capable of giving it both if we are interested.

I'm sure that the majority of people simply get on with living, and don't worry very much about either their purpose or significance.

In short, as long as we behave helpfully to others and the environment, and not detrimentally, we won't go far wrong.

[jeremyp]

I have asked you before - and you have failed to answer - about your idea of an infinite universe existing for a finite period of time.

It's not my idea.  Why do you think it's a problem if top scientists don't?

And, really? Are we going with "a 'top' scientist agrees with me so I must be right"...?

I would suggest that the technicalities of this are beyond you, they are certainly beyond me, so we have to rely to an extent on the experts.

[jeremyp]

If an object is x km is away from you but is glued to a travelator, then later on it is 2x km away from you, what has done the moving?

An object with mass in space-time has done the moving

I've posted this before and it shows that you are quite wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

[jeremyp]

That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.

So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?

The expansion of space happens on very large scales, the gravity of the Sun, in fact of the whole local group of galaxies overcomes that on the local scale.  It's all there in the link I posted which you should read because you are clearly out of your depth here.

[jeremyp]

I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite

It might be but only if space bends back on itself like a torus.  It is space itself that is expanding after the Big Bang, not the things in it.  If the Universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of matter in it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What I think you are referring to is meaning and significance for a persons life. Science for the most part just gives us facts and useful 'toys' to make our lives easier but it doesn't provide us with meaning and guide for our lives.

As the most intelligent form of life on the planet, it is up to us to find meaning and significance in our lives.

Careful Len.

If, according to you, we cannot find morality in the universe, how are we going to find meaning?
I think you mean it is up to us to Invent meaning....and if as you seem to suggest we invent our morals and meaning........how is that more virtuous than inventing something greater or more creative or more benevolent or more loving than ourselves?

I for one have discovered meaning. You have had to invent yours.

[Leonard James]

Careful Len.

If, according to you, we cannot find morality in the universe, how are we going to find meaning?

You won't find meaning. It is up to each one of us to give his life some meaning if he needs, but as I have already said, most people don't bother with such thoughts, they just get on with life.

I think you mean it is up to us to Invent meaning....and if as you seem to suggest we invent our morals and meaning........how is that more virtuous than inventing something greater or more creative or more benevolent or more loving than ourselves?

Because giving your life meaning yourself makes much more sense than inventing something else to do the job.

I for one have discovered meaning. You have had to invent yours.

Well, in fairness, you haven't discovered anything ... you have just swallowed a story invented by an ancient people thousands of years ago. What exactly do you mean by "meaning"?

[Andy]

I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite

It might be but only if space bends back on itself like a torus.  It is space itself that is expanding after the Big Bang, not the things in it.  If the Universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of matter in it.

I think we might be talking about different models.

Again, I could have it all to cock, but I understand one model to be that the matter in our universe is finite but space is infinite. The BB, from which our universe originated,  created the matter in infinite space, space that was already expanding due to dark energy prior to the BB. With space being infinite, then it stands to reason that an infinite amount of BBs have and will occur, meaning there's an infinite amount of universes bubbling out of that space. In that regard, there is an infinite amount of matter, but spread across all the universes.

[Jack Knave]

What I think you are referring to is meaning and significance for a persons life. Science for the most part just gives us facts and useful 'toys' to make our lives easier but it doesn't provide us with meaning and guide for our lives.

As the most intelligent form of life on the planet, it is up to us to find meaning and significance in our lives. I doubt that any other form of life is even capable of doing so, let alone interested in it.

Whether life has either significance or purpose I strongly doubt, but we are certainly capable of giving it both if we are interested.

I'm sure that the majority of people simply get on with living, and don't worry very much about either their purpose or significance.

In short, as long as we behave helpfully to others and the environment, and not detrimentally, we won't go far wrong.

Even if other animals were concerned with the meaning of their existence how would they express and deal with it? Getting depressed perhaps? It seems to me that the higher conscious animals tend to be drawn towards us as if they recognise something of value about us.....?

[cyberman]

I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite

It might be but only if space bends back on itself like a torus.  It is space itself that is expanding after the Big Bang, not the things in it.  If the Universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of matter in it.

I think we might be talking about different models.

Again, I could have it all to cock, but I understand one model to be that the matter in our universe is finite but space is infinite. The BB, from which our universe originated,  created the matter in infinite space, space that was already expanding due to dark energy prior to the BB. With space being infinite, then it stands to reason that an infinite amount of BBs have and will occur, meaning there's an infinite amount of universes bubbling out of that space. In that regard, there is an infinite amount of matter, but spread across all the universes.

Sorry, Andy, but jeremyp says that "top scientists" say that you're wrong, so that settles it. Top, mind you, not just any old scientists.

[Andy]

I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite

It might be but only if space bends back on itself like a torus.  It is space itself that is expanding after the Big Bang, not the things in it.  If the Universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of matter in it.

I think we might be talking about different models.

Again, I could have it all to cock, but I understand one model to be that the matter in our universe is finite but space is infinite. The BB, from which our universe originated,  created the matter in infinite space, space that was already expanding due to dark energy prior to the BB. With space being infinite, then it stands to reason that an infinite amount of BBs have and will occur, meaning there's an infinite amount of universes bubbling out of that space. In that regard, there is an infinite amount of matter, but spread across all the universes.

Sorry, Andy, but jeremyp says that "top scientists" say that you're wrong, so that settles it. Top, mind you, not just any old scientists.

Different scientists in the field come up with different hypothetical models that fit the data we currently have. No-one can be said to be right or wrong as it stands. I'm confident jeremy is aware of that.

[cyberman]

I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite

It might be but only if space bends back on itself like a torus.  It is space itself that is expanding after the Big Bang, not the things in it.  If the Universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of matter in it.

I think we might be talking about different models.

Again, I could have it all to cock, but I understand one model to be that the matter in our universe is finite but space is infinite. The BB, from which our universe originated,  created the matter in infinite space, space that was already expanding due to dark energy prior to the BB. With space being infinite, then it stands to reason that an infinite amount of BBs have and will occur, meaning there's an infinite amount of universes bubbling out of that space. In that regard, there is an infinite amount of matter, but spread across all the universes.

Sorry, Andy, but jeremyp says that "top scientists" say that you're wrong, so that settles it. Top, mind you, not just any old scientists.

Different scientists in the field come up with different hypothetical models that fit the data we currently have. No-one can be said to be right or wrong as it stands. I'm confident jeremy is aware of that.

No, he thinks the "top scientists" can be said to be right. Because they're "top", dontcha know.

[Andy]

In the context of different models fitting the same data, there is no right or wrong. Further information is required to kick one model out of the water and show it wrong.
Jeremy was saying, that based on what the experts in the field say, you were wrong about the specifics of certain models (regarding expansion exceeding light speed), so not in the same context of saying one model is wrong.

I wouldn't put it as harshly as saying you were wrong, only that you didn't understand, but I think (or hope) that has changed now.