Obligatory Monthly Plug Drug's Philosophical Ramblings Thread

[Plug Drugs]

i should take more drugs, because my mind is boring right now

[Plug Drugs]

i gotta blast out the cobwebs

[Plug Drugs]

well that can't be good, i've slammed like 6 bottles of water in the past 2 hours and my piss is still golden brown..

[Plug Drugs]

There goes again.
You are discovering the math.

uhhh what
so you were talking to me earlier? what makes you say i'm not a mathematical person, other than a need to view others as being somehow inferior
i'll have you know blah blah blah credentials

[Autistic Spectrum]

do you believe in killing babies, i myself do not,

[Plug Drugs]

I would need to see how this theory progresses further to accept it. As it stands I think it has a fundamental flaw that many philosophers have also made. It fails to grasp the concept of "nothing", a non-existence, it attempts to deal with this failure on concept by simply replacing the concept of "nothing" with "something" and even goes so far as to give the "nothing" a value in an attempt to make it tangible. Similar fundamental flaws in logic have also been used in the philisophical arguments used in trying to prove the existence of god. You cannot replace "nothing" (or in other arguments a "god" that not exist) with "something", let alone attribute a value or point of existence to it because basicall the "nothing" is simply not there, it is not exisiting and so it can not be affected by a "something" and cannot be attributed a value. Descartes makes a similar failure in concept when attempting to compare a god that exists with a god that does not exist. He fails to concieve of a god that does not exist and so to deal with this simply replaces a non existence god with a decieving demon, basically positing a god of a different nature where one simply should not exist in order to have a tangible point in his theory to compare the god that does exist to and that is a fundamental flaw in which all subsequent logic that rests on this flawed. A god that does not exist cannot be compared to a god that does exist simply because the god that doesn't exist is just not there to compare against, nor can you attribute any kind of nature to it, decieving or not. In a similar way you cannot posit a true "nothingness" into a theory of "something" and attribute it a value, it is simply not there. If it is there then it is in fact not "nothing" that you are dealing with but instead "something". This does not turn a "nothing" into "something" it instead is two points of "something" and the concept of "nothing" completely fails. As such I do not accept that this theory explains how "something" came out of "nothing", it completely fails to even grasp the concept of "nothing" (which like infinity is a hard concept to grasp) and instead it seems like an infantile idea of how "something" was created and came to be out of "something", both somethings having a value attributed to them. It literally has nothing to do with "nothing".

Do you believe in a prime mover? I myself do not.

You're right; its really just a desperate attempt made by philosophers for thousands of years to cope with the concept of nothingness; to try and make sense of the thought experiment "If at one point in time, there was absolutely nothing in existence, then how did something come out of nothing???"

Although with eternal recurrence, there doesn't need to be an answer to that question, as the reason there is "something" in existence is because there has always been "something" in existence, and there will continue to be "something" in existence until the end of time, because "something" can never be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.

[Plug Drugs]

All we've got to do is prove that our universe will eventually, for some reason, start over as another big bang; and explain the exact physical mechanism responsible.
I think it depends on the nature of light and space; because our universe is inflating when ideally we'd need to have it retract eventually in order for another big bang to occur, one of the only things I can think of then for physically verifying eternal recurrence would be to somehow view space itself as illusory - a byproduct of something else - such that an inflating universe could still lead to the creation of another big bang after its own destruction. Otherwise its heat death, and after all the particles in the universe annihilate themselves due to acceleration, all that will be left is radiation flying out into nowhere that will never interact with anything ever again.. and that's a pretty nihilistic and unsatisfactory thing to settle on, don't you think?

[Plug Drugs]

Who else can write essay sized posts about nothing?

lol

This is why I became friends with this prick :)

aww thank you

[Plug Drugs]

It depends on what exactly is holding up the backbone of space itself, dark energy or dark matter, and how it operates. As Einstein put it, all motion is relative, and with that considered there shouldn't even BE a grid of space, because an object only has velocity relative to other matter. If there were only one object in existence with nothing for it to be relative to, that object accelerating would be virtually identical to the same object standing still. Yet, if dark energy or dark matter is maintaining a backbone for space, then an object will always have a position relative to the dark matter/energy in the space around it that it's traveling through.

Also I don't know if I expanded on it enough earlier, but the reason that all matter in the universe will eventually annihilate itself due to accelerating to the speed of light is also due to relativity: since the speed of light must remain constant (light can't travel faster than other light, all light travels at the same speed), objects in motion literally "shrink" in the direction they're traveling, since the light/radiation emitted from that object must remain at the same speed despite the object itself accelerating.
The light coming off the front of a train going 20 miles per hour travels at the same speed as the light coming off a train going 30 miles per hour - the only way for this to happen is for the train to literally shrink in the direction that it is traveling, though at such low speeds it can't be noticed.
However, when a particle with mass reaches full light speed, it will completely shrink and no longer have mass. The structure of the particle at that point is ripped apart into pure energy.

If matter is a tangle of space, then this "being ripped apart" would have a paradoxical consequence: the "tangle of space" would have to be untangled, literally generating new space around the annihilated particle. But this "new space" wouldn't be able to disperse outwards faster than the speed of light -- the paradox here being that said particle was already traveling at the speed of light, so what happens to the "newly generated space"?? Perhaps that is what creates a Higg's boson, the "new space" that was generated couldn't disperse due to it's speed being capped, so it remains "packaged space" traveling as a boson at the speed of light, the Higg's boson. Then once the Higg's boson decays, the "packaged space" could finally disperse, which could end up causing new tangles in space to form (hence, the Higg's boson creating matter)

what then indeed

[Plug Drugs]

One thing that concerns me is, will existence ever be endangered by too many particles being created, or perhaps too few?? What if every Higg's boson at the start of a particular universe fails to generate matter, ending the cycle of eternal recurrence?

why dont you guys jsut get back on skype lmao nobody cares

[Plug Drugs]

what if there are other universes being created all the time, maybe even an infinate amount of them comming into being or inflating, they include all possibilities, have different physical properties all due to chance, but as there is an infinate amount of them the universe as we know it, with the exact properties as we know it had to occur, and is actually occuring an infinate number of times, but there are other possibilities and universes that exist, some may contain properties that make them implode on themselves and reignite and others do not, ours does not, but throughout the infinate universes all possibilities that could occur under all possible properties a universe could have DO occur. But in our universe the exact properties of our universe do not allow for it to collapse again? What then?

That's the thing though, I don't think there could be a universe with properties that far different from our own, because the physical constants are not values which could have been anything different than what they are, they are innate - and I think they are all derived from the speed of light anyways..

How much can universes vary when it comes to their initial conditions? Maybe depending on how much matter is in a universe, it can either inflate exponentially, linearly, or inflate then retract... I'm going to have to look up the math again on how they came to the conclusion that the matter in the universe is accelerating exponentially, maybe I can figure out whether or not it could have been different for another universe.

guys just get on skype and kiss and make up

[Plug Drugs]

Well, wikipedia is saying that the main explanation proposed for an accelerating universe is the nature of dark energy in that it tends to spread out fairly homogenously in space. Which would mean that as the universe expands, the dark energy in the universe thins out, leaving a thinner medium that becomes increasingly easier for matter to travel through. So that makes me wonder, will it necessarily ever thin out to the point that matter reaches the speed of light and annihilates itself?
That is very interesting, because it would mean that with dark energy stretched that thin, all matter would travel through space with such ease that any amount of kinetic energy and a particle would immediately be traveling at light speed.

It's starting to sound in my head a lot like what I was saying earlier, about the laws of physics themselves starting to break down once the universe reaches the age where particle annihilation due to acceleration occurs

[Plug Drugs]

That's it; once dark energy is stretched that thin, particles begin annihilating themselves, producing Higg's bosons which decay into particles that immediately annihilate themselves, over and over, and it's complete chaos. It might be such an energetic phenomenon that it literally rips apart spacetime, wiping the board clean for the next big bang

[Plug Drugs]

I'm reading more about it now, and no one knows. It depends on the density of dark matter - whether its density is a constant, it gets less dense, or gets more dense with time. Doesn't look like anyone's been able to figure out any concrete math on dark energy's density at this point in time.

[Plug Drugs]

i disagree

The properties of this universe are by chance and not at all necessary, in fact if there were other universes you would most definately find ones where say matter never condensed, universes without matter, without gravity as we know it, the possibilities are endless but in a scenario where there are many even infinate number of universes created it is even necessary that there are some so alien to this one, ones where even matter wasn't produced. In fact it is very easy to concieve of how a universe could be created and never condsense to form matter and even that would not be as different to our own universe as other possibilities.

Where are these other universes though? Are they physically outside the boundaries of our universe, but we just haven't collided with another universe yet? Are they in alternate dimensions? Are they perhaps permanently separate from us such that we could never interact with them in any way, but they exist nonetheless?
That's almost straying into the more philsophical: the void, the chaos, there is everything and nothing, all possibility. What if our very existence is 'just' a virtual possibility, and isn't even actually happening? It's just chaos telling a story that changes and shifts at its own whim.

It's thoughts like these that make me start to think that all there is in the universe is "mind", and everything else is a projection. That's when shit starts getting creepy and I can no longer differentiate between a chaotic system and my own will affecting its outcome; I see a flag blowing in the wind and it'll start blowing in whichever direction I believe it to blow. Creepy, drug induced, terrifying.. just have to shut it out when I get to that point.

[Plug Drugs]

*sigh* thinking about physics while on drugs always concludes with solipsism for me, and malaise from how utterly terrifying solipsism is

[Plug Drugs]

and I can't ever tell if its what I've been thinking about causing the malaise, or just the drugs affecting my brain chemistry and mood causing the feeling of malaise, or if there's even a difference. Maybe I am slowly sinking into malaise as it is, and my brain tries to make a coherent story to go along with that transition in mood.
What came first? The chicken or the egg?

[Plug Drugs]

It's not just that but how a particle reacts to travelling through that dark energy actually determines what that particle actually is. I do not think mass can travel at the speed of light... "The same theory says that objects gain mass as they speed up, and that speeding up requires energy. The more mass, the more energy is required. By the time an object reached the speed of light, Einstein calculated, its mass would be infinite, and so would the amount of energy required to increase its speed. To go beyond the infinite is impossible.
So for mass to actually travel at the speed of light it would have to have zero rest mass (light has zero rest mass which is why it is the universal speed limit) so no I do not think mass as we know it could travel AT the speed of light. Close to at best but never AT it. It would have to be something other than matter (as we know it in this universe) for it to travel as fast as or faster than the speed of light.

But with the model of an accelerating universe, it's going to happen -- at some point on that exponential curve, the speed of the matter expanding will surpass the speed of light; of course the matter will annihilate itself right before it reaches the speed of light though. And if dark energy's density decreasing is what's causing the universe to accelerate, then it means that the particles aren't picking up more energy causing them to accelerate (which would make them more massive), but rather they travel greater distances from the same kinetic energy they already had.

[Autistic Spectrum]

fagggots

[Plug Drugs]

Oh FFS
Stop taking drugs.

it was just my prescribed dosage, it has to start wearing off some time

[maks]

For the matter to move THROUGH space as fast as or faster than the speed of light would require to use up more than all the energy in the whole universe, so it can't really happen.

This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever seen. I hope you weren't a science teacher.

[Plug Drugs]

yeah just havent done it in a while so it grabbed me by the balls

[Plug Drugs]

well no bubble, because it is not the matter itself that is accelerating but rather the "space" between, the dark energy, so it might be possible for it to APPEAR that a galaxy is moving away faster than the speed of light but in fact it isn't the galaxy that is moving that fast, it is the "space" between them that is inflating at an accelerating rate, if it were to APPEAR that it was moving away from us faster than the speed of light we would cease to be able to observe it anyway. For the matter to move THROUGH space as fast as or faster than the speed of light would require to use up more than all the energy in the whole universe, so it can't really happen. Matter itself could not travel that fast, the "space" between it could POSSIBLY.

i've gone cross-eyed

[Plug Drugs]

At least I know Plug Drugs will be able to grasp that.

I grasped it but I don't know how accurate it is

[maks]

No it's not a pile of shit you simpleton. It's a concept that is accepted in physics.

I'm in the top 1% for science so don't even bother going there with me half-wit, look it up.

It takes near infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light. If you're already travelling 99% of light speed then accelerating to 100% wouldn't take any more energy than accelerating to 1% would.

Dumbass.

[maks]

Wrong.

In so many ways you fucking retard, you don't even know what we are talking about. You look like an idiot.

You spent 4 pages discussing this and I came in and gave you the answer in a single post. I can understand why you're mad.

[Plug Drugs]

I'll be right back, going to jump in the shower. You still going to be up for a while?