Isotropic Universe

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Hayden, Jul 24, 2018.

  1. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    That's a misquote; the real title is "Five things physicists hate about physics".

    Right, but as the article states, this "there is no infinity"-claim is without evidence, but that was not was I was referring to. I was asking mainly about the last part of what I quoted: "Even the energy content of the universe is thought to be finite." You haven't given any source for that.

    The universal expansion isn't about the universe getting bigger, it's about distances increasing. Take an infinite universe. Now make it twice as large. The universe is still infinite in size, but all internal distances have doubled. I see no contradiction there?

    And nobody claimed otherwise.

    Irrelevant; we're talking about spatial infinity, not temporal infinity.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. nebel Valued Senior Member

    You can not make an infinite entity twice as large, it already has the largest possible dimensions. we are talking infinite, not indefinite. The article mention that you can create infinite infinities by internal division. no problem. The infinie size is what is at max.

    who said I have to? any viewer can google it herself.

    can you have spacetime without time , timespace without time? first things first.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    So you clearly don't know how universal expansion works; perhaps you might want to look into that.

    And I never claimed otherwise.

    Yes, the subject we are talking about is indeed the subject we are talking about; I don't know why you need to specify this again?

    In the science section of this forum it's expected that you can back up a claim you make. Clearly, you are unable to. Please keep your unsupported assertions in the fringe section next time.

    I never made such a claim, so that's irrelevant.

    "timespace" is not a scientific term, so that's irrelevant.

    Why is it impossible according to you to have infinite space, but only finite time?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. nebel Valued Senior Member

    true, while it is a play on words with the Einstein's coined term spacetime, and defined in the "ALMA" thread, it would tentatively describe the pre - Big Bang condition, where there clearly must have been time, but not space as we know it inside the universe.

    I was referring to the 3D space part in spacetime, which started at the Big Bang, so by that fact alone could not be infinite, having a beginning. If it is expanding in size, it can not be infinite either. It is definitely expanding into timespace, because all the clocks are showing bigger accumulated values, sums of time. so, yes,
    time, timespace, energytime are infinite, spacetime is not imho.
    I will spare you my thoughts on your repeated use of the word "irrelevant" and references to my need to upgrade my education, a self evident fact for all of us. thank you.
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Right, so it's irrelevant, as I said.

    You are misunderstanding what is meant. When I said space is infinite, I mean it is infinite in spatial size/extend. I don't mean it's infinite in time; this is clear from the context. Please read the thread to understand what it is about before commenting next time.

    As I've already demonstrated in this thread, this is false, and you once again haven't provided any counterargument. Please read my posts more carefully before commenting next time.

    Please look up the meaning of the word "definitely"; you're wrong in its usage here. Also, since "timespace" is something you made up that's baseless (if not downright incoherent), please refrain from posting about it outside of the fringe sections of this forum.

    What; can you please rephrase that? And how is that relevant to space being infinite in size?

    "energytime" is a made-up term; it's not scientific. Will you please keep your nonsense restricted to the fringe sections of this forum? Thanks.

    Well, you've just both admitted and proven that I was right in using it, so I'm quite interested in those thoughts, to be honest.

    I'm not sure I've made references to that at all, but sure, you should probably study the basics of what mainstream cosmology actually says; it's kinda a prerequisite to this whole discussion.

    Please let us know when you've understood what mainstream cosmology is about, so we can then continue this discussion on whether space is infinite in size or not.
  9. nebel Valued Senior Member


    thanks for clearing that up, we might have thought that space, the 3 dimensions had limits, in the beginning, in the farthest, (spatial fringes). and
    Bsw., this is the amateur cosmology section, (see logo above) and ivory tower or ivy league expressions might not always be used by the rank non- professionals here, but the audience will get it.

    Back to the OP, question/ answer (to which you, NE seem to have contributed very little in substance), : the universe seem to appear isotropic in shells, the early universe, the furthest we can receive images, photons from looks isotropic at that radius, but the near universe does not look that way, nor moves at those velocities.
    When we are talking of shells, radii, we can not possible mean infinities. When we talk a bout photons, our way of perceiving things, you can not possibly disregard "C" which has the term "second" aka "time" limits in it.
    These viewpoints may be primitive by your standards, but concepts of Kepler and Newton still work today on the amateur level.
    not passing judgements, leave that to the moderators, but working on the premise of the OP.
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2018
  10. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I'm glad I could help you understand what this thread is about.

    "might have"? It's still a possibility, so why the past tense?

    Yes, obviously amateurs are allowed. Several people in this very thread wouldn't be here otherwise.

    I think you've mixed me up with somebody else: I've asked the OP for multiple critical clarifications.

    False, unless you're talking about how we observe the universe to be (due to the limited speed of light).

    Ah, so that is what you are talking about. In that case: sure, but that's not what is meant when cosmologists say "the universe is isotropic". The universe will pretty much always look isotropic in that manner, so it's a quite trivial statement.

    Actually, we can, but I wasn't talking about shells, so I don't know why you'd bring this up?

    Which is something I've brought up in this very thread. Please stop repeating my own statements back at me, as if you're making some kind of point.

    Kepler and Newton do not work on cosmological scales. Obviously, the theory of general relativity is needed there. Please learn the basics of cosmology.

    I've been focused on the OP this entire time; if I'm going off-topic, it's because members such as yourself are requiring me to do so.

Share This Page