Spacetime is Infinite

Document Not Found

Sorry, the page you requested was not found.

As it states - the evidence seems to point to an open universe. ...

Gives no statement either way...

Again: stated - If the universe is indeed open

I see, so for you calculations prove observation and measurement to be wrong?

Indeed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Point being? I showed that all evidence seems to point to an Open universe. Read this again...

Universe - WikipediaCurrently the evidence seems to point to an open universe. ... Retrieved from "http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe" ...
nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

From the link:

''The size of the observable universe can be calculated as a sphere with a radius equal to the age of the Universe in light years. Thus the observable universe is a sphere with a radius of 15 billion light years, approximately 10^26m.''

''However due to initial inflation of the Universe soon after the Big Bang, the actual size of the Universe is much bigger than what is observable. The observable universe contains approximately 10^10 galaxies or 10^21 stars.''

So there is where the radius of the universe fails as true calculation. As i stated, you can neither have an absolute count, because no calculation takes into account an increasing spacetime fabric. Instead, they are approximations to something which is the closest we can make to any kind of volume. As i said,

''If you have a calculation which determines the volume of the universe, and a radius, does the universe stop expanding just for you? ''

It contues to expand, and any calculation cannot be varified to any accuracy, especially since the universe is expandin faster than the speed of light.

Now, if the universe is finite, the universe would be closed,

''The Universe has no boundary but may be finite. This may be understood by a three-dimensional analogy: the Earth has no edge despite the fears of putative flat-earthers that they might fall off the edge if they travelled too far, but nonetheless the surface of the Earth has a finite area.''

But, as shown in the link, it seems it is not finite, and instead is Open:

''One important question of cosmology is whether the Universe is open or closed. Depending on the average density of matter and energy it will either keep on expanding forever or it will be gravitionally slowed and will eventually collapse back on itself. Currently the evidence seems to point to an open universe.''

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again you miss the point.
Read your own words:
I showed that all evidence seems to point to an Open universe.
I.e. it's not proven.

And how about this;-
Reiku: Now, if the universe is finite, the universe would be closed
Link: The Universe has no boundary but may be finite.
Reiku: it seems it is not finite, and instead is Open
Link: One important question of cosmology is whether the Universe is open or closed
Currently the evidence seems to point to an open universe

"Seems to point to..." is more nebulous than "points to..."

Um, which part of intelligence are you missing?
You continue to deny even your own sources and maintain that the universe IS infinite, which has no corroboration in any of your links.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most physicists would state the evidence is bona fide. I'd tend to agree.

This is what mainstream accepts, and if you can't then tuff.

 

Most?
Figures?
Any data?
Any at all?

Incorrect, there is still controversy.

 

Th controversy is held by overzealous physicists who can't accept the fact the universe is expanding faster than light.

Now evidence? Here is a task for you. Go and ask an astrophysicist whether the consensus believes the universe is Open at:

Search ResultsAsk an AstrophysicistThis is the "Ask an Astrophysicist" service of the Imagine the Universe! web site. We specialize in cosmic-ray, gamma-ray, and X-ray astrophysics, ...
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/ask_an_astronomer.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

 

If there is nothing to reach then it doesn't exist, wouldn't you say ?

 

Infinity is a property of extension, one that never ends.

 

So something can only approach infinity. In the case of the universe, that it might be expanding forever i.e. there is no limit to it's size as a function of time.
Infinity itself does not exist, it is never reached. It is an abstract concept.

 

It would appear you're the zealot.
Dismissing others' work on no evidence.

A task for me?
You're too lazy to provide your own support?
Okay...

Straight from the link you gave.
Hmmm it it were "infinite" it wouldn't actually be a size would it?
Not having much luck supporting your beliefs are you?
Ever tried science as opposed to superstition?

Oh maybe this will support you:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

Strange, it doesn't...

 

Usually, when something can approach infinity, there is some kind of limit that exists before it. To take a good example, a peice of matter can only approach an infinite speed, but due to relativity, never reach it.

The expansion of the universe has remained the same since big bang, it's just that it has speeded up due to the negative energy that is invisible to the eye. But because the universe will most probably never reach an end, or what is called ''an Omega Point,'' the universe will then continue to expand, for eternity. We therefore call the expansion, an infinite expansion. And for this matter, spacetime is always being created, and the more spacetime expands, the more the energy is released into the vacuum.

Because an infinitely expandin vacuum requires an infinite amount of energy, the zero-point field, (which is in some texts the same as the cosmological constant which is driving the universes accelerated expansion) is required, because it states there is an infinite amount of energy living in the vacuum.

So infinity does exist in physics, just not so much the things we experience everyday.

 

Sigh..

 

:shrug:

 

Oli, your logic sucks ass. It really does. Listen to my words, because this is the last time i am going to speak to you on this subject.

We can make an approximation on the age of the universe, and how much spacetime volume there is against as a ratio. But the calculation is NOT correct, in the sense it is accurate to no error.

This is because the spacetime is always expanding, so any calculation you derive will always be in error. Why don't you understand this? In fact, don't answer, because i am not going to entertain this obvious cherade anymore.

And the reason why i asked you to do it, is because my e-mail is down. So it has nothing to do with, being lazy, you ignorant little man.

 

That means the expansion hasn't stopped. Use your imagination.

 

Reiku, do we know how old the universe is ?

 

It's around 13 to 15 billion years old. Some textbooks give an ultimate limit of 20 billion years.

 

I've always said the universe is accepted to have a finite age. But the expansion, and only after the observed accelerated expansion, is the universe considered to be infinitely expanding, and has, ever since it popped into existence.

 

Your reasoning, as usual, is faulty.
My logic isn't in question: I've provided links to observations and professionals' results (indeed, as recommended by you).
And it still contradicts your opinion.

I'll keep my fingers crossed.

How many times?
It is not a calculation it's an observation.

As stated in the article.
In error?
You do know about "approximate values" don't you?
They don't nail it down to the last centimetre...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How fast does it have to expand for a figure like "around 156 billion light years" to become out of date in, say, a decade?

Ah the woo woo bows out.

Your e-mail?
Oh you couldn't search the FAQ (like I did) or look to see if the question had already been asked (like I did)?

Oh that's too, too rich considering your displayed "intelligence" on this forum.

 

And it expands as a function of time, yes ?