The Universe and expansion

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Amerika, Mar 13, 2011.

  1. If the universe is continuously expanding, then no planets exact location can ever be pinpointed right?

    Same with atoms?
  2. try the science section my man
  3. hopefully a mod will move it.

    I was just thinkin that if nothing in the atomic world can ever be pinpointed down to an exact location, and neither can planets, then it gives more validity to the term "as above so below."
  4. You sir, are onto something. I've pondered the same thing before.

    I actually first thought of it when I saw the movie "Jumper" - which I actually liked a lot.
    I realized - How can "jump-sites" be saved when the Earth is always moving, as is the solar system, as is the galaxy, and so on? The vectors would never be static.

    Anyways, great post.
  5. There is no such thing as "exact location," only relative location. Whether the universe is expanding or not, you always need a landmark. And yes, theoretically the center of the universe (or the edge of the universe) could be used as this landmark if the universe were in fact static.

    But, practically, this makes not a bit of difference to us, since we already have our own landmark that we can use much easier, which is our own location. It is static in the sense that we ourselves are moving right along with whatever we're looking at, since we are both in the same universe.

    @ iMPREPREX:
    What is to say that if we've got "jumping" technology, we don't also have the technology to add in one line of code that compensates for the rate of expansion of the universe (which we can already calculate now)?
  6. haha while "practically" it makes no difference to us, im speaking from a philosophical standpoint. i've been growing increasingly interested with the idea that the Universe is nothing more than an incredibly complex fractal pattern, and the idea that what we think are atoms could be vast universes from a scale we couldnt comprehend.

    I always mindfuck myself trying to imagine the vastness of the universe, and that if I was looking at it from a birds eye view it could be nothing more than one atom sitting next to another atom in an infinite ocean of "space."

    The idea that zooming all the way in to be able to physically view an atom with our senses, would be similar if not an exact replica of zooming all the way out to view the Universe.

    Its just a never ending infinite scale and we're smack dab in the "possibly but probably not middle" of something so far beyond our comprehension all we can do is wonder.

    I love life :smoke:
  7. are you saying this universe could accutally be 1 atom which then makes up with more atoms a bigger thing which then makes up more and more and more? And this also goes for the other way so zooming in, we could all be made of atoms which could be universes etc...?
    i dunno if you were thinking that but I've thought of that and it sounds funny and intresting and I'm not getting rid of the idea yet :eek:
  8. #8 Amerika, Mar 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2011
    That is exactly what I was trying to get at. Im pretty sure its one of those theories that just cant be proved but is cool to think about you know?

    If the multiverse theory is finally accepted into mainstream belief systems it'll be more reasonable. Our Universe could essentially be an atom next to another atom making up a bigger picture unfathomable by our human consciousness. The only thing stopping us from understanding the "as above, so below" idea is the definitions we use with which to label.

    We have this thing called an "atom" and it consists of all these seperate parts that get smaller and smaller. The Universe is the exact same way, but we as a species have sort of drawn the line there and said "NOPE NOTHING OUTSIDE OF THIS UNIVERSE." but the "universe" could be that piece that ultimately makes up the smaller parts of the "atom." if that makes sense.
  9. once you accept that this is infact a fractal is when the shit hits the fan


  10. Well, even from a philosophic standpoint...what difference does it make? If Object A is not moving and neither is Object B, can we say there is any difference (philosophical or practical) between their relationships to each other than if Object A and B were both moving at the same rate and in the same direction? No. The only philosophical mindfuck to be had here is that movement is relative. Don't get me wrong, that IS a mindfuck in itself, but beyond that I don't see what you're getting at.

    Agreed, but that's not necessarily related to expansion, just to scale and to our lack of any reference point but ourselves.
  11. I don't think it "makes a difference" so to speak but its an interesting concept to think about. Im interested in the space between the planets and the atoms and what exactly that "space" is moving towards. Atoms exist and form solid structures but are seated in a space that their electrons orbit. this space I assume is the same space that occupies the positions between our planets and our own orbits. I dont believe that our universe is the only universe in existence and that it too is seated in this "space" between other universes. Its not so much about the movement specifically, but the space that is moving, and how the moving pattern could repeat indefinitely in either direction to infinity beyond the atomic and universal worlds.
  12. I've had this exact thought also, is seems plausible

Share This Page