Jump to content

Universe is (In)Finite?


infamouse
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi,

On 10/22/2021 at 9:04 PM, infamouse said:

"But if we blindly accept Einstein's theory, then we get into trouble, since his equations predict that the gravitational force at the very center of a black hole or the beginning of time is infinite, which makes no sense."

Why is it that this "makes no sense"? Why is it that this assertion is frequently purported to be unassailable without any accountability to basic logic?

This is because singularities are questions of quantum mechanics.

On 10/22/2021 at 9:04 PM, infamouse said:

Kaku's conclusion here makes sense, IF and only IF you subscribe to his presupposition that the universe is infinite AND uniform. The Universe, as we are all aware, is not uniform, so how could Kaku get a way with such a blatant flaw in basic logic?

Probably because the universe is homogeneous over large distances if I am not mistaken, right?

 

On 10/22/2021 at 9:04 PM, infamouse said:

Furthermore, isn't belief in a finite universe a bit like belief in a flat Earth?

Indeed and it is probably because our understanding of the universe is limited by its visible part. The vision of a flat universe today echoes the vision of a flat earth of the ancients, because limited by their fields of vision.

On 10/22/2021 at 9:04 PM, infamouse said:

Every instance of the Singularity in physics should be treated not as separate, individualized entities, but as a unified instance of a single phenomenon: the physical manifestation of the fundamental physics of infinity, acting as the frame of reference from which all relative physics can be derived.

Interesting reflection within the framework of my toy cosmological model speculative consistent with the LambdaCDM model.

So I agree with you on this point.

 

 

 

On 10/22/2021 at 9:42 PM, Phi for All said:

And Einstein's infinities are the fault of the precision of our maths,

I would rather say that we have the wrong frame of reference. The latter should be, in my opinion quantum, and to be defined.

On 10/22/2021 at 9:42 PM, Phi for All said:

so it's kind of shady to say that part of Einstein's theory makes no sense.

However, we are limited when we want to go back before the Big Bang. In this case, general relativity does not make sense, it is not applicable.

 

On 10/22/2021 at 9:42 PM, Phi for All said:

On galactic scales, the universe is homogenous (the same basic structure) and isotropic (the same in all directions), so this may be what he's referencing. I've never heard another professional physicist claim the universe was finite or infinite, and in fact the discussions here so far confirm we just can't know right now. Our observable universe is finite, but the entire thing may not be.

I agree with Phi for All on this point, it is well established.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stephaneww said:

However, we are limited when we want to go back before the Big Bang. In this case, general relativity does not make sense, it is not applicable.

It is not applicable, therefore saying it doesn't make sense in this case is like saying my car fails at transportation because it can't get me from Denver to Sydney, Australia. It's a shady argument, imo, since it not really applicable. Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, infamouse said:

I know physicists love to believe there is no overlap between physics and philosophy, but there is. The very fact that physicists have failed to ascertain the nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter for so long stands as testament to this fact.

Physicists failed to ascertain the nature of regular matter for only slight less time. That dark matter and dark energy need to be investigated is a relatively recent discovery. And AFAICT there’s no connection to philosophy here.

18 hours ago, infamouse said:

I am not a scientist, I would rather have the conversation on merit. I have not thought this through perfectly nor am I claiming such.

!

Moderator Note

Then please refrain from making non-mainstream scientific claims. If you make them, you will be expected to back them up

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Physicists failed to ascertain the nature of regular matter for only slight less time. That dark matter and dark energy need to be investigated is a relatively recent discovery. And AFAICT there’s no connection to philosophy here.

!

Moderator Note

Then please refrain from making non-mainstream scientific claims. If you make them, you will be expected to back them up

 

I'm sorry, I thought this was a place for conversation. Your title is moderator, yet you wave your hand and censor "non-mainstream scientific claims"? You have the power so you don't have to support your own position, yet I am supposed to respect what you are saying? Again, let me point out, I am not the one who brought up God, yet you flag my post anyways. The reason God came up in this thread is that the concept is directly relevant to the topic at hand, cosmology. For the record, nothing I have said crosses into the realm of philosophy, I just pointed out that philosophy and physics do overlap. You should pay some respect, science wouldn't exist without philosophy.

14 hours ago, stephaneww said:

Hi,

This is because singularities are questions of quantum mechanics.

Probably because the universe is homogeneous over large distances if I am not mistaken, right?

 

Indeed and it is probably because our understanding of the universe is limited by its visible part. The vision of a flat universe today echoes the vision of a flat earth of the ancients, because limited by their fields of vision.

Interesting reflection within the framework of my toy cosmological model speculative consistent with the LambdaCDM model.

So I agree with you on this point.

 

 

 

I would rather say that we have the wrong frame of reference. The latter should be, in my opinion quantum, and to be defined.

However, we are limited when we want to go back before the Big Bang. In this case, general relativity does not make sense, it is not applicable.

 

I agree with Phi for All on this point, it is well established.

 

 

 

 

 

What I am having a hard time understanding, is why nobody even wants to address the issue of whether or not a model of the Universe that is infinite could explain the problem of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. As I have stated, I believe that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are readily explained in the context of an infinite Universe. If, before the Big Bang, all matter and energy was contained in the Singularity, here is what that means:

All matter and energy is condensed into a single infinitely dense "point".  However, even once you hit the Planck Length, that point continues to get smaller and smaller the further back you go, ad infinitum. And no matter how far back you go, there is space between the fundamental particles and higher and higher energy physics to explain their behavior on any given scale. What is the "end point" of this process? Infinitely positive energy, compacted into a single point. However, you can never reach this point *relative to observation* no matter how far back you go in time. It will remain infinitely far away.

Now, contrast this with expanding space-time. What is the endpoint of this process? Infinitely vast space, i.e. infinitely negative energy. All energy spread out over infinitely vast space. Again, you will never reach this point relative to observation, because it is infinitely far away. The space between the infinitely positive and infinitely negative energies can be described by a singularity field. The Planck length describes the limits of our observation relative to the Singularity in "ordinary space" while the Event Horizon describes the same in the gravitationally powerful context of a black hole.

Dark Energy is the tension between the infinite positive energy of the relative "past" and the infinitely negative energy of the relative "future".

Dark Matter is the gravity of all objects beyond our line of sight. I.e., a black hole 300 billion light-years away exerts a relative gravitational effect on the observable and infinite Universe. The further away an object is (accounting obviously for its mass as well) the less of a direct impact it will have on your measurements.

The Earth is part of the Solar System, and effects its gravitational composition persistently. The Solar System is part of the Milky Way, and effects its gravitational composition persistently. The Milky Way is part of the local cluster, and effects its gravitational composition persistently.. The local cluster is part of the observable Universe, and effects its gravitational composition persistently. The observable Universe is part of the infinite Universe, and effects its gravitational composition persistently. Gravity is persistent, not transmitted. If the Sun vanished, the entire Solar System would immediately careen off into space, although we wouldn't witness the Sun's disappearance for 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

The understanding you're talking about has NOTHING to do with science, since you'd need to support your concept first. If you continue to bring up your concept of gods, I will move this to Religion. 

 

I do not agree with you moving this conversation to "speculations". I appreciate you continuing to allow me to use this site, and I'm not going to make this personal. I am sure you take plenty of crap as is. I will point out, however, that this conversation is about physics. There is a reason Michio Kaku's book is called "The God Equation". There is a reason this conversation is so upsetting to so many dogmatic atheists, and a reason that physicists have ignored the obvious solution to their biggest cosmological models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, infamouse said:

All matter and energy is condensed into a single infinitely dense "point".  However, even once you hit the Planck Length, that point continues to get smaller and smaller the further back you go, ad infinitum. And no matter how far back you go, there is space between the fundamental particles and higher and higher energy physics to explain their behavior on any given scale. What is the "end point" of this process?

interesting question that needs a mathematical answer from you 😉

 

Our current physical knowledge is limited by the following Planck units: time, length, mass, temperature for the 4 main ones. (I can forget some).

Any physical description of the micro is made from mathematical relations between these units. If you can figure out how we get from the micro to the cosmos, you will have something verifiable. On the other hand, if you try to find out what happens before that wall, "you'll be stuck with the wall". It will be unverifiable.

 

As for the rest of your message, I find it hard to make sense of it...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

What I am having a hard time understanding, is why nobody even wants to address the issue of whether or not a model of the Universe that is infinite could explain the problem of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Lots of folks here would be more than happy to engage you on this, to point out flaws, and even to support certain points. You simply need to do so with a certain degree of rigor. You need to work harder to support claims which fall outside of the mainstream.

Don't bitch and moan if you're unwilling to do that work, and don't lie about what's actually happening. This has nothing to do with nobody wanting "to address the issue." The desire is simply to ensure we do so in a productive way that's more than a wild-assed guess / shotgun approach / arm waving nonsense spewing.

Lots of folks come here with ideas, and they get a fair hearing, but you need to do your part instead of claiming victimhood like an immature child. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iNow said:

Lots of folks here would be more than happy to engage you on this, to point out flaws, and even to support certain points. You simply need to do so with a certain degree of rigor. You need to work harder to support claims which fall outside of the mainstream.

Don't bitch and moan if you're unwilling to do that work, and don't lie about what's actually happening. This has nothing to do with nobody wanting "to address the issue." The desire is simply to ensure we do so in a productive way that's more than a wild-assed guess / shotgun approach / arm waving nonsense spewing.

Lots of folks come here with ideas, and they get a fair hearing, but you need to do your part instead of claiming victimhood like an immature child. 

I am just asking questions and stating my opinions, you are the one who is all up in arms. Don't project onto me, I am not claiming victimhood. You are really angry for some reason, if you don't want to have this conversation just go away.

 

Just now, stephaneww said:

interesting question that needs a mathematical answer from you 😉

 

Our current physical knowledge is limited by the following Planck units: time, length, mass, temperature for the 4 main ones. (I can forget some).

Any physical description of the micro is made from mathematical relations between these units. If you can figure out how we get from the micro to the cosmos, you will have something verifiable. On the other hand, if you try to find out what happens before that wall, "you'll be stuck with the wall". It will be unverifiable.

 

As for the rest of your message, I find it hard to make sense of it...

 

 

Here is what I am trying to say: light redshifts as it moves through space, forward in time, right? It loses energy as time progresses. If you follow a single beam of light infinitely into the future, it will reach a place of infinitely low energy.

Now, follow that same light backwards in time. It will blueshift as it moves through space, backwards in time. Follow that beam of light infinitely into the past, it will reach a place of infinitely high energy.

You could never *actually* do either of these things, relative to observation.

But the place of infinitely high energy really does exist, and the place of infinitely low energy really does exist.

2 infinite ends of the spacetime spectrum, and Dark Energy is the tension between them.

Just now, stephaneww said:

interesting question that needs a mathematical answer from you 😉

 

Our current physical knowledge is limited by the following Planck units: time, length, mass, temperature for the 4 main ones. (I can forget some).

Any physical description of the micro is made from mathematical relations between these units. If you can figure out how we get from the micro to the cosmos, you will have something verifiable. On the other hand, if you try to find out what happens before that wall, "you'll be stuck with the wall". It will be unverifiable.

 

As for the rest of your message, I find it hard to make sense of it...

 

 

And for the record I don't think I can do the math. Conceptually however I am quite sure I am on to something, and I feel like must of the points I make don't get addressed, maybe because people think I am an idiot or simply don't understand what I am trying to say. It seems to me however, that the biggest problem in physics today is the failure to truly grasp concepts of infinity. Space is infinite, time is infinite, the infinite past already exists and the infinite future already exists, yet at any given moment we still have the capacity to shape space and time in the present.

If we can only "know" what we observe, here is what that ultimately implies:

at any given moment, I can not be certain that anything exists. Even my own hands as I type, I am seeing in the relative past. I know they were there a fraction of a second ago, and can *logically deduce* that they are still there presently, but at any given moment anything you see, you are seeing in the past, because light moves at a finite speed.

Therefore, according to mainstream scientific perspective, we can not know that the Universe is infinite, and we can not know at any given moment whether anything actually exists at all.

Scientists talk a lot about proof yet seemingly ignore the logical implications of their own theories and conceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, infamouse said:

Here is what I am trying to say: light redshifts as it moves through space, forward in time, right? It loses energy as time progresses. If you follow a single beam of light infinitely into the future, it will reach a place of infinitely low energy.

Now, follow that same light backwards in time. It will blueshift as it moves through space, backwards in time. Follow that beam of light infinitely into the past, it will reach a place of infinitely high energy.

You could never *actually* do either of these things, relative to observation.

 

You have to prove it with a theory, mathematics and numbers. Especially mathematics so that it is verifiable and therefore scientific.

For the moment I only read words, which is not enough to convince on this forum. Moreover your words are not well arranged to have a real physical meaning.

Do you have any knowledge in mathematics? If so, offer them with relations as I try to do here. Otherwise, this discussion will not be productive here.

 

29 minutes ago, infamouse said:

You could never *actually* do either of these things, relative to observation.

But the place of infinitely high energy really does exist, and the place of infinitely low energy really does exist.

2 infinite ends of the spacetime spectrum, and Dark Energy is the tension between them.

For the moment we don't know how to deal with infinities in physics. There has been a recent arxiv paper on this subject and I'm watching what might come of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stephaneww said:

 

You have to prove it with a theory, mathematics and numbers. Especially mathematics so that it is verifiable and therefore scientific.

For the moment I only read words, which is not enough to convince on this forum. Moreover your words are not well arranged to have a real physical meaning.

Do you have any knowledge in mathematics? If so, offer them with relations as I try to do here. Otherwise, this discussion will not be productive here.

 

For the moment we don't know how to deal with infinities in physics. There has been a recent arxiv paper on this subject and I'm watching what might come of it.

R=(2MG/c^2)^

I know that is an oversimplification. Schwarzchild's radius describes the conditions necessary for a perfectly static black hole with no spin and no charge.

What I am arguing, is that the properties of a black hole viewed externally, can be described internally as the physics of an infinite Universe. The mass, spin, and charge of any given black hole define the behavior of all matter and energy within. Therefore the physics of our universe can be used to describe the characteristics that exist beyond the Big Bang, the first observable moment of time, and the externally observed radius of our "black hole" universe describes Dark Energy. You start with an observed radius and expand exponentially to infinity. Every infinite universe spawns an infinity of black holes in turn due to the fundamental laws of physics on scales of infinity, resulting in an infinite continuum. Every reality in this continuum (which I would argue is really all one Universe, but that is a separate point) is shaped by its own unique physics and the choices of any perceptive lifeforms in turn. Contrary to the multiverse interpretation, the universe does not branch off infinitely with every choice. Every particle exists in an infinite "superstate" of every configuration possible in accordance with the laws of physics, constrained in observational terms by the very act of observation itself. Observation and choice are inseparably intertwined. To observe *is* to choose. At any given moment, I have to choose: choose to think or not to think, to move or not to move, eat or not to eat. Even choosing to do nothing to the fullest extent of my capabilities is a choice borne necessarily of observation.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, and if I am not making myself clear that is hardly your problem. I think I am, but I would think that, wouldn't I?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

for the record I don't think I can do the math

Shocker

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

Scientists talk a lot about proof

It's actually the opposite of this. Proofs are for math. Science is always at best provisional and based on evidence. Here again we see the problems which ensue when you continue using sloppy language and imprecise thought. 

21 minutes ago, infamouse said:

if I am not making myself clear that is hardly your problem.

+1 for this acknowledgement. Progress

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, infamouse said:

I'm sorry, I thought this was a place for conversation. Your title is moderator, yet you wave your hand and censor "non-mainstream scientific claims"?

I’m not censoring anything. I’m reminding you that if you make claims you need to back them up, which is part of the rules. IOW, WAGs are not “conversation”

 

3 hours ago, infamouse said:

You have the power so you don't have to support your own position, yet I am supposed to respect what you are saying? Again, let me point out, I am not the one who brought up God, yet you flag my post anyways. The reason God came up in this thread is that the concept is directly relevant to the topic at hand, cosmology. For the record, nothing I have said crosses into the realm of philosophy, I just pointed out that philosophy and physics do overlap. You should pay some respect, science wouldn't exist without philosophy.

If you will take care to notice, none of your material I quoted mentions God. If this is mere confusion on your part, you should pay attention. 

Your attempt at testable predictions falls well short of the rigor we require.You admit you aren’t a scientist, so how much “support” do I need that your posts lack rigor? You admitted as much when you said “I believe the best way to work out the details of a theory or hypothesis is through argument.” 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

I am just asking questions and stating my opinions, you are the one who is all up in arms. Don't project onto me, I am not claiming victimhood. You are really angry for some reason, if you don't want to have this conversation just go away.

And you have been given professional answers. Are you listening, or simply stating your ingrained opinion? You need to calm down.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

Here is what I am trying to say: light redshifts as it moves through space, forward in time, right? It loses energy as time progresses. If you follow a single beam of light infinitely into the future, it will reach a place of infinitely low energy.

It loses energy because of space expansion.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

And for the record I don't think I can do the math. Conceptually however I am quite sure I am on to something, and I feel like must of the points I make don't get addressed, maybe because people think I am an idiot or simply don't understand what I am trying to say. It seems to me however, that the biggest problem in physics today is the failure to truly grasp concepts of infinity. Space is infinite, time is infinite, the infinite past already exists and the infinite future already exists, yet at any given moment we still have the capacity to shape space and time in the present.

Every Mother sees here new born child as the most beautiful. And I do agree with your thoughts on infinity, other then your error in demanding that space and time are infinite. We do not know that as yet.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

Scientists talk a lot about proof yet seemingly ignore the logical implications of their own theories and conceptions.

Not really, and myself as an amateur can say this was one of the first things I learnt. Science, scientific theories are about our best estimations at a given period, based on the observational and experimental evidence available. It is not about proof, although it can be said that the longer scientific theories such as GR stand up to scrutiny and keep making successful predictions, the more certain they do become. Proof is for the mathematicians.

A question if I may...what are these logical implications that scientists ignore? 

2 hours ago, infamouse said:

But the place of infinitely high energy really does exist, and the place of infinitely low energy really does exist.

2 infinite ends of the spacetime spectrum, and Dark Energy is the tension between them.

OK, granted I am only an amateur, but that sounds [again] like word salad to me.

The question of infinity with regards to the universe is unknown. That fact should not be equated to mean anything else then what it means...unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

and expand exponentially to infinity.

why exponentially ?

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

R=(2MG/c^2)^

I know that is an oversimplification.

Indeed it is excessive. If you want to do maths look here https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.11953.pdf, with length = time c.
This formula is valid in QM and in general relativity.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

What I am arguing, is that the properties of a black hole viewed externally, can be described internally as the physics of an infinite Universe.

It is acceptable it seems to me: at the Hubble radius, the visible universe, we can consider that the universe can be assimilated to a black hole (ingredients: mass of the universe, Hubble radius, Schwarzchild radius formula, critical density)

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

Therefore the physics of our universe can be used to describe the characteristics that exist beyond the Big Bang,

For the moment this physics does not exist. I started a topic on this subject which has little echo for the moment. This is normal because it is still full of errors. My model is under construction, I'm just starting to tame it

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

You start with an observed radius and expand exponentially to infinity.

Which radius ? The observable radius ? The Hubble radius ?

 expand exponentially ,why not an infinite power? You need formulas and values that correspond with the data that comes from what you observe. Try to put more math and dimensional values to clarify your thinking.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

Every infinite universe spawns an infinity of black holes in turn due to the fundamental laws of physics on scales of infinity, resulting in an infinite continuum.

Your "fundamental laws of physics" remain to be defined and they must be compatible with relativity and QM, just as classical mechanics is included in general relativity.

I have more difficulty understanding the rest of the message...

 

49 minutes ago, beecee said:

It loses energy because of space expansion.

I agreed

49 minutes ago, beecee said:

other then your error in demanding that space and time are infinite. We do not know that as yet.

I think I found an answer to this question beecee .  Give me a little more time: I need drawings and I'm slow to make them. ... and have a look here https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.11953.pdf,

 

 

Edited by stephaneww
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, stephaneww said:

Hi swansont

 

I'm not the author of this arxiv paper. Mine is on viXra

It’s a basis of one of your speculations and not relevant here. You refer to maths but there are no equations in that paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Do NOT bring your speculations into other threads.

 

You do understand that any accurate theory is initially born of speculation followed by discussion to weed out errors, right (that is the philosophical aspect of science)? I don't understand what your deal is, we are just having a conversation here.

22 hours ago, beecee said:

And you have been given professional answers. Are you listening, or simply stating your ingrained opinion? You need to calm down.

It loses energy because of space expansion.

A question if I may...what are these logical implications that scientists ignore?

The question of infinity with regards to the universe is unknown. That fact should not be equated to mean anything else then what it means...unknown.

First, I am perfectly calm. I don't feel the need to qualify that statement. I will try to continue to moderate my speech to be as clear as possible.

Second, I understand that redshift occurs due to expansion of space, I am trying to describe the mechanism by which this occurs, i.e. Dark Energy.

Third, "at any given moment, I can not be certain that anything exists. Even my own hands as I type, I am seeing in the relative past. I know they were there a fraction of a second ago, and can *logically deduce* that they are still there presently, but at any given moment anything you see, you are seeing in the past, because light moves at a finite speed."

What I am saying here, is that if we can only believe what we observe, then we can never believe that anything exists at any given moment, as our observations in any context are observations of the past, not the present.

Fourth, I would like to return to a point I made in one of my original posts: Isn't believing the Universe could be finite a bit like believing the Earth could be flat? If you travel far enough will you hit a magical wall or fall off the edge of the Universe?

21 hours ago, stephaneww said:

why exponentially ?

For the moment this physics does not exist. I started a topic on this subject which has little echo for the moment. This is normal because it is still full of errors. My model is under construction, I'm just starting to tame it

Which radius ? The observable radius ? The Hubble radius ?

 expand exponentially ,why not an infinite power? You need formulas and values that correspond with the data that comes from what you observe. Try to put more math and dimensional values to clarify your thinking.

Your "fundamental laws of physics" remain to be defined and they must be compatible with relativity and QM, just as classical mechanics is included in general relativity.

I have more difficulty understanding the rest of the message...

 

 

Imagine looking at a black hole, and measuring its radius. I contend there is an infinite Universe within that black hole governed by the Singularity, if we are to believe what General Relativity indicates. "Dark Energy" within that universe, can be described by the radius observed externally. From within that Universe, this will be viewed as a Singularity at the dawn of time, expanding exponentially in accordance with the externally observed properties. This is why we observe the accelerating expansion of space-time in our universe, and because time is relative this expansion occurs unevenly. Dark Matter on the other hand, is all of the matter in an infinite Universe exerting proportional gravity in any given context relative to proximity and mass. In other words, a Sun-like star a trillion light-years away exerts a much smaller relative effect on our observational sphere compared to our own Sun. The effect does exist however, because gravity is persistent. The Sun warps space-time, altering the gravitational composition of the Solar System, the Milky Way, on and on in an infinite causal chain. The effect of a star a trillion-trillion light-years away is so minuscule as to be barely measurable directly, but the cumulative effect of all matter beyond observation in an infinite universe is what we know as Dark Matter.

And thanks for the arxiv link, I am checking that out.

I understand that a reasonable person could struggle to see how the ideas I am sharing here are connected or even necessarily compatible. I would love to work out the details and learn where I am going wrong. I am admittedly a novice in this subject and am taking the time to learn. If I come across otherwise I sincerely apologize. I simply believe that even a novice has a right to an opinion, and I believe I am onto something important. Perhaps time will prove me wrong.

Edited by infamouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, infamouse said:

You do understand that any accurate theory is initially born of speculation followed by discussion to weed out errors, right (that is the philosophical aspect of science)? I don't understand what your deal is, we are just having a conversation here.

Of course, and there is no big deal, other then discussion/s on your thoughts and hypothesis, and your apparent refusal to accept that you are wrong.

57 minutes ago, infamouse said:

First, I am perfectly calm. I don't feel the need to qualify that statement. I will try to continue to moderate my speech to be as clear as possible.

That's good.

58 minutes ago, infamouse said:

Second, I understand that redshift occurs due to expansion of space, I am trying to describe the mechanism by which this occurs, i.e. Dark Energy.

It's called DE for a reason. If you can show the mechanism behind the expansion, then obviously we will see you in Stockholm next year for the Nobel presentations.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

Third, "at any given moment, I can not be certain that anything exists. Even my own hands as I type, I am seeing in the relative past. I know they were there a fraction of a second ago, and can *logically deduce* that they are still there presently, but at any given moment anything you see, you are seeing in the past, because light moves at a finite speed."

Logical deductions are logical, but you are taking things to the nth degree just to re-enforce your hypothetical thoughts. Plus it does not alter the fact that we cannot ascertain whether the universe is finite or infinite, other then very, very big.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

Fourth, I would like to return to a point I made in one of my original posts: Isn't believing the Universe could be finite a bit like believing the Earth could be flat? If you travel far enough will you hit a magical wall or fall off the edge of the Universe?

 Not according to the miles and miles of evidence we have indicating with certainty that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. If we have a topologically closed universe, then we have no wall or barrier. The indications that the universe/space/time is flat within small error bars, may simply be that smaller part of a much much larger closed universe. And then we also have the possibilities of other exotic topologies/shapes. There is nothing wrong with admitting that science doesn't as yet know.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

Imagine looking at a black hole, and measuring its radius. I contend there is an infinite Universe within that black hole governed by the Singularity, if we are to believe what General Relativity indicates.

GR as great a scientific theory as it is, also  allows for wormholes and ERB's, but they have never been seen and probably do not exist. Also while GR predicts a singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, most all physicists and cosmologists reject such infinites. Plus of course the important point that GR fails us at the quantum/Planck region anyway so logically, we are unable to assume anything, other then the likelyhood that infinite spacetime curvature and densities do not exist, which means that at or below that quantum/Planck level, matter/energy resides in an unknown state, probably a state similar to when space and time evolved from the BB and at around t+10-35th seconds. We could even hypothesise a surface of sorts.

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

I understand that a reasonable person could struggle to see how the ideas I am sharing here are connected or even necessarily compatible. I would love to work out the details and learn where I am going wrong. I am admittedly a novice in this subject and am taking the time to learn. If I come across otherwise I sincerely apologize. I simply believe that even a novice has a right to an opinion, and I believe I am onto something important. Perhaps time will prove me wrong.

So why post it in the sciences, when it is obvious tou are just speculating. Then when a mod reminds you of this fact and rule, you disagree.

On 10/28/2021 at 4:02 AM, infamouse said:

I do not agree with you moving this conversation to "speculations". 

 In my opinion, before you or anyone attemps to claim they know the secrets of the universe, over and above what the mainstream scientific community accepts, you should first understand and be thoroughly aware of what mainstream cosmology is all about and every known detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

I am admittedly a novice in this subject and am taking the time to learn.

In this discussion, how much do you learn by guessing from your novice status, then rejecting replies that are trying to correct you? What you see as "taking the time to learn" comes off more like "stop telling me I'm wrong until I'm finished explaining my idea!". If you were building a house instead of a hypothesis, I'd let you know right away that you screwed up the foundation, and I'd advise you NOT to build any further upon it. And I'd hope you'd thank me for it instead of giving me so much pushback.

Quote

I simply believe that even a novice has a right to an opinion, and I believe I am onto something important.

In science, we're looking for evidence that either supports or falsifies a particular explanation. Opinion has very little meaning there. 

But hey, every new actor wants to tackle Shakespeare. How hard can it be, really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really logged into this thread to say +1 to Phi for his last post

but on doing so I note yet another misunderstanding by the OP

3 hours ago, infamouse said:

Isn't believing the Universe could be finite a bit like believing the Earth could be flat? If you travel far enough will you hit a magical wall or fall off the edge of the Universe?

In Science there are several (probably many) ways that something can be finite yet unbounded (that means no magical wall or precipice) or alternatively infinite yet bounded.

Both seem illogical at a quick glance, yet physical examples of both situations exist in our experience of Nature.

Absolute zero of temperature is about -273.4 degrees centigrade, yet we can never reach it. Because the closer one gets the harder it become to get even closer.
The so called Gabriel's Horn is an example in Maths.

But hey perhaps the OP has found the wall or precipice because his excuse for not talking to me was the insult

 

On 10/25/2021 at 11:36 PM, infamouse said:

You don't seem to understand what you are talking about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

In this discussion, how much do you learn by guessing from your novice status, then rejecting replies that are trying to correct you? What you see as "taking the time to learn" comes off more like "stop telling me I'm wrong until I'm finished explaining my idea!". If you were building a house instead of a hypothesis, I'd let you know right away that you screwed up the foundation, and I'd advise you NOT to build any further upon it. And I'd hope you'd thank me for it instead of giving me so much pushback.

In science, we're looking for evidence that either supports or falsifies a particular explanation. Opinion has very little meaning there. 

But hey, every new actor wants to tackle Shakespeare. How hard can it be, really?

You are mischaracterizing my intent here. If someone makes it clear in their response to me that they didn't understand my point (whether it is my lack of perfect communication or simply their failure to understand) I am going to take the opportunity to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, infamouse said:

You are mischaracterizing my intent here. If someone makes it clear in their response to me that they didn't understand my point (whether it is my lack of perfect communication or simply their failure to understand) I am going to take the opportunity to clarify.

The problem is that your proposal, as interesting as it could be, is not supported by equations. This is more philosophy, not science....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, beecee said:

Logical deductions are logical, but you are taking things to the nth degree just to re-enforce your hypothetical thoughts. Plus it does not alter the fact that we cannot ascertain whether the universe is finite or infinite, other then very, very big.

 Not according to the miles and miles of evidence we have indicating with certainty that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. If we have a topologically closed universe, then we have no wall or barrier. The indications that the universe/space/time is flat within small error bars, may simply be that smaller part of a much much larger closed universe. And then we also have the possibilities of other exotic topologies/shapes. There is nothing wrong with admitting that science doesn't as yet know.

GR as great a scientific theory as it is, also  allows for wormholes and ERB's, but they have never been seen and probably do not exist. Also while GR predicts a singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, most all physicists and cosmologists reject such infinites. Plus of course the important point that GR fails us at the quantum/Planck region anyway so logically, we are unable to assume anything, other then the likelyhood that infinite spacetime curvature and densities do not exist, which means that at or below that quantum/Planck level, matter/energy resides in an unknown state, probably a state similar to when space and time evolved from the BB and at around t+10-35th seconds. We could even hypothesise a surface of sorts.

 

First: I think I have demonstrated that although scientists claim you can only believe what is observed, they are unwilling or unable to take that line of thought to its logical conclusion. You have not provided any significant counterargument on this point.

Second: Thanks for the explanation there. Nobody had yet addressed that point, I guess it was poorly made.

Third: "Also while GR predicts a singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, most all physicists and cosmologists reject such infinites."

I have never seen anyone provide a logical basis for rejecting such infinities. It seems to me, and perhaps I simply don't know any better, that scientists reject the idea because it seems counter intuitive. What seemingly does not occur to physicists, is that the *intrinsically limited tools* of language and math we use to describe physics in and of themselves reveal the nature of reality. You will never have a perfect description of reality because language is finite, not infinite. The very fact that any mathematical or language-based description leaves infinite room for improvement in all circumstances demonstrates that the Universe is infinite. That is the point I was trying to make with the infinite precision and mandatory asymmetry principle I described in my first post.

"Plus of course the important point that GR fails us at the quantum/Planck region anyway so logically, we are unable to assume anything, other then the likelyhood that infinite spacetime curvature and densities do not exist, which means that at or below that quantum/Planck level, matter/energy resides in an unknown state, probably a state similar to when space and time evolved from the BB and at around t+10-35th seconds. We could even hypothesize a surface of sorts."

We understand that time is relative, that there is or appears to be a Singularity before the Big Bang. Now, we can all agree I think, that if you survived a voyage towards a black hole, intense gravity would cause you to experience a much faster relative progression of time. An outside observer would never see you cross the event horizon, yet you would pass on into the relative future. So what's the issue here? The Singularity propels us from the past and pulls us into the future. That is what a straightforward interpretation of Relativity tells us: That physics on all scales answers ultimately to the Singularity. The Planck Length, is no different than an event horizon.

You are free to feel I am being belligerent, but I have yet to see any convincing explanation for why this is not so. Setting aside whether or not you think this is or can be proven, again, isn't that what a straightforward interpretation of Relativity tells us *if* you are not automatically precluding the idea of infinite spacetime curvature and density?

 

Just now, stephaneww said:

The problem is that your proposal, as interesting as it could be, is not supported by equations. This is more philosophy, not science....

Admittedly, I consider myself a creature of logic, not mathematics. I was hamstrung a bit in school by going from Algebra 1 taught by an incompetent teacher who barely got us halfway through the material, to Algebra 2 taught by the biggest hardass in our entire school, the only class I ever came close to failing. I never progressed any further, but I am looking to revisit this area of my education in the near future. I happen to think philosophy is the natural basis of all science, but I appreciate the point you are making.

18 hours ago, studiot said:

I really logged into this thread to say +1 to Phi for his last post

but on doing so I note yet another misunderstanding by the OP

In Science there are several (probably many) ways that something can be finite yet unbounded (that means no magical wall or precipice) or alternatively infinite yet bounded.

Both seem illogical at a quick glance, yet physical examples of both situations exist in our experience of Nature.

Absolute zero of temperature is about -273.4 degrees centigrade, yet we can never reach it. Because the closer one gets the harder it become to get even closer.
The so called Gabriel's Horn is an example in Maths.

But hey perhaps the OP has found the wall or precipice because his excuse for not talking to me was the insult

 

 

To tell you the truth Studiot, your initial post comparing me to a twelve year old rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sorry for being petty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

I am going to take the opportunity to clarify.

So why haven't you ?

1 hour ago, infamouse said:

To tell you the truth Studiot, your initial post comparing me to a twelve year old rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sorry for being petty.

I didn't compare you to anything.

I told you a true story about encouragement, when it was apparent to me to did not and still do not understand the Science (Maths) of the term infinity.

The true story was about how a better man the me helped me with something I did not at the time understand.

Furthermore I offered you a polite and reasonable discussion to extend you knowledge of infinity to cover your original question, hopefully in a way that would not be to mathematical.

Sadly all I have received in return is insult and either no response or peremptory ones.

If I told someone the Pele once told me how best to kick a football, why would that rub them up the wrong way ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.