The infinite universe

[Betrayer0fHope]

Does this mean it is a closed system? I'm not exactly sure how the whole quanta popping in and out of existence thing works, but I was told that infinity is the largest distance possible, when talking about physical terms. I was asking about the limitations of gravity, and they told me I was confusing the specific type of mathematics where infinities are larger than others and real life. So, it seems to me that it is impossible for anything to be "outside" the universe if it is infinitely big, using standard ways of thinking. But then I also thought, what if it didn't extend infinitely in every dimension, and that it may be a closed system the way we think, but it actually isn't because we're disregarding the upper dimensions. Of course by we, I mean freshmen in high school. So, is the universe a closed system or not, assuming it is infinitely big, which I also have some questions about :\

[Enmos]

By definition, yes.
The universe is all there is :)
Where did you learn it's infinitely big ?

[Betrayer0fHope]

I never learned that it was, I always thought it had to be finite, but someone said something that got me thinking, and I thought the universe might be like a piece of plastic in the sun, where some places expand and some places contract, while it is still infinite, then I realized that the entire universe could be expanding while it is still being infinitely big, and so I'm not too sure about what I think now. If I could know what the physical boundary of the universe was made of, I could be so much more sure of so many things. If the big bang happened a finite amount of time ago, and there are things in that big bang, how is that supposed to make the universe infinitely big now if things are limited by the speed of light? One last question, I know gravity is limited by infinity, so is gravity as fast as the speed of light, or infinity?

[Enmos]

I never learned that it was, I always thought it had to be finite, but someone said something that got me thinking, and I thought the universe might be like a piece of plastic in the sun, where some places expand and some places contract, while it is still infinite, then I realized that the entire universe could be expanding while it is still being infinitely big, and so I'm not too sure about what I think now.
I'm by no means an expert on this type of stuff though. But the following is how I see things..

If I could know what the physical boundary of the universe was made of, I could be so much more sure of so many things.
I think you need to stop thinking about 'the boundary of the universe'. I don't think that it's helpful in any way.

If the big bang happened a finite amount of time ago, and there are things in that big bang, how is that supposed to make the universe infinitely big now if things are limited by the speed of light?
Not. But no one knows whether or not the big bang was actually the beginning of everything. The universe might be fluctuating.

One last question, I know gravity is limited by infinity, so is gravity as fast as the speed of light, or infinity?
I don't know what 'gravity is limited by infinity' means. Explain ?
Perhaps you mean that gravity is instant ? I guess you're right.

But, again. I might get my ass kicked for some of the "answers" I gave here ;)

[OilIsMastery]

Space is the a priori form of our intuition (Kant). See Critique of Pure Reason Antinomies Nos. 1 and 2. It is both infinitely divisible and infinitely extendable (Euclid).

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

My guess is it isn't a closed system. No 1 knows yet. No Earthian yet knows of anything outside our known universe. Closed or not, there may be much more to our universe than we are currently able to detect.
Nothing can pop in & out of existence. Something might pop in & out of our awareness or current detectability.
No infinity can be larger than another.
If you're referring to theories of possible upper dimensions of our universe, that would be aspects of our universe we have yet to detect or prove. As to parrallel universes, each universe would be all that exists in that plane.
Perhaps our known universe is like a local galaxy group & there are many others way way out there. Once we know this, we'll need another name for our local group of galaxy groups (a cosmi?) & the word universe should then be applied to the bigger picture.

[Enmos]

My guess is it isn't a closed system. No 1 knows yet. No Earthian yet knows of anything outside our known universe. Closed or not, there may be much more to our universe than we are currently able to detect.
Nothing can pop in & out of existence. Something might pop in & out of our awareness or current detectability.
No infinity can be larger than another.
If you're referring to theories of possible upper dimensions of our universe, that would be aspects of our universe we have yet to detect or prove. As to parrallel universes, each universe would be all that exists in that plane.
Perhaps our known universe is like a local galaxy group & there are many others way way out there. Once we know this, we'll need another name for our local group of galaxy groups (a cosmi?) & the word universe should then be applied to the bigger picture.

For the universe to be an open system there needs to be an 'outside the universe'. This cannot be since the concept 'universe' encapsulates all.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

How can a universe expand?, matter/energy can expand into already existing empty space I agree. What would the "universe" be expanding into exactly?, you have 'something' and claim it expands into nothingness, bringing existence and empty space along for the ride.

Just because energy/matter has been observed to expand this does not mean existence and space itself is expanding with it, Energy/mass dont require space itself to expand, go blow up a baloon, you didn't just expand time and space itself while blowing air into a baloon and watched it expand, you just blew a baloon up and it filled a greater amount of space with its increased size.


We can't even test or examine empty space as it has no energy level or mass to even observe. It actualy defies the laws of physics by not being physical at all.

peace.

[Enmos]

How can a universe expand?, matter/energy can expand into already existing empty space I agree. What would the "universe" be expanding into exactly?, you have 'something' and claim it expands into nothingness, bringing existence and empty space along for the ride.

Just because energy/matter has been observed to expand this does not mean existence and space itself is expanding with it, Energy/mass dont require space itself to expand, go blow up a baloon, you didn't just expand time and space itself while blowing air into a baloon and watched it expand, you just blew a baloon up and it filled a greater amount of space with its increased size.


We can't even test or examine empty space as it has no energy level or mass to even observe. It actualy defies the laws of physics by not being physical at all.

peace.

Not empty space, nothing. The universe creates space.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Not empty space, nothing. The universe creates space.

So what is space.


peace.

[Enmos]

So what is space.


peace.

You'll have to ask someone with more knowledge about this stuff than I have :)
The fabric of space though, I'd say, is made up of dimensions. But your next question will of course be "what are dimensions ?" :p

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Ofcourse that is my next question,

But anyway, Space itself is not actualy a physical entity it goes against what we usualy understand as real, you can't even look at it to observe it, your gaze goes straight through it, same as your touch and all other human senses. Our five senses cannot detect space, our sight can observe the distance between 2 objects and see howmuch space is in-between.


Even when space is occupied by physical maatter it still remains beyond it, say a ball was traveling from point A to point B, every squre inch of space that ball passes through remains unchanged and the same. The ball does not warp or remove space for a slight duration while matter occupies its physical place in the universe. Like when writting with a pencil on a piece of paper, even when the pencil markings are on the surface of the paper itself remains underneath. Get an eraser/rubber remove the markings and the empty blank space remains.


The universe is like that piece of paper, but it is is not 2D and it is not made of a physical canvas. Matter and energy are not all that exist, they are what our senses can pick up alone, non physical things that are beyond a normal comprehension based on observational study exist, they cannot be explained using our regular understanding of physical existence, space is not physical it has no properties to study or even present data on.

The scientific physical data on space = 0 energy 0 mass, non existent.

0+0=0 to ge a 1 or 2 you must start with atleast 1 or 2, therefore space has always existed, Time is a construct of the mortal mind based on motion and distance, a measuring device that we use to represent events that take place based on cycles. in 1 hour many actions, causes and effects take place. We measure events with motion and cycles, Time is an absttract.



peace.

peace.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86702


Here is a link to a discussion i just noticed, the connection is that spcae itself is the Aether/Ether whatever you prefer to call it. It canot be detected by physical means because it is very clearly a non physical entity/energy/thing.


peace.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Here we go again.

[Enmos]

Well, I am going to stay out of it from now on. Anything else I would post would have to be pure speculation.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Speculation should be fine as long as it's clear that it's speculation.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

It's all speculation, apart from my speculation is more logical and is clerly the best, take your expanding universe witchcraft to the religion forum with the other nutjobs. :)


peace.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

What you said about space isn't speculation. Space is a word with a definition which fits what you said. If there is any fabric or aether or whatever, it's IN space not space itself & that is not speculation.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

So how do you know space itself is not an Ether and has qualities of an underlying energy/fabric but its energy level is beyond our senses aility to pick up on it.

I personaly believe space itself is an energy and fabric, it clearly exists but has no physical qualities to examine. How do you propose that something without physical energy/matter exists in the first place?.


We come up with many fantastic and bizzare explanations to explain space, How can something non physical exist in the physical universe?. Is the universe physical? or is the matter and energy physical alone?.


peace.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

WTF? Am I on Candid Camera? Did you suddenly switch positions?

[Saxion]

Does this mean it is a closed system? I'm not exactly sure how the whole quanta popping in and out of existence thing works, but I was told that infinity is the largest distance possible, when talking about physical terms. I was asking about the limitations of gravity, and they told me I was confusing the specific type of mathematics where infinities are larger than others and real life. So, it seems to me that it is impossible for anything to be "outside" the universe if it is infinitely big, using standard ways of thinking. But then I also thought, what if it didn't extend infinitely in every dimension, and that it may be a closed system the way we think, but it actually isn't because we're disregarding the upper dimensions. Of course by we, I mean freshmen in high school. So, is the universe a closed system or not, assuming it is infinitely big, which I also have some questions about :\

Yes, if the universe is infinite, (and i presume you mean, continues forever, or infinitely expands), this means the universe will continue to expand without stop.

Infinity is always one more than now. And infinity is larger than any finite real number; so in effect, you can have an infinite amount of infinities.

People say Cantor was smart to know that. I think it's just pure logic, and no genious behind it.

[OilIsMastery]

you can have an infinite amount of infinities.

People say Cantor was smart to know that. I think it's just pure logic, and no genious behind it.
I also fail to see the genius and originality of Cantor since the cardinality of any point on a line is infinite and Euclid and all geometers know this.

And in Book IX Proposition 20 of the Elements, Euclid actually says there are more prime numbers than in any given set of prime numbers.

I believe Cantor's popularity is due to ignorance of the history of mathematics.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Yes, if the universe is infinite, (and i presume you mean, continues forever, or infinitely expands), this means the universe will continue to expand without stop.

Infinity is always one more than now. And infinity is larger than any finite real number; so in effect, you can have an infinite amount of infinities.

People say Cantor was smart to know that. I think it's just pure logic, and no genious behind it.

I've done pondering behind infinity before, that's obvious, what I asked was whether an infinitely large universe implies a closed system. Thanks for trying I guess..

[Vkothii]

Imagine we are living in a 1-dimensional universe. All we can tell is that looking one way along the only available dimension, is more or less identical to looking in the opposite direction.

Therefore all we can say is that we appear to be located at the midpoint of a line, with visible boundaries (since distant objects at either "end" are moving away from the "centre" where we appear to be). The boundaries at either end of the line we look along, are assumed to be 'disappearing points", since objects at, or "near" the limit, will eventually move so far away we won't see them any more.

So we can also imagine that this 1-dimensional universe, is infinite in extent - objects have an infinite amount of 'dimension' to move along. Infinity is real, because we really can imagine it, which is because we can never see anything "at" an infinite distance, but we know that real objects can "get" to this imaginary distance from us, by moving along the only dimension we can look (which has 2 directions in it).

[quantum_wave]

I've done pondering behind infinity before, that's obvious, what I asked was whether an infinitely large universe implies a closed system. Thanks for trying I guess..That is correct. It can be considered a closed system if it is infinitely large.

Two possibilities can be pointed out that explain why that is true.

An infinitely large universe encompasses all energy and so no energy can be gained or lost, i.e. a closed system.

A closed system which is isolated cannot exchange energy outside the system and there is no outside of the universe so no energy can be exchanged outside of it.

It is not customary though to describe the universe as being infinitely large under currently accepted standard cosmology, i.e. Big Bang Theory, so don’t confuse your infinitely large universe with mainstream thinking about the universe.

It is customary to discuss the Big Bang universe in terms of open or closed. If the universe is finite in content and had a beginning as in BBT, it can be either open or closed. It is open if it will expand forever and it is closed if it will someday reverse the expansion and collapse.

In alternative cosmologies, an infinite universe can be proposed. If such a universe is proposed, the energy in it can be finite or infinite. If a cosmology proposes infinite space and infinite energy it is the ultimate open system and yet meets the narrow definition of a closed system of the two possibilities that I pointed out. Clear as mud, right?

[camilus]

An infinitely large universe encompasses all energy and so no energy can be gained or lost, i.e. a closed system.

wouldnt an infinite universe imply an infinite amount of matter/mass, in turn posing serious problems to law of conservation of energy? That's what I think of when people talk about infinite universes.

[quantum_wave]

I think energy is conserved in an infinite universe with an infinite amount of matter/mass. The reason I think so is that I don't see how the amount of matter/mass can either cause energy to be created or destroyed.

But then there is the issue of entropy where useful energy gets used up, leaving useless energy. If there is no way to reverse entropy, then useful energy will decline infinitely in a universe whether or not it has an infinite amount of matter.

It all depends of the cosmology that is actually operative :). BBT with inflation is a complete entropy cosmology. Eternal Inflation is too. The Big Rip cosmology is too. A cyclical universe is too. A de Sitter universe is too. But all of these are finite in matter and energy.

Quantum Wave Cosmology is a set of ideas (as opposed to theory) about an infinite universe with an infinite amount of matter and energy. It is protoscience about the infinite greater universe and infinitesimal quantum realm which defy observation. However, QWC is a cosmology in which entropy is defeated by an arena landscape that features expanding and contracting arenas that mix and merge to renew useful energy from used galactic remnants.

[losfomoT]

It is not customary though to describe the universe as being infinitely large under currently accepted standard cosmology, i.e. Big Bang Theory, so don’t confuse your infinitely large universe with mainstream thinking about the universe.


I don't know what the term 'customary' has to do with anything. There are currently two possibilities about the size of our universe...

It is either MUCH bigger than our observable universe, or it is very possibly (even likely) infinite.

This is the current 'mainstream thinking about the universe'

[losfomoT]

If I could know what the physical boundary of the universe was made of, I could be so much more sure of so many things.

The universe would not have a 'physical boundary' whether it was infinite or finite. When you imagine a finite universe it is best to imagine a sphere (or balloon) The universe exists on the surface of the sphere. There is no inside or outside of the sphere there is only the surface. Now, with that in mind, where is the boundary (or edge)... there is none. The sphere is a finite size, but without boundary.

If the big bang happened a finite amount of time ago, and there are things in that big bang, how is that supposed to make the universe infinitely big now if things are limited by the speed of light?

The motion of objects within the universe is limited to the speed of light... However, the motion of the universe itself (the expansion of the universe) is not. There are things in the universe, even things that we can still see right now, that are moving away from us at much faster than the speed of light due to the expansion.

One last question, I know gravity is limited by infinity, so is gravity as fast as the speed of light, or infinity?

Gravity propagates at the speed of light.

[kaneda]

The CMB is like a mist which can only be seen in the far distance which does not allow us to see what is beyond it. The big bang idea is nonsensical and there are many obvious problems with such an idea. The universe is static in size but of unknown size because of the CMB.

[kaneda]

An infinitely large universe does not mean that all of it is as the universe we see. Matter might occupy only the smallest portion of it. There may even be pockets of matter and energy scattered throughout it; pocket universes, like ours.

[Betrayer0fHope]

So, even though there are dimensions higher than the ones we can observe, we know that if the universe is infinite, it is a closed system? Coolio.

[kaneda]

We don't have any evidence of physical dimensions beyond three. Mathematicians say there are because they need them, like christians talk of a spiritual world.

Over 99% of the universe may be space without any universes. Whole universes might be like dust motes in an empty vastness.

[quantum_wave]

Kaneda, for such a short post you covered a huge swath. Everyone has an opinion and yours is just as good as the next.

But you offer some idle speculation about space and universes that doesn't help focus on what we know and don't know, though I think your point is that "we just don't know". Your post makes me want to add that there are limits to what we can know, and science takes us to those limits and works to extend those limits as its prime objective.

On the macro scale we only see a part of our universe and the best evidence is that the arena that we can see is filled with galaxies that are moving away from each other, i.e. we see an expanding universe. But what we can see is limited to only part of what we think is out there and like you imply, there are many possibilities and "potentially infinite" is a main contender.

On the micro scale, the quantum world, we also only see a part of our universe and the best evidence is that there is more detail to the universe than we have been able to detect to this point. The theory of everything, if it is ever developed, will be based on future discoveries that are revealed at the depths of the quantum realm. And if there is ever a consensus on Grand Unification Theory, that theory of everything will link the quantum world with the potentially infinite greater universe.

Reasonable and responsible speculation must tie to the departure points at the macro and the micro ends of our scientific progress. It should go step by step and fill in the speculated details in a logical progression that takes us beyond science and into protoscience. Any speculation that departs from this logical progression is not protoscience, it is pseudoscience.

[Harro]

Id speculate the cosmos in eternal and infinate. Id guess its scale dependant, zoom out and entire an universe would appear like a star or singularity light soarce. The whole cosmos could be dotted with them with vast space of darkness separating them like the night sky. Zoom out even more and universe clusters might merge and appear like a single dot of light again. Of coarse you would need enough time to see the light in the first place.
At these scales, time would be so slow, things would apear to not change for neer eternity.
Who knows?

[Fraggle Rocker]

wouldn't an infinite universe imply an infinite amount of matter/mass. . . .No. It's a fairly straightforward mathematical exercise to postulate a formulaic decrease in density as a function of distance from whatever you define as the zero point of the three spatial axes of the universe, so that the total mass of the contents of an infinitue universe is finite.

Draw a sphere with a radius of one mile, with its center on the selected origin point of the universe. Say the mass of the matter it contains is .9 megatons.

Then draw the next sphere with its center on the same point, with a radius of ten miles. Define the mass of the matter in the extra volume of that sphere (the volume that is not inside the original sphere) as .09 megatons. The density of the mass inside this additional volume is 1/1000 the density of the mass in the original sphere.

Then draw the next sphere with a radius of 100 miles, and the mass of its additional content is .009 megatons. The density of the new mass is 10^-6 of the original mass. And so on.

Obviously the size of the outermost sphere approaches infinity miles, yet the total mass of its contents only approaches one megaton.

Obviously the density of the mass in the outer spheres will quickly become so low that you might not be able to squeeze in one electron before exceeding the formula. So big deal, you skip that sphere and as many more as you have to, and finally put your electron in a sphere further out and aggregate their densities. In fact, you might find yourself hanging onto your very very last electron and carrying it out to infinity. But you've still got a universe of infinite size with finite mass.

[losfomoT]

No. It's a fairly straightforward mathematical exercise to postulate a formulaic decrease in density as a function of distance from whatever you define as the zero point of the three spatial axes of the universe, so that the total mass of the contents of an infinitue universe is finite.

Since when is there a decrease in density as a function of distance?

[eburacum45]

The Universe as we now observe it is technically an open system, as the majority of photons emitted by a light source (such as the Sun) will eventually pass out of the observable universe and be lost for ever (although they may be absorbed and re-emitted a few times on the way).

Another consequence of the fact that we can only observe events within the Hubble Volume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume) is that we don't know if the Universe is infinite in extent or not, or if the rest of the universe (if any) outside the Hubble volume is the same as what we can see.

[Vkothii]

Since when is there a decrease in density as a function of distance?Since the universe.
We know it appears less dense at greater distances from our central observation point - how would you explain this apparent 'density gradient'?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Since the universe.
We know it appears less dense at greater distances from our central observation point - how would you explain this apparent 'density gradient'?

Then we're at the center of the universe.
1111

[kaneda]

quantum wave. There is probably a small enough point where what we call matter no longer exists. Photons are just waves. At some point the waves could be low enough that they are no longer photons. Of course, the atomic material has to go somewhere as does the wave energy so new matter and energy forms, so both being destroyed and created at our level.

A lot of what many take as gospel in such fields is just idle speculation dressed up in the Emperor's new clothes of maths. 3/4 of the universe is said to be dark energy. Show me one iota of evidence that such utter nonsense exists? It's castles built on clouds, while more castles are built on them, etc.

How can everything be moving away since there is no known mechanism for such blatant nonsense? People jabber about the big bang without understanding why it is just fairy dust.

How many physical dimensions? Three. Again the idiots have been at work claiming originally 26 but now a mere 10, and there is NO evidence for the extra 7. Evidence for strings is......non-existent. It is an idea. Like the big bang, it doesn't even deserve the title of theory.

The whole lot is pseudoscience yet you like to think it is real science rather than dare to think for yourself and realise it is all dream stuff. The word gullible comes to mind.

[kaneda]

How big is the universe?

How big is my personal universe, with my house at it's centre? There are mornings when the mist lays on the fields and instead of seeing for 5-6 miles, I can only see half a mile because a wall of mist obscures anything further. Yet it looks clear where I am.

The CMB is the universe's wall of mist. Like with my view from my house, it looks clear close up but distance absorbs light. All it needs is 1 non-ionised hydrogen atom in 200,000 ionised particles to do the job. There could be a trillion light years beyond the CMB.

[AlphaNumeric]

Show me one iota of evidence that such utter nonsense exists? It's castles built on clouds, while more castles are built on them, etc.The whole supernova type 1A argument? This isn't something where someone said "Hey, let's add in a quantity to our GR equations which is extremely hard to explain in terms of theory, very hard to measure accurately, means our understanding of the universe is a lot less than we originally thought and which makes describing the universe a lot lot harder!" No one expected it. But experiments force us to realise there's stuff, a lot of stuff, in the universe which we not only didn't know about 15 years ago but can only see by it's effects on objects we can see.

Ever tried doing any GR equations? Cosmology using the FRW metric? No, of course you haven't. But if you had you're know how much of a pain that small but non-zero quantity is. But we can't ignore it, because we've measured it's existence. It's existence shows how much cosmology is really still in it's infancy because cosmology has enormous trouble modelling it and even more explaining it.
How many physical dimensions? Three. Again the idiots have been at work claiming originally 26 but now a mere 10, and there is NO evidence for the extra 7.The majority of people doing cosmology and astrophysics are not string theorists, they barely touch particle physics. They work with the models of the universe having 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension. You haven't bothered to look into the work done by cosmologists and because you have a prejudice against pretty much anyone doing something you don't understand (which is most of the planet's scientists) you lump them all together and make sweeping statements which you don't bother to check.

There's 4 students in my department doing something string theory related. One of whom does something to do with cosmology. There's more than two dozen students down the corridor doing astrophysics and cosmology. None of them do string theory, few make much use of relativity.

Also, the 26 dimensional formulation of string theory was never seen as a physical theory because it lacks fermions. Which we know exist.
and there is NO evidence for the extra 7. Evidence for strings is......non-existent.100 years ago there was no evidence for general relativity. Does that mean GR is wrong? 20 years ago there was no evidence for dark energy, now there is. Right now there's no evidence for a fair few things considered very viable in theoretical physics, are they all certain to be wrong just because the evidence isn't in our hands right now?
Like the big bang, it doesn't even deserve the title of theory.So all the things the BB model explains both conceptually and quantitatively don't count as 'evidence' because you say so, the guy who doesn't read up on physics, didn't learn physics beyond high school and who has a selective memory about things people have corrected him on? Managed to learn there are more boundary-less compact 3 dimensional spaces than S^{3} yet?

[quantum_wave]

quantum wave. There is probably a small enough point where what we call matter no longer exists. Photons are just waves. At some point the waves could be low enough that they are no longer photons. Of course, the atomic material has to go somewhere as does the wave energy so new matter and energy forms, so both being destroyed and created at our level.Maybe, but if the “atomic material has to go somewhere as does the wave energy so new matter and energy forms”, tell me this. Is there an equivalent amount of new energy formed for the energy and matter that “went somewhere”? If so, how does nature know the exact amount to replace? Does it go somewhere in quantum increments of it is not necessary to conserve the exact amount of energy, i.e. is “in the ball park”, close enough. I don’t think that the energy goes “somewhere” and is replaced. The energy cannot be created or destroyed IMHO. Otherwise there has to be some means for overall accountability for currently existing energy doesn’t there?

A lot of what many take as gospel in such fields is just idle speculation dressed up in the Emperor's new clothes of maths. 3/4 of the universe is said to be dark energy. Show me one iota of evidence that such utter nonsense exists? It's castles built on clouds, while more castles are built on them, etc.Not in the case of dark energy. Expansion is pretty well established and makes perfect sense whether there was a beginning like a “Big Bang” or like the burst of a big crunch. High energy density expands in the presence (when surrounded by) low energy density. The moment after the big bang, the energy density of our currently observable universe would have been very dense and if it emerged from a big crunch it was surrounded by low energy density and has been expanding every since if you take a reasonable approach to explaining what we currently observe.How can everything be moving away since there is no known mechanism for such blatant nonsense? People jabber about the big bang without understanding why it is just fairy dust.Even though science doesn’t know what fairy dust caused expansion, that doesn’t mean we are not expanding. The evidence is strong enough and makes good sense if the cause was a Big Bang or a big burst.How many physical dimensions? Three. Again the idiots have been at work claiming originally 26 but now a mere 10, and there is NO evidence for the extra 7. Evidence for strings is......non-existent. It is an idea. Like the big bang, it doesn't even deserve the title of theory.Maybe string theory could be called a ball of string ideas :).The whole lot is pseudoscience yet you like to think it is real science rather than dare to think for yourself and realise it is all dream stuff. The word gullible comes to mind.I luv my gullible dream stuff, but I call it protoscience for reasons I have gone into before.

[losfomoT]

Since the universe.
We know it appears less dense at greater distances from our central observation point - how would you explain this apparent 'density gradient'?

Please elaborate... I was under the impression that the exact opposite was true... the farther away we look, the more dense everything appears.

And what do you mean our 'central observation point'? central to what?

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. Supernova 1A are not trustworthy. It has been shown that something as insignificant as faster rotation can allow double the mass of extra material on the surface of a dwarf star before it explodes, so giving a wildly inaccurate reading of distance by luminosity. Local dust, gas clouds. Elemental makeup of material transferred. Temperature of said material, etc can make a difference. I did the FRW metric with you a while back. Memory going?

Many thousands of people are studying creationism. Does that make it right? Extra dimensions are a mathsworld convenience to back up some wild ideas.

To use your argument: At present there is no evidence that Pluto is a soap bubble. Give it time and who knows?

The big bang is a largely discredited bunch of ideas hiding under one umbrella. People like you say it must be right but why?

[kaneda]

quantum wave. Who knows what happens at such levels? We can only guess.

Dark Energy is as full of holes as the BB idea. I can't understand how anyone can believe such obvious nonsense.

Expansion is based on a series of beliefs which we ultimately cannot test.

To me, strings are just too small. If they were say a hundredth, even a thousandth the size of an electron, I could believe in them.

[goose]

The big bang is a largely discredited bunch of ideas hiding under one umbrella. People like you say it must be right but why?

I know your not talking to me... but i always thought the BB idea was to just give a best idea of what might have happened... isnt that the purpose of this theory? not why it happened, but what may have happened

im not trying to argue or anything, im just expressing what i thought the theory of the BB meant

[Vkothii]

Then we're at the center of the universe.
1111Because of the geometry of the universe (whatever it actually is) we know we're here at the centre of our bit of it.
So we aren't "at the centre of the universe", after all. Just the local part.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Vkothii
Nihil Exspectati sumus (3,370 posts)
Yesterday, 01:59 AM #39

“ Originally Posted by losfomoT
Since when is there a decrease in density as a function of distance? ”

Since the universe.
We know it appears less dense at greater distances from our central observation point - how would you explain this apparent 'density gradient'?

STRANGER ========== If the above is true & means anything, we must be at the center of THE UNIVERSE.
1111

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric. Supernova 1A are not trustworthy. It has been shown that something as insignificant as faster rotation can allow double the mass of extra material on the surface of a dwarf star before it explodes, so giving a wildly inaccurate reading of distance by luminosity. Local dust, gas clouds. Elemental makeup of material transferred. Temperature of said material, etc can make a difference.Source?
I did the FRW metric with you a while back. Memory going?
You have never done any mathematical manipulation of metrics. You have denied it's validity in describing the universe. That isn't 'doing' it, that's the usual crank method of avoiding doing actual science, straight denial.

Feel free to point me at a single post of yours where you demonstrate a working knowledge of quantitative physics though. I've asked this before and you've never managed to do it.

[Harro]

I think the confusion lies in that dark matter is used to explain the BBT so some infinite universe theorists flog it of as unobservable and therefore convoluted only to support the big bang. However science does find such anomaly exists.

Dark matter can only be inferred indirectly and is thought to be matter that should exist and considered to be heavy neutrinos, elementary particles and clouds of non-luminous gas. Dark matter is believed to account for 80% of the missing universe.

Infinite Universe theorists should not discard such scientific discoveries but include them. It’s how the discovery is interpreted that is the opposing view.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

If dark matter can only be inferred indirectly & is thought to be matter that "should" exist, it is not a discovery. At this time & place it is not a matter of interpretation. It hasn't been proven.
1111

[Harro]

If you magnified a hydrogen atom so the necleus was the size of a basket ball the electron would be about 30 km away. So if you could imagine light traveling though the atom very little of the light energy would interact with it. How ever if the light had many atoms to travel though eventually most of the light will interact and be absorbed.ie higher energy states.

How I understand Dark matter to be is particles in space that arn't close enough together to be detectable dirrectly but impart gravity and its the gravity that is detected but most of the light gets though. I speculate that if space has a temperature, A CMB of about 2.7degrees K you'll find particles in the vacuum that are so far apart light hardly interacts, however over billions of years the light has more and more chances of interaction which places limits on our telescopes field of view.

[TruthSeeker]

Infinity is an abstract concept and not necessarily part of reality.

[Harro]

So you dont suport BBT then? Which estimates an infinite density and temperature at a Finite time.

[TruthSeeker]

If you read me carefully you will notice I don't take any position on the matter.




Though I don't see how an object can have infinite density.... :scratchin:

[Diode-Man]

If you read me carefully you will notice I don't take any position on the matter.




Though I don't see how an object can have infinite density.... :scratchin:

In the way of fractals. If a line goes halfway between two points in space, and another line is added that goes halfway between THAT etc etc, than one would never reach the destination....

But that I think can only be applied in the mind.

Since travel is generally non-instant, one can't travel to a destination in that manner.

[TruthSeeker]

In the way of fractals. If a line goes halfway between two points in space, and another line is added that goes halfway between THAT etc etc, than one would never reach the destination....

But that I think can only be applied in the mind.

Since travel is generally non-instant, one can't travel to a destination in that manner.
I see... you mean there are infinite numbers between 1 and 0... Isn't that Zeno's paradox?


Anyways... so how exactly does that equate to infinite matter density?

[Betrayer0fHope]

If there is a true fundamental particle(s), then I guess we would eventually reach our destination from what Diode-Man said.

[Harro]

My mistake for not making myself clear, as I got the definition from wiki.
BBT states matter formed after "the big bang" so my apologies as I assumed people already knew this.

However I disagree with the BBT that the universe was 100% energy at an infinite density and temperature at a Finite time.

I agree with "The Primordial Matter" aspect of BBT but I think much less energy than 13 billion light years radius of universes energy/matter is required to get a crunch. Made evident by black holes. There for it would be imposible for the entire universe to have once been a singularity. The energy/matter is ejaculated out way before all the stars and debris can become a singularity, let alone an entire universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M87_jet.jpg

[theoneiuse]

Since the universe.
We know it appears less dense at greater distances from our central observation point - how would you explain this apparent 'density gradient'?

Brilliant minds you all posses, imagine oneness and perfect symmetry.
Everything is relative simply all is one, and one needs nothing to be relative of.
studies such as Newton and Einstein also was guided with this perfect symmetry forcing them to accept the totalistic view of determinism. They fought long and hard for their kind. This ''perfect symmetry'', I see many of you here dance around it not knowing it is there "the aether" the irony is so polarising that I actual feel love for your spirits as many of you here have demonstrated potential to leave perfect or near perfect time signatures. A time signature is likened to footprints in time that is completely unique to you. Many of you speak heavily on proof much of which Einstein lacked during his deliberations with the uncertainty principal, I for one stand with Einstein for he has gained much mass. Remember nothing is still something for you to think of nothing it must become a definition in your mind with is something detectable because that process uses energy. This metaphor used by me does not parallel the mathematics of the aether. Infinity is actual a finite number and whats better its a constant. well all am trying to say is you all seem to know the answer but like children cannot aline your senses with total clarity.

[theoneiuse]

My mistake for not making myself clear, as I got the definition from wiki.
BBT states matter formed after "the big bang" so my apologies as I assumed people already knew this.

However I disagree with the BBT that the universe was 100% energy at an infinite density and temperature at a Finite time.

I agree with "The Primordial Matter" aspect of BBT but I think much less energy than 13 billion light years radius of universes energy/matter is required to get a crunch. Made evident by black holes. There for it would be imposible for the entire universe to have once been a singularity. The energy/matter is ejaculated out way before all the stars and debris can become a singularity, let alone an entire universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M87_jet.jpg

Ironical this is the beauty of it all, one would think to his or herself ''I never saw it coming'';''seeing is believing'' for all is simply an idiosyncrasy of irony, all things, no-things, and infinite things are ''all things'' nouns. After you have reached the totalistic constant of infinity you will realise it does not exceed one, for the speed of c is a constant. Infinity * Infinity = 1 Infinity
Infinity equals one
Reality at first may not appear perfect but is simply so.
Everything there is, there was, and ever will be can always be reduced to one ''the simplest form''.