Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with an Infinite Universe
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 95 (118364)
06-24-2004 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Garf
06-24-2004 2:47 PM


Re: Quantum Mechanics
Cool, thanks for the link Garf, I'll check that out... If you find anything more on that subject please drop me a line in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Garf, posted 06-24-2004 2:47 PM Garf has not replied

  
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 95 (118629)
06-25-2004 10:56 AM


Dr. Kaku
That link was really interesting. It certainly helps clear up a lot of issues.

  
compugeek
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 95 (119276)
06-27-2004 5:44 PM


Dont dwell on it
You know there are some scientists that have gone mad trying to work this out. The very thought of a universe that continues without an end is almost beyond any reasonable comprehension. However, the same could be said for it coming to an abrupt end somewhere. What would the end represent? A wall? Would you fall off the edge? Nothingness?

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 06-27-2004 8:34 PM compugeek has not replied
 Message 35 by RingoKid, posted 06-28-2004 10:19 PM compugeek has not replied
 Message 37 by coffee_addict, posted 07-06-2004 12:55 AM compugeek has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 95 (119314)
06-27-2004 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by compugeek
06-27-2004 5:44 PM


Re: Do::nt dwell on it
But this is the one condition that Gladyshev DID NOT ground! Almost only works in horseshoes!! The concept of the phenogenotype(in NICHE CONSTRUCTION:THE NEGLECTED PROCESS>>>) is really just as "bad". @ ease. Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by compugeek, posted 06-27-2004 5:44 PM compugeek has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 95 (119730)
06-28-2004 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by compugeek
06-27-2004 5:44 PM


Re: Dont dwell on it
imagine a finite universe constantly expanding at lightspeed into infinity and at the boundary, mass and energy are being converted from *enter your own word for an infinite nothing here* to fill up the spacetime being created...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by compugeek, posted 06-27-2004 5:44 PM compugeek has not replied

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 36 of 95 (122280)
07-05-2004 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Garf
06-24-2004 4:10 AM


Particals and "Antiparticals" DIE!!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong but in quantum mechanics particles appear and disappear in space all the time without a cause.
I'm pretty sure that they don't so much dissapear as they do 'annihilate.' There are things called 'antiparticals' that, to my knowledge, can do anything a particle can. If a partical and antiparticle come in contact with eachother they're apparently canceled out of existence. So, they don't dissapear for no reason.
Now, and this part's from my hazy recollection of 'A brief history of Time' also by Stephen Hawking, they don't really 'appear' as so much come from the past or future via wormholes. There's also a way they can travel through time that has something to do with the Event Horizon of Black Holes(I think), but I can't remember it.

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Garf, posted 06-24-2004 4:10 AM Garf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by :æ:, posted 07-22-2004 5:43 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 37 of 95 (122325)
07-06-2004 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by compugeek
06-27-2004 5:44 PM


Re: Dont dwell on it
Ever heard of the theory where the visible universe is actually larger than the actual universe?

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by compugeek, posted 06-27-2004 5:44 PM compugeek has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 38 of 95 (122367)
07-06-2004 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Melchior
06-21-2004 10:45 PM


It is impossible for the universe to have been around forever before now.
I would disagree. It is impossible for the universe in it's current state to have been around for ever (and the evidence strongly implies a period of about 13.7 billion years from the big bang) however that does not have to mean it wasn't around before the big bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Melchior, posted 06-21-2004 10:45 PM Melchior has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Christian7, posted 07-22-2004 3:28 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 39 of 95 (126670)
07-22-2004 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Jack
07-06-2004 10:38 AM


The Big Bang = Potential Infinity
If the universe is completly infinite then the Big Bang is automaticly false because the big bang can only create a potential infinate were it constantly proceeds towards infinity but never get's there. The big bang can't just automaticly fill infinity, however I could be nieve since are minds are finite and cannot understand anything greater than what are brains cannot understand therefore it is not safe to conclude that whatever does not logicly fit is fantisy. I believe that God in his completeness can easily create an infanant universe and it would not even take an infanant amount of time, but then how can there be a completly infanint universe if infanant means no end and therefore cannot be complete but if it is fully infanint it must be complete. Maybe there are many universes. I like to believe the string theory that there are many perralel universes. It is quite interesting.
LOGICALIZEING THINGS MEANS CREATING A BILLION PARADOXES, ALTHOUGH LOGIC IS ALWAYS CORRECT (NOTE: HUMAN LOGIC IS LIMITED AN THEREFORE CAN BE WRONG BECAUSE IT CANNOT COMPREHEND ANYTHING MORE COMPLICATED THEN IT'S LIMIT AND IS THEREFORE UNABLE TO LOGICALY RESOLVE IT). IT IS JUST COMMON SENSE THAT IS NOT ALWAYS CORRECT.
Now, human understanding states that the universe cannot just pop out of nowhere or God cannot just exist because he does yet are understanding also states that is does have to be.
I think that there should be nothing yet there is something but I don't think it can just exist or that God just exists yet one of them does. I personaly believe in God.
I just confused the heck out of myself. I don't even understand what I just wrote. O well, made sence when I wrote it. Acutally I do understand it. Just attempting to be humorioues.
Maybe if you get past the end of the universe your matter just no longer exists or converts into energy. Imagine the whatever is outside the universe could also be the same thing to be a rip in space.
Forgive me of typos.
This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 07-22-2004 02:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 07-06-2004 10:38 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 40 of 95 (126734)
07-22-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by One_Charred_Wing
07-05-2004 11:24 PM


Re: Particals and "Antiparticals" DIE!!!!
B2P writes:
I'm pretty sure that they don't so much dissapear as they do 'annihilate.'
That's more or less correct. They don't simply evaporate into nothingness but rather their energy is released in the form of photons. Energy is still conserved.
Still, Garf's statement about spontaneous particle decay is correct. For example, an isotropic particle will decay somewhere within a probablistic time interval, but we have no idea what causes it's actual moment of decay and furthermore we have no idea what particles it will decay into. We have probablistic models of the particle's behavior, but it is, essentially, unpredictable. The unpredictability is an inherent characteristic of quantum particles, and therefore there do appear to be somethings that happen without cause.
This message has been edited by ::, 07-22-2004 04:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 07-05-2004 11:24 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 07-23-2004 2:38 AM :æ: has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 41 of 95 (126867)
07-23-2004 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by :æ:
07-22-2004 5:43 PM


UFO's as an unlikely event.
I have read many different stories about UFO's and how far they travel. One great article which got me to think was published and reprinted in part here:
Check out this authors argumentSection 11: Understanding God and His Universe)
Copyright Michael Bronson 2001BibleHelp.org
Michael Bronson writes:
As I mentioned earlier, I don’t believe UFOs are flying saucers from outer space because I think it would be very impractical for extraterrestrials (if they exist) to make fly-by visits to our world. There are six major reasons I feel interstellar travel is physically unrealistic. They are:
Distances are too great. If we could travel 10 times faster than our fastest spaceship, it would still take us 8,200 years to reach our closest star.
Ultra high-speeds are impossible. To propel a spaceship the size of NASA’s space shuttle to 50% of the speed of light, it would take energy equal to 23 million atomic bombs. This estimate does not even include the weight of the fuel and rockets needed to get the shuttle into earth’s orbit (which is 95% of the shuttle’s weight at the time of launch). In fact, this estimate does not include a large number of things that would add weight to the spaceship.
Collision problems. Running into a pebble the size of a pea (while flying at 50% of the speed of light) would produce kinetic energy equal to 2.2 atomic bombs.
Force fields could not protect ultra high-speed spaceship. Even if "force fields" technically could be designed, it would be impossible to supply them the necessary power to protect ultra high-speed spaceships. As stated earlier, hitting a pebble would generate energy equal to 2.2 atomic bombs. Therefore, the energy powering the force field must be at least that great to absorb the impact. In fact, (as the chapter shows) this number needs to be multiplied millions of times for every second of use.
Outer space is anything, but empty. Outer space is full of hidden objects that can completely destroy ultra high-speed spaceships.
Difficulties in detecting objects in its path. Let’s say a spaceship has a "radar" so sensitive that it can detect a rock the size of a TV at 10,000 miles. If it is flying at 50% of the speed of light, the pilot will only have 4/100th of a second to respond.
Difficulties in avoiding objects. In the above scenario, the flight adjustment to avoid the rock would produce 1.8 million Gs of G force. Three Gs will give a fighter pilot red eye and nine Gs can kill him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by :æ:, posted 07-22-2004 5:43 PM :æ: has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 95 (129946)
08-03-2004 2:45 AM


I don't see the problem
I open up to discussion the fallacy inherent in the dismissal of an infinite universe based on the night sky being bright everywhere. If I stand across a dark room with a flashlight you will see it from the other side of the room. If I stand across a football field with the same flashlight at night you will see it. However at some distance apart the light waves will not be strong enough in intensity for the naked eye to see the light without the aid of binoculars or a telescope. The same holds true for the night sky, even with the strongest telescopes optical, electronic, or digital we are limited to only being able to see those stars that are close enough to see. ** Please don't stop reading yet, I’m not done. Many would stop reading here thinking I am stating the obvious but I am not.
I submit to discussion that the scientific precision of the instruments we currently have at our disposal are sufficient enough to view every star that was created during the same event that created our sun BUT every star in the Universe was not created in this event. The known universe that too many people mistake for the whole Universe and was most likely created from a single event, (for now lets call it the big bang) does not contain every star in the entire Universe. Our known universe contains a finite number of stars created from the same cosmic event.
I submit that there are an infinite number of such spherically oblong universes created from similar cosmic events but the distance between these unique entities is too far apart for the scientific precision of our current instruments to measure. If the intensity of a light wave did not dissipate over distance then our night sky would in fact be as bright as day but our night sky can only show those stars whose intensity of light is within the tolerance levels of either our naked eyes or the instrument we are viewing the night sky with.
If we consider our known universe as an oblong spherical shape (although the Earth is not at the center) for the sake of argument lets use the exact center of our planet as a central point. From this point there are an infinite number of lines that intersect with a point on the outer edge of our known spherical oblong universe. After each of these lines pass the outer boundary of our known universe they by definition and in theory travel in a straight line forever never crossing one another. If that is true, which I do believe in my heart it is, then our known universe is just a point in time and space. The entire infinite Universe is so much larger than our known finite universe that our known universe is just a point in space. The entire infinite Universe which has no beginning in time nor end in time would relegate the length of time that our known universe has and will exist to be a point in time. A point is timeless and massless and energyless. Relative to the entire Universe our known universe is a point. Because our known universe, (that which we can measure and that which was mostly if not solely created from the same cosmic event) (although it is expanding) takes up a measurable finite distance it is a point. Because our known universe as it is now will not exist as a self-contained unique shape for an infinite length of time our universe will exist for a finite length of time. Relative to the infinite length of time that our entire universe will exist our universe is a point in time.
So I submit that our finite point in time and space is one of an infinite such finite points in time and space that exist currently, have existed forever, and will continue to exist forever. However each one exists for a finite length of time. I further submit that the entire universe can never be fully measured or understood and is infinite in size and never began and will never end. The entire universe has no first moment in time and no last moment in time. It has no boundary or edge or center. It is infinite and possibly by God's design and possibly not by any design at all it will continue to self-replicate points in time (what we call our known universe) forever.
While I am on a roll I might as well close with what the big bang really is. When two of these points in time and space collide the destruction and subsequent reconstruction are what we call a big bang. All matter in our known universe was not inside of a single singularity but all matter in our known universe is the result of the collision with an incredible amount of force between two or more particles of matter. Gravity causes the trillions upon trillions of subsequent collisions to force gaseous and solid matter to take shape again. Momentum, centrifugal, and centripetal forces create orbits and help the universe hold itself together. I submit the big bang as a collision of particles because I truly believe that there is no such thing in an infinite universe as a smallest particle of matter. We have the smallest particle of matter that we can detect with the current scientific precision available to us but that smallest particle of matter when viewed with the precision equal to making that smallest known particle of matter as large as our known universe is made of an infinite chain of smaller particles.
When two atoms bounce the outer shells of the electrons hit at a high rate of speed. The leptons inside and the sub particles that make up the leptons are actually what bounce. Inherent in this collision and those like it are the forces that destroy and create universes. An infinite chain inwards and outwards of universes being created and destroyed with no beginning and no end and no creation to the entire process.
Many of us have thought about this in the past. Many of us believe it to be so but cannot comprehend the complexity of a scheme that we cannot quantify. I submit in closing that a leap of faith can sometimes bridge the gap needed to bring closure to the unquantifiable. When pure research and proof is unable to bring closure then logic and faith must prevail.
So taking a leap of faith and accepting the logical for a moment without trying to grasp the true nature of an infinite universe makes most people feel even smaller. If our universe is a point in time and space and we each exist for so much less time than our known universe and we each take up so much less space than our known universe then we must also be points in time and space. To become a point which by defintion does not exist in reality is too difficult a concept for most to grasp which is the real reason people refuse to accept the true nature of an infinite universe.
This message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 09:28 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-03-2004 11:08 AM nipok has replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 43 of 95 (129989)
08-03-2004 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by nipok
08-03-2004 2:45 AM


What a load of crap!
You start off by butchering Olber's Paradox and then it descends into technobabble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nipok, posted 08-03-2004 2:45 AM nipok has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nipok, posted 08-04-2004 1:51 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 95 (130154)
08-03-2004 9:11 PM


Besides, Olber's paradox hasn't been a serious argument against an infinite universe for over 50 years. Modern cosmology has refuted the paradox, end of story.

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 95 (130192)
08-03-2004 11:33 PM


a wave of thought
light/energy remains in a fixed position, is propagated in the higher dimensions of string theory and the universe by virtue of spacetime expanding moves instead, creating the illusion of movement as we don't have an accurate frame of reference, given that we are observing from within the system.
Meaning light isn't moving towards us we are moving towards it we just have no way of telling.
The light source, us, everything, is in motion relative to everything else in the universe creating the illusion. The only real frame of reference is outside of the physical universe.
I see the light ...uh no it sees you
illuminate and enlighten me please

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024