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

Yes, but Bozo wasn't a cosmologist to my knowledge . . .

True, but then, are you and I?

Arrrrggghhhh ! This analogy doesn't work for me either - thanks anyway Crash, but it simply doesn't work (for me anyway). I'm perfectly happy though if this "explains" the concept (or "a" concept) to someone else however. If the Hotel Infinty has an infinite number of rooms, there is no way you could fill it up, even with an infinite number of people - it's infinite ! ! ! Well, actually the way I understand it, infinty times infinity is not something that could be calculated . . . and it certainly isn't larger than infinity - it's simply . . . well, infinity! That doesn't bend my noodle one little bit.I think that this is the crux of the problem at hand here. The ability to comprehend the term "infinity". Infinity itself cannot be calculated and given a value to which you can add, subtract from or multiply. Because infinite isn't a number perhaps???I dunno about you, but my mind is perfectly at ease with the concept of infinity.I think that this concept is something that cannot (or should not) be attempted to be explained by mathematics. This whole approach is flawed. You either comprehend it, or you don't. No mathematical equation will explain it effectively.I can see how it could do some people's heads in though . . . those who have spent a lifetime in pursuit of calculating stuff, measuring stuff and coming up with formulae to solve stuff, could indeed have a hard time coming to grips with it, for sure . . .Thanks again Crash . . . I'm enjoying this

Hehehe, good point Although, I don't think that I could handle being a "cosmologist", because I would have real trouble taking the theories and analogies seriously, considering what I have read over the last week or so. Some of it seriously cracks me up And, I am not just talking about here, I have been all over the net doing research into the topic, and the theories range from the "infinite universe" theory (much like my own, well almost anyway), to a single finite universe, to multiple universes . . . there's so many different trains of thought . . .I have an opinion, and if someone finds that funny, then I'm all for them having a laugh at my expense - laughter is good for the soul. However, at the same time, I am very serious about what I believe to be true - and take that as how I mean it "what I believe". Like I have said before - hey, I could be wrong, but it's what I believe personally.Yeah, I laugh at some of the stuff I hear, and I wouldn't have a problem if someone laughs at me either

Nonsense. A hotel is full when the number of guests equals the number of rooms (roughly speaking). In the Hotel Infinity, the number of rooms is infinite, and the number of guests is infinite. Guests = rooms, so the hotel is full. This is pretty simple logic. Well, the number of points on a line is infinite. And there's an infinite number of lines in a plane. Therefore the number of points in a plane is larger than the number of points on a line. They're both infinite, but one of those infinities is larger than the other.Another way to think about it would be to compare the whole numbers (1,2,3) with the real numbers (1.3, pi, 4.3434... etc.). No matter how you try to line them up, you'll always have more real numbers than whole numbers, because between any two whole numbers there's infinitly more real numbers.Cantor proved this a lot simpler in his famous "Diagonal proof", but as I'm not a mathematician - only the least bit mathematically capable, in fact - I dare not attempt to repeat it here. Doubtless Rrhain could do it, if you asked him to. But you don't have to give it a value in order to add to it. You're still thinking about infinity like it's the largest number or something. It isn't - it's a concept we use to describe the fact that there is no largest number.You can add to infinity as much as you like. You still get infinity. Nothing prevents you fron doing the addition, though. If you had a bucket of infinite size filled with an infinite amount of water, nothing prevents you from adding another glass, or even another infinite amount. The amount of water in the bucket is still infinity. Not so. There's nothing magic about infinity, or for that matter, anything really that weird. It fits right into mathematics. You don't need to try to grok it, because infinity is very well explained through mathematics. In fact that's the only place infinity does (or could) exist, in my opinion.

Well, if you were a cosmologist, you'd have done the math. Science isn't done by analogy, those are just tools to aid comprehension for the layperson. But believe me when I tell you that every theory you've heard here so far is pretty well supported by the math.But cosmology isn't done by sitting around and having a beer and wondering what the universe is like. Cosmologists work like all scientists - a rigorous process of collecting data, doing the math, and constructing explanitory models.Not that we can't play around, and wonder about space without Ph.D's, but I just want to make it clear that what we're doing here is as far removed from real cosmology as playing "Halo" is from serving in the Marines.

Sorry to intrude on this, but I see many people discussing physics
and Eintein/dimensions etc etc, when isnt this more of a philosophical dilemna?The basic reason for this question is a refusal to accept either a
finite or infinite universe right? Perhaps the answer lies in a change
in perception rather than a change in your knowledge. What if there is
infact nothing beyond this 'wall'?The known universe is so vast (10 thousand trillion trillion metres I
believe) that light would take a trillion years to cross it, the
human mind has difficulty actually vividly envisioning time beyond
our lifetimes, and distance beyond our environments. Isnt it possible
that we are incabaple of understanding an end to the universe because
we percieve the world around us in such limited linear terms?In accordance with big bang theory, the universe is expanded from a
definite 'starting point.' in other words the universe has a
definable, finite orgin. Isnt it therefore also possible it has finite
dimenisions and size? Also the universe is said to be expanding from
this location right? In that context doesnt it seem logical that the
universe is infact a definable, finite 'entity' expanding within
an infinite plain beyond our comprehension?The concept Im trying to convey, Im not sure how well Im succeeding,
is that we are dealing in areas beyond scientific understanding or
testing. All we have is perceptions and comprehensions of what we see
as 'logical'. Therefore isnt it our perceptions which need exploring,
since it is a basic inabilty to envisage either argument that causes
these difficulties?I dont know Im not half the scholar that some of you are.
Hopefully I've made some sense though. .peace.------------------
..To the intelligent, every fact is an explanation.. ..To the ignorant, no explanation will suffice..[This message has been edited by MeCCaniX, 09-13-2003]

No, it's science. In this particular science we infer the larger structure and nature of the universe from the nature of the observable universe.I don't see that there need be something ineffable about that. It's pretty simple, really. You don't have to shrug your shoulders and say "we may never understand" when you can just look up and observe.I have no problem with a finite universe, because the question "well, what's beyond it, then?" is predicated on a misassumption: that the concept of space extends beyond the universe. There's simply no "there" there.I do have a problem with a universe that is infinite in time and space, simply because it's contrary to observation.

Do you have a problem with a finite universe within an infinite realm?Thats what I was suggesting (if only as a concept.) If you consider
the big bang leading to notions of an expanding universe starting at
a fixed point, (ie the estimate of 13.5 billion years), doesnt this
suggest it is definable, and is expanding into something which is at
least large enough to sustain its growth?.peace.------------------
..To the intelligent, every fact is an explanation.. ..To the ignorant, no explanation will suffice..[This message has been edited by MeCCaniX, 09-13-2003]

It's the bolded part of your statement that I disagree with. There's no requirement for there to be "something large enough" in the idea of an expanding finite universe, because there's no such thing as "space" or "volume" outside the universe. "Size" and even "time" are concepts that end at the universe's edge.

Again, I'm not wanting to impose my beliefs upon anyone, but my interpretation of "universe" is "everything". The infinite plain "beyond our comprehension" is in fact included, in my opinion. This is why I belive that the universe is indeed infinite.I know I'm going to get shot down for saying this, but if we take time out of the equation for arguments sake, we don't need to travel to places we have never been to accept that they exist - if indeed we can comprehend infinity. My human mind has no difficulty at all in envisioning these things, and I think that is why I'm getting so much negative feedback regarding my views. Either "incapable of understanding an end" as in my case (there isn't one), or in the case of most of the other contributors here, perhaps the statement should be "incapable of understanding that there is no end". Bingo.

You are again referring to infinity as a number Crash. If both the "number" of points on a line is infinite, and the "number" of lines on a plane is infinite, there is no conceivable way, in my humble opinion that one can be larger than the other . . . both are infinite . . . Quite the opposite I'm afraid . . . that's what you seem to be proposing. I am saying that it can't be given a value. I have said this over and over . . . this is my whole point ! ! !

Neither solution would sit well with MarkSteven, that is why I didn't offer them as solutions to the problem. The finite and/or expanding universe is precisely what he is arguing against, so I offered a classic problem with the idea of an infinite universe.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This isn't something I understand, but apparently, as nonsensical as it seems, some infinities are bigger than others. For example, I believe it has been proven mathematically that the set of counting numbers is not as large as some other infinite sets. I read about this very recently in just the past week, but unfortunately couldn't track it down just now.Unfortunately, I don't think this settles the discussion you're having.--Percy

Yes, but the usage here of infinity is horribly done. As a general rule, mathematicians work with limits. Now, you *can* show that "some infinities are larger than others" with limits** - but you don't work with values of infinity alone.**: Given: f(x) = x as x approaches infinity = infinity
Given: g(x) = x*x as x approaches infinity = infinity
Then
g(x) / f(x) = infinity as x approaches infinity.You just got infinity over infinity equals infinity. Yet, if we had different limits for infinity (say, if both f(x) and g(x) were limits of x as x approaches infinity), it would be equal to one. Or, if f(x) and g(x) were reversed, it would be equal to zero. That's why using "infinity" as a number just doesn't work.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."