Size of singularity

Shouldn't it be multiple universes? Not multiverse? A verse is a line of metrical writing. There is this single universe and if Infinity exists there would be an Infinity of other universes in varying stages of birth, life and death. And of course that takes us back to whether Infinity exists which cannot be proven.

They don't have contractions in California, or what?Here, give me your number so I can send you something about it on the optical faxscimile transmission device.Never mind, I'm too tired from having to type all that on my eletronic digital computing apparatus. Oh, if only there was a way to shorten technical words into something recongizable but managable!

OK, explain it to me please. This is a "uni" (one) verse. What in your mind is a verse?

Do you just not know how language works, or what?I literally understand neither your question nor where you're coming from on this. If you're still confused by this, ponder how we get the word "cheeseburger" from a word whose root is "hamburg".

Uni means one. Right? Verse is a line of metrical writing. Right? How do you get out of that what was supposidly created out of the "big bang" or the entire celestial cosmos?

here a site about the collapsing universe (Gradwell Space). it is already collapsing. teh expansion we see is an optical illusion. by Martin Gradwell.:http://www.btinternet.com/~mtgradwell/

---

pic of me on my homepage

Um, no. That would be stupid.You've heard of these things called "dictionaries", right? You should look in one, sometime. In addition to spelling, pronunciation, and definitions, they include word etymology. (No, that's not the study of insects, that's the study of the origin of words.From the ol' Merriam-Webster:

quote:

---

Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn --

---

The word isn't constructed from "uni" and "verse", as in poetry. It's constructed from some latin words, and taken as a whole, it means "the whole thing."Any words based off the English spelling aren't based on "verse", as in poetry, they're based on "-verse" as a back formation, much like "cheeseburger" is based on "-burger" as a back formation from "hamburg".You didn't even think about the cheeseburger example, did you?

My old dictionary doesn't even have etymology. Your saying that the universe is "the whole thing" and there is nothing else? So either the universe is infinite or there is something called nothing beyond the space it occupies?

here comes that deafening silence again......if you listen real hard you can hear it sound's kinda like old man's farts but it stinks much worse

In common parlance, yes.In regards to cosmology, I think that it is better to define "universe" as simply "the set of all points to which an onject could travel under Newtonian motion."

Yes.and No!The Universe is the whole thing that we can currently observe.It is not infinite and there doesn't seem to be space that it does not yet occupy. It does seem to be expanding, but not expanding into something else.With the capabilities that we have right now, there does not appear to be anything beyond the universe.And now for the other shoe.There are several theories that suggest that there is something other than the universe. These are theories, and theories only. They make assumptions using ideas that work in mathmatical models but that so far, be cannot test or observed outside the math. These models all depend on their being more dimensions than the familar four.These models are useful when they can help explain what we observe in the universe. They do make predictions about things we should be able to detect in the normal four dimension universe and as those predictions are verified, one or more of the theories may move beyond the realm of simple speculation into tools to be used. But so far, we do not yet know enough to do more than speculate.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The problem I have is that I can not understand how a rational mind can believe that there would be a point in space, if one went far enough, where space would cease to exist. What would exist there? Nothing? What is nothing? It couldn't be empty space because empty space is something. I find it so much easier, and I believe more rational, to simply believe that space and the dimensions we know are Infinite.

What if space was shaped in such a way that, if you went far enough, you wound up where you started? You know, much as if one traces one's finger across a globe, one never reaches the edge, but no one claims that the globe's surface is infinite.It would be possible for space to be finite but unbounded in three dimensions. In such a situation it would not be possible to reach an edge of space by travelling in any direction.I don't believe that the universe is of infinite size, because then it would contain infinite mass, and wouldn't that infinite mass prevent any sort of expansion?

I don't believe Infinite space has a shape. It's Infinite in all directions and dimensions. It seems that everyone is trying hard to disprove that "What you see is what you get". We exist, space exists, matter exists. Why do we insist on proving the unprovable that a some point nothing existed.

So why doesn't all that infinite mass collapse the universe? Why are things expanding and not contracting under infinite gravitational pull?I don't think an infinite universe really answers any questions.