The infinite space of the Universe

One only has two choices - either the universe is infinite or finite. Both assumptions depend on the boundaries of time. For if time is finite, then the universe must be finite. If time isn't finite, then the universe can be either finite or infinite.Time is only a comparison of cyclical events and invented by the human mind. If an event should only occur once, it would be impossible to relate it to another event without a measuring stick such as the sun rising every morning. And as the sun will rise at different times in the morning, we must understand that time isn't a perfect dimension. Einstein showed that the measuring stick of time can be warped and if the measurement of time can be influenced then our perception of the universe may be fraught with misconceptions.The boundary that is most important is the boundary established by the speed of light. What's interesting is that particles traveling faster than the speed of light would be imperceptible and we have no technology to determine if or if not there actually is a boundary. For instance if one believes in "God" then one must believe the boundary does not exist. Thus the dilemna of scientist (not science).

My idea of universe is not space. Space is dimensional and might have edges or possibly turn back on itself. The universe includes that which is unknown. Light generated by objects at the edge of space (or if you prefer the most remote object) will travel outside that space into what? If light was generated during the big bang, photons would be traveling far beyond the confines of space and would have escaped the influence of gravity.Before and after are relative terms. That which is before is also after and that which is after is also before. Without cyclical recurrance time would have no meaning. One second must be the same as all others or it is irrelevant as a measurement and we insist on defining time as the fourth dimension.My perception of infinite is beyond the ability to reasonably understand - much like the square root of a negative number.

If I were to write a history of the universe, the title would be "Where in the universe is the first photon". I need help explaning how the first photon would be subject to gravitation waves and turning in gravitional induced spirals. I can deal with most of the rest being influenced as they wonder near gravitional generating objects as if on a roller coaster but my mind keeps looking around wondering if the first is continuing merrily along a straight path whistling "Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street".

Many assume that black holes are the end of matter. Not so. Black holes eventually decay when they have no more matter to consume. There is exciting thinking going on that includes black holes as a critical component of a cyclical regeneration of the universe.

What is being considered is that the existence of a black hole may well depend on the exchange of energies from the collisions of objects. What will happen when the collisions end? What is being considered is that as a black hole cools toward absolute zero gravitational forces weaken, radiant energies start escaping, and matter starts to reformulate into neutrons which decay into protons and electrons. If reformation can accelerate quickly enough then an explosion will occur which will scatter particles across a new galaxy. This produces a cyclical existence of galaxies. In essence each galaxy becomes a closed system where matter and energies are converted back and forth.I find this intriguing as there is a preponderance of people who accept that the universe is expanding. A red shift from distant galaxies can be caused by our galaxy shrinking. Further, measuring the red shift of light for other galaxies means that we are measuring the shift from the stars nearest us. If these stars are accelerating toward the center of their galaxies, the acceleration of these stars is in an direction away from us which creates a red shift. This begs the question of an expanding universe as we are measuring the shift from stars and not galaxies.Hope I haven't confused you.Edited by Libmr2bs, : No reason given.

As I've said before, light emitted at the moment of the big bang would out run any particle if the speed of light is considered the limit. Therefore photons would be traveling out beyond the edge of space about 14 billion light-years. The limit of the reach of these first photons is my definition of the universe versus the furtherest galaxy as the limit of space.We haven't been able to define the center of space so all measurements are relative.To measure the distance from galaxies the illumination of light reaching earth is compared to a reference. The relative speeds are determined by measuring the Dopler affect with a spectronmeter. If there is a shift toward red or blue, it can be assumed that the planets are moving relative to each other.The question is whether we are looking at a sample that represents an unbiased sample. If our planet and the stars of the galaxies are collapsing toward the center of their galaxies and the distances remain constant between the center of the two galaxies, then you will see a shift in the spectrum of light reaching the earth. In looking at this possibility one must also examine the source of light. The light that is most likely to be measured is emitted from the stars on the near side of the galaxy which would be moving away from our planet and would also produce a shift. The further away the more pronounced this last situation would be.In my view the expansion of the space is questionable and needs to be reexamined.

The assumption that light or any imaginary or real "straight" object would circle back on itself completely ignores the chaos theory. I used the word "would" instead of "could" since it might be possible that an event will occur. I personally don't have the computing power or desire to invest the time to calculate the probability that such an event might happen.One must not overlook chaos theory when investigating the probability of events happening in a non-uniform system. The distribution of galaxies should be adequate to identify space as an non-uniform system. If the array of galaxies is non-uniform then the argument for a uniform shape to the boundaries of space would seem weak and the probabilities of a non-uniform shape would seem infinite.

Your calculations need to include the fact that gravity is non-uniform at the surface of the earth. For that reason light will not follow the curvature of the earth. The use of GPS equipment has shown that there is enough difference in gravity at the earth's surface that accurate measurements have to take into consideration the gravitational gyrations.Why this reply - see 189 for my earlier post discussing the probabilities of such an event happening along the boundaries of space.

Your example of the potato is funny and unreal. You're not taking into consideration motion. Put on a blind fold and have someone turn you around several times and try to take your potato and stamp the paper several times. Would all the ink marks match up? Will you even hit the paper each time? Give up? Simply try stamping the paper twice with your potato. Do the marks match up?You are making so many assumptions that the solutions you arrive at are meaningless. A spirit level doesn't work in non-gravitional space or even a weak one so you have to consider gravity. The earth wobbles. A featureless earth doesn't take into consideration what's beneath the earth. What is beneath your "earth" including discontinuities determines both the magnetic and gravitional fields. Enough already?It appears that you don't comprehend the chaos theory.The calculations for the age of space is based on what we can see or measure. Photons generated at the big bang traveling at the speed of light away from us would be invisible and the distance traveled would not be measurable. No one has been able to tell me where the first photon went and why it would circle back to it's beginning point. Try if you wish.Edited by Libmr2bs, : No reason given.

Lyx2no,Thanks for the compliments.You'll have to forgive me for destroying your model. I do have a bad habit of confusing the issues well beyond my understanding. It isn't quite as much fun as confusing the issues beyond the ability of my colleagues to address in their models by the situations I can imagine. Of course they do have a tendency to attempt to get even. That's what makes learning fun.

Models are simply a representation of our imagination doing its thing. There is no realty - only memories and expectations, neither of which are dependable.The earth is an ellipsoid.I don't use the word "tramp". It would be demeaning to an individual and would only serve to protray myself to be superior in some way to another human being which I am not.My computing power is limited to a slow laptop, pencil and paper. Of course I could get out my circular slide rule with the periodic table on the back but it would take me too long to find it in my pile of antique stuff and I think that maybe a few transitional elements have been added since I last used it. Maybe just maybe I'll go back looking for that repulsive particle that keeps space expanding. Or maybe I'll revisit my last version of a unified theory and see if I can isolate the variable that keeps twisting my string into a knot. Maybe I'll just have some more fun.

If you don't mind a short interjection, humans and bacteria have two essential purposes in life - survival and propagation of our species. Some bacteria will cause the death of their host to infect other hosts. Some people think humans are doing the same to this planet. Maybe we are not unlike bacteria in more ways than we want to admit.Considering your statements got me to thinking. Would there be a universe if there were no people?

I was thinking of a philosophical question. How can something exist unless some entity has the ability to recognize it? How can there be a universe unless we are able to see beyond our galaxy? Would there be a god if there is no one to know there is a god? How could he be a god if he had no one to be god of?A slightly different slant on the purpose of the universe. Something for me to ponder on a while.

Careful - atomic clocks slow down while orbiting this planet but not in relation to the satellite they are riding on. But then we have to adjust our calendars and clocks to account for the computed time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun.Edited by Libmr2bs, : No reason given.Edited by Libmr2bs, : No reason given.

I agree that space is unbounded but not necessary static. If it is expanding, it can't be bound.I'll repost the problems that appear to have no answer. When the big bang occurred there would have been a first photon released. Where is that photon today? Its had at least 14 billion years to travel.
Or try to explain where photons go when they are emitted by objects at the "boundary"? Are they emitted in one direction as if the boundary was a curved mirror?