Universe - Size . . . something doesn't compute !

quote:

---

One reason people speculate that the universe is finite is that an infinite universe has serious problems. Imagine an infinite universe. Whatever direction you happen to look, you will be looking directly at a star. I don't mean, more or less at a star. That is the situation we have now. I means that the night sky would be brilliant white. There would be no dark spots.

---

This is resolved with either a universe of finite age, or an expanding univere. Since both are working factors Olber did not know about, the paradox is no more.

Well, what you found was kind of a simplistic summary - the version I'm familiar with says "it is undesirable to needlessly multiply untestable entities." So, if you have a theory or model that contains entities that cannot affect the things we observe and cannot themselves be observed - as anything proposed to be outside the universe would be - then throw them out, because they're pointless. It's not so much a theory, Occam's Razor, as it is a rule of thumb for the formulation of scientific thought.Things outside of the universe by definition cannot affect us nor be observed, so no scientific model can make reference to entities outside the universe. Now, I'm not adverse to speculation, but know that it will always be fruitless. There's just no way to know what's outside the universe. Well, in an infinite universe, no. On the other hand, in a universe that's truly infinite, if you traveled in a straight line long enough, you'd eventually come to a place that was exactly like the place you started from. You would even encounter a copy of yourself. (Similar to how, given an infinite string of random digits, like pi, any arbitrary finite string of digits can be found within it.) Hey, as far as I'm concerned, we're both laymen. (Laypeople?) I have absolutely no professional training or education in this, just a lot of popular-press math/science books.

Bingo ! This is exactly how I envisage things to be, although I could understand why the scientific community would have serious problems with this theory. I was talking to a friend last night regarding this forum, and mentioned exactly this to him - strangely enough, when I explained to him my (uneducated ) theory, he could see how this could be possible. My "truly" infinite universe basically means that everything inside it (for want of a better description - in order to be an inside, there has to be an outside) is also infinite, including the number of stars, planets and galaxies, the life forms in the universe - everything . . . Yes. I agree, it probably is fruitless because there is no way that we will, in our lifetimes anyway, be able to prove it one way or the other. Again, I would stress that my position is that the statement "what's outside the universe" is void. Because I believe the universe to be infinite, it cannot have an outside Hey, thanks again Crash I might conclude my posts soon, as I'm sure I'm annoying some who are more educated than myself with my simplistic views ! Hehehehe ! We'll see how we go, although I'm having trouble keeping myself away from it

On thinking about the grenade analogy, and indeed the balloon analogy which you mentioned in your reply, these don't, in my opinion explain how space can be expanding. Both of these refer to matter, be it shrapnel or rubber. The fact that galaxies are moving, be it away from us or away from other planets, doesn't prove that space itself is expanding, merely that matter within the space is moving. Umm, this to me sounds like another contradiction.If, as I believe, the big bang was a localised phenomenon dealing not with space, but with matter within the space, this doesn't have to have affected the whole universe. If indeed the big bang is what caused all of the matter that we are able to observe to move away from us (or away from a point close to us), that would surely explain the moving of galaxies and other matter in an outward fashion. I don't for one minute believe that every planet in the universe sees the same thing. Just because that is what we observe, doesn't mean that we must be so arrogant as to believe that that is what happens everywhere.And, if space is infinite, this would explain the consistent, or lightly increasing speed of this movement. The use of a solid material to demonstrate the behavior of space is hardly going to be accurate. This anaolgy simply fits within the criteria of the theory which you hold to be true - a finite, expanding universe. Again, getting back to the real point, if you assume that the balloon is the universe, then what would you call the room that the balloon floats around in ? You are not stretching space with this demonstration, you are stretching matter. I agree, there isn't more space - there can't be. Because if, as I believe, space is infinite, there can't be any more or any less of it. I don't believe that space itself has stretched, simply the distance between the galaxies has gotten larger due to the movement of the galaxies within the space. So far, to be honest, I have seen no evidence, at least not in this forum. What I have seen is contradiction after contradiction and analogies which simply don't make sense. To be perfectly honest, I don't have to come to grips with anything of the sort. It could be argued that you have to come to grips with my theory, but that's not what I am after. I know that I can't give evidence for the infinite universe theory, because if indeed it is infinite, it can't be measured and proven as so. The way I look at it, my view is my view, and if someone wants to challenge that and prove otherwise that is great ! That is what I am after here. I want someone to give me solid, non-contradictory evidence that the universe is indeed finite. If this were presented to me in a way that doesn't blur the lines, or is not full of contradictions and useless non-related analogies, then I would be happy to change my point of view. Until that happens however, you can tell me that I am wrong and stupid as long as you like, it's not going to change the way I think at all.

quote:

---

On thinking about the grenade analogy, and indeed the balloon analogy which you mentioned in your reply, these don't, in my opinion explain how space can be expanding. Both of these refer to matter, be it shrapnel or rubber.

---

OK. The grenade idea was yours, though I named it. You propose an explosion in space, much like a grenade. This does not produce anything like what we see. Go back and read that post. This is the reason why your idea that the BB was an ordinary explosion in space is wrong. The balloon analogy is a popular visual. It isn't a proof. The proof is... well, we'll try again...

quote:

---

If, as I believe, the big bang was a localised phenomenon dealing not with space, but with matter within the space, this doesn't have to have affected the whole universe.

---

Ordinary explosions do not produce the patterns we observe. This cannot be the answer. It does not match observation.

quote:

---

If indeed the big bang is what caused all of the matter that we are able to observe to move away from us (or away from a point close to us), that would surely explain the moving of galaxies and other matter in an outward fashion.

---

If we assume that the Earth is at the center of hundreds of millions of galaxies, then you are at step one of making the idea work. This is pretty hard to swallow. But it doesn't matter anyway, because that doesn't solve the problem. An explosion will produce a dense shockwave of matter moving outward from the point of detonation. We know what ordinary explosion look like. They look like this .mpg ( warning: large file ) . See that ring, or shell? We don't see that in the universe on a large scale. It can't be the result of that type of explosion in space.Now, if we assume that we are living in the very early days of the explosion and thus are living prior to the formation of the shell, we have another easily observable, but by no means the only, problem. If it were an ordinary explosion, everything would be moving away from us at just about the same speed. That is not what we observe. The further away a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving. In other words, imagine that you measure all of the objects that are one foot away from you and find they are ALL moving away from you at 1 foot per minute. All of the objects two feet away are moving two feet per minute. All of the objects three feet away, and so on... See the pattern? You are adding to velocities, as if each object were pushing off of the nearer objects. You can solve this by postulating some weird and undetected force that causes objects to accelerate at faster and faster rates as distances FROM WHERE YOU STAND increase, or you can accept that space itself is expanding. This is exactly what we'd expect to see if space were expanding. This is what the visual of the balloon was intended to help you see.

quote:

---

The use of a solid material to demonstrate the behavior of space is hardly going to be accurate.

---

Bloody hell! Its a freaking analogy. It is intended to give you an idea. It isn't proof. The proof is mathematical and observational.

quote:

---

I don't believe that space itself has stretched, simply the distance between the galaxies has gotten larger due to the movement of the galaxies within the space.

---

What is the force causing them to accelerate? You can't answer, "The explosion." Why? Because the explosion is gone. We don't see it anymore. In a normal exploson, once the initial detonation ceases, things stop accelerating.Oh. And then there is redshift. Cosmological redshift is a directly measurable effect of light travelling through expanding space.

quote:

---

So far, to be honest, I have seen no evidence, at least not in this forum.

---

Do you want the math? Start browsing Eric Weisstein's World of Physics.

quote:

---

What I have seen is contradiction after contradiction and analogies which simply don't make sense.

---

The analogies aren't proof. They are explaination. If you want proof, you are going to have to study the physics.

quote:

---

That is what I am after here.

---

I am really beginning to wonder.

quote:

---

I want someone to give me solid, non-contradictory evidence that the universe is indeed finite.

---

The stars? White sky? Remember? That is the best single bit evidence against an infinite, in space and time, universe. What more do you want? Do you see a blinding white sky at night?

quote:

---

If this were presented to me in a way that doesn't blur the lines, or is not full of contradictions and useless non-related analogies, then I would be happy to change my point of view.

---

Then learn the math. If you don't want the analogies, which are an attempt to make four and more dimensions palpable, then you have no choice.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Doh, you beat me to it. Carrying the infinite even further, if you traveled in a straight line you would run into an infinite number of yourselves wearing the same exact clothes. Pretty strange.Just my two cents on non-euclidian, instead of cirlcing back on yourself, imagine two people walking away at right angles to the equator and meeting at the north pole creating a triangle with two right angles. Always one of my favorite thought excersizes.

Just a footnote, not relevant to the discussion. If time was also infinite, then any sequence of events would repeat itself. You would live your life over and over! This is the 'Eternal Recurrence' theory proposed by the philosopher Neitzche.
Mike.

quote:

---

This is the 'Eternal Recurrence' theory proposed by the philosopher Neitzche.

---

I tend to think Uncle Freddie was much too bright to have meant that literally. As a date said to me once, "Nietzsche wrote philosphy as if it were poetry." I think the doctrine of eternal recurrence ties into his dictum that you should live your life such that you'd wish to repeat it for an eternity. But, that is off topic. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

It requires such enormous hubris to think for a second that what you believe has much relavance after decades of research and thought by very, very cleaver individuals!If you are in contradiction to the consensus view of cosmology the overwhelming probability is that you are wrong. If, at the same time, you have no idea about what current cosmology is saying and also haven't a clue about the math involved then the chances of anything you say being of any value at all approaches zero so closly that there is no difference.Because you are unable to understand it, or I have a hell of a time getting my head wrapped around it even a little bit doesn't make it wrong. It means we have two choices; work very hard to get a better understanding of it or ask questions and take the answers we are given as the best understanding we will get.It it appaling that individuals think they have some kind of right to an opinion on any topic at all, even those that they know absolutely nothing about. To have an opinion that anyone else should give a moments thought to requires that one puts effort into understanding the issue at hand.

That's not mathematically correct. You can always add to infinity. And subtract, as well. (I once heard an analogy about "the Hotel Infinity" that may make this more clear for you. I'll tell it to you, if you like.)

if you did indeed live your life over and over, that could be an explaination for the "de ja vu" phenomenon . . . yes? no?It certainly makes one wonder ! !

Hey Crash, I would absolutely love to hear the "Hotel Infinity" analogy !It's difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that if something is infinite, that you can actually add to it. I thought that if something was infinite, it couldn't possibly be measured as such and given a "total" size to which you could add more . . . but hey, again, I'm an uneducated dude By all means, educate me

Hi Ned,With all due respect, what I believe has huge relevance - to myself. If I believe something different to all those " very, very cleaver individuals" who have gone before me, I'm not going to just shut up and cave in to their views, no matter how educated they may be. That would be a very weak stance to take. Think how things would be if every person who has dared to think that something else may be possible had just gone along with the accepted views of the time. Many of the famous scientists and cosmologists who have gone before us wouldn't have had the chance to shape science as we know it today.Many a scientist has come up with theories which were in direct contradiction to the "concensus", and have been proven to be correct. If I wasn't interested in understanding the issue at hand, I wouldn't have even bothered to put a post up in this forum. I have listened to the views of all you educated guys, with a view to garnering a better understanding of your particular viewpoint. Does that mean then that you should perhaps give a moments thought to what I have said? Sounds like it, if we are to take your advice.I mean all this in the nicest possible way Thanks Ned . . .

Sure thing. My apologies to it's original author, whom I cannot remember.Basically, it's like this. You work the night desk at the prestigious Hotel Infinity, which has an infinite number of non-smoking, single-queen-sized-bed rooms. It's a busy night, so it's full. That is to say there's an infinite number of guests at the hotel.A customer comes up and wants a room. "Sorry," you tell him, "we're full." "Nonsense," he replies. "This is the Hotel Infinity. You have an infinite number of rooms." He's right, of course. "Well, I guess you could have the room at the end of the infinitely long hall..." you say. "Won't work - I'll never get there. Humans can only walk a finite distance."Then it comes to you. You can use the P.A. system to tell every customer that they'll have to move to the room immediately down the hall. Each customer only has to walk a distance of one room. And voila! One more customer at the Hotel Infinity. In fact you can do this for any number of guests - just have each guest move that many rooms down the hall. Each person only walks a finite distance, so it doesn't take you infinite time to complete the move (which is good, because you hate working overtime.)The next night, you're full again, but oh-no! A convention has just pulled into town. It's the largest convention ever - in fact, it has an infinite number of people, none of whom made reservations. And they're all in your lobby.Well, you can't shift every person an infinite distance, after all. Humans can only walk a finite distance. Luckily it's a mathematicians convention, and they tell you what to do: tell everybody in the hotel the following:1) Look at your room number.
2) Multiply it by 2.
3) Go to the room with that number.And there you go. You've just put another infinite amount of people into the already full Hotel Infinity. Infinity isn't a number so much as a concept derived from the simple fact that there's no number so large that you can't add to it. Even infinity. You just get infinity every time. Even infinity + infinity is still infinity. (infinity times infinity is actually larger than infinity, however. Doesn't that just bend your noodle?)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-13-2003]

Well, yes. They did laugh at Einstein. But be careful - they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.