Problems with an Infinite Universe

You are a respected member of these forums so I offer to you to take your best shot at an enlighted debate rather than dismissing the possibility outright. If it is a load of crap as you say I would love to hear which part you can disprove. I would very much like to hear an opposing view point from anyone that can state with any level of certainty that there are no stars or galaxies that exist far far beyond the reaches of our current known universe. I guess one thing I failed to do is give a name to what we call our universe. What we need to do is stop calling our universe THE UNIVERSE. THE UNIVERSE is infinite. Our universe or all that we know about it (our known universe) is finite and has boundaries that we have been able to map out with advanced stellar cartography and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of hours.I think that the approximate diameter of our known universe is about 160 billion light years or so. I would love for someone to explain to me how they can be sure that if we went 16,000 trillion light years in every direction they can be so positive that there is nothing but empty space out there.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 11:28 PM

This is a quote of yours from your earlier post. Do you really want this nonsense dissected?Leptons inside what? Electrons are leptons - leptons have no constituent particles (that we know of - and whatsmore there are good theoretical reasons why they may not.) What is inherent here? What relation does this have to "forces" that destroy and create universes? What "forces" are these? What creation and destruction of universes have you observed? What infinite chain?You see what I mean. One little section of your post and it's all gibberish that makes no point and even less sense. I'm sorry if this offends you but it is nonsense. You are stringing words together that you don't understand.Another example Where did you get this number? This is erroneous too.

when you get the chance can you please dissect my wave of thought too ???anybody else is welcome to as well.thanx

Virtual particles are theoretical entities, and it's not eve clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs. However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people nvision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.JThese particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. So its not an example of something coming into being out of nothing or something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origi of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?Now you got to account for how the is very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physis to explain the origin of that domain itself.You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we are back to the origins questions.

The common thought that the universe is between 20 and 40 billion light years wide is no longer the accepted theory. As far as I know recent research and analysis of background radiation which is used to estimate both the age and size of the universe puts the age of the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old and the diameter of the universe to be about 160 billion light years wide. Space.com along with other news agencies listed this article a while ago. I don't claim to know the diameter or able to prove the diameter and moreso I was only using the length to make a point and the actual diameter has very little to do with the point being made.Disagreement with the points I am trying to make does not offend me. A well-presented argument that can prove that any one of my points is in error is welcomed because it helps me strengthen the overall work. I ramble a bit and merge dissimilar topics that make sense when you understand the big picture and I can see where they seem disjoined when someone is still trying to grasp the complexity of what to me is so logical and flawless as a whole.I can however be offended by responses based on stubbornness, ignorance, and arrogance in particular when no effort is made to present even a minimum attempt towards a valid argument. Dismissing my points as loads of crap or nonsense without offering a valid counter point does neither of us any justice. I guess I am putting too much information together too closely and need to put more detail into smaller paragraphs. Its obvious that rather than attempt to read the entire post and try to comprehend the theory as a whole many people would rather try to pick it apart piece by piece. This works for me, as it may be easier to explain one topic at a time. With each explanation questions will arise until every question is answered and a whole of the argument or theory will make sense to even a layperson.When two atoms collide the nucleus of each atom does not touch, the outer electron shells are what actually make contact during the collision. When two atoms collide I submit to you that in actuality it is likely that two or more subparticles that make up electrons that actually making contact. (or the subparticles that make up those subparticles). The electrons spin in their orbit around the nucleus at a fast rate. It is likely that the subparticles that make up leptons have orbits around particles of greater mass density and the subparticles that make up those particles have orbits as well around particles of greater mass density. The fact that our scientific precision does not yet exist to clearly define the subparticles that make up the subparticles that make up quarks or leptons does not negate their existence. Again, you cannot dismiss the unknown because it has not been proven. You can dismiss the known when it is proven to be in error but that which is unknown if it is logical can still be a very strong part of any theory.So, the point I was making is that if the Universe is in fact infinite and extends outwards and inwards as an infinite chain then the collision of two atoms is really the collision of two electrons which is really the collision of an infinite chain of smaller and smaller subparticles so our Universe is infinitely large and infinitely small. They say that if you were to compare our single solar system in size to the known universe it would be a similar ratio of E. Coli bacteria to that of our planet earth. If we were to take a single lepton and scale it in size to be the size of our planet Earth I submit to you that it is illogical to assume that this would be a single solid piece of matter but instead we would find it is made up of smaller particles of matter that are bound together by the same electrodynamic properties of other quantum matter.So if you are able (and I mean you to be anyone reading this, not just the poster I am replying to) for a short while to open up your mind to the possibilities I will do my best to try to make sense of our significant insignificance as I like to put it. The scientific precisions of the instruments at our disposal are far inadequate to truly document the nature of subatomic particles on millionth the size of a quark or lepton. String theory is fine and dandy but one issue that too many nuclear physicists fail to take into account is that by using an atom smasher to dissect the atom they are contaminating the experiment. So to compensate we make up theories to make the structure fit the results but the results are not what we can see by examining a lepton or quark at one one-millionth of a scale in its native state. The results we see are when subatomic particles are smashed together at speeds that for the most part do not exist in nature and lead us to try to explain what we see based on those results. What I am saying is that just because we have no proof that there are particles that make up the particles that make up quarks or leptons does not make the theory any less plausible then string theory because the data that string theory is based on is flawed in my opinion and designed to fit the results seen using atom smashers.So back to the point I tried to make that you called nonsense. A part of what I believe to be true is that the collision of subatomic particles many times smaller than those we have been able to measure to date are the catalysts that we call our big bang. Although the leading consensus is that all matter started from a speck of dust (and just exploded 13+ billion years ago and mass evolved in the space around that starting point and we see this mass moving farther away from this starting point) that does not mean that has to be the only plausible reason. I submit that there are other possibilities. They are not parallel universes or other dimensions; they are naturally occurring universes that go through the standard life cycle of a universe. Notice I use small u not big U for universes to indicate that there is a difference between our known universe and the entire UNIVERSE.I am not stating something new. I am sure others have tried to present their arguments for what I believe to be true but I doubt that anyone is as well prepared as I am to backup my theories. Granted I have built a house of cards and can prove very little of it but I can also argue the foundations and every level of cards to a point that I have yet to have anyone topple this house of cards and that is why I joined these forums. If nobody here can topple my house of cards then the 30 years work I have ready to publish is ready to go. If however my house teeters I will either have the opportunity to strengthen it or help knock it down.The reason too many people have had and will have difficulty with an infinite universe is because as I stated in another post it turns your life and your existence into a point in time and space. A massless, timeless, energyless point that in the grand scheme of the UNIVERSE is so insignificant that like a point in time and space it really does not exist. Once you can put in perspective the significance of your insignificance you take the first step forward in appreciating that general and special relativity can be used in many ways to explain the universe from more than just one angle.As far as not understanding what I am claiming trust me, after over 30 years of putting this theory together I most certainly understand every aspect of what I say. It is the reader that will have difficulty at first understanding. My goal to continue to simplify my explanation to such a point that a laymen can see the light. My goal is not to irritate and offend but to offer a solid foundation to help others understand what seems too logical to be ignored when all components are understood.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 11:37 PM

no more responses from me. ELECTRONS ARE LEPTONS. Do you get this.Repeat after me - ELECTRONS ARE LEPTONS.Now repeat this one:ELECTRONS ARE POINT PARTICLES - they have no known constituents.DO A WEB SEARCH ON THIS - get of your arse and learn something. Don't give me a hard time because you are ignorant on this topic. That is why last night I took one paragraph of yours and ripped it apart.The six leptons are: electron, muon, tauon and their associated neutrinos.Until you at least make an effort to learn the basics, bugger off!

I know it is astonishing that someone would venture to make statements on something they are so obviously utterly ignorant of but try harder to just correct them without getting in any way nasty please. Thanks, Eta.To: Nipok, please excuse Eta. You have so little idea of what you don't know that your statements of utter nonsense can be very annoying. In case you are unaware, Eta is a real life astrophysicist. You can be reasonable sure that when he tells you that electrons are leptons he is correct. Take the advice and don't display such apparent arrogance by exponding on things you know naught about. Thanks.

Sorry - I'm just grumpy as hell tonight. I've had food poisoning for the last 24 hours so it got me grumpy.I know others on here know this stuff - could someone else inform this guy that he is commpletely wrong here. Electrons are leptons.Man, a one minute web search would cure his problem.

I wanted to delete the post below because in re-reading I can see where this is going to cause me grief down the road in this forum but instead I decided to expand a little bit more on it now and worry about the real explanations down the road. Hopefully there is enough here to make some sense with.

---

Energy and matter are one yet separate. I submit that energy is everywhere but so is matter. It just so happens that we are able to use special and general relativity to boost the idea that energy and matter are interchangeable but we must take into account the possibility that there is a margin for discrepancy. That margin of discrepancy sounds stupid but I am trying to make a point.. I submit that E=MC^ is just as valid as E=MC^ + PI + the number of seconds that I have been alive. In the grand scheme of quantum mechanics and special relativity the value of pi plus the value of the number of seconds I have been alive are meaningless compared to the square of the speed of light. WHAT IF PARTICLES the size of PI exist that are on scale with Quarks the size of C^. The point I have been trying to make is that we cannot say for sure that because we have been unable to detect their existence that they do not exist. There is the possible option that they exist at such a small scale in height, width, mass, and energy to current point particles that they are undetectable by the current scientific precision. There is also the possible option that the time they can exist outside their parent particle before they merge back with their parent particle is so minute that we do not currently have the scientific precision to see them.The world is full of chemical reactions that can be explained using a formula. Molecules and compounds change structure and recombine and it all can be documented with pictures and diagrams that make sense because the left side and the right side of the equal sign make sense. Just because energy equals mass times the speed of light squared does not mean that mass and energy are interchangeable. It does not mean that matter is built from energy. It means that a certain amount of mass is able to self contain a certain amount of energy. When the mass is broken down and the energy inside is allowed to escape you have results that can be documented and explained through E=MC^ .E=MC^ is a great break through in understanding the fabric of the universe but it is relied on too much to use matter and energy interchangeably. Until you can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that pure energy alone is the fabric of the universe and there is no smallest piece of matter then I say that virtual particles do not exist. I say matter comes in all sizes, an infinite array of sizes, and just like inside the atom or our solar system a very basic force will create orbits with smaller pieces of matter circling larger pieces of matter. And inside of every piece of matter regardless of the size is a fixed amount of energy. Inside each piece of matter is a certain amount of energy that can be released when the bonds holding that matter together are nullified. That means the process of matter being broken down into smaller and smaller pieces releases energy similar to a log burning where energy is released by a process. The energy is the bond that holds that matter in its orbit. Smaller pieces of matter require smaller amounts of energy to maintain their orbits so energy is released. NOW I AM NOT saying that an orbit is energy just that electromagnetic energy is required to maintain an orbit. Electromagnetic energy is the single force that binds the universe. Strong and weak forces and gravity are all results of electromagnetic energy. I don't have the formulas worked out yet and if I did then I would not be wasting my time in these forums.This message has been edited by nipok, 08-06-2004 10:22 PM

It is apparent from the very next post that he might as well be ignored. Nipok is armoured very thickly indeed in ignorance. It doesn't appear that anything sort of a relativistic asteroid is going to get through.Sorry about the food poisoning. I was flat on my back all day monday with fever and aches and upsets but I don't think it was food poisoning.

I do appologize if I sound arogant. I guess when 99% of the world sees things one way and you try to present another option and tend to be long winded and disjointed that I am going to ruffle some feathers. Maybe a forum about the possibility of an infinite universe was the wrong place to try to explain the plausibility of something that everyone else seems to be unable to accept, an infinite universe.Also, I just learned something tonight. So if nothing else good comes out of my ramblings and I am unable to open up some closed minds then so be it. But I just learned that electrons are no longer what they use to be. I did a internet search and lo and behold the fabric of the universe now has new names. Last time I checked quarks made up protons and neutrons and leptons made up electrons. Shows you where I've been the last 10 years. Too busy writing and now they go an reverse wording on me. I don't know when they stopped claiming that leptons made up electrons and now classify Muons and Neutrinos at the same level of electrons as basic building blocks and types of leptons but whenever that happened it was after they originaly called leptons the building blocks of electrons. So call me wrong for using the wrong terminology because my names are outdated.That that has nothing whatsover to do with my point. In nature atoms are in flux and always bouncing off each other. Electrons form an outer shell around the nucleous of an atom. When Atoms in nature bounce off each other my point is that an electron from each atom is what really makes contact. My further point is that due to the current limitations in the scientific precsion used in sub-atomic research we can not rule out the likelyhood that electrons are made up of smaller peices of matter. Just because science has not found them yet does not mean they don't exist. I can't prove that there is no smallest peice of matter I just know that when one accepts the inifinite nature of the Universe and applies that to understanding the fabric of space and time that so many things fall together. In a very small number of postings I have touched on the tip of the iceberg and before I go much further I would be elated to be shot down and my house of cards thrown out the window but I need solid proof and if I can't restack the cards right then the house falls. If my utterances annoy then I suggest don't reply. If you have a valid argument or a valid question great but Its obvious I am pissing people off so maybe this was not the right forum to try to bounce my theories off of others. I did not expect to hit so many closed minds right off the bat and hoped for some open minds to throw some valid questions or valid arguments at the concepts, not the terminology used.

I've been ignoring your posts until now because your initial post in this thread made no sense at all. I've gotten into the habit of just ignoring the ramblers of this site. However, after Eta's responses, I just had to go back and reread your messages. It seems to me that you don't even know what a point particle is. This paragraph alone tells me something. You are somehow trapped in a time warp where classical newtonian physics still apply to the subatomic world. To some extent, it is helpful, but we've moved beyond that. You seem to think that electrons orbit around the nucleus of an atom in a way much like the planets orbit around the sun. This is out-of-date science.You could benefit more on this forum by asking more questions than making claims.By the way, the reason people are reluctant to debating with you is because you have posted a bunch of pseudofacts (if there is such a word). It's pointless to make an argument against a pile of crap, wouldn't you agree?

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

I took your suggestions and learned something tonight. Last time I studied particle physics the general consensus was that leptons made up electrons. Now I see that leptons are a classification that includes muons, neutrinos, and electrons. To be honest I have not had the time to keep up to date on a daily basis with the advances in particle physics or astronomy so I may err at times in my wording but its the concepts I am trying to open up for discussion not the wording. I went too fast jumping from the infinite outwards of our Universe to the infinite inwards of our Universe without giving ample time to fully discuss the possibility of an infinite Universe going outwards. I just took it for granted that accepting an infinite Universe going outwards carried with it hand in hand the much harder to grasp concept that the there could be no smallest piece of matter.If its all the same I'd love nothing better than to drop discussions about the infinite nature of not having a smallest piece of matter, a smallest piece of time, a smallest unit of measurement, or a smallest unit of energy and only concentrate on the Infinite Universe that exists outside the boundaries of our known finite universe.

Thanks for the honest reply. I agree I am out of my league. That’s why I wanted to bounce some ideas off some great metaphysical minds as those found on this site. I will try to keep my posts shorter and more succinct. I know the Universe is infinite. I can’t find a house of cards build on any other premise that I can’t knock over. Doesn’t make me right, just right in my own mind. But to be honest the tidbits I’ve touched on in my few posts are nowhere near the stuff that I had expected to raise questions. I was only trying to touch on what I see as the obvious. It seems that it is not as obvious as I thought.

It is obvious I went about this the wrong way so I am going to start over and aim to be more succinct and direct. Rather then rant and rave as if I am an expert I'm going to try an approach that I hope is better suited for this forum.In message 9 a point was made that I can only assume others so quick to dismis me share that "the original point of expansion not only gave birth to time but also space itself"So since this does not correspond to my house of cards if this is an accepted belief then it would be a great starting point for me to try to understand where the fallacy in my logic is coming from.Since I feel that THE Universe and our universe (like many other respected astrophysicists) are very separate entities and the original point of expansion explains what we have been able to know about our universe then I need to understand how time and space could not exist prior to this cosmic event.Not even talking about space but just time and the big bang how can anyone logically conclude that there was a first second? A second of time that had no preceding second? If the big bang created all we can see then how can time not have existed prior to the big bang? Can you or anyone who shares this belief explain how that is logical?