Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby General Discussion topic #12733664

Subject: "The universe is always Recording / Eternity / Infinite" Previous topic | Next topic
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"The universe is always Recording / Eternity / Infinite"
Mon Feb-23-15 10:10 AM by initiationofplato

          

A couple of things that I have been thinking about that blow my mind. When you consider the nature of light in space, you realize that the universe is always on Record.

The only reason we see anything with our eyes is because light bounces off it, therefore, this means that light encodes reality that we decode with our brains in order to perceive it. Light is the infinite Record button of time and space.

Once the rays of the sun come into contact with our planet and bounce off into space, traveling into every possible direction, billions of light rays have recorded everything they have come into contact with, and will now travel eternally in space until they come into contact with something else.

This means that your lives here on this Earth are forever recorded in space. Millions of years after you have passed your life/presence/likeness here will be traveling eternally in space, encoded by the light that bounced off you and shot out into space. Therefore, light has immortalized us and it is conceivable that one day, the technology to extract data encoded by light will be available to us, and no doubt, this is precisely what already occurs when we point our telescopes into space. Our telescopes are in fact instruments which we are using to play back what has been recorded in the universe. Even if a star burns out, its light will travel in space forever, and can be perceived.

This means that everything, including ourselves, is eternal, due to the nature of light in space.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
my man, did you have bong hits for breakfast?
Feb 23rd 2015
1
Yawn.
Feb 23rd 2015
2
      or i coulda just been makin' a joke.
Feb 23rd 2015
3
           Yeah yeah, but seriously though.
Feb 23rd 2015
4
                indeed.
Feb 23rd 2015
5
                     Ahh, I hear ya.
Feb 23rd 2015
6
Your mind is blown far too easily.
Feb 23rd 2015
7
Yawn.
Feb 23rd 2015
8
      Aww, I was only poking fun. A more serious answer.
Feb 23rd 2015
9
           Additional: Infinity is troublesome for this.
Feb 23rd 2015
           Hubble Deep Field
Feb 23rd 2015
14
                Not infinite.
Feb 23rd 2015
15
                     So far.
Feb 23rd 2015
16
                          Hmm...
Feb 23rd 2015
18
                               RE: Hmm...
Feb 23rd 2015
20
                                    Again, inverse square law.
Feb 23rd 2015
22
                                         This law does not prove that light does not travel infinitely.
Feb 23rd 2015
24
                                              One last try.
Feb 23rd 2015
26
                                                   Your assumptions and speculations prove nothing concrete.
Feb 23rd 2015
28
           Double post.
Feb 23rd 2015
11
           Even with certain limitations like closed spaces
Feb 23rd 2015
12
                RE: Even with certain limitations like closed spaces
Feb 23rd 2015
13
                     RE: Even with certain limitations like closed spaces
Feb 23rd 2015
17
                          If you want to argue with maths, go ahead.
Feb 23rd 2015
19
                               You did not present any math, secondly
Feb 23rd 2015
21
                                    LOL
Feb 23rd 2015
23
                                         Infinity is an irrational concept.
Feb 23rd 2015
25
                                              Irrational? Sure. Useless? Nooooooo.
Feb 23rd 2015
27
                                                   Wrong.
Feb 23rd 2015
29
                                                        RE: Wrong.
Feb 23rd 2015
30
                                                             RE: Wrong.
Feb 23rd 2015
32
                                                                  You're clearly not reading my posts.
Feb 24th 2015
35
                                                                       RE: wat
Feb 24th 2015
36
                                                                            RE: wat
Feb 24th 2015
38
                                                                                 RE: wat
Feb 24th 2015
39
                                                                                      Present these "valid points" - I've obviously missed them
Feb 24th 2015
40
                                                                                           I have already presented all my ideas calmly.
Feb 24th 2015
41
                                                                                           Lovely copout.
Feb 24th 2015
42
                                                                                           Hardly.
Feb 24th 2015
43
interesting
Feb 23rd 2015
10
I think "recording" is the wrong analogy here
Feb 23rd 2015
31
RE: I think "recording" is the wrong analogy here
Feb 23rd 2015
33
      Well yeah, which has nothing to do with light at all
Feb 24th 2015
34
           That's not what happened at the end of Interstellar though
Feb 24th 2015
37

KiloMcG
Member since Jan 01st 2008
27561 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "my man, did you have bong hits for breakfast?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "Yawn."
In response to Reply # 1


          

Please tell me you are capable of thought and consider my post for a moment. According to the properties of light, your likeness is out there in space, traveling eternally.

Doesn't that blow your mind?

Maybe a post with NSFW nudes would be better for you.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
KiloMcG
Member since Jan 01st 2008
27561 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "or i coulda just been makin' a joke."
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "Yeah yeah, but seriously though."
In response to Reply # 3


          

Living pictures of you are traveling in space right now, sharing your life with the entire universe. Think about that for a moment. It is mind blowing, no?

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
KiloMcG
Member since Jan 01st 2008
27561 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "indeed."
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

but i'm having a hard time getting going this monday morning. my brain aint quite there yet.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "Ahh, I hear ya."
In response to Reply # 5


          

Monday mornings, ugh. Noone needs this, haha.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:23 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "Your mind is blown far too easily."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Did you start reading books at a late age or something?

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "Yawn."
In response to Reply # 7


          

That was a pretty boring response. Do better.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "Aww, I was only poking fun. A more serious answer."
In response to Reply # 8
Mon Feb-23-15 10:36 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

>That was a pretty boring response. Do better.

You'd make a good physics teacher for young teenagers... I can totally see your wide-eyed enthusiasm getting young people hyped to the point where they want to go further with the subject.

Your assumption is obviously only correct for photons that aren't absorbed by walls (i.e. anything you did inside a building isn't 'recorded'), clouds (anything you did on a cloudy day...), the Earth's atmosphere which bounces a fair bit back down, any other object between you and the observer which could absorb the photons or add so many more that your image is inseparable from the rest of the light from the Sun or another star along the way and, of course, Red Shift, which would mean that after a couple of billion light years your light wouldn't be visible light anymore, just infra-red and microwaves.

Totally mind blowing until you actually consult your mind.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Additional: Infinity is troublesome for this."
Mon Feb-23-15 10:58 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

The Inverse Square Law states that the further you are from a light source (or light reflector in this case) you will see exponentially less of the light it produces or reflects.

A big, bright, light source like our Sun will be visible for a long, long way, but it the further the viewer is, the dimmer it'll be. As distance tends towards infinity, so light received will tend to 0.

So yeah, mathematically, light being detectable into infinity doesn't work. You can have vast distances depending on the amount of light involved (vastly smaller for the reflections from a human than for a light creating star), but you can't have eternity.


>>That was a pretty boring response. Do better.
>
>You'd make a good physics teacher for young teenagers... I can
>totally see your wide-eyed enthusiasm getting young people
>hyped to the point where they want to go further with the
>subject.
>
>Your assumption is obviously only correct for photons that
>aren't absorbed by walls (i.e. anything you did inside a
>building isn't 'recorded'), clouds (anything you did on a
>cloudy day...), the Earth's atmosphere which bounces a fair
>bit back down, any other object between you and the observer
>which could absorb the photons or add so many more that your
>image is inseparable from the rest of the light from the Sun
>or another star along the way and, of course, Red Shift, which
>would mean that after a couple of billion light years your
>light wouldn't be visible light anymore, just infra-red and
>microwaves.
>
>Totally mind blowing until you actually consult your mind.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "Hubble Deep Field"
In response to Reply # 0


          

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/xdf.html

They pointed Hubble at the darkest spot they could find and discovered thousands of galaxies.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "Not infinite."
In response to Reply # 14
Mon Feb-23-15 11:08 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

13.8Bn years (I think that's the current record for a found star?) is a long time, but it's as far from infinity as a second is.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "So far."
In response to Reply # 15


          

I mentioned the Hubble Deep Field to counter your "greater distances will yield less visible light" argument. Pointing the Hubble at a pitch black portion of space and witnessing thousands of galaxies seems to be a pretty strong argument towards the infinite shelf life of light. According to how you presented your argument, we should be unable to see anything in a pitch black portion of space, but we did.

If anything, humanity has shown that limits fail to contain us. Several hundred years ago we were unable to clearly see our neighboring planets and today we can look as far as 13 billion years, do you really think humanity is going to stop reaching and striving for more?

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "Hmm..."
In response to Reply # 16
Mon Feb-23-15 11:34 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          


>I mentioned the Hubble Deep Field to counter your "greater
>distances will yield less visible light" argument.

Ok.


>Pointing
>the Hubble at a pitch black portion of space and witnessing
>thousands of galaxies seems to be a pretty strong argument
>towards the infinite shelf life of light. According to how you
>presented your argument, we should be unable to see anything
>in a pitch black portion of space, but we did.

The dimness and redness of the farthest stars seen in the Hubble Deep Field are actually perfect proofs of the Inverse Square Law and Hubble's Red Shift theory (for whom the telescope was named!), both of which we now know to be true and both of which describe why your idea doesn't work *into infinity*.

The Hubble Deep Field is my favourite photograph ever taken by humanity (in fact a super-high-res copy hangs on the wall of my office right at this very moment), but it does NOT have any relation to infinity. You simply don't understand infinity if you think the HDF and the Inverse Square Law don't prove light can't survive into infinity. You only have to look at the picture - the farthest stars are dimmer than the nearest ones.... therefore at *some* point before infinity they *must* start disappearing. It's just maths. Really, really easy maths.

Light *demonstrably* and *predictably* dims over distance. Exponentially. Every time you double the distance, you *quarter* the intensity of the light received. For a massively bright object like a star or galaxy this might be enough to still be detectable 13.8Bn light years away... but it will NEVER work into infinity. Anything that reduces over time or distance will be ZERO in infinity.

>
>If anything, humanity has shown that limits fail to contain
>us. Several hundred years ago we were unable to clearly see
>our neighboring planets and today we can look as far as 13
>billion years, do you really think humanity is going to stop
>reaching and striving for more?

No, of course not, but it's physically impossible for light to survive into infinity. However many microdots you've had this morning.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "RE: Hmm..."
In response to Reply # 18
Mon Feb-23-15 11:44 AM by initiationofplato

          

Theoretically light can travel for eternity, and reach infinite distances, given it has infinite time to do so, and nothing that blocks it. Photons do no decay.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "Again, inverse square law."
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

How many times does it need mentioning before you engage with it?

Yes, an *individual photon* can survive forever until it is absorbed, but your image isn't made of a single photon. It's made up of trillions of photons and enough of them need to be received undistorted and together in order to create the shape of you for the observer.

The Inverse Square Law states that after a distance, the likelyhood of enough of your photons all reaching a target in order to produce an image of you gets smaller and smaller. When the distance is ramped up to infinity, the probability becomes ZERO. Again, maths.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 12:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "This law does not prove that light does not travel infinitely."
In response to Reply # 22


          

That is what we are debating after-all. The clarity of the image does not concern me, the fact that it is traveling forever in space, does. Also, you are just speculating, you cannot say for certain we won't be able to decode the information into an image when the Hubble Deep field proves that we can.

According to your assumptions, the thousands of galaxies that we see should be scattered beyond the point of recognition, but they are not.

Take a look at the image.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field#mediaviewer/File:HubbleDeepField.800px.jpg

Should the image be a scattered mess of unrecognizable photon's? How can I perceive the correct shapes of the galaxies from 13 billion years ago even though we see nothing but pitch black sky in that part of the sky today?


~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 12:23 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "One last try."
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

>That is what we are debating after-all.

I thought we were debating whether YOU (a human on planet Earth) are 'recorded' into eternity?

I have two problems - the first is with it being a human and not a star. Looking at the HDF shows you a rather simple yet important thing - enormous light SOURCES are visible for a lot farther than tiny light REFLECTORS. The inverse square law states that light received from an object will reduce exponentially as distance increases... as it's a perfect inverse square ratio an object twice as bright as another will be visible for four times as far.

Our Sun is TRILLIONS (hell that's probably too small) of times brighter than you and so whereas there might only be enough photons from you to make you visible for a light minute, there will be enough to see The Sun for possibly billions of light years.

By the time the light from you reached the farthest reaches of space it'll be indistinguishable from any other random packet of light - how does that constitute recording you? How could anyone tell? It's like saying I could record the Complete Works Of Shakespeare by only writing one word. It might be a word Shakespeare used, but it's not Romeo and Juliet.

The clarity of the
>image does not concern me, the fact that it is traveling
>forever in space, does. Also, you are just speculating, you
>cannot say for certain we won't be able to decode the
>information into an image when the Hubble Deep field proves
>that we can.
>
>According to your assumptions, the thousands of galaxies that
>we see should be scattered beyond the point of recognition,
>but they are not.

No, because they emit vastly more photons and so will be visible for vastly squared more distance.
>
>Take a look at the image.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field#mediaviewer/File:HubbleDeepField.800px.jpg
>
>Should the image be a scattered mess of unrecognizable
>photon's?

No. Same reason as above.

>How can I perceive the correct shapes of >the
>galaxies from 13 billion years ago even though we see nothing
>but pitch black sky in that part of the sky today?
>
>

Because you are still within their range of visibility according to the inverse square law. Because they're MASSIVE AND BRIGHT.



_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 12:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "Your assumptions and speculations prove nothing concrete."
In response to Reply # 26


          

You are basing your responses on the speculation that we will not be able extract the amount of information necessary to create an image based on what *you, personally* believe is possible.

I find that completely irrational and fallacious because as humanity has shown time and time again, limits fail to contain us.

I am also not sure you are well versed with the applications of the Inverse Square Law as I have been doing some reading on it this morning and it seems like you are speculating a lot.

A few hundred years ago, we couldn't get a clear picture of the moon. We have since been to the moon and back and have more high resolution photo's of the moon than we know what to do with.

We have also been able to detect cosmic background radiation whereas a few hundred years ago, we were unable to take a basic photograph. Today, we carry powerful camera's in our pockets. What do you think someone in the 1500's would say to you if you told them that one day you will have high resolution images of Saturn's rings, or that we would have a clear image of galaxies 13 billion years ago? Exactly.

What does this curve of progress and technology tell you?

That our images are becoming more clear and reaching into distances never believed possible, so how can you say for certain light will ever degrade beyond the point of object recognition when photon's do not decay, and when the Hubble Deep Field has proven otherwise? Also, if you haven't noticed, our planet is within a galaxy filled with countless sources of light. For the same reason we can clearly see galaxies in the deep field, we will one day be able to look into those galaxies themselves. Technology has proven that our images are only getting better.

Take a look at this if you are in any doubt.

http://io9.com/the-first-photo-of-the-orion-nebula-compared-to-one-tak-1535930753

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "Double post."
In response to Reply # 9
Mon Feb-23-15 10:57 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

..

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "Even with certain limitations like closed spaces"
In response to Reply # 9


          

The profundity of how light encodes reality is astounding. There are untold billions of light rays bouncing off you right now into every conceivable direction carrying your life and presence into the universe. You as a human being are radiating life that can be witnessed in any part of the universe, given that the light is able to reach that point unobstructed.

Even if the light that bounces off you is absorbed by the electrons in the walls, the walls themselves are recording your life. Everything is witness to your life here due to light.

We are alive for 80 to 100 years and we spend a considerable amount of time outside. Yes, not every moment can be recorded but an untold amount is.

Even beyond the red shift, the information is still there, and a couple of billion years of visible light is an impressive shelf life. More efficient than zip disks.

This topic reminds me of the scene in Blade Runner where he is exploring the photograph on his computer, able to see around corners, etc. This is due to the properties of light, every photograph has embedded information for miles around the taken perspective due to the light that is bouncing off everything. I am sure one day soon we will have technology that can explore the information encoded in light that would allow us to look around corners in photographs.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "RE: Even with certain limitations like closed spaces"
In response to Reply # 12
Mon Feb-23-15 11:05 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

>The profundity of how light encodes reality is astounding.
>There are untold billions of light rays bouncing off you right
>now into every conceivable direction carrying your life and
>presence into the universe. You as a human being are radiating
>life that can be witnessed in any part of the universe, given
>that the light is able to reach that point unobstructed.

And assuming the distance isn't too great. Infinity simply doesn't work, especially when you're talking about a reflector (a person), not a source (a star). See post above.


>
>Even if the light that bounces off you is absorbed by the
>electrons in the walls, the walls themselves are recording
>your life. Everything is witness to your life here due to
>light.

Walls may react to my life (for instance my shadow or reflection may cause paint to fade unevenly if I stood in the same spot for a long time) but if you can't extract more than my shape, it's not *really* recording is it? The minimum requirement for "recording" a human is recreating their brain function - my brain is hidden behind my skull, so has no chance of being "recorded".

>
>We are alive for 80 to 100 years and we spend a considerable
>amount of time outside. Yes, not every moment can be recorded
>but an untold amount is.

Clouds. Reflective particles in the atmosphere. The Sun. All these things stand in the way of your reflected light being detected outside the Solar System. The likelyhood is all anyone would ever see from an intergalactic distance is the Sun. Maybe the Earth at a real push.

>
>Even beyond the red shift, the information is still there, and
>a couple of billion years of visible light is an impressive
>shelf life. More efficient than zip disks.

It'd be great if it was as usable as a zip disk. It's not like any of this leads to there being a "backup" of me anywhere is it? Just an image? Even if my *image* survived into infinity, it doesn't help the actual me very much outside of extremely short-term narcissism, does it?

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "RE: Even with certain limitations like closed spaces"
In response to Reply # 13


          

>And assuming the distance isn't too great. Infinity simply
>doesn't work, especially when you're talking about a reflector
>(a person), not a source (a star). See post above.
>

Hubble Deep Field.

>
>>
>>Even if the light that bounces off you is absorbed by the
>>electrons in the walls, the walls themselves are recording
>>your life. Everything is witness to your life here due to
>>light.
>
>Walls may react to my life (for instance my shadow or
>reflection may cause paint to fade unevenly if I stood in the
>same spot for a long time) but if you can't extract more than
>my shape, it's not *really* recording is it? The minimum
>requirement for "recording" a human is recreating their brain
>function - my brain is hidden behind my skull, so has no
>chance of being "recorded".
>

I don't know where you got the minimal requirement for "recording" a human and confined it to recreating brain function. What?


>Clouds. Reflective particles in the atmosphere. The Sun. All
>these things stand in the way of your reflected light being
>detected outside the Solar System. The likelyhood is all
>anyone would ever see from an intergalactic distance is the
>Sun. Maybe the Earth at a real push.


I disagree 100%. This is impossible for you to claim for certain. You are only speculating. The nature of light has shown us that it carries information from billions of years ago, and I find it odd that you would place a limit on how much detail and information we can extract from that light when we continually improve our ability to see more and more. Progress is not going to stop on account of what you speculate is possible and impossible.


>It'd be great if it was as usable as a zip disk. It's not like
>any of this leads to there being a "backup" of me anywhere is
>it? Just an image? Even if my *image* survived into infinity,
>it doesn't help the actual me very much outside of extremely
>short-term narcissism, does it?

Maybe you do not find it profound or exciting but I do. The idea that my life will be forever etched into the universe is amazing to me.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "If you want to argue with maths, go ahead."
In response to Reply # 17
Mon Feb-23-15 11:43 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

But I do believe we've probably hit a dead end if that's what you're trying to do.

Reduce anything, no matter how minorly, for an INFINITE number of iterations and it will cease to be. Everything.

If light intensity stayed the same over distance, you'd be right.

If light intensity grew over distance, you'd be right.

But light intensity decreases exponentially over distance, so in terms of infinity you're entirely wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. It's just maths.

Even my sig doesn't *really* work forever.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "You did not present any math, secondly"
In response to Reply # 19


          

I do not believe in steadfast scientific laws. If anything, time has shown that our laws and facts change given the improvements made to our instruments.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 11:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "LOL"
In response to Reply # 21
Mon Feb-23-15 11:54 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

Hilarious.

Working with Infinity isn't Maths?

The Inverse Square Law isn't Maths?

Damn dude. I think I take it back. You shouldn't be allowed to talk to impressionable children; no matter HOW enthusiastic you are.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 12:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "Infinity is an irrational concept."
In response to Reply # 23


          

>Hilarious.
>
>Working with Infinity isn't Maths?

Ugh. Infinity is not quantifiable. There is no math that adds up to infinity, lol. I don't think you have a clue about what you are attempting to feign authority of.

>
>The Inverse Square Law isn't Maths?
>
>Damn dude. I think I take it back. You shouldn't be allowed to
>talk to impressionable children; no matter HOW enthusiastic
>you are.

Yawn.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 12:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "Irrational? Sure. Useless? Nooooooo."
In response to Reply # 25
Mon Feb-23-15 12:30 PM by TheAlbionist

  

          

>>Hilarious.
>>
>>Working with Infinity isn't Maths?
>
>Ugh. Infinity is not quantifiable. There is no math that adds
>up to infinity, lol. I don't think you have a clue about what
>you are attempting to feign authority of.
>

0/x = infinity

Mathematicians work with Infinity every day.

But you're the one putting 'eternity' into the mix - I wouldn't have invoked infinity if you hadn't. Because of infinity's irrational nature it completely ruins your theory.

"Recorded for a long time" wouldn't have got much argument from me.

"Recorded for eternity" is flat out wrong.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 12:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "Wrong."
In response to Reply # 27


          


>Mathematicians work with Infinity every day.

They do not work *with* infinity. They use the infinite as a paradigm/platform for their mathematical theories. You can't work *with* infinity as it is impossible to quantify.

>
>But you're the one putting 'eternity' into the mix - I
>wouldn't have invoked infinity if you hadn't. Because of
>infinity's irrational nature it completely ruins your theory.

These last few responses have illuminated how little you know about the concept of infinity and mathematics. Too late, sorry.

>
>"Recorded for a long time" wouldn't have got much argument
>from me.
>

Yawn. Photon's do not decay.

>"Recorded for eternity" is flat out wrong.
>

You have no clue what you are talking about. Go ahead and crunch some infinity now. LOL

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 04:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "RE: Wrong."
In response to Reply # 29
Mon Feb-23-15 04:49 PM by TheAlbionist

  

          

>
>>Mathematicians work with Infinity every day.
>
>They do not work *with* infinity. They use the infinite as a
>paradigm/platform for their mathematical theories. You can't
>work *with* infinity as it is impossible to quantify.
>

Dude, I was working with infinity in algebra and statistics when I was 18 years old. It's not a number you can plug into a calculator, but it is a very real and useful mathematical concept.

The first time I can remember having to invoke it in school maths was with the problem "If an object is moved half of its distance from me every second, when will it reach me?"

You cannot solve a problem as simple as that without consulting infinity. You write a rule for the nth iteration, then you draw a graph which shows the object never reaching me. This is high school maths. It's not controversial. I've studied a hell of a lot of maths in my life, though not as much as many of my friends, and I am quite confident that infinity is a troubling yet very real device which mathematicians invoke pretty comfortably.

No amount of bluster or confidence in your own (seeming lack of) education will change it.

You might find this edition of Horizon useful if you can get it over the pond:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qszch/horizon-20092010-12-to-infinity-and-beyond

Otherwise, I'd highly recommend the book A Brief History of Infinity by Brian Clegg. One of the best and most brain-bending maths books I've read in the last ten years. If you want to wrap your head around cosmology, you need to get comfortable with infinities.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-History-Infinity-Quest-Unthinkable/dp/1841196509/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424724647&sr=1-1&keywords=infinity


>>
>>But you're the one putting 'eternity' into the mix - I
>>wouldn't have invoked infinity if you hadn't. Because of
>>infinity's irrational nature it completely ruins your
>theory.
>
>These last few responses have illuminated how little you know
>about the concept of infinity and mathematics. Too late,
>sorry.



Your bluster at least broke my confidence enough to ask my best friend to assure me I wasn't being a complete dickhead. But no, a physics PHD from Imperial College London says you're waaaaayy out of your depth. Her speciality is light btw - you might enjoy one of her videos (it's largely unrelated to this, though she does have to touch on the same theories coincidentally - 'beam will spread and decrease in intensity over distance' - the same reason she can't make us a lightsaber is the same reason stars aren't visible into eternity) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9TEx_Z9uI4

She says that the Inverse Square law will most likely do it, but the most important bit is the distance from quantum interaction which will effectively scrub any information. That bit went over my head, I have to admit, but the end result is No, the Earth is not visible into "eternity".

If your arrogance won't allow you to trust me, trust someone with actual credentials. The Inverse Square rule means that stars are visible for billions of times further than people. Just like a lightbulb is visible for much further than an ant.

>
>>
>>"Recorded for a long time" wouldn't have got much argument
>>from me.
>>
>
>Yawn. Photon's do not decay.

I never said they did.

I said the density of them decreases over distance according to the inverse square law.

A star is so intensely bright that it takes a huge amount of time for the inverse square rule to render them invisible - currently the Universe doesn't appear big enough, so we can feasibly look back to the very earliest stars in the Hubble Deep Field. They were so intensely bright that their photons are still being received in great enough numbers to tell that they came from a star. They're feint, but they're together.

The Universe is young, however. I seem to remember recommending you John D. Barrow's Book of Universes a while ago (if you forgot, here's a reminder - it's EXCELLENT!) and although we can't be sure, it's likely that the Universe has way longer to live than it has already. 14Bn years is a long time to us. It's nothing to the life of the Universe. There is likely thousands of trillions of years left for the stars to get further and further apart. Eventually, the farthest galaxies will be so far apart that the density of light will have dropped to below the amount needed to make the image of a star.

Although the Heat Death of the Universe contains speculation, the inverse square rule does not. Stars can be visible for VAST distances because of the density of the light they emit. You emit NO light. You only reflect a very, very tiny fraction of the light given out by our Sun. The inverse square rule (and yes, the 'real' light physicist above agrees) means that due to the already tiny amount of light being reflected by your body and all the obstacles in its way before it can even get out of the planet (our atmosphere absorbs a LOT - that's why Hubble is in orbit!), you will be visible from a comparatively tiny distance.

It's not speculation, it's logic. Bright = more dense = longer to get less dense. Stars are just visible further. Same reason I can't see you from my desk, but I can see same Sun

Once you start bringing infinity into it (which you did in the title of the thread causing me to reply) it's pretty much logically impossible for starlight to be recognisable forever (you used the word 'record' - record involves being able to tell at lwould.east the shape of the object, right?), but absolutely *laughable* that a human, walking planet Earth would.



>
>>"Recorded for eternity" is flat out wrong.
>>
>
>You have no clue what you are talking about. Go ahead and
>crunch some infinity now. LOL

Enjoy the educational materials I've suggested, chap.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                    
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 06:28 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "RE: Wrong."
In response to Reply # 30
Mon Feb-23-15 06:54 PM by initiationofplato

          

>No amount of bluster or confidence in your own (seeming lack
>of) education will change it.

LOL. I gave you the correct definition of "infinity" after you used it incorrectly. I certainly do not need your revised definition and life story. Seems your education needed rekindling and I obliged you, that is all.

Frankly, I find your passive aggressive insults hilarious and indicative of your insecurity/inability to disagree with someone without resorting to insults. You know who does that? High schoolers that haven't been taught how to manage their emotions and ego yet, ironic how your life story included tales of your high school experience, coincidence?

I wish you the best of luck in this department old sport.


>>>But you're the one putting 'eternity' into the mix - I
>>>wouldn't have invoked infinity if you hadn't. Because of
>>>infinity's irrational nature it completely ruins your
>>theory.
>>

Light will travel infinitely unless it is obstructed. Photons do not decay, you can deny this if you wish, makes no difference to me.

There is absolutely no way to test the Inverse Square Law against infinity, the best we can do is use data that is available to us.

Earlier in this post you said that visible light will fade and be inaccessible to us. Your exact words were:

"after a couple of billion light years your light wouldn't be visible light anymore, just infra-red and microwaves."

I countered by raising the Hubble Deep field. Hubble was pointed at a pitch black part in space, with no visible light, and we discovered thousands of galaxies, thereby, rendering your point moot and incorrect. A couple of billion years? Try almost 12 billion years and we still have a highly clear and detailed image.

Look for yourself:

http://spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/heic0406a.jpg

It is true that we can look further by resorting to infrared, and all this does is illuminate that there is more data to be decoded if we know how to read it, well beyond our senses and well beyond our visible spectrum.

It is demonstrably evident that our imaging will grow in clarity as it has over the past 100 years, reaching further, with ever increasing detail, due to our evolving technology and refined instrumentation. To put a limit on that as you have is asinine, unscientific, and close minded. 100 years ago we weren't even aware of infrared. What do you think the next 100 years will illuminate? There are truly no limits in this universe.

>
>A star is so intensely bright that it takes a huge amount of
>time for the inverse square rule to render them invisible -
>currently the Universe doesn't appear big enough, so we can
>feasibly look back to the very earliest stars in the Hubble
>Deep Field. They were so intensely bright that their photons
>are still being received in great enough numbers to tell that
>they came from a star. They're feint, but they're together.

Once again, you are assuming and speculating. The Hubble Deep Field captured entire galaxies in the thousands, hardly an example of tightly packed photons. Have you any idea how large a single galaxy is? The distances between stars are impossible to comprehend.

Also, the Inverse Square Law states that the light that is being omitted by an object spreads.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Inverse_square_law.svg

Keeping that in mind, the Hubble Deep Field captured thousands of galaxies that are highly detailed, with easily recognizable spiral arms, and axis orientation. Think about the profundity of that even when coupled with the inverse square law. Almost 14 billion years has not been enough time to blur the clarity of the spiral arms.

>
>The Universe is young, however. I seem to remember
>recommending you John D. Barrow's Book of Universes a while
>ago (if you forgot, here's a reminder - it's EXCELLENT!) and
>although we can't be sure, it's likely that the Universe has
>way longer to live than it has already. 14Bn years is a long
>time to us. It's nothing to the life of the Universe. There is
>likely thousands of trillions of years left for the stars to
>get further and further apart. Eventually, the farthest
>galaxies will be so far apart that the density of light will
>have dropped to below the amount needed to make the image of a
>star.


Once again, you are speculating. What is the eventual time limit? 15 billion years? 20? 25? how will you test this when a 12 billion year old image is clear as day?

>
>Although the Heat Death of the Universe contains speculation,
>the inverse square rule does not. Stars can be visible for
>VAST distances because of the density of the light they emit.
>You emit NO light. You only reflect a very, very tiny fraction
>of the light given out by our Sun. The inverse square rule
>(and yes, the 'real' light physicist above agrees) means that
>due to the already tiny amount of light being reflected by
>your body and all the obstacles in its way before it can even
>get out of the planet (our atmosphere absorbs a LOT - that's
>why Hubble is in orbit!), you will be visible from a
>comparatively tiny distance.
>

There are perfectly clear images of people taken by satellites. The light reflecting of our bodies was able to penetrate the atmosphere, imagine that.


>It's not speculation, it's logic. Bright = more dense = longer
>to get less dense. Stars are just visible further. Same reason
>I can't see you from my desk, but I can see same Sun
>

Weak example. If we were both on a flat plane and you had a powerful enough telescope, you would see me just fine. The light reflected of my body will travel infinitely past you unless it is obstructed as photons do not decay. Also, the sun is also millions upon millions times bigger than I am. 1.3 million Earth's can fit into it. Of course you are going to see it!

To recap:

1. Light will travel infinitely unless otherwise obstructed
2. Photons do not decay.

The light reflected of any object is encoded with the likeness of that object. That is why we can see.

By the way, remember how much fervor you used to dispute my "Alcohol is the hardest drug" claim? complete with passive aggressive insults and condescension? The post is still up if you have forgotten, but the reason I mention it is because I am sure you will enjoy reading this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/23/marijuana-may-be-even-safer-than-previously-thought-researchers-say/?tid=rssfeed

Better luck next time, old sport.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                        
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Tue Feb-24-15 04:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "You're clearly not reading my posts."
In response to Reply # 32
Tue Feb-24-15 04:37 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

I have never said photons decay.

The fact that in every one of your replies to me, no matter how many times I say "I have never said photons decay, I've said THE DENSITY OF PHOTONS DECREASES IN AN INVERSE SQUARE RATIO TO DISTANCE FROM LIGHT SOURCE" you keep saying I have said anything about "decay" implies you're too set in your views to bother conversing with. Nothing sinks in, does it? You're a closed book to the rest of humanity, only changeable by your own flawed and naive imagination.

Kindly fuck off and disappear into your world of moronic wonder and stop pretending you're even engaging a brain.

The "deep questions" you ask in these threads; EVERY "cosmic realization" you come on here and brag that you've made that nobody else can have possibly thought of have been asked by humanity for thousands of years, there's at least one moron on every forum on the whole Internet who posts exactly the same shit. You're not unique, you're just intellectually stunted. I've suggested books for you to read which will put these flights of fancy you have into logical perspective. I've suggested documentary films in case the books are too difficult. I've even offered you the word of a scientist with a PHD in the physics of light. Yet you refuse to believe if YOUR BRAIN didn't invent the answer, someone else's logic might be worth considering - you haven't even engaged with my posts enough to UNDERSTAND what I've written (why otherwise would you continue to post that I've said photons "decay"?!)... I've even offered the thoughts of someone who's specialised in how light behaves for the last 8 years of their life.

You're a fucking joke. You're an abject failure of a human being and I will only enter your threads to laugh at your existence from this point onwards.

You're a real world incarnation of Philomena Cunk, and I claim my five pounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvpbW7JRu0Q

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                            
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Tue Feb-24-15 10:02 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "RE: wat"
In response to Reply # 35


          

>I have never said photons decay.
>
>The fact that in every one of your replies to me, no matter
>how many times I say "I have never said photons decay, I've
>said THE DENSITY OF PHOTONS DECREASES IN AN INVERSE SQUARE
>RATIO TO DISTANCE FROM LIGHT SOURCE" you keep saying I have
>said anything about "decay" implies you're too set in your
>views to bother conversing with. Nothing sinks in, does it?
>You're a closed book to the rest of humanity, only changeable
>by your own flawed and naive imagination.
>
>Kindly fuck off and disappear into your world of moronic
>wonder and stop pretending you're even engaging a brain.
>
>The "deep questions" you ask in these threads; EVERY "cosmic
>realization" you come on here and brag that you've made that
>nobody else can have possibly thought of have been asked by
>humanity for thousands of years, there's at least one moron on
>every forum on the whole Internet who posts exactly the same
>shit. You're not unique, you're just intellectually stunted.
>I've suggested books for you to read which will put these
>flights of fancy you have into logical perspective. I've
>suggested documentary films in case the books are too
>difficult. I've even offered you the word of a scientist with
>a PHD in the physics of light. Yet you refuse to believe if
>YOUR BRAIN didn't invent the answer, someone else's logic
>might be worth considering - you haven't even engaged with my
>posts enough to UNDERSTAND what I've written (why otherwise
>would you continue to post that I've said photons
>"decay"?!)... I've even offered the thoughts of someone who's
>specialised in how light behaves for the last 8 years of their
>life.
>
>You're a fucking joke. You're an abject failure of a human
>being and I will only enter your threads to laugh at your
>existence from this point onwards.
>
>You're a real world incarnation of Philomena Cunk, and I claim
>my five pounds.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvpbW7JRu0Q


First of all. Take a chill pill. Second of all, where did I brag about anything? You have created a pretty strange fantasy I don't really want to star in. I get excited/enthusiastic about exploring ideas and I certainly do not brag about anything that has crossed my mind. I'm not exactly sure what you are projecting, but I don't appreciate it.

All one has to do is take a look at the Deep Field imaging to see the potency/density of light. From then on, you just need to consider that the technological curve is growing, thus allowing humanity to process sharper quality images, and rely on basic
laws which state that light will travel infinitely if unobstructed as photons do not decay. Yes, the density decays but given the astounding quality/clarity of light that has been traveling for 12 billion years is astonishing and indicative of the incomprehensible density it can yield.

Shrug. If you did not get your panties in a bunch, or make this personal, or psychological, we could have had a real discussion, but as always, you come into my posts with the sole intent of attempting to prove me wrong or to illuminate something you think is inferior to your understanding of the nature of things. All one has to do is take a look at the post about alcohol and our conversation to get a gist of the patterns you put into motion.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Tue Feb-24-15 11:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "RE: wat"
In response to Reply # 36
Tue Feb-24-15 11:34 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

>First of all. Take a chill pill. Second of all, where did I
>brag about anything? You have created a pretty strange fantasy
>I don't really want to star in. I get excited/enthusiastic
>about exploring ideas and I certainly do not brag about
>anything that has crossed my mind. I'm not exactly sure what
>you are projecting, but I don't appreciate it.

Every thread you make you write as if you've discovered something "profound". So far, you haven't had a single profound thing to say about anything though; just a lot of wide-eyed, naivety and wonder. This is why you've ended up in an argument in almost every thread you've started (yep, two with me, plenty with others too) - someone comes in and tells you that your college-freshman-at-an-ICP-concert idea is flawed and you flat out refuse to engage.

I even checked this one with someone who's studied the behaviour of light at the very highest level for the past 8 years just in case I was being over-confident. But you don't trust her word either. There's literally no point in having a conversation with someone who, to paraphrase another thread from you says things like "There's nothing you can say that will change my mind".

>
>All one has to do is take a look at the Deep Field imaging to
>see the potency/density of light. From then on, you just need
>to consider that the technological curve is growing, thus
>allowing humanity to process sharper quality images, and rely
>on basic
>laws which state that light will travel infinitely if
>unobstructed as photons do not decay. Yes, the density decays
>but given the astounding quality/clarity of light that has
>been traveling for 12 billion years is astonishing and
>indicative of the incomprehensible density it can yield.

The fact you keep citing a photograph that most people have been aware of for 20 years and has hung above my desk for the last 3 as if I'm somehow not aware of it does not help in changing my opinion of you as a patronising twat.

Further, that you keep using it to try and 'disprove' an immutable law of nature (the inverse square rule, which the HDF actually perfectly encapsulates - we only know the oldest objects are the oldest objects BECAUSE of the inverse square law and Red Shift!) is even more frustrating. 13.6Bn years is not long enough for the inverse square rule to render stars invisible. 100 Trillion Years will be. Mathematically. You invoked infinity/eternity, therefore you have to deal with the sort of distances that the Universe will eventually span. 13.6Bn light years will be fuck all by the time the last star goes cold. Again, reading John D. Barrow would give you all you needed.

>Shrug. If you did not get your panties in a bunch, or make
>this personal, or psychological, we could have had a real
>discussion, but as always, you come into my posts with the
>sole intent of attempting to prove me wrong or to illuminate
>something you think is inferior to your understanding of the
>nature of things. All one has to do is take a look at the post
>about alcohol and our conversation to get a gist of the
>patterns you put into motion.

Sorry, I'm just particularly bored with people like you who use the Internet as their mental whiteboard, desperately begging an ether of people they'll never meet for validation of their ill-considered dreaming. Well done, you've had a thought that billions have had before you and several have already disproved. If you posted ideas that actually worked once in a while, posted them as questions, or even showed *some* sort of respect to those that offer a different opinion or even an explanation of why you're mistaken (i.e. not saying "There's nothing you can say that will change my mind") you'll find you get much, much more respectful responses in return. I'm clearly not the only one who has this reaction to you - most people around here think you're the last guy who occupied this persona(BarTek) - every forum has one.

Hell, it'd even help if you, just once, read one of the books or watched one of the documentaries I've suggested. My style is combative absolutely, that's in my nature, but I always make an effort to offer you someone trustworthy's words rather than my own to back my points. I'm not saying "You're wrong because I say so", I'm saying "You're wrong because of this law and this credentialed person can explain properly". You can trust John D. Barrow FRS if you can't trust me. You can trust Lia Han PHD if you can't trust me. It's nothing to do with me if you choose not to process the information I offer you, but again, that will hugely affect the respect your afforded in future... all I can do is continue to call you out on your naivety and offer you suggestions of reading materials.

You clearly have a great lust to learn... I honestly can't understand why you wouldn't want to apply some sort of rigour to your learning rather than letting your mind drift away on flights of fancy all the time.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                    
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Tue Feb-24-15 11:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "RE: wat"
In response to Reply # 38


          

>Every thread you make you write as if you've discovered
>something "profound". So far, you haven't had a single
>profound thing to say about anything though; just a lot of
>wide-eyed, naivety and wonder. This is why you've ended up in
>an argument in almost every thread you've started (yep, two
>with me, plenty with others too) - someone comes in and tells
>you that your idea is flawed and you refuse to engage.
>

Hardly, and your fantasy is neither entertaining or interesting, just odd.


>I even checked with someone who's studied the behaviour of
>light at the very highest level for the past 8 years just in
>case I was being over-confident. But you don't trust her word
>either. There's literally no point in having a conversation
>with someone who, to paraphrase another thread from you says
>things like "There's nothing you can say that will change my
>mind".
>
>>

I did not have a conversation with said individual, you did. I have no idea what you said or what she said, and given your irrational quickness towards anger, ego, and immaturity, I can hardly trust you. Furthermore, I am speaking to you and you continue to avoid valid points I am making. I have addressed everything you said, including the inverse square law. If this is beyond your depth and you need to consult others, than direct them directly to me and stop wasting my time.


>The fact you keep citing a photograph that most people have
>been aware of for 20 years and has hung above my desk for the
>last 3 as if I'm somehow not aware of it does not help in
>changing my opinion of you as a patronising twat.

You can continue to ignore the valid points I am making if you wish, makes no difference to me.

>
>Further, that you keep using it to try and 'disprove' an
>immutable law of nature (the inverse square rule, which the
>HDF actually perfectly encapsulates - we only know the oldest
>objects are the oldest objects BECAUSE of the inverse square
>law and Red Shift!) is even more frustrating. 13.6Bn years is
>not long enough for the inverse square rule to render stars
>invisible. 100 Trillion Years will be. Mathematically. You
>invoked infinity/eternity, therefore you have to deal with the
>sort of distances that the Universe will eventually span.
>13.6Bn light years will be fuck all by the time the last star
>goes cold.

This is all speculation, and as I have already said, there is no way to test the inverse square law against infinity. Your initial number was a "couple of billion years", and now you are switching your tune to 100 trillion years, therefore, illuminating that you are pulling numbers out of your ass.



>Sorry, I'm just particularly bored with people like you who
>use the Internet as their mental whiteboard, desperately
>begging an ether of people they'll never meet for validation
>of their ill-considered dreaming. Well done, you've had a
>thought that billions have had before you and several have
>already disproved. If you posted ideas that actually worked
>once in a while, posted them as questions, or even showed
>*some* sort of respect to those that offer a different opinion
>or even an explanation of why you're mistaken (i.e. not saying
>"There's nothing you can say that will change my mind") you'll
>find you get much, much more respectful responses in return.
>I'm clearly not the only one who has this reaction to you -
>most people around here think you're the last guy who occupied
>this persona(BarTek) - every forum has one.
>

You spend more time coaxing your strange fantasy than debating the data. Typical and highly indicative of your maturity level.

>Hell, it'd even help if you, just once, read one of the books
>or watched one of the documentaries I've suggested. My style
>is combative absolutely, that's in my nature, but I always
>make an effort to offer you someone trustworthy's words rather
>than my own to back my points. I'm not saying "You're wrong
>because I say so", I'm saying "You're wrong because of this
>law and this credentialed person can explain properly". You
>can trust John D. Barrow if you can't trust me. You can trust
>Lia Han PHD if you can't trust me. It's nothing to do with me
>if you choose not to process the information I offer you, but
>again, that will hugely affect the respect your afforded in
>future... all I can do is continue to call you out on your
>naivety and offer you suggestions of reading materials.

You have no idea how to control your emotions or how to control yourself. I have NOTHING to learn from you.

>
>You clearly have a great lust to learn... I honestly can't
>understand why you wouldn't want to apply some sort of rigour
>to your learning rather than letting your mind drift away on
>flights of fancy all the time.

Yawn. You bore me.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                        
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Tue Feb-24-15 11:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "Present these "valid points" - I've obviously missed them"
In response to Reply # 39
Tue Feb-24-15 11:48 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

My apologies, but I haven't see you present any maths or physics yet which are the languages these issues must be solved in... I've only managed to find wishy-washy ideas based on your own interpretation of the Hubble Deep Field. Any scientists that back your viewpoint? Any notable discoveries?

I've obviously missed some posts. Perhaps you could suggest some books that I'll need to read in order to understand your points? I'm always after new books.

If any of your points are genuinely relevant, I will address them calmly and without insult here.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Tue Feb-24-15 11:48 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "I have already presented all my ideas calmly."
In response to Reply # 40


          

I'm not going to make a habit of repeating myself just because you went flying off the handle. Anger is a temporary mental disease that blinds people to reason, so perhaps you should return when you have your emotions under control.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
TheAlbionist
Member since Jul 04th 2011
3306 posts
Tue Feb-24-15 11:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "Lovely copout."
In response to Reply # 41
Tue Feb-24-15 11:50 AM by TheAlbionist

  

          

All you've said so far is "I'm right, you're wrong".

I've offered equations and books and cited experts in the field.

You've offered your own imaginary interpretation of a 20 year old photograph you are yet to prove you actually understand.

You're doing this to yourself man.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Tue Feb-24-15 12:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "Hardly."
In response to Reply # 42


          

>All you've said so far is "I'm right, you're wrong".

I never said that once.

Once again, you prefer fantasy over reality.

>
>I've offered equations and books and cited experts in the
>field.
>
>You've offered your own imaginary interpretation of a 20 year
>old photograph you are yet to prove you actually understand.
>
>You're doing this to yourself man.

Yawn.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

luminous
Charter member
12458 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 10:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "interesting"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

But light is only a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and dark matter which makes up 85% of the matter in the known universe does not interact with electromagnetic radiation...

--
Sometimes you have to look reality in the face and say 'No!'
-Ben (Reaper)

If you need any help, don't. Hesitate to ask.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

kwez
Member since Aug 10th 2003
11774 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 04:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "I think "recording" is the wrong analogy here"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

It's more interesting to think not about light as it travels, but "time" itself as a dimension.

If you saw Interstellar, NDT spoke on this idea a little bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cexcjdyIE

Now that shit is mind blowing.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Mon Feb-23-15 07:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "RE: I think "recording" is the wrong analogy here"
In response to Reply # 31


          

>It's more interesting to think not about light as it travels,
>but "time" itself as a dimension.
>
>If you saw Interstellar, NDT spoke on this idea a little bit.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cexcjdyIE
>
>Now that shit is mind blowing.
>


Well, he did say that in the 5th dimension you have access to your entire time line, in a sense, as it was "recorded". I think time is simply the measure of change and I believe the universe is always changing. I don't think the universe has rigid laws which it will abide by for eternity. I think the laws can change as quickly as the weather, given more universal and less human time spans. I don't think trying to define the universe in formula's that will last forever is possible.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
kwez
Member since Aug 10th 2003
11774 posts
Tue Feb-24-15 01:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "Well yeah, which has nothing to do with light at all"
In response to Reply # 33


  

          

The idea that everything that has yet to happen has already happened is pretty amazing.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
initiationofplato
Member since Nov 06th 2013
2420 posts
Tue Feb-24-15 10:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "That's not what happened at the end of Interstellar though"
In response to Reply # 34


          

Spoiler Alert:

Cooper was unable to go back in time, or into the future. When he slipped into the singularity he entered a 4 dimensional place constructed in a 5th dimensional reality by human beings of the future. He had access to the timeline of what he had already experienced but he could not materialize in the past, or in the future. In the 5th dimension, gravity/time becomes like one of our 3 dimensions here. The dimensions we interact with physically include length, width, depth, and height. In the 5th dimension time/gravity becomes a physical dimension, thus Cooper is able to program the quantum data into the watch by affecting one of the watch hands with gravity from the 5th dimension. When he is done, he is spit out at the present which is many years into the future because of time dilation, but he did not choose where to go in time and could not, he could only interact with the timeline of what he had lived up to the present.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Lobby General Discussion topic #12733664 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com