The infinite space of the Universe

Buz
Whatever the overall topology of the universe may be are you suggesting that spacetime is not curved at all?You do know that the curvature of space time has been empirically verified don't you? You do know that satallite navigation systems, for example, actually rely on calculations that rely on general relativity. Calcultaions of the curvature of spacetime.If you are suggesting that space is not curved at all and that this mysterious dimension defying steel bar of yours remains totally "straight" no matter what gravitational field it might be in - Then you have already been proven wrong and the topology of the universe as a whole becomes a moot point.Do you use GPS? Did you know that the clock of a satellite in orbit around the Earth actually goes faster than one at the Earth's surface? Without accounting for the relativistic effects of the spacetime curvature caused by the mass of Earth GPS would be horribly inaccurate.How does your straight bar fare in the curved spacetime it actually exists in?
If the universe is indeed unbounded then ultimately same difference with your universal proportioned steel bar.

"Constant designs". Just because somthing is effectively permanent in human time scales does not mean it is eternal. The lifetime of our solar system is finite.

Actually the only butt that will get kicked with your flawed line of reasoning is your own.
It is not just math and no-one has mentioned QM. I am talking about practical results. Practical results that the army depend upon and every sat nav system in the world would be useless without.
Tested practical results based on the curvature of spacetime.You exist in curved spacetime. You. Now. As does any actual steel bar you may care to lay your hands on. By what seems to be your own dimensionally challenged view of perfect straightness (one that you are still unable to actually define as separate from space) there is no such thing as a perfectly straght steel bar. The property of spacetime that does this is the curvature of spacetime.
What does "straight" mean in this context if not devoid of directional deviation in space?Look at your window. Glass is pretty straight. It is also pretty inflexible. If somehow (heaven knows how in practise but just imagine the hypothetical scenario) spacetime around your window were to suddenly become distorted such that the there was extreme local curvature of space around your window what would your window look like?Do you think the glass would shatter into pieces because it does not look "straight" to you any more?1) Which part of curved spacetime do you not understand?
2) Do you accept that you exist in locally curved spacetime or do you deny even this?
3) What does "straight" mean in this context if not devoid of directional deviation in space?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But the "trajectoral dimensions" themselves are not "straight" so if the bar is straight in all "trajectoral dimensions" the bar is not "straight" in the flawed way that you insist on persisting with.Imagine a steel bar. Imagine in bent into a circle. The inner circumference of the steel is compressed right? The outer circumference of the bar is stretched right?In the case of the universe proportioned steel bar under consideration the inner and outer circumference of the bar are the same length. Becuase space itself, not the bar, is "bent".

The property of the straight bar in "all trajectoral dimensions" (i.e. I assume you mean 3D space by this?) which allow it to rejoin itself is the property of straightness in curved 4D spacetime. Do you deny that space is curved?
If you agree that space is curved how do you achieve the sort of "straightness" you are insisting upon in curved space?
If you do deny that space is curved how do you account for the practical calculations of curved spacetime that allow GPS satellites to function?You are the one denying reality and logic by trying to separate the concept of the "straightness" of an object from the space in which the object exists.The question comes down to whether or not you actually accept the curvature of space or not. So do you?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Because your model of the universe is flawed and has been experimentally refuted. Why do atomic clocks on satellites measure time at a faster rate than those on the Earth's surface?
How does your model of the universe explain this? Can your model of the universe predict these different rates?
Why is it that this time differential is exactly that as predicted by general relativity? Exactly that as based on a model of space and time in which spacetime is curved?Unles your model of the universe can match the practical results of the truly scientific model it will receive no shred of recognition as anything other than a philosophically inspired piece of wishful thinking on your part that is unworthy of the attention of anybody else.Prediction and empirical results Buz. They keep on coming back to blow apart your pet theories of the cosmos. Time and time again. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am not sure that we are talking about exactly the same thing.This is from wiki so I don't claim it as the last word in scientific knowledge.From wiki There is also a slowing effect due to motion as per special relativity but, as I understand it, the overall effect is that satellite clocks run fast in comparison to Earthbound clocks once both gravitational effects (i.e. GR) and motion effects (i.e. SR) are taken into account.It appears Son Goku has taken up the reigns on this topic so no doubt he can clarify.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If the calculations made on basis of spacetime curvature (e.g. for things like satellaite time adjustments) work out to be exactly as observed are you claiming that this is just some sort of random coincidence?Can your theory of "forces or other factors" make equally accurate calculations and predictions?Doesn't this lead you to at least question your rather simplistic assumptions about the universe?

Yet you seem to discount the full weight of observational evidence that mass is indeed spacetime curvature.In other words your opinion regarding the properties of space are not only baseless but have actually been empirically refuted.On what basis do you persist with this model of yours?

Any mass. The mass of an atom or the mass of a planet or the mass of a star. All mass.The issue in this context is curvature of spacetime (do you remember the steel bar converstaion that initiated all of this?)How can you possibly deny the curvature of spacetime given all of the detailed, specific, measurable empirical evidence in favour of this?
How can you cling onto your flawed and simplistic model of the universe given that it is so evidently inferior in terms of predicting or explaining observed results that are applied in practise to various technologies. Technologies that you yourself may use.On what basis do you cling to your notion of non-curved space?
It is obviously just wrong.

What does that even mean?Are you asking if space itself has mass?

Mass is spacetime curvature as I understand it. Does this mean mass is a property of space? An effect of space? Are they too interrelated for the question as to which is a property of what to make sense?Although unintended on your part I think the question you ask is too profound and complicated for me to answer. Having just read the replies of Cavediver and Son Goku has confirmed that in terms of field theory etc. I would be out of my depth with regard to this matter (no pun intended ). If you are happy to ignore all of the observational evidence, all of the practical results that we actually use in current technologies and the lifes work of some of the most brilliant minds ever to have lived then I suppose that it is indeed possible that you have seen through the fog and achieved an insight unvailable to everyone else.......Buz if there is one thing an even vague understanding of physics should teach you it is that limited human perception and resulting "common sense" conclusions are insufficient to describe and predict reality.The main problem in all these threads is that you obviously do not have even this vague understanding and seem depressingly unwilling to educate yourself regarding these matters. A clock on a satellite or even at the top of a mountain will run faster to exactly the degree predicted by General Relativity which is a theory of spacetime curvature. Until your model can explain this time differential and predict the exact empirically tested and calculated effect it is not even worth considering.Your philosophical objections and preferences are irrelevant. The empirical objective evidence is ultimately against you.

It is not just points of view Buz. Do you know how unbelievably accurate the predictions of General Realativity are?
No other theory even makes any such predictions never mind matches the accuracy of those made by GR. Whatever these other mysterious theories that you speak of are they are indisputably and woefully inferior to GR by any objective measure. Only your philosophical bias regarding this matter stops you seeing this. The fact I cannot truly comprehend, and you seem incapable of even attempting to comprehend, curved 4 dimensional spacetime is neither here nor there. You are also still completely confusing the "bending" of the bar with the curvature of spacetime. The bar is not "bent". The structure of the atoms that make up the bar remain unaffected. The two sides of the bar remain the same length. The bar is in no way bent in the superman bending bars of steel sort of way that you are imagining. No force is distorting the material of the bar. The bar is straight by any measure you can make.If we limit science and modern phyisics in particular to that which meets common sense then the whole of quantum theory and the whole of relativity get thrown out. In fact there is a large part of classical physics that would probably get thrown out too (e.g. Newtons first law) Don't confuse logic and common sense. They are not the same thing.
Science is logical but science often provides results that are contrary to common sense. The only theory here that is violating observed reality is, I am afraid, your own.As for time differential air resistance comment........well others have picked up on this and put you straight on this matter.
I seriously suggest that you research the phenomenon that you need to explain, the predictions that you need to be able to make and the level of evidence that you are up against if you are going to persist in pushing your already refuted static simple common sense universe model in opposition to scientifically verified principle of cosmology.
At the moment it is clear that beyond a simple "well this is how it looks to me and my bible agrees" you don't really have any evidence in your favour at all.

For all the wrong reassons you are absolutely right.
Apart from the obvious fact that no such steel bar exists or could be constructed there is the small matter of the universe expanding. As I understand it we would need to be expanding our steel bar at faster than the speed of light to deal with this if we are to enevelope the entire universe.Anyway. Whatever the overall topology of the universe your denial of any curvature of spacetime is a baseless assertion that simply flies in the face of all the evidence. You still have not even atempted to address the stunningly accurate predictions of GR and your claim that these are somehow wrong despite the fact that everyday technologies rely on these very predictions.I don't really understand why you are so adamantly against the idea of curved spacetime? Why exactly are you so sure that it is wrong?The only difference between you and those who once said - "Look around you. The Earth is flat any fool can see this. How can it be a sphere when everything would fall off the bottom" - is that we cannot just stick you on a boat for a few months to demonstrate just how wrong you are.Nature doesn't always work as common sense would suggest. Nor does it pay any attention to our philosophical and religious prejudices. Deal with it.

Is that it? Your lack of understanding leads to denial regardless of all the evidence and practical application that oppose your view? What else do you not understand? (rhetorical question, no need for a list ) But Buz do you really understand forces and matter? It seems that fields are ultimately the thing to understand if you really want to get your head round any of this stuff. Ultimately all we observe is the result of fields. Remind us? Are you an authority on the subject? How do you know this such that we should take your reminders at all seriously? Static? Unboundless? Where do you get this stuff from? Again how do you know this? Apart from anything else the spontaneous creation and annhilation of matter via quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space would seem to contradict your view of what empty space is. Outside? Are you saying space expanding into space? How on Earth could this happen? Do we end up with overlapping space? Is there time in this "outside space" as well?Buz - You look around your limited little speck of the cosmos with your imperfect perception and your inability to comprehend and think you can work out the nature of the universe by common sense alone. Emptiness remains empty unless filled. Time always ticks away at a universally constant rate no matter what. Space is 3 dimensional and simple with no distortion or curvature. Straightness is a concept somehow independent of space. Forces are simple push pulls acting on matter that is conceptually solid. Things are either there or they are not with no room for ambiguity. Etc. etc. etc.You are not alone in this view. We all do it to some extent. However modern science has taught us that our perception is limited and our comprehension irrelevant. Nature is as nature is and no matter how much you object on principles of common sense the evidence is indisputably against you.I'll leave it at that. This thread must be due for closure. You can have the last word if you so wish.