What was "creation"
From: Leif Andersson (leif.andersson_at_haninge.mail.telia.com)
Date: 02/02/05
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Time and SR"
- Previous message: AllYou!: "Re: There is no such thing as absolute falsification"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: What was "creation""
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: What was "creation""
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: What was "creation""
- Reply: DavidBowman: "Re: What was "creation""
- Reply: tj Frazir: "Re: What was "creation""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:30:11 GMT
I started these postings with the balloon-point-of-view. But that is a start
halfway down the road. Before I go on I think that I should go back to my
first starting point.
The world contains something. We start by giving this something a name. The
hindues call it Brahma. In the new swedish translation of the bible it is
called "gudsvind" which means godwind. It has been called ether or aether
and in swedish eter. I will use the name eter.
Next we come to the question: "Is the universe limited or eternal?".
The usual answer is that the universe started in the Big Bang but that is no
answer. A Big Bang might very well occur within an eternal universe. The
question we must answer is: "Is there a possible state of the universe with
no space and no time?". In eternity the universe will go through all
possible states. However unlikly a state may be it will occur in eternity.
So if there is a state without space and time this will be the start and the
end of the world.
In a universe with a perfectly smooth eter no points can be distinguished
from the background and hence no distances between points can make up a
space. And no point can change position with respect to the other points to
create an event.
In such a state there are no distances and no events and hence no space and
no time. The hindues call this state Nirvana. And our universe was created
from Nirvana and it will end in Nirvana. I will not here comment on the
religious and philosopic aspects of this.
The universe we see is not the eter of the universe. We can only see
disturbances of the eter. And all disturbances we can see are shaped like
waves. They have an amplitude and a periodtime. The inverse of the
periodtime is called frequency. If we separate something into a number of
single waves we find that the amplitude of a wave is proportional to its
frequency. This means that there is a problem with creation.
If I look upon a wave I have to watch it for a considerable part of the
periodtime before I can certify that it is a wave. It is of minor importance
if it is enough with half the periodtime or a quarter of the periodtime. I
can claim that I need a full periodtime to tell if I see a wave or not. So
only waves that have existed for a full periodtime are detectable. And at
the creation the age of the universe is zero and hence the periodtime of a
distubance can not exceed zero. If the periodtime is zero the frequence is
infinit and hence the amplitude is infinite.
So the creation must have started with a quanta of infinite size. The Big
Bang could have been such an infinite quanta or just a large "ordinary"
event within space and time. In any case creation must have been something
that did not follow the laws of nature as we see them.
When the creation, some way or the other, had occured we come to the
question: "How many dimensions do we need to picture the universe?".
The first point that was distinguishable from the smooth eter created an
universe with zero dimensions. It did not define any distances.
The second point created an one-dimensional universe. In this universe there
were distances along one line so the position could be expressed
unambiguously with one single value.
The third point might fall within the one-dimensional universe of the two
first points but if it did not it created a two-dimensional universe where
position could be expressed by two separate values.
If we go on like this we find that a universe with n distinguishable points
can have n-1 dimensions. Thus our universe can have quite a number of
dimensions. But we can not handle that in our minds. We have to make
pictures with less dimensions, pictures that we can treat in our minds. The
process of reduction of dimensions is called projection. There are a number
of methods for projection. One of these methods produce a picture that is
called a perspective picture. With a camera we can project a
three-dimensional picture to a two-dimensional perspective picture.
Strangly enough it seems as if our multi-dimensional universe can be
projected to a four-dimensional picture that is sufficient for our use. We
can use a camera to reduce the three space-dimensions in this picture to two
and we use the theory of relativity to reduce the four-dimensional
space-time to a three-dimensional perspective picture.
It is important to notice that we need different types of projections for
different purposes. For our vacation-pictures we want perspective pictures
but for a machine-drawing we use non-perspective pictures. In the same way
relativity does not give the picture of the world, it gives one picture of
the world that is relavant for some but not for all purposes.
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Time and SR"
- Previous message: AllYou!: "Re: There is no such thing as absolute falsification"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: What was "creation""
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: What was "creation""
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: What was "creation""
- Reply: DavidBowman: "Re: What was "creation""
- Reply: tj Frazir: "Re: What was "creation""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
