The infinite space of the Universe

In the case of quantume fluctuations as experimentally observed - No. In this case we have the vacuum of spacetime existing rather than absolute nothingness (no dimensions, no time etc. etc.)Whether or not the same sort of principle can be applied to the origin of the universe as a whole is much more speculative. Did we not discuss this in the T=0 thread which you abandoned when it got difficult?Has the 300 post limit been revoked or are all the admins on holiday........?

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).

Then are you saying there is no such thing as empty space?BTW I thought we agreed that there was never an absence of anything.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I'm aware of these and that's why I have focused on photons and not "light". Radiated energies exist in limitless frequencies and "light" is only one.But in trying to visualize a universe I don't find an answer to my original questions about where the first photon would be and what happens to photons that are released at the edge of expansion which I've defined as the edge of space. I can only assume that the edge of the universe if one exists is where the furtherest photon exists.

There is no edge of space. Go back to the analogy of the surface of a sphere (put a sock in it IaJ). Remember, there is no up or down. You've two degrees of freedom, and not even a psychological understanding of a possible third.Release your photon. Where does it go?If your photon has a free straight path ” remember, you have no understanding of that third dimension so you can't even imagine it to be curving in that direction ” where does your psyche-free photon go?If your surface is expanding faster than a photon is capable of encircling it: where does your photon go?If your photon meets an electron, where does your photon go?

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

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

quote:

---

In this case we have the vacuum of spacetime existing rather than absolute nothingness (no dimensions, no time etc. etc.)

​

Whether or not the same sort of principle can be applied to the origin of the universe as a whole is much more speculative.

---

No demensions, no time, etc. This says that nothing we determine as universe contained = nothingness. Here, I cannot see any alternative other than an external [Creator?] impacting factor being applicable. This cannot be dismissed solely because the word Creator is used, because it means science and logic itself points at this premise - by the process of elimination.If there is nothingness, and then something emerged, and performs mechanical feats such as the universe structures - there is no alternative of an external factor applying. In fact, even if there was space, and nothing else within that space, and something happens - it still becomes only possible by an external triggering.I would like someone to explain any credible alternative applying, because my premise is not based on theology, but a logical deduction; there is no scientific theory to apply, because there is nothingness - no forces, energy, matter, light, heat/density variations, particles or fluctuations of any kind. No cool breeze either - just nothingness.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There is no edge of space. Go back to the analogy of the surface of a sphere (put a sock in it IaJ). Remember, there is no up or down.

---

Ok, I wont say the surface is the edge, or that the sphere is the earth below. There is no edge in space - but there is if you were outside the edge, no?

Empty space? As in the vacuum? That does exist. Obviously. It just isn't as empty as one would suppose due to the aforementioned quantum fluctuations. If time was created as part of the universe then there "never" has been a time where ther was no time by definition. If we consider some sort of abstract "before" T=0 then true nothingness has to be a possibility.
I seem to remember agreeing that by definition we would never be able to witness true nothingness given that we are limited to existing in space and time.

Is space bounded?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Yours is not a logical or scientific position. It is not an evidence based position. It is obviously a philosophical position wherby you have inserted your preferred theological conclusion into the first god shaped gap available based on your incredulity regarding any other possible answer. It is being dismissed not because of any particular word or concept but because of your flawed thinking. If science was simply inserting ones subjectively derived explanations into every available gap in knowledge then we would have called it religion and remained in our caves.You assume that the natural state of nothingness is to remain so. You also assume a form of causality and determinism that we know to be false even in the observable universe.Neither of these assumptions are justified based on any evidence. Your creator answer also requires a whole heap of other implicit assumptions regarding uncaused creators, eternity etc. etc. All of which are themselves completely unevidenced.The honest answer is that we do not know the answers to these questions.
Pretending that your own subjectively dervied preferred answer is somehow rationally justified on the basis that any answer is better than no answer is just silly thinking of the most delusional kind

What has hit home to me in this thread is that what is not observable, i.e. invisible to sight touch, feel, etc is what allegedly effected the big bang. I'm referring to space and time.This is the alternative to the creationist POV of an intelligent agent which is also invisible to sight, touch and feel.Both of the above POVs observe and interpret according to their respective invisible sources. The only difference is that the big bang folks claim to observe space and time by curvature etc. I say, nonsense. That would be like us claiming that we observe God, the designer in design, complexity, etc. They don't allow that for creationists. They reserve that privilege solely for themselves because they have the bully pulpit in the educational institutions.The only possible way big bang advocates could possibly be correct is to allege that space has properties capable of curving, expanding, causing a rigid unbended steel bar's to go full circle to connect it's two ends, etc.The problem is none of them agree as to what these properties are and so far as I have seen via this thread they have not pinpointed one specific property of space capable of doing any of these feats. They simply repeat that "space curves" but can't come up with what property of it enables it to do that etc.I'm not trying to argue whether there is curvature of sorts being observed or not but if there is it is effects of existing forces and matter, i.e. things occupying space that is being observed and not space and time.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Has the post limit been extended? The effects of spaectime curvature are very observable. In fact they are calcuble and able to be predicted to a very high degree of accuracy. How are the aspects of your proposed alternative observable? What predictions do you make with your theory and how can we verify or refute these? Can your cosmological model explain and calculate the observed effects of slowing clocks in gravitational fields, the apparent bending of light etc. etc. etc. No Buz. They are not equal points of view. One is based on specific repeatable measurable predicted results. The other flies in the face of ll the observable evidence.General Realativity is rightly considered one of the crowning achievemnets of science. It did not just explain known phenomenon. It predicted and led to the experimental and observational discovery of new phenomenon. It predicted these phenomenon and allowed us to verify their existence to incredible measurable accuracy.Time dilation in gravitational fields, bending of light in spacetime, black holes etc. etc. All of these things we know about only because GR predicted them and we have subsequently observed them to be true.No creationist theory has ever led to any new discovery or any new knowledge. EVER.At best creationist theories are a hotchpotch of alternative explanations for the effects and phenomenon that proper scientific theories have already predicted, discovered and uncovered.
You yourself were trying to pass off the highly detailed, and accurately verified predictions of GR regarding time dilation as an effect of air resistance .
Any explanation will do huh? But without GR you would not even know that there was a phenomenon to explain in the first place!!
Creationist theories make no verifiable predictions. As a result no new knowledge has ever been gained as a result of any creationist theory.That Buz is the difference. To claim equivelence between the two is just an outrageous lie or a demonstration of complete incomprehension.Where is the creationist Einstein? One who will expand the limits of human knowledge with his insight and theories regarding God based creation that subsequently lead to verifiable predictions of new, and as yet unknown, physical phenomenon.I predict that there will never be such an individual beacause creationist theories are incapable of discovering new naturalphysical evidence. Incapable because they are just wrong. Want to bet against me? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The surface is the edge of a sphere. We, however, are only talking about the surface in our analogy and ask for its edge. Because we do understand the 3^rd dimension it is difficult for us to divorce ourselves from that knowledge. Inversely, because we don't intuit the 4^th dimension we are equally unable in marry it to the apparent world. And we don't know their genders.AbE:Our diagrams of the Universe from the outside are themselves mere analogies. Their is no 3^rd dimensional outside for us to view it from. A 4^th dimensional being would understand our universe as we understand a surface. Read Flat Land.Edited by lyx2no, : Signed out too soon

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.