A layman's questions about universes

But how, pray tell, can you analyze a 3d balloon with a 2d analogy and come up with the right answer?? If you do this with a sperical universe, you must begin from the surface of the sphere and we're not on the surface. We're in it which requires a 3d analogy to come up with any sense atol!And how so are laymen, made of the same stuff upstairs as physicists incapable of understanding a 3d analogy/model? It does not take a doctorate degree for that, imo.

Eta, if you care to edit out the insults, I'll consider responses to your posts. Otherwise, go talk to someone willing to tolerate your arrogant insolence.

No problem. Thanks, Lam.

That's what you may consider a subpoint to my point. Space/area is nothing but that, space/area into which things can be created or expand into. It's infinite. There's no way you can visualize it, no matter how many dimensions you use. Imo, the problem science is spinning up from wholecloth is that there is nothing about space/area itself to visualize because there can be no boundary to area, no wall of somekind, because if there were to be a boundary, that boundary would need to contain substance, i.e. something besides more space and there is nothing that would fit the ticket. If you have some kind of fantasy of a curved boundary in your mind, it's just that, a fantasy in your mind, because space/area just can't be bound to a point where on the other/outer side of that bounds there's no more apace. There's gotta be more space/area beyond any imaginary bounds humans like to conjure up in the mind. We are temporal creatures who tend to think in terms of what we see on earth -- boundaries, and up in the sky, -- things/stars, etc. Modern science, imo, is trying to have it both ways. It wants all space/area to be inclusive in the term, "universe," but wants to call it a closed system which has bounds. By the nature of space/area, you can't have both. On a surface, any object only able to move about along the X,Y axis will meet this condition, so the analogy works.[/qs]How do you know it works? What proof does science have that curves somehow need to be involved an any theory about the universe?? They are so bulligerent in their contention that it MUST BE A CLOSED SYSTEM that they just have to have this alleged surface/bounds out there some place and can't come up with a model to justify their claim, so they resort to a model/analogy that's really bogus and unreal. Just because they figure what is seen seems to be following some kind of a curve proves nothing. What we can observe likely is a speck in the overall universe. The more powerful our instruments, the more that keeps coming into view. We haven't a clue as to what all the universe has in it.You use the phrase, "finite, unbounded universe." Say what?? How can an unbounded universe be finite??How can there be a surface to space? I know, "do the math and you come up with the answer." Doing the "math" is like the kid caught with his the cookie and there's this great long desortation as to how the cookie rightfully belonging in the jar ends up in sonny's hands. Science and physics are cool for some things, but when it comes to explaining the universe, origins, etc academia seems to be more interested in the hunt more than the kill, or like the medical establishment, it is found more profitible to look for cures than to find them, so the money making knife, needle and pill becomes their focus, treating the symptoms rather than wholeistic natural herbal and dietary correction of the causes for healing the whole body.I know modern physicists have this disdain for logic and common sense. They remind me of the dark ages when the bishops and popes of Vatican City insisted that the laymen couldn't be trusted with the Bible or to interpret it via their own common sense and the words in it. They MUST be explained by the educated and established heirarchy clergy. Thus the dark ages. Imo, we're there again when it comes to modern scienced in areas of origins and the universe, in spite of all the sophisticated equipment. As the Bible puts it for our time, "ever learning and unable to come to the knowledge of the truth." I don't see how this pleudo analogy explains anything sensible or logical. Yah, it's something to throw out there to gullible folks who don't stop to analyze space itself. Yah, it's easy to say there's an end to space, a boundary if you will to it, but no model or analogy is going to make any sense when you hunker down and think about it's implications.

But in your cube model you already begin with/assuming bounds exist. My question is how can infinite space/area have bounds. With your cube model you have visible surfaces, but with space/area you have none. If you could somehow travel all the way out to the end of space, what would you expect to see? Nothing, i.e. more space. Keep traveling forever in the same direction. Still nothing but MORE SPACE! Your model doesn't match the problem/question! Mmmm, but common sense makes a whole lot more sense! Imo, you hadn't oughta have let the ejukaters talked you outa all that money you spent to replace yours with sofistikated theerees. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-22-2004 04:31 PM

This is a perfect example of what you loose when you jetison common sense and logic and go cold turkey with these bazzare ideas PHDs dream up. It's pseudoscientific doublespeak, imo. Here you admit to a universe analogous to a ball and we all know that the third dimension of a ball is finite, but "oh well, no problem --just explain that problem away using a 2 dimension explanation of your 3d ball universe. Your universe has outer boundaries/bound, yet you devise up a textbook full of formulas, matmatical equasions and such and come out of the classroom having somehow devised a way to be convinced that what is essentially a ball has a surface but no boundary. But, oh yes your, phantam ball universe contains ALL SPACE, so there can't even be any space/area outside your ball, for indeedy space can only exist within your universe. Yah, your ball can expand, but into what if all space/area is in your universe ball? ......and alas, I'm afraid your inability to think for yourself, using good ole logic and common sense has been hampered by the stuff you've had programmed into your young impressionable minds in the classroom when you were in school.Let me be specific. True or false? Your ball universe, curling around into itself has a surface if somehow a picture of the ball were taken from a great distance from it. I'm not buying your notion that your model of the universe has no bounds. Even though those bounds may expand, bounds would presently exist.

Have they changed the definition of 'space' since I was in school? How do you define space so as for it to have the capacity to disappear? I'm sure you've read and reread my statements that it is the area into which things can be created or expand into and nothing but just that, area. If area should disappear, what displaces the space area it occupied besides more space/area?? Big, big problem here! Actual argument? Maybe you need to reread my arguments already posted in that regard. Again, how can space/area curve if it is nothing but area? To curve it must have something in it to define the curvature. But since nobody knows how immense the universe and the things in it are, how can one be so sure it curves. What part of the universe man can observe is likely, imo a partical of the universe. Puny little men on a tiny round dot in a round galexy of billions of stars, the galexy being itself a dot among the billions of galexies in the observable part of our universe, I say, puny men have established in their little minds that what the little human mind sees and comprehends of the universe has gotta be it and if every thing else is curved, the whole thing must be curved. How do we know what is beyond what is observable? The more powerful our instruments get, the more comes into view! Yes, my friend, I'm afraid there's that rabbit in the hat tricky analogy. "Sigh." Ditto. Herein, imo, lies the lie modern science perpetrates. From what I can see this bogus analogy isn't for the layman. It's for the physicist who knows it's the only aliby to somehow support the conjured up theories and to convince himself that he's right, so he scraps logic and common sense and devises textbooks full of theorims, equasions and math to get around the logic. The logical is that space/area has no end, boundary, characteristic, dimension, etc and nothing in it to suggest it is capable in itself of curving. Only the things which come to exist IN IT can show curvature, etc. So if all space is to be included in the term, universe, the universe is an "open" dimensionless system which may or may not have areas in it of existing things which may show curvature and an outer boundary where noting but endless infinite space itself begins to be all there is. Again, my contention is that something with a surface is not analogous to something with no surface. In 2d, your curvature argument works, but the universe is dimensionless if all space is included so a straight edge unbendable rod with the ability to extend forever, would, if extended in one direction protrude from any point in the universe forever out into endless boundless infinite space with the protruding end of it moving constantly further away from the beginning of it.Even if scientists would allow some common sense a little say in explaining their concept of a circular 3d universe, they could easily figure out with a simple rubber ball and a straight darning needle protruded into it (the darning needle analogous to the third dimension of their ball which would be analogous to their 3d universe,) and the darning needle was unbendable as a straight edge with the ability to extend forever after disecting/crossing the surface of the 3d ball it would protrude out into space from there for ever with the with the protruding end going further and further away from the other end of the rod sticking into the ball. Why do they reject this model? Because their bogus theories about curvature in relation to their universe calls for a 2d explanation, working only on the surface of the ball. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sillier thing to do is to block off and disallow common sense and logic in trying to understand the universe, complicating the complicated, if you will, in so doing. Heh heh. Yah, that's funny! Boundless, but finite!

Hi again, Rrhain. I just want to commend and thank you and the others also for bearing with me quite patiently, for I am fully aware that my logical arguments are to you very contrary to what you've been taught and sincerely believe. And btw, Rrhain, my former appreciative comment to you was not meant to imply you have ever been anything but respectful and courteous in your manner of posting. It was after being labeled an "idiot" and some implications of support by one or two others to the one for saying it that your refreshing manner of posting appeared. If nothing else, hopefully my persistent input here may apprise you all that there are still a lot of us logical laymen out here who still see merit in logic and common sense and who believe in some areas like this some mistakes are being made in the thinking of main stream science and how theories are formed concerning them. Computers are one thing they are great at, they being what you can handle, see and minipulate mecanically, but theories about space and the unseen way out yonder, quite another. 1. Here again, logic and common sense says anything having finite volumn capacity must needs have also bounds inclusive of a finite surface and is in no way analogous to 2d.2. Using a sponge analogy seems to be adding a new dimension to our discussion about an alleged 3d universe isn't it?Gotta hit hay for now. Thanks to all for your patience and indulgence to ole Mr Logic's intrusion here into your lab.
Been busy elsewhere too, and my apologies for not responding to everything that's been addressed to me.

Gotta get this one in before retiring.1. "Unbounded, yet............closer to the boundary??" The unbounded has a boundary??2. This's real confusing, Rrhain. If you include the numbers outside of the bounded infinity of numbers for your analogy, you must also eliminate the boundary for a true analogy of the universe and you come full circle to essentially agreeing with me that the universe is dimensionless, infinite and boundless. Why? Because the numbers outside become inclusive in your analogy. Otherwise your analogy is that of two systems, one system being a bounded infinity of numbers and the other, the outside numbers being a boundless infinity of numbers. It appears to be a bogus analogy for the universe, for the universe is one system. You would have to say "forget the outside numbers" but they do exist so you can't sweep them under the rug, so to speak. Your problem in your
analogy is that little phrase, "closer to the boundary." If the system is "unbounded" it cannot have a "boundary" restricting your infinity of numbers into and make any sense atol. Yes, yes, I know, with science we're not suppose to make any sense, common, that is. Oh well, g'nite all.

Quoting Rrhain: I get the implication here that Rrhain has it in his mind that given the right conditions, space would have the capacity to disappear. Where'd I go wrong??Talk to you later.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-23-2004 12:59 AM

Paisano, cut the insults and refute my logic and we'll talk.

Well, yes and no, Paisano. It was insolent, in that a better kinder analogy would've been equating a wholistic diet and herbal naturalist doctor who would clean out the arteries via natural methods, treating/healing the whole body, to a cardiologist who would do a bypass, patching up the symptom but leaving the rest of the body and the diet deficient.Not insolent, in that I guess it was analogous of your own sincere attitude about my argument.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-23-2004 10:36 AM

But Ned, in this case, "limit" is synonomous to "boundary," having the same damning effect on his statement. How so? Perhaps he'd like to state precisely himself what he meant and correct in his own words if indeed he should agree with you that his statement was erroneous.

True, and a good naturalist MD would recognize that and recommend accordingly, but scores of thousands of bypass cases are not that severe. ......And by the same token, the mistakes and miscalculations of MDs, not to mention drug side effects all too often result in the MD's burying their mistakes, literally. Conventional medicine, nevertheless, imo, performs far more lucrative bypasses than those MD's who tend toward the wholistic approach. Public demand is pushing the trend in the right direction, thankfully. Good for you!

But no matter how you cut it, your number analogy doesn't work with the universe. Why? Because your "bound" happens to be a difinitive "bound," in the case of Rrhain's analogy, that difinitive number being "1." With the universe, you have no difinitive boundary which has been observed by anybody. Your imaginary boundary is nothing but space/area, is it not? And beyound your imaginary boundary what do you have? More space! Yet your space is somehow part of your universe, like Rrhains numbers outside of his "1" difinitive boundary do exist.