does the univerce have an end, a limit?

Yikes. I guess that theory kind of makes the physical universe as we observe it quite unique ...

Well, the universe IS our own special place, isn't it? Certainly there could not be an infinite number of local universes just like ours spread throughout infinite space. Yep. Ours is the only one like this. Wow ... are we lucky, or what?

Pretty cool when you think about it. Dimensions where any and all things are possible. Physics as we know it just one of an infinite number of possible variations.

So how many dimensions/co-existing universes have we discovered yet? 5? 11? 26? 10^500?

Oh, I'm sure it's just around the corner. Like Brian Greene says .... just another year or two ....

Of course, he has said exactly the same thing for the last 25 years. Hmmmm. Well, I'm sure that he is right this time. And Guth, and Turok, and even Frampton. After all, they ARE geniuses, are they not? How could they be totally out to lunch?

Yep, if the twisted and contorted math says anything is possible, then BY GOD ... it must be. Lol. Damn straight.

How can we be so smart ... and so clueless at the same time?

OMG. Don't you just love meaningless mathematics? I know I do.

Hope I have not offended anyone here with my insane/irrational/illogical way of looking at our universe.

As we know, there is no room for 'common sense' in science. No reason to make any rational determinations based on the mountains of evidence, experiments, and observations.

Yes, we must rely totally on the math, and ignore our lying eyes. It's so funny. We apparently have no more to go on today ( regarding common sense deductions ) than we had 2000 years ago.

Good grief.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi, new to the forums.

I agree, pywakit. Science has got to look to more practical math and logic than magic math. I guess science has become the universe we try to hypothesize on, an infinite circle.

But anyways, yes I believe there is a limit to our universe. My theory, which was always simple in my mind is our universe is expanding into nothingness. When I say nothingness I mean nothing, no space, laws or time is outside of our universe. In my opinion the big bang produced time and space so when you reach the end of our universe time stops.

Or I could just say I don't know and it would still be as valid. =)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No idea really.

"Special" doesn't objectively exist. The universe is however something that we are a part of.

Unknown. M-theory predicts there could be many D-Branes; however, if Calibi Yao space is real then D-Branes might only be a temporary phenomena; hence, infinite quantities of them would never be realized.

Opinion and subjective questioning. Its niether here nor there.

That is your subjective interpretation which has nothing to do with any existing theory of reality (M-Theory included of course).

We can presently detect 4 dimensions (space-time).

Which is relevant because?

If there is some relevant concept in your mind you feel you are arguing for, you should share it; otherwise, this is simply unrelated.

If your claim is that "math" demonstrates that anything is possible then I would love to see it. I don't think that you will be able to do so.

Whose "we"?

Congratulations.

I have no idea if you have offended anyone nor what your way of looking at the universe is; however, it begs the question how is that relevant?

You'll have to objectively define 'common sense' and then demonstrate science's lack-of-use of it.

What determinations, what evidence, what experiments, and what observations are you specifically referring to?

If there is something specific you are trying to address then perhaps definitions, examples, and clarity would help.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It would beg the question what evidence you have to support the notion that the entity *nothing* (i.e. absence of everything and anything) is real?

 

I can't. For me to see outside the universe light would have stopped at that point. It just my theory. Just like how everyone thought the world was flat and we would fall off at the end of it.

 

that's a lot of rambling. you made a shitload of assumptions in your post to have a condescending tone toward mine. you also are hinting that i was somehow having a self-centered view based on what we can perceive as only being real when that was not the point. then you end with this: "It's an infinite number of localized universes ... just like ours." YOU don't know that and i reject that assumption. It's YOU are the pompous 'everything must be like us' while projecting it onto another. I'm sure you believe otherwise.

if something can be measured or perceived, then it is finite. for instance, on a subatomic level an apple and orange may appear the same but they are not. on some level there is similarity and on other levels there are differences. everything is finite if it can be detected or measured etc. what level of reality we are defining will depend on the perspective we have as well as our immediate experience. we seem to inhabit a certain level of reality.

as you said, the universe is "REAL, not imaginary." in no way was i saying that this is all there is if we can't perceive it.

as for mulitiple dimensions, universes, etc is possible to probable.

 

I see. In science a theory is at the very least rooted in some form of known empirical data (observable phenomena, known physical behaviors, math, etc.). It is also falsifiable (i.e. testable). The "flat earth" idea didn't qualify as a scientific theory. It was a theological claim of truth that science falsified. Your particular idea is not a claim of truth; however, without any information about its backing, it doesn't appear to be a scientific theory either.

 

Crunchy Cat
F-in' *meow* baby!!! (6,578 posts)
Today, 06:02 PM #63

Crunchy ... get a grip. Seriously, if you did not see the point of my little exercise, then I am certain to be wasting valuable neurons on RE-explaining myself. But, for any others who share Crunchy's comprehensive abilities ... on the off-chance that you may get it the second time around ... I will go over Crunchy's comments.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Yikes. I guess that theory kind of makes the physical universe as we observe it quite unique ... ”

No doubt. I just finished watching a program on Green's and Schwartz's "giant breathrough" unifying gravity with the other forces. To qoute Kirimoto ( or whatever his name is ) .... "Sounds like science fiction? Well, even Hawking concedes it might be true." Of course, the authors/producers of the program apparently ignore this 'less than ringing endorsement' along with Hawking's next comment ... "If it can't be proven, then we will have to figure out some other explanation." ( paraphrased )

Of course Ed Witten tossed in his authoritative views, claiming that "science is forever changed" by the dashing duo's quantum leap in our understanding of our universe, and how gravity fits in with the other forces can now be explained.

Why ... all it takes is 11 dimensions. By golly, gravity is actually very very strong. But having to fight through all those other dimensions just to get to our dimensions leaves it all tuckered out. And lucky for us ( again ) huh? Cuz we wouldn't exist if gravity were any stronger.

Well, at least the last statement is valid. The rest of it? Sheer ( and bizarre ) speculation. Seriously, science has made a religion of this. Stumped many decades ago, unable to explain everything with GR, and QM, science tossed aside it's cast-in-stone methodology and just went nuts. There is no other way to put this. Suddenly, speculation ... untestable, unmeasureable ... became valid hypothesis. And through sheer force of will ... and a whole lot of promotion ( and with the popularity, grant money ) hypothesis morphed into theory. Based on nothing more than manufactured math.

Michael Green was certain they were a hair's breadth away from the Theory of Everything when the program was produced in 08. Yet, to date, with billions spent, and thousands of 'brilliant' mathematicians working on the problem, there is still zero evidence ... observational, or experimental.

To seriously suggest to anyone reading the posts on this topic that M-theory, or any theory involving dimensions beyond those we observe is no more or less valid than the "Elves Sprinkled Fairy Dust" theory, or the "God" theory, is to show how disconnected the Ivory Tower of physics/mathematics is from observed reality, and reduces the conversation to mere philospohical speculation.

And it might as well be 2000 years ago.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Well, the universe IS our own special place, isn't it? ”

No kidding.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Certainly there could not be an infinite number of local universes just like ours spread throughout infinite space. ”

And if God created everything then it's a moot point. You just can't seem to make the cognitive leap. A pity, really. Your mis-applied logic is identical to the logic of physicists and mathematicians 50 years ago. With a minimum of quadrillions of stars staring us in the face, science had no problem 'theorizing' the possibility that our star was the only one in the universe with satellites. And justifies that position to this day ....

This is thinking out of touch with reality. But I doubt you would agree.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Yep. Ours is the only one like this. Wow ... are we lucky, or what? ”

Why do you even make such assinine comments? ( no offense intended )


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Pretty cool when you think about it. Dimensions where any and all things are possible. Physics as we know it just one of an infinite number of possible variations. ”

Actually, you are incorrect. This is not my 'interpretation'. Respected scientists have made such assertions for about 80 years. If you are unaware of this, then you are at a disconnect with the rest of science.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
So how many dimensions/co-existing universes have we discovered yet? 5? 11? 26? 10^500? ”

Incredible!


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Oh, I'm sure it's just around the corner. Like Brian Greene says .... just another year or two .... ”

It's relevant because he was wrong ... year after year. You don't see that as relevant though ... do you?


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Of course, he has said exactly the same thing for the last 25 years. Hmmmm. Well, I'm sure that he is right this time. And Guth, and Turok, and even Frampton. After all, they ARE geniuses, are they not? How could they be totally out to lunch? ”

My assertion that they might be 'out to lunch' is supported by about 300 years of experimental, and observational evidence. The topic, in case you have forgotten, is "Does the universe have an end, a limit?" You choose to lend authenticity to purely speculative concepts ... such as M-theory ... and I am merely pointing out that such concepts do not relate to the physical universe we have observed. So ... yes ... my comments are 'related' to the discussion.


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Yep, if the twisted and contorted math says anything is possible, then BY GOD ... it must be. Lol. Damn straight. ”

Heisenberg uncertainty principle, chaos theory ... all of the public assertions by scientists/mathematicians/physicists over the decades ... suggest exactly that. Are you unaware of this? To the 'masses' this is common knowledge.


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
How can we be so smart ... and so clueless at the same time? ”

Scientists in general. And they have proven it over and over. At least, when it comes to understanding how our universe operates.


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
OMG. Don't you just love meaningless mathematics? I know I do. ”

Thank you.


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Hope I have not offended anyone here with my insane/irrational/illogical way of looking at our universe. ”

I am forced to mention I have posted a cosmological model of the universe. Here. On this forum. Sarcasm totally escapes you, doesn't it?


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
As we know, there is no room for 'common sense' in science. ”

Already did with the 'quadrillions of stars' example.


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
No reason to make any rational determinations based on the mountains of evidence, experiments, and observations. ”

Ok. If you want to be obtuse, that is your prerogitive. In return, I will ask you what evidence, experiments, and/or observations support M-theory?


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Yes, we must rely totally on the math, and ignore our lying eyes. It's so funny. We apparently have no more to go on today ( regarding common sense deductions ) than we had 2000 years ago.

Good grief. ”

Ok. The 'universe' is commonly referred to as the Hubble volume now, isn't it? There is little reason to think THE universe has such a limit. In fact, there is no reason at all. Other than Man's arrogance. Of which I am accused of having. There is no reason to think that nothing existed before our Big Bang.

I have posted many 3rd party, referenced materials supporting my 'view of the universe'. You'll find them sprinkled throughout my cosmological thread.

The concept of this local universe ... the one we exist in ... being the first, and only universe to ever exist is arrogance at it's best. It is irrational. It is illogical. Yet it has prevailed throughout Man's history.

Because we seem to think we are 'special'. And we always have. Apparently you are unaware of this aspect of Man's view of his place in the grand scheme of things. I'm not.

 

I can understand you feeling this way. However, I base everything I say on our observations of the universe. I don't pluck them out of thin air. And I have posted many materials to support my views on another thread.

It's not our universe. But whatever it is, we exist in it. What you did not do was supply a reason why you 'reject' the assumption. You provide no evidence of any kind to support your views. You simply speculate. If you want to post some 3rd party material to support your speculation, I will be happy to read it.

Perhaps you don't get the point of my 'shitload of rambling'. It's not that everything must be 'like us'. It's that the greatest likelihood is that the universe we exist in is not special, or unique in any way. It's not rational to think/believe that everything we have learned about the universe only applies here. That the laws of physics only apply here. That space/time did not exist before our universe/BB came along.

Man has made this same irrrational argument forever. When all we could see was a few lights in the sky, and the horizon, we speculated on the 'possibilities' beyond our field of vision. As our vision improved, we asserted over and over that 'just beyond' our vision the universe could be filled with any number of 'realities'. Different physical properties. Different laws. When physics was invented, we ( science ) argued that the physics could be very different just beyond our view.

Our vision continued to improve. And did we ever find anything that was 'different'? No. Our vision has improved to the point where we can now 'see' almost to the beginning of this expanding bubble. Anything different? No. Yet we continue to assert that 'just beyond our view' things could be very different.

Will we ever get it? Apparently not.

Your first comment is incorrect. I have no problem 'perceiving' infinity. I don't need to have an 'infinite' visual in my head to grasp it. Clearly, you do not share this conceptual ability. The rest of the above comments are nonsensical in every respect, having no relationship to the topic at hand.

And we don't seem to inhabit a certain level of reality. Sorry you are so unclear about what reality is.

We exist. We are real. If you want to debate that issue, perhaps you should start another of the endless metaphysical/magical/philosophical threads on the subject.

Honestly, I have no clue what you were trying to say. Certainly, there was no hard science behind any of it.

Really. Hmm. Define 'multiple'. And please provide any evidence to support your contention that 'multiple dimensions' is possible to probable. If you can show even a shred of evidence to support this I will beg your forgiveness for my audacity, my arrogance, and my condescending tone.

 

I think you honestly believe you had an objective point. The point of my exercise was to demonstrate otherwise.

Let me summarize this particular rant set into something a little more concise. You are saying that many of the current theories of reality are "out of touch" with reality because of an overwhelming absence of supportive evidence for them. You have a point.

Let me explain what you're missing. As humans, we have visibility limits regarding the structure and behavior of reality. We overcome these limits with technology and we often combine math with what our current visibility to create models. Such models allow us to predict structure and behavior often before we actually observe it. Those models can be extremely accurate (ex. atoms exist) or way off (ex. aether exists). The point of course is that the models do uncover truth.

We are at a point right now where we have alot of visibility but gaining more is very difficult with current technological limitations. The way we are adapting to this is exploring more models (often models built on models). So we have a massive varitety of models that explain what we presently have visibility into, but are vastly different in their predictions as to the structures and behaviors of reality. What makes the models difficult for some people (such as yourself) is that we lack the visibility to support/refute the models; however, the models themselves are ultimately testable regardless of their difficulty. For example, when the LHC is brought to full power, the data collected will actually serve as evidence to support or refute M-Theory.

It begs the question of why you waste words.

"God" is psychological manifestation of human anthropmorphization. It's part of a survival strategy; however, it doesn't objectively exist. In other words, your option isn't valid in the least.

It's ironic that you would consider it a pity to not make a "cognitive leap" into some nubulous zone you haven't bothered defining, yet at the same time are so critical of the scientific theories which heavily rely on cognitive leaps.

You will have to demonstrate which mis-applied logic you are referring to. Claiming something is true doesn't make it true.

I cannot agree or disagree with something which hasn't been defined.

To demonstrate somethings irrelevance.

Show me the evidence. Demonstrate modern scientific assertions of "Dimensions where any and all things are possible. Physics as we know it just one of an infinite number of possible variations.".

Not to the topic of this thread. If you want to use it as supporting evidence for a theory that people can be wrong then be my guest.

You seem to be critical of people not being able to predict the future, but somewhat disturbingly you seem to be surprised by it.

Public assertions by people that "suggest" things are not evidence that "math" demonstrates that anything is possible.

The answer is that scientists are human and humans are machines with a function to collect energy to persist. If we were machines with a function to understand reality, the results would be different.

You should reference it when uitlizing it.

Sarcasm is rooted in the evolutionary behaviors of lying/deceit. As that doesn't support truth (the focus of science), it should be brushed to the side.

No you didn't. Start by objectively defining common sense. If you need help with understanding what a definition is (vs description, anology, etc.) then let me know.

That's not an answer to the question. That is a subjective judgment and ultimately a dodge to the question.

To my knowledge, supportive evidence doesn't exist yet.

It's common referred to as the "universe". The hubble volume is the area of space surrounding some point whose contents move away from it faster than the speed of light.

What limit are you referring to?

I agree. There is also no reason to think that an entity called *nothing* is real.

ok.

I agree.

I am very aware of it. So aware I can dismiss it on-site as subjectivity.

 

I'd like to add another example for Crunchy. GR. It has accurately predicted the behavior of most everything larger than an electron, yet one of it's most basic tenets has been ignored/rejected since it's invention.

Even Einstein could not accept the obvious conclusion ....

Space Is Uniform, unless disturbed by mass/gravity. Let's define 'uniform'.

Now where in this definition does it say that at some point 'it' no longer has the same form, or manner?

It doesn't. Space is a physical structure. GR 'proved' that space has geometry, and all our physical observations, and experiments have borne this out. Space has properties, laws. It is something ... not nothing.

Einstein could not, or would not draw the obvious conclusion from this. He envisioned our universe as being curved due to gravity, but he did not address what may, or may not be beyond our universe.

And of course, he also saw the universe as a 'steady state', and eternal ... and bitterly opposed any suggestion that the universe might be expanding or contracting.

Science in general jumped right on that bandwagon, and too, ignored the consequences of 'uniformity' right along with Einstein.

So now we know with certainty that 'steady state' was completely wrong. I wonder how long it will take Man to figure out that GR is correct about space.

I love it when pundits say "Since we will never be able to see infinity, we will never be able to prove it."

I swear ... it must be a genetic trait. Their ancestors had to be the ones assuring the rest of humanity that "We will never be able to prove or disprove whether or not we exist in a geocentric universe, or a heliocentric universe. It will always remain unknowable."

Well, I hate to suggest this ... but GR already proved space is infinite. And no BB is required for it to exist.

But feel free to stay on the bandwagon with all the other 'brilliant' minds in the world today. State with authority ... "We have no way ( and we never will ) to actually determine if space is infinite, so therefore we shall go with the assumption that it is finite." Feel free to ignore the unerring accuracy of GR when it comes to the macro universe.

In the quest to 'unify' the large and the small, we have aquired terminal tunnel vision. Sadly, I don't see this condition improving anytime soon.

As I said ... so smart, and yet so clueless.

Can't wait to see what tangent mathematicians go off on next ...

 

Ummm, as to your last statement here, not according to Brian Greene. I have posted the Nova written interview with Greene on this matter. I will take his word on this over yours. As far as the statement before that one ... wrong again. They are not testable to date, and there is nothing to suggest they ever will be testable. It doesn't mean it's a guarantee they won't be able to test these 'models' you refer to ( some 150 various ST/SST/M-theory models ) at some point in the future ... and I would never suggest they abandon research into these models ... but there is a vast difference between being theoretically testable, and actually testable. So 'ultimately testable' is pure speculation at this point in time.

Thank you. However, you make assumptions that are unsupported by my comments. I'm not missing anything germane to the discussion. I totally agree that mathematical models are a critical part of understanding our universe, and absolutely necessary in predicting structure and behaviors.

Because you did.

I agree with the first part of this statement. Belief in God is irrational at it's core. Abandoning sound scientific methodology ( testable predictions, experiments ) in the quest for a 'theory of everything' is equally irrational.

Yes. That was rude of me to say. However, my views on the universe have sound, hard science, and observations to support them. M-theory is a shaky model based on even shakier models. The only thing supporting them is math that not all 'brilliant' minds are on board with. But it sure is popular, isn't it?

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Your mis-applied logic is identical to the logic of physicists and mathematicians 50 years ago. With a minimum of quadrillions of stars staring us in the face, science had no problem 'theorizing' the possibility that our star was the only one in the universe with satellites. And justifies that position to this day .... ”

Covered in previous post. But let me elaborate a little on the 'quadrillions of stars' point.

Even now, we are still not certain how planets are formed. We are not certain how stars are formed, or galaxies are formed. But we have a pretty good idea ... based on both GR, and the totality of our observations.

There wasn't a chance in hell that our star was the only one in the universe with planets. Yet science maintained the mathematical possibility that in fact ... ours might be the only one. This was, and is irrational, illogical thinking. The math said it was possible. Logic said it was impossible.

So the mis-applied logic was the reliance on math ... ignoring the observational reality.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
This is thinking out of touch with reality. But I doubt you would agree. ”

Well, it was defined ... but you didn't post what I was referring to.

Every assertion/claim I made can be researched, and verified. I'm not going to spend hours providing source material/information that is readily available to anyone from numerous sources on the internet.

At least we agree on a few points ...

 

i really don't know what your point is anymore. you seem to be all over the place. of course, i can comprehend the concept of infinity.

i never said or alluded to the idea that the universe is unique. alternately, there are those who would like to believe that every possibility must be similar or the same as this universe or what we know which is equally arrogant.

AND i don't need to provide "evidence" that there multiple dimensions are possible to probable. the evidence exists right here as to probablility as for possibility, there is no evidence for that. that's why it's called a 'possibility'.

you are not making logical sense to me.

 

.

i hate long posts,
lol
it make me feel scared of reading it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good grief, that is a whole lot of rambling all over the place. If there is a point in there, it must be this statement:

"GR already proved space is infinite"

I would love to see the proof for that (let alone evidence).

 

Since most people are incapable of comprehending the size of our own solar system, let alone our galaxy, or the estimated 350 billion galaxies in addition to ours ... plus all the non-scientific, philosophical comments you make ... a rational person would assume you have no concept of actual infinity.

Beliefs are irrelevant. Beliefs are irrational concepts simply because there is zero evidence ... physical, scientifically drawn ... to support the belief. Beliefs are entirely manufactured in the human mind.

I have no beliefs about the universe. I draw rational, logical, tentative conclusions based on many things. General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics. The laws of physics, and chemistry. EM. Experiments. Observations.

Arrogance has nothing to do with my view of the universe. The simple fact that our universe exists ... in it's physical structure, form, and processes ... means that the laws of UNIFORM space provide for this structure ... our universe's existence. Obviously our physical universe exists quite nicely in space. There is zero evidence that any other structure or form or processes exist in space ... which is UNIFORM. The same everywhere.

It is far more rational/logical to conclude that there are other universes ... with the same physical structure, form and processes existing elsewhere throughout UNIFORM space ... with it's UNIFORM laws and properties, than any MADE UP conceptual construct. It's logic. Not arrogance.

Arrogance comes when Man believes that any old thing he can think up has the slightest validity in the actual, physical universe. Or conversely, when Man believes this universe was placed here strictly for Man's benefit.
AND i don't need to provide "evidence" that there multiple dimensions are possible to probable. the evidence exists right here as to probablility as for possibility, there is no evidence for that. that's why it's called a 'possibility'.

I'm trying .... sorry.

Birch, I'm sorry you perceive my comments as 'all over the place'. Allow me to re-post your earlier comments ... I will try to address them clearly for you.

Well, as so many before you have done, you do not comprehend the implications of GR. Take away mass/gravity, and space becomes UNIFORM. The same. There is no boundry associated with UNIFORM. No end. The same everywhere means everywhere ... whether or not we can actually see everywhere.

There is tons of evidence that GR is correct in the macro universe. Tons of evidence that space is uniform. ZERO evidence that dimensions, outside the 4 we are familiar with, exist. It is pure speculation. An attempt by mathematicians to explain forces they do not fully understand yet. They have this desire to unify all the forces mathematically. They failed to do this with GR, and QM ... so they went off on countless tangents. Thinking up possibilities, then trying to make it fit mathematically.

ST/SST/M-theory emerged as the 'soup de jour'. It's very popular. But in going down this path, mathematicians/physicists abandoned the most basic requirements of scientific theory. Testable experiments. Corroborating observations.

They have made similar errors regarding black holes. The formation of galaxies. Ignoring observational evidence, they have tried to make the universe conform to their mathematical calculations.

For example ... we can now be certain that black holes exist. But we also now know they merge, and get extremely massive. Mathematically, all that mass ( apparently ) was crushed to a 'singularity' ... which, by the way, science is still clueless as to what an actual singularity is ...

But scientitists ran around telling us all, that all that mass occupied an area of space smaller than an atom. We came up with all types of bizarre scenarios to deal with this apprent physical impossibility. Primary were the hypotheses that BHs shunted mass to other dimensions ... or that the collapse into infinitely small continued forever.

Those scenarios had mathematical support ... but no observational, or experimental support. Since we know now that BHs can exceed billions of sols in mass/gravity, science is ( finally ) re-thinking whether or not such a mass/gravity can actually exist in a zero volume of space.

Dark matter. Dark energy. Gravity. Accelerating recession of superclusters. All these subjects continue to befuddle science. They continue to speculate ... wildly ... and try to make mathematical models to explain these phenomena.

What is actually unravelling these mysteries is not math ... but our ever-increasing ability to observe, and physically measure the phenomena.

But like Ed Witten said recently ... there has always been a disconnect between those studying the macro universe ... observationally ... and those studying the very small ... mathematically. They haven't talked to each other. At least not until a very short time ago, and they still clearly have a long way to go in establishing real-time communication.

If we had no information to go on, we could not extrapolate anything about the universe beyond our field of view. But that is no longer the case. We have observational evidence coming out of our ears. Your above comment is illogical, because there is no connection between your 'perception' of our limited capabilities and our actual capabilities. And no connection, or reason for you to conclude our universe must be finite simply because there are 'limits' to our observational capabilities.

Your question makes no sense, nor does the statement following the question. Maybe it might help you if you took some time to get up to speed on where we actually are observationally.

Sigh ... there is nothing intuitive, or emotional regarding our awareness of the 4 dimensions that exist. They are solid, proven, real. Emotions, and intuition are irrelevant. Really ... there is a wealth of factual information available to you. But you seem to want to keep it all metaphysical/philosphical.

Perhaps if you take a few months to study what we actually know, you won't need to uselessly spin your wheels on 'hints' of this or that.

GR does not 'hint' at anything. It makes clear declarations, which have been born out by experiments, and observations. It makes flawless predictions which only break down at the quantum level.

The only reason you seem to think the universe is 'finite' is because your intuition tells you it is. And your intuition has no basis in fact. It is nothing more than unsupported belief.

 

Crunchy, what is it about uniform you don't grasp? Where in GR does it say that space can't exist unless it is disturbed by mass/gravity? Where does it say in GR that the uniformity stops at some arbitrary point ... like the boundry of the Hubble volume?

Show me any evidence ... of any kind ... that space is finite. Show me your proof that space has a boundry. Prove to me that nothing ... absolutely nothing exists beyond our local expanding ( finite ) universe.

There is no such evidence.

But Einstein did prove that space is uniform.Looking back 13 plus billion light years in space/time have borne out that theory.

The evidence says space is infinite. There is no evidence to say it isn't.

None.

 

Crunchy, I am not here to argue with you. I am only trying to point out how we ( Man ) ... even the brightest in the world ... are quite capable of ignoring the obvious.

I used the quadrillions of stars example to show how disconnected science can be from reality. Again ... it was impossible that our star had the only planets in the universe.

But belief systems, ego, arrogance, intuition, and whatever .... allowed the smartest people on earth to make the serious assertion that it was possible.

Those same little problems exist today. We haven't changed a bit.

The evidence is just as overwhelming regarding space being infinite, as the evidence was for extrasolar planets.

Someday ... just maybe ... we will stop this irrational thinking.

 

wow, you constantly contradict yourself.

you have the nerve to say that there is no reason to assume or even imagine the possibility that there may be universes different than ours while you say that i think the universe is 'finite' because my intuition tells me it is??? uh, my senses tell me it is as in i never claimed i have traveled to the farthest reach of space to know but that i can sense where i am now. going by that logic, i am assuming that the universe is finite as in what is measurable. again, i never said that there is not a possibility of anything else because i can't perceive it (which i'm having to repeat to you again). of course not, a blind person can't detect color but it exists. me guessing the universe is finite is as reasonable as you believing it's infinite. there may be a confusion of terminology. i just don't think that this universe is infinite though it may be. it seems rather limited to me. we exist in four dimensional space. i'm not saying my views are a fact.

you even stated in your other post that the universe is 'real, not imaginary'.

figure out what you really think instead of dancing around everyone's point to have something to be argumentative over because that is exactly what you are doing.

this is what i deduce from your posts. you think this universe is infinite more than finite. you think if there are other universes, it is probably just like this or similar. hypothetically, how the hell would a universe with 100 dimensions be similar to this?

since you can't even imagine the possibility of anything different, i can see how you can only imagine this universe as "infinite" and any and all possible universes must be like this. lol

 

If you think I have contradicted myself, then you simply misunderstand everything I have said.

Uhhh, no. That's not what I said. I said we have no evidence with which to make an assumption of other universes with different laws of physics. And I never said that I can't 'even imagine' the possibility of different universes. Certainly I can imagine such things. I can also imagine Klingons, and elves. What does imagination have to do with the evidence we have? Nothing.

Your senses have as much to do with scientific evidence as the senses of humans who believed we live on the back of a giant turtle.

If there was no evidence to support my views, I would agree with you. Your lack of knowledge re the universe reduces your views to nothing more than scientifically unsupported opinion.

Ok. Provide some scientific evidence to support your view/opinion that the universe is finite.

Yes. Your point is?

Not my fault you seriously lack knowledge of the form, and functions of the universe we can measure. I know exactly what I think. Because it's based on hard evidence.

A silly question. What evidence is there that a universe with 100 dimensions exists? None. Only in your imagination. Try to seperate fantasy from known reality.

I don't imagine our universe. I perceive it. There is a rather large difference. My perception is based on 300 years of hard science, experiments, and observations.

What are your 'perceptions' based on? Imagination. Nothing else.