The infinite space of the Universe

quote:

---

How can something infinite be small at the same time?
  —Agobot

---

quote:

---

Easy - how many rational numbers (fractions) are there between the integers 1 and 2?
  —cavediver

---

Infinite. So what does it prove? If 1 and 2 denote distance, then the distance between 1 light year away and 2 light years is greater than between 1 nanometre and 2 nanometres. When we communicate we always use consciousness and our scale of things would say that a distance of 1 light year is big and 1 nanometre is small.

So you're saying there was space before the big bang? Because i'm sure you said in another thread that there was nothing before the BB.PS. In another thread you claimed the universe is spherical and there is nothing outside of it. Now you say there is space outside of it. I am not saying you are supposed to know this but which one is the statement that represents your opinion?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Don't worry about it - it was an oblique comment from one cosmologist to another concerning the possibly ephemeral nature of distance.
  —cavediver

---

That's right. You are a cosmologist. One of many. And like all the rest, you are entitled to your own opinion(right or wrong) on matters for which the humanity has found no answer yet. But that's what this message board is for - you can certainly voice your opinion on any matter being discussed.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In another thread you claimed the universe is spherical
  —agobot

---

quote:

---

No, I did not
  —cavediver

---

Then why the Hell did you use the surface earth as an analogy of how you'd return to where you started if you travel 100 billion light years in space? Don't you know the Earth is spherical?

quote:

---

So you're saying there was space before the big bang?
  —agobot

---

quote:

---

No. How the hell do you get this from what I have just said???
  —cavediver

---

You SAID the first photon has travelled through space(see previous page). If that's the case, there must have been space prior to the photon's movement, which clearly means space was there before the BB.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

The bar will not re-connect with the beginning. This is complete BS and gibberish. Unless you think the Earth is a tiny speck on the surface of a spherical universe. But if you do think so, you need to see a doctor.

quote:

---

The universe, void of all matter, forces, etc would consist only of existing unbounded infinite static space/area.

---

quote:

---

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.
  —Staggler

---

Read what you have written - "spontaneous creation and annhilation of matter in the vacuum of space". My intermediate level English tells me you claim that there had been space before and during the creation of matter. But then again you try to make a point that there is no unbounded infinite static space/area. I am sure you could come up with better arguments.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Hi Agobot. I see you're from Bulgaria. We welcome you. Likely you're having some language translation difficulty or something. My position is as yours is, that the bar ends cannot connect without bending and that there's no property of space which allows space to reconnect the bar's two ends.

​

On the other hand, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying to me.
  —Buzsaw

---

They are saying that the bar will not bend, but space will and this is predicted by General Relativity theory. See this:"Phenomena that, in classical mechanics, are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories), correspond to inertial motion within a curved geometry of spacetime in general relativity: there is no gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight paths. Instead, gravity changes the nature of space and time, including the straightest possible paths that objects will naturally follow."General relativity - WikipediaMy position is that there is no force that will curve space in a perfect circle so that the beginning of the bar meets the end. I don't think this claim is part of the GR, if it is, could anyone provide a link to it?

quote:

---

My superior knowledge of physics (as compared to you - not a difficult level to attain) tells me that this is an experimentally observed effect that you would do well to at least look up before commenting.

​

Happy researching.
  —Straggler

---

I stand corrected. I completely misunderstood what you were saying(mainly due to the blank spots in my physics knowledge).

This is the only theory that i have ever come across about the emergence of matter and life, that seems to make any sense to our human minds:"The irresistible, mind-boggling fantasy comes to just about everyone, sooner or later: What if everything we knew, our whole universe, was just a speck of dust on someone's shoulder?Of course, that's not an idea astronomers take seriously. But many cosmologists are giving serious thought to a more scientific question: Do other universes exist?At first glance, you can't help but wonder how anyone could have the chutzpah to ask a question like that. We can barely figure out this universe, and now we're wondering about others?Believe it or not, theorists have an answer. And the answer appears to be, Yes.To understand why, you have to go back to the Big Bang, that mysterious, mother-of-all-explosions that most astronomers believe spawned our universe. One second, according to theory, there was nothingness. The next, our cosmos sprang into existence. Nature seems to have pulled off the feat of getting something -- in fact, everything -- for nothing.Astronomers believe the Big Bang first produced atomic nuclei in the first three minutes of the universe. 300,000 years later, atoms formed and light was released. Today we can still observe evidence of these primordial reactions.Did the early universe resemble a sponge or a spider web? A group of European researchers has done some long-distance sleuthing, looking way back in time to when the universe was just 15 percent of its current age, to uncover some vital clues.This chart shows how much of the universe is made up of dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter.Related SPACE.com STORIESThe Grid: A Computer Web for Astrophysics and More'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory'Milestone' Study Challenges Basic Laws of Physics, UniverseTODAY'S DISCUSSIONWhat do you think of this story?
>>Uplink your viewsAs unimaginable as that sounds, it comes straight out of the theory of quantum mechanics, a set of mathematical rules that describe how the universe works on the smallest scales, inside atoms. Quantum mechanics says that matter and energy can appear spontaneously out of the vacuum of space, thanks to something called a quantum fluctuation, a sort of hiccup in the energy field thought to pervade the cosmos.Cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the Big Bang. And the thing about quantum fluctuations is that they can happen anywhere, any time. And if our universe was born out of a quantum fluctuation, say theorists, then it's possible that other quantum fluctuations could have spawned other universes.There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe "fine-tuned" for our existence.But there's a problem. If these other universes exist, there's no way for us to detect them."Full text here:Astronomy News - Space Science - Articles and Images

Wouldn't an infinite space negate the existence of god? How would god or any other entity create something that's infinite? IMHO, if space is truly infinite, there could be no creator.

If we accept the BB theory, what scientific and physical arguments would negate a multiple big bang thesis and the existence of multiple(infinite?) number of universes? If one big bang is possible under the quantum fluctuations premise, why wouldn't there be 2 or 3 or 10 000?

quote:

---

God only allowed for one big bang as creation is complete. We can only destroy not create in my humble opinion.

---

If we assume god created an infinite universe, wouldn't he have to be creating it and expanding it constantly?

What does the BBT say about the existence of Singularity? If it has infinite density, isn't its size going to equal 0(i.e. non-existent)? Or do we rely on E=mc^2 that matter is just another state/form of energy?
If the singularity has infinitely small dimensions, why would 10 to the minus 33 seconds later, the resultant universe have very distinct and defined dimensions? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.