infinite space

So did I.

And a universe of infinite volume also has a beginning. We're back to where we started.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 11-10-2003]

Actually I think it would be more correct to say that it appears spacetime is bounded in the past, but boundaries on a continuum do not make it finite in every sense of the word -- especially in the case of a thing as relativistically plastic as spacetime. IOW, there may be a maximum spacetime interval from the past to the present, however unless spacetime is discrete (which our latest observations seem to refute), there may still be an infinite number of intervals in the past.Also it is important to note that the Big Bang singularity is really only a feature of our mathematical model, and it is not necessarily a feature of reality. So it is overly presumptive to state that we "know" the universe has a finite history. Several of the latest models actually challenge that notion. I don't think that is a realistic expectation since stars do not shine forever, and additionally we would only expect a finite number of stars to be in close enough proximity to us that their photons would have had sufficient time to reach our planet. IOW, some stars would be so infintely distant from us spatially that no amount of time would permit their photons to reach us.I suspect there is some confusion among the various usages of the term "universe" in this thread. In general, it should be taken to mean "everything that exists," but in the context of some cosmological models like Tegmark's Multiverse it is used (actually abused, IMHO) to represent "this patch of spacetime we presently observe" or "this bubble amongst many other bubbles." If we adhere strictly to the first definition in this paragraph, a beginning to "everything that exists" would be logically inconsistent, or at the very least claiming that we have observed such a beginning would be unsupportable.[This message has been edited by ::, 11-10-2003]

and... You are absolutely correct. My wording lent the dodecahedral universe theory entirely too much credit. Your links are excellent resources, and I thank you for supplying them.

My explanation of Infinate Space -
Grasping something so impossible, as infinite space, is to visualize a door as infinitely tall and impossible to understand, in which the doorknob is infinitely high up, and to grasp that impossible realization is to have a mind as impossibly infinite as the doorknob; Therefore we, as humans, cannot grasp the concept of infinity, we can only explain how to understand it.

An extra thought :
The teacher I had for physics two years ago once said the following :
"The universe is finite but boundless."
He compared it with walking on the earth, you can go each way you want, you'll never find a real boundary, but it's not infinite.
Any thoughts on this?

Galvani complained before death that Volta had "infinte" contacts which he admitted for the fish equilvalent that Faraday asked between living conductors and insulators that thermal contact was infinitly different while there have not been any direct applications of Cantor's infinity to the mammal of a different geographic distribution in the same universe that may not be like any of what these physicists who do not split biology and chemistry think. It could be actually infinite if Darwin's power of motion in plants and Bolazano infinity find a current instanitation. Just try. It cant be has hard as me explaning how to do it.

quote:

---

I don't think that is a realistic expectation since stars do not shine forever, and additionally we would only expect a finite number of stars to be in close enough proximity to us that their photons would have had sufficient time to reach our planet. IOW, some stars would be so infintely distant from us spatially that no amount of time would permit their photons to reach us.

---

But the premise is that in an infinitely large universe, there would have always been an infinite amount of time before the present.Hence, the amount of stars that are within range of us would be infinite, and as such all of the night sky would be filled with stars.This assumes that the stars are distributed more or less randomly, so that if you look in any direction, there would be, at a finite distance, a glowing star which light reaches us as we look at the sky.

I skipped thru this so I apologise if I merely repeat or partially say anothers thoughts...Nomenclature...'outer space' = the observable and the surmised to exist place where all energy [bound and un-bound] exists.'space' or the much more accurate 'The Void' = the nothingness that outer space is expanding into.Outer Space is finite.
The Void is infinite.That is why the Universe will never collapse, the void is the only true Vacuum that there ever was or ever will be, it is the driving force for the expansion, the power that continues it on expanding.Simply thing of a high altitude balloon, at sea level it is a sorry sight as it rises the vacuum of the upper atmosphere pulls it open to the magnificent shape we all think of.The universe is not powered by some amazing 'explosion' there is no seering boundary of the explosive flamefront, because it would blind us, the edge of the universe is dark and tormented place where energy is escaping into the void and filling it, it is the powerhouse of gravity, think of gravity as a less 'bright' version of that flamefront.

V-Bird,I saw a post of yours a day or so ago where I believe you referred to your 'graduate students'.This puzzled me as your posts are usually hard to parse and now I am sure.With statements like 'Void where space is expanding into' - you sure as heck are not supervising any graduate students in the physical sciences.The 'Void' - what a load of bollocks!

I haven't read the five pages of this thread, but has anyone defined space and universe yet?My definition of space would be the area in which matter exists. If you have a cubic one foot box full of air and it would be possible for you to remove all the contents of the box, including elements and light rays, etc, you'd still have a box of space. Let's say the box is a steel box half way between the earth and the sun where there's no pressure on it.I define the universe the old way, being everything that exists, including infinite space, i.e, area.I see your definition is similar to mine, V, but you have two kinds of space and I have only one. My definition covers it all.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-23-2004]

The void is exactly what outer-space expands into... the nothingness.There are other terms, you can if you wish call it 'bollocks' in fact I think 'susan' is equally valid.

Buz, within anywhere defined as either here on earth or any where in outer-space a perfect nothiness can never be formed.The fact that you only use one term is because you are impoverished by your thinking, we need 2...

Don't quit the day job V-bird.Psst - news just in - it isn't expanding into anything.

This is not a claim based on any science. The "void" described has never been observed, is not required by any current cosmological models and there is reason to believe such a thing even exists at all. You might as well argue the universe is expanding into heaven where Jesus and friends dwell.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 03-24-2004]