Jump to content

Where Does Space End? It Must End Somewhere!


Recommended Posts

Thanks



However, how could it be that suddenly the science community considers an option for infinite Universe?


Just few months ago it was forbidden to mention it.


I have got several worming for claiming that the Universe could be infinite.


My threads had been set at trash for this idea.


Now we speak freely on that idea in the main page of science.


So, what happened? What did you discover?


Edited by David Levy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

half a quark

With regards to the Universe size:     So, just for the record; It isn't an issue of - could, not - 50%, not even 99.99%. The Universe is Infinite by 100%.

matter cannot always be divided into smaller protions. do the words "elementary particles" mean anything to you?

Posted Images

My threads had been set at trash for this idea.

 

Threads are trashed for breaking the rules. Even if you have a thread (as you do) where you were unable to support your assertions, it's not trashed, it's locked so it doesn't waste any more time.

 

IOW, it's not the ideas that merit moderation, it's the rule-breaking. But I know it makes you feel like Galileo to think it's your ideas that are too much for modern science. It's a common delusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, how could it be that suddenly the science community considers an option for infinite Universe?

Just few months ago it was forbidden to mention it.

 

That seems very unlikely. You will need to provide a specific example before I believe you.

 

 

My threads had been set at trash for this idea.

 

I can't see any of your threads in Trash (which is quite surprising). And the only one that is locked is one of your pointless rants about the big bang theory not being science.

 

I can't see anything where you claim the universe is infinite.

 

Note: if someone insists that the universe must be infinite then I will point out that they are wrong; and if someone insists that the universe must be finite then I will point out that they are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: if someone insists that the universe must be infinite then I will point out that they are wrong; and if someone insists that the universe must be finite then I will point out that they are wrong.

 

For me - this answer is a huge step forward.

 

However, would you kindly highlight the reasons to set the "Infinite Universe" as feasible option?

 

How the science supports this assertion?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For me - this answer is a huge step forward.

 

However, would you kindly highlight the reasons to set the "Infinite Universe" as feasible option?

 

How the science supports this assertion?

 

It isn't an assertion. It is a possibility. There is nothing that rules it out, therefore it is a possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

[The false vacuum state] means that universe could be (or could have been) in an unstable state that was not the lowest energy state. If you imagine energy as the slope of a hill, then a ball will tend to roll all the way down to the lowest (ground) level. But there could be a ledge or plateau halfway down where things get stuck: they seem to be at ground level, but are not. That is equivalent to the false vacuum. A small push will send the ball rolling down to the true ground level. Similarly a small push (quantum fluctuation) could push the universe to a lower energy state. This would release a large amount of energy.

 

Very interesting. Thanks for posting that which is a good explanation.

 

It isn't an assertion. It is a possibility. There is nothing that rules it out, therefore it is a possibility.

 

Why does the big bang theory never mention the possibility of other big bangs that are far away from our big bang?

 

This is just because it is much easier for me to visualize multiple, FINITE big bangs going off anywhere within a multiverse of big bangs, than to visualize one INFINITE big bang.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the Universe size:

 

Note that no one is saying that the universe IS infinite, just that it could be.

 

So, just for the record;

It isn't an issue of - could, not - 50%, not even 99.99%.

The Universe is Infinite by 100%.

Edited by David Levy
Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't put a % chance to defining if the Universe is finite or infinite. Not enough data. The only data we have is our observable portion.

 

That's good enough.

 

Based on the observable portion we can easily find that the Universe is Infinite.

 

It's quite clear that the Current theories do not support an Infinite Universe.

 

Therefore, with your permeation, let's try to ignore those theories - just for one moment.

 

Now, assuming that our Universe is infinite, what should be the impact on the CMB?

 

In this case, do you agree that the radiation of the CMB should be absolutely identical from all directions?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CMB is a result from earlier conditions primarily inflation and nucleosynthesis.

 

However strange as it sounds an infinite universe or a finite universe can undergo the exact same dynamics.

 

The CMB nor the curvature constant is sufficient to exclude either possibility.

 

That being said it's hopeful to isolate the cases using these two related principles.

 

We haven't been able to do so yet.

 

I believe I've already explained the curvature constant aspects previously.

The CMB is uniform in all directions, that part I do agree with. However an infinite uniformity can also occur in the infinite universe case.

 

Keep in mind we still have no idea how the Universe started.

Most Cosmologists I've corresponded with feel we may never know if the Universe is finite or infinite (unless we somehow solve how it began). We will simply never know how much of a slice of the observable universe is related to the entire universe.

 

One of those professors specializes in CMB measurement correlations to inflation.

Edited by Mordred
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the Universe size:

 

 

So, just for the record;

It isn't an issue of - could, not - 50%, not even 99.99%.

The Universe is Infinite by 100%.

 

No. That is the exact opposite of what I said. No wonder it is so painful trying to communicate with you.

 

You can't put a probability on this. It may be infinite. It may not be. We don't know.

Based on the observable portion we can easily find that the Universe is Infinite.

 

No We can't. What makes you think that?

 

It's quite clear that the Current theories do not support an Infinite Universe.

 

Please stop this stupid practice of making up totally false statements.

 

Our current theories work equally well for a finite or an infinite universe.

 

If they didn't, we wouldn't say it was possible for the universe to be infinite.

 

Therefore, with your permeation, let's try to ignore those theories - just for one moment.

 

No. I am not going to ignore science in favor of your stupid made-up ideas.

Now, assuming that our Universe is infinite, what should be the impact on the CMB?

 

Absolutely nothing.

 

In this case, do you agree that the radiation of the CMB should be absolutely identical from all directions?

 

That is true whether the universe is finite or infinite.

A universe which I can see so clearly.

 

Of course you can't. You are just deluding yourself. You repeatedly show that you are totally unable to understand the simplest things.

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

 

Please be aware that the current assumptions create some sort of mask.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to see our real Universe through this mask A universe which I can see so clearly.

You have no idea I hear this on numerous forums.

I can name the mask. The mask is observational evidence that favors one model over another.

 

A model is only viable, if it has mathematical predictability, yet even this isn't enough. It must conform to observation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However strange as it sounds an infinite universe or a finite universe can undergo the exact same dynamics.

 

Yes it sounds strange. Because for an infinite-sized universe to pop out of the big bang, the universe would be infinite in size at the earliest moment, right? (At what moment, the first Planck time?) Cosmologists talk about the observable portion of the universe to have originally been smaller than a proton, but that does not make much sense in the creation of an infinite-sized universe. Infinite-sized implies our big bang would also be infinite mass, right? An isotropic, homogenious, INFINITE big bang would spread out evenly to infinity in all directions, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because for an infinite-sized universe to pop out of the big bang

 

There is no evidence that such a thing happened. (The big bang model is about the evolution of the universe, not its creation.)

 

On the other hand, it is no more plausible that the universe grew from zero to finite size, than it should grow from zero to infinite size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes it sounds strange. Because for an infinite-sized universe to pop out of the big bang, the universe would be infinite in size at the earliest moment, right? (At what moment, the first Planck time?) Cosmologists talk about the observable portion of the universe to have originally been smaller than a proton, but that does not make much sense in the creation of an infinite-sized universe. Infinite-sized implies our big bang would also be infinite mass, right? An isotropic, homogenious, INFINITE big bang would spread out evenly to infinity in all directions, right?

God I always hate that misrepresentation. It is so wrong it's not funny.

 

If you take our observable portion and compress it back in time to T=0 our observable portion is the size of an atom..

 

 

That is just our observable portion not the entire universe.

 

This is out region of shared causality. Or in other words our worldline/lightconein GR terminology.

 

Anytime you see the fiery explosion from some God particle REMEMBER that is incorrect.

 

The pop media always shows this God particle surrounded by empty space...

 

Again that's wrong. We don't know the volume of the beginning. We only know how our evolves from an atom size portion of that origin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

God I always hate that misrepresentation. It is so wrong it's not funny.

 

If you take our observable portion and compress it back in time to T=0 our observable portion is the size of an atom..

 

 

That is just our observable portion not the entire universe.

 

This is out region of shared causality. Or in other words our worldline/lightconein GR terminology.

 

Anytime you see the fiery explosion from some God particle REMEMBER that is incorrect.

 

The pop media always shows this God particle surrounded by empty space...

 

Again that's wrong. We don't know the volume of the beginning. We only know how our evolves from an atom size portion of that origin.

 

I appreciate your attempt to answer my questions above. My post has 4 question marks and I don't think you have specifically addressed any of them except to repeat what I already stated about our observable portion not being the entire universe. We already know that. How would you answer my 4 questions? It is ok for you to say you don't know to each of them. "Nobody knows". Can anyone answer any of my 4 questions?

 

#1 When does an infinite universe achieve an infinite size?

 

#2 Was it before the first Planck Time?

 

#3 Does infinite in size imply a universe infinite in mass?

 

#4 An isotropic, homogenious, INFINITE big bang would spread out evenly to infinity in all directions, right?

 

Thank you. :)

Edited by Airbrush
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone answer my 4 questions?

 

Your questions seem to mainly be about the creation of the universe. We have no real reason to think that happened and no theory that describes it. (There are a few speculative ideas, some of which might only be valid for a finite universe. But it is not an area I know much about, I'm not really into that sort of speculation.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no evidence that such a thing happened. (The big bang model is about the evolution of the universe, not its creation.)

 

On the other hand, it is no more plausible that the universe grew from zero to finite size, than it should grow from zero to infinite size.

 

I disagree about the plausibility of an infinite universe. Infinite is very different from finite (infinitely different) and infinite is the least plausible. That infinite is "no more plausible" than finite seems a flimsy supposition.

 

EDIT: Sorry I didn't see your last post before I posted this one, so please disregard. Any other takers?

 

I don't believe my questions are about the "moment" of creation of an infinite universe, just about what happened after the infinite universe began.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to post
Share on other sites

What you (or I) consider plausible is irrelevant.

 

Is there any theoretical reason the universe cannot be infinite? No.

 

If there is a mathematical operation which will take you from zero to some finite size, is there any reason that a similar operation could not go from zero to infinity? No.

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having an idea doesn't get you much in terms of accolodates in science, even if you are really sure and the idea turns out to be right. It especially doesn't get you much if it's an idea that everyone is already aware of even if not everyone is onboard with it being correct. The way to win accolades is to provide new evidence in support of an idea, or figure out the specifics of a test that could feasibly be done to show evidence for an idea. And note that, again, it can't just be an idea for a test; you have to work out the details of what is required to perform the test and some specific way of evaluating the results one way or another.

 

As with most things, you get credit for doing actual work in science to flesh out and support an idea, not just for having one, a fact which frequently gets glossed over in popular tales about scientific figures throughout history. Newton didn't just see an apple fall out of a tree and say "Eureka! Gravity!" and become famous. He figured out quite a bit of the math that describes the strength of a gravitational pull and the way that objects move under the force of gravity, and further demonstrated that the same math that accurately described a falling apple also correctly described the movement of the planets in the sky.

 

You don't get celebrated for the apple. You get celebrated for doing all the rest of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the Universe size:

 

 

So, just for the record;

It isn't an issue of - could, not - 50%, not even 99.99%.

The Universe is Infinite by 100%.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

This is not in speculations, therefore not a place for your conjecture. Unless you can support a claim with mainstream physics, it does not belong in the discussion.

 

Posts have been split off to the trash owing to the hijacking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was started in 2004 by someone who hasn't posted here since 2005.

 

After 40 odd pages, it seems we may be more likely to find an end to the universe than an end to this thread.

Is it time to lay it to rest?

 

The conventional answer to the question is that space ends (or starts, depending which way you are facing) about 100 km from the Earth's surface.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.