Is the universe finite?

[arfa brane]

My simple interpretation:
Relativity doesn't preclude objects moving apart from each other at >c.
But it does preclude either object from having a velocity >c.

Simplistically, a gravitational collapse requires objects that are "moving apart" from the vacuum at >c towards the COM of the collapsing body.

 

[John Connellan]

My simple interpretation:
Relativity doesn't preclude objects moving apart from each other at >c.
But it does preclude either object from having a velocity >c.

What is the difference between the relative velocity of two objects and the the "objects moving apart at c"?

 

[arfa brane]

What is the difference between the relative velocity of two objects and the the "objects moving apart at c"?

I would say there's no difference. If the objects are moving apart, they have velocities which are relative to each other.

 

[James R]

If I shine two torchlights in opposite directions, then light from one heads off at c in one direction, and the light from the other heads off at c in the other direction. The difference in those two velocities, as measured by me is 2c. There's no problem there.

What is never observed is a single object or beam of light travelling relative to me at a speed greater than c.

 

[IamJoseph]

Maybe I'm being too simplistic here, but if we might—for simplicity—imagine two edges of the Universe,

'two edges' don't apply here when it relates to an original singularity.

But for those of us who haven't read the Cosmology thread, do you recall which one it is? I mean, I could easily be floating an idea that has already been laughed out of the room.

(I'll be in the corner, playing with the cat.)

Greasy kid stuff. My problem is that why is it even a point of debate that the universe could not have begun as a singulairty! This does not get impacted by manipulative devices of math - any good lawyer or priest can do this. I suspect that its reasoning is it negates a universe without a universe maker - it boils down to a simple premise here. Neo science has wrongly assumed a universe maker is a negation of science - when exactly the reverse applies. There is no science or math in random!

 

[IamJoseph]

What is never observed is a single object or beam of light travelling relative to me at a speed greater than c.

This is due to the lack of an observer aside from you. It is aligned to the Q does a bang occur when there is none there to vouch for it.

 

[IamJoseph]

My simple interpretation:
Relativity doesn't preclude objects moving apart from each other at >c.
But it does preclude either object from having a velocity >c.

Simplistically, a gravitational collapse requires objects that are "moving apart" from the vacuum at >c towards the COM of the collapsing body.

How does one determine if gravity is a generic occurence throughout the unuverse, and also that it has a critical and precise impact in allowing an earth brimming with life - as generic and accidentall [incidental]? Which part of the equation is encumbent - that life is an accidental result of a generic condition - or that gravity being generic is not an accidental condition. This is the trick question facing humanty, and it is not resolved by observable phenomena - it begs the question if our hearing facility is conducive to sound - or vice verse - the sound is made conducive to our hearing.

The only open methodology I know of answering this question is to apply it [reduce it] to every day phenomena: is a car horn conducive to the car or the user of the car? It follows a sceintific premise there is no such thing as random.

 

[James R]

This is due to the lack of an observer aside from you. It is aligned to the Q does a bang occur when there is none there to vouch for it.

There are at least 6 billion human observers on the planet apart from me.

 

[Skeptical]

And science definitely includes the idea of random events. Quantum physics, for example, could not operate without accepting nano events as random.

 

[IamJoseph]

And science definitely includes the idea of random events. Quantum physics, for example, could not operate without accepting nano events as random.

Random is judged by the result not the opinion. To a bee, a lock for a specific door is random.

 

[IamJoseph]

There are at least 6 billion human observers on the planet apart from me.

Which means you have 6 B human observers.

 

[IamJoseph]

Another trick Q: Can an absolutely finite universe just happon? Who/what never done it - knowing there was no IT? This is what I can't figure out from a scientific POV. :shrug:

 

[Mind Over Matter]

If you had to make a definitive choice, would you say the universe is finite or infinite? The only qualification allowed is your answer has to relate to an 'ABSOLUTE' mode of finite or infinite, not a partial one. Go for it - its your universe.

There has to be an outer limit, and then, what is on the other side of this outer limit?

 

[Tiassa]

My, what we've forgotten

'two edges' don't apply here when it relates to an original singularity.

Stringent selective literalism in the face of analogy, metaphor, or other illustrative and comparative language is an evasion.

And quite a common one at that, be it theology, science, or even a marital spat.

Neo science has wrongly assumed a universe maker is a negation of science - when exactly the reverse applies. There is no science or math in random!

This is a fundamental error. Science does not negate a maker, nor vice-versa. Science seeks to identify the maker. What it cannot, however, assume, is any specific characteristic of the maker. This is why the gods people imagine are insufficient to explain the Universe.

Or, to put it into terms you might understand, the name of God is a mathematical formula.

Even the ancients knew that.

 

[Skeptical]

Sadly, our friend Joseph is subject to the fallacy of the religious. That is, he establishes the conclusion first, and then tries to manipulate the data to fit the conclusion. This leads to a heap of fallacies, many of which are utterly ridiculous. However, like all religious people, you will never convince him that his ridiculous conclusions are ridiculous.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the Universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years, and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years, or 8.80 × 1026 metres.

Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the Universe is finite or infinite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

 

[IamJoseph]

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the Universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years, and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years, or 8.80 × 1026 metres.

Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the Universe is finite or infinite.

Have you not just contradicted yourself with those two premises? If you vouch for the uni having limited dimesions - that only asserts a finite realm. Our observation capacity hardly impacts here. Its like saying a child can see the bottom of a tall sky crapper but not its tops - therefor it is proof there is no end or top!

 

[IamJoseph]

Sadly, our friend Joseph is subject to the fallacy of the religious. That is, he establishes the conclusion first, and then tries to manipulate the data to fit the conclusion. This leads to a heap of fallacies, many of which are utterly ridiculous. However, like all religious people, you will never convince him that his ridiculous conclusions are ridiculous.

Nothing I have posted applies to religion. Thus it is you who are doing what you accuse. The fact says Genesis cannot be faulted based on its premise the universe is finite, which is its opening preamble. Assess Genesis from its texts - the notion of religions is new, applying to Christianity and Islam - which have nothing to say on the subject.

 

[James R]

The fact says Genesis cannot be faulted based on its premise the universe is finite, which is its opening preamble.

I don't think that Genesis states that the universe is finite.

If it does, then it is in contradiction to the most modern scientific evidence, which suggests that the universe is infinite.

 

[IamJoseph]

Stringent selective literalism in the face of analogy, metaphor, or other illustrative and comparative language is an evasion.

And quite a common one at that, be it theology, science, or even a marital spat.

The analogy you made did not apply!

This is a fundamental error. Science does not negate a maker, nor vice-versa. Science seeks to identify the maker. What it cannot, however, assume, is any specific characteristic of the maker. This is why the gods people imagine are insufficient to explain the Universe.

Or, to put it into terms you might understand, the name of God is a mathematical formula.

Even the ancients knew that.

Science says the universe is finite - affirming Genesis. We don't need a rocket scientist to identify a finite realm cannot emerge of itself - the onus is not on Genesis but on its antithesis to make their counter proof. The notion science is only saying what it can observe is not a valid statement here: there is no possibility anyone can dispute the universe is finite with the premise the entire universe has to first be put in a vase on the table!

One cannot shout science while proposing such silly stuff - science is based on sound premises and manifest equations which have to be abided and applied: we know the universe is expanding - which means it was not infinite 10 seconds ago - there is nothing for science to observe here - Genesis has been vindcated.