singularity in infinite space-time

DennisN

Yes. I was trying to help you, bro. Peace.

Kristiandhd

a bit of some more info, matter curves space because they can not exist in the same place, therefore curving space. but does matter curve time? now i know that time seems to progess faster at higher altitudes. i just wonder that if time and space are one, and matter only affects space directly by curving it, and time indirectly by its affect on space.
so when a planet bend the space does the space get more condense therefore making it seem as if time is traveling slower closer to the matter.
imagine instead of how most of the time space time is represented on pics as a flat space bending below an object.
imagine a spider web. the closer to the center(matter) the less distance between each grid line, when you exit the web, that is where space time are at equilibrium, and not being affected by matter making time travel at its normal speed. but close to matter, space is more condense making time seem to move slower.

Kristiandhd

i know, and i thank you. though i know i sound sarcastic in my statement, which i was a little bit i do thank you.
do you still think my post and theory violates the rules and that my response to mikew was wrong in my part?

DennisN

Hi Kristiandhd, I will try to write a good reply in a while, I'll just have to eat first.

Vorde

Okay let me try to comment on a couple things, I apologize if my previous comment felt sassy :)
Yes it still does.
It still does.
First of all, we don't know that the universe is infinite in volume (I in fact believe the opposite, but for the sake of discussion let's assume that the universe is infinite). Second, just because the universe is infinite doesn't mean that anything can happen. In a infinite universe things that are considered impossible (like random molecules flying together to create a working watch) are possible, but things that are against the laws of physics are not.

More specifically, if something is infinitely improbable, it will happen in an infinite universe. If something is impossible, it will never happen in an infinite universe.
We don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe (If there was a beginning, but that's a confusing topic).
The big key here though is I believe you think that before the big bang there was a vast swath of empty space. This is incorrect.
Spacetime did not exist before the big bang. The question of the big bang is not 'where did the energy that inhabits the universe come from' but 'where did the universe come from'.
Actually newton wasn't proved wrong, he was proven incomplete. All science is correct to a degree, or else there couldn't have been any evidence towards it. Another way of putting this (I think it was Dirac that I am quoting) is that all old scientific theories are included as special cases of the theories that replace them.
We can do both of those things, that's the whole point of science.
Here you need to be really careful with your terminology. Let me explain what infinite/finite universes mean to help you understand.

If you walk in a straight line forever you can make the general assumption that either you are going to keep going forever or you are going to hit a wall. At first glance these are the only two options and they correspond to the path you have taken being either finite or infinite. But there is a third possibility.The third possibility is you end up where you started. Like if you would walk straight in the middle of New York eventually you're going to walk around the world and end up where you started.

Now even though in this third option you could keep walking for as long as you like, the path is not infinite in length (if the earth was perfectly smooth you could keep walking in a straight line forever but the surface of the earth has a finite area).

Scientists generally make the logical assumption that there is no 'wall at the end of the universe'. So basically you are left with the other two possibilities: either you go on forever or you loop back on yourself.

Generally, if you say the universe is infinite you mean that a straight line goes on infinitely in one direction and if you say the universe is finite you mean that eventually a straight line loops back around itself.

Does this clear up the terminology?

DennisN

Hi again, Kristiandhd, first I just want to say that I'm just an ordinary member of this forum. And I can't speak for mikew, I can only speak for myself.

Well, you said in your first post that
If you meant what you said then you should welcome people breaking it apart and nitpicking, right? Because that's what people have tried to do here.

The idea of this forum is to help, guide and discuss science in a polite manner. The policies of this forum are further to as much as possible stay within the realm of established mainstream science, and within the realm of emerging science that is being published in peer-reviewed literature/journals.

So, in this respect, everything is NOT possible. Here are some examples of things that are not possible:

1) Faster than light travel
2) Faster than light communication
3) Free energy machines/perpetual motion
4) Anything that violates physical laws/theories like e.g.

1) The laws of thermodynamics
2) Special relativity
3) Quantum mechanics, e.g. Uncertainty principle
4) Etc, etc.

The objective of science is to build models which represents the real world more or less accurately. This is done with the help of known science, theories, mathematics and
experiments. An established model then in turn put constraints on what is possible or not.

So yes, your assertion that anything is possible is NOT correct from a scientific viewpoint.

Regarding members of this forum; there are many very talented people here who know a lot about their particular fields of science. So, if I post in a thread, I would personally be thankful for every reply, short or long, supporting or challenging what I write. And last, but not least, people participate here voluntarily.

Concerning the scientific topic discussed (yours), I know one thing from reading in the Astronomy & Cosmology forums; people tend not to like to discuss things that happened at T=0 (that is, at the very start of the Big Bang) and they like even less to talk about things that happened "before" (since there was no "before" according to standard cosmology; T=0 is the start of time itself).

There is however (very) theoretical science which tries to address pre-Big Bang stuff (e.g. Brane cosmology). Such things are meant to be discussed in the subforum "Beyond the Standard Model".

I myself will not participate in this thread, it's too speculative for my taste. And everything I've written, has been written in good faith.

EDIT: Wtf, Vorde managed to sneak in some Big Bang stuff while I was writing my reply!

Kristiandhd

for cantor, jbriggs stated that "There are technical details about the number of tries you get as compared to the number of locations in the universe in order for Cantor's proof to apply"
but if we are talking about and infinite amount of space and and infinite amount of tries then its likely that it won't hold true in this terms. im only going by what i'm provided, tried to search for this but couldn't find, as i also have responsibilities so can't look for ever.

me - "if we can't imagine nor calculate the amount of thing that exist out there then"
you -"We can do both of those things, that's the whole point of science."

but we can't calculate how big the universe nor imagine it. all we can do is guess and assume that the rest of the universe looks and behaves as the small speck of space that our observable univers is.
since we can both agree that there is most likely not a wall, since you would have to ask, Where does the wall reside?.
I believe it is infinite and that it would be that the line would go on for ever, i don't find it probable for it to curve in on itself because then you would be able to eventually look far enough to take a picture of the back of your head. or look into the past of the earth since the light would be the one from how ever long the light would take to travel the extent of the universe. yes? no? but if that is how the universe works then that would be pretty f*ing awesome to look at the past of our planet. but makes no sense to me. though it is a theory that has to be consider. in another thread as this is dealing with the assumption that space is infinite.

An atomic clock is a clock that uses an electronic transition frequency in the microwave, optical, or ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element.
most thing keep their own time we just can't read their time with out the help of machines. its a bit of a joke but kind of a serious statement as well.
(we tend to have a narrow view of things because of our mental capabilities and or our attachments to a certain view and or belief.) or own solar system is a watch in it self.

i'm not questioning the big expansion, (i hate the big bang term because it confuses people)
i believe in the mathematics and observability of it. but there isn't just one question that arises from the big bang, you might like to focus on where the universe come from, but i believe that it has always been, but MAYBE not the matter. there is no consensus on this
either space-time and matter always have existed
space-time existed before matter
space-time and matter appeared at the same time.
matter came from fluctuation or collision of waves in space time
(i'm just deciding to try and develop the second option to its full extent it's not wrong nor right but for it to be a theory it has to be taken apart and studied, which i thank you guys for helping me with. this are the type of comments i was looking for so i can explain myself and you can get an idea of what i mean, maybe even convince you of the possibility. as i believe some of the thing you guys state could be possible but not in the scenario that we are studying.)

ok your right on newton i knew that actually just used the wrong statement, though i do think that instead of gravity pulling us it is space pushing us down as it tries to vacate the space being occupied by matter, and since it is all around matter, that is why we have roundish celestial bodies.

Kristiandhd

DennisN

well what i am trying to prove is not that everything is possible though i believe it it would be a purposeless conversation.
my topic which from what i have search is a theory that people are trying to develop, it includes matter appearing from nothing and the space portion of space-time having a pushing force to try and reclaim the space take over (or occupied if it has always been) by matter.
though if it is proven that matter can not come from nothing then there is likely a finite amount of matter. unless of course the theory about space-time waves creating matter or something like that which i read not too long ago.

this points are probable, and are debatable so i think that i'm not breaking the forum rules though maybe just posted it under the wrong class. (though like i said my first post so chill)
thanks for the thorough explanation though :)

and i do thank for every comment, just have a hard time trying to reason with some one that doesn't try and explain and just states no it's not that way it's this way. with nothing else.

Kristiandhd

ok when it comes to everything vs. infinite
everything for us right now is the observable universe anything that lies beyond that is unknown right? so outside what we can see now, could be an infinite amount of galaxies or none at all and after that it is just empty space-time, but if we can't pin point what is outside of what we know it is not a thing it is and assumption. so there is an infinite amount of possibilities of what lies outside of what we know.
now i believe there are infinite amount of matter but thats just me and i'm developing the theory on that. i also think that everything is unique there is no two of one thing, as for the molecules i'm not sure how they differ though i think they might .
another thing is lets say you have cloud formations that continue for eternity that never repeat, if you look long enough you'll see your face in the clouds. not with fine detail probably, but you will see and say hey that looks just like me.
do you agree?

Vorde

Two things.

First, you have this idea that space and matter cannot coexist at the same point This is blatantly untrue, I'd research general relativity to find out the correct alternatives.

Second, the assumption is that the entire universe should look like our observable universe. Firstly because the same laws of physics apply everywhere, and second because of the Copernican principle.

You still aren't getting the idea that infinite does not equal anything. In your cloud example there is a tiny chance that a cloud will look like your face so of course in an infinite sequence of clouds you will see your face. There is a 0% matter will appear from nowhere. So it doesn't matter how infinite the universe is, that will never happen.

Kristiandhd

i'm not so worried about whether matter came from nothing though it would help make the point of infinite matter, since if it happened once it will happen an infinite amount of times.
but aside from that ( not that it is not important but its hard determine its validity as it would be, to prove that matter has always been around,you can't prove that nor can't i)
it is stated that matter bends space but i actually think that space cannot be inside of matter at its most basic state, and that it compresses space by the matter having pushed the space out by its existence. which is why time seem to travel slower the closer you are to the surface of the earth, because space is condense and time is not. does this make sense. i'm not saying it is right but assume that space and matter can not occupy that same area and that space tries to reoccoupy (or occoupy if it has always been there) the space by excerting a force into it

like i stated before "a bit of some more info, matter curves space because they can not exist in the same place, therefore curving space. but does matter curve time? now i know that time seems to progess faster at higher altitudes. i just wonder that if time and space are one, and matter only affects space directly by curving it, and time indirectly by its affect on space.
so when a planet bend the space does the space get more condense therefore making it seem as if time is traveling slower closer to the matter.
imagine instead of how most of the time space time is represented on pics as a flat space bending below an object.
imagine a spider web. the closer to the center(matter) the less distance between each grid (space) line, when you exit the web, that is where space time are at equilibrium, and not being affected by matter making time travel at its normal speed. but close to matter, space is more condense making time seem to move slower."

this could explain the stars that travel faster on the outside of the universe because it is not that they are traveling faster, but that all the matter in the center of the galaxy condenses the space, making time seem to move slower thus we seem to move slower in comparison to the outside of the galaxy where less matter exist therefore a less condense space makes it seem that objects are traveling faster, but just because time is traveling faster there

and don't the laws of physics break down in a black hole?

and thank for taking the time to talk this out with me.

Vorde

I see why you think what you do, and I can definitely relate. But I really feel like what you are lacking is a good knowledge of general relativity. It seems like you have heard a few things and from there you attempted to construct the rest for yourself. This is commendable, but unfortunately in this case you have gone in the wrong direction.

The idea you have that matter pushes space out of the way is wrong. I see your arguments and why you think what you do, but you are wrong. Matter does not curve space because they cannot exist in the same place. I could try to explain to you what happens but it would be far better if you just read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introdu...ral_relativity

It is a long article, and there is some stuff you can skip over (though only further knowledge will come if you don't).

I think the reason you are having trouble seeing your faults is because you are making logical connections from an incorrect start.

I hope this helps :)

Kristiandhd

ok if the universe hasn't always been around'like you said before, that the question is "where did the universe come from?"
well if the universe originated from somewhere and matter can not exist outside of space-time they couldn't have appeared simultaneously, even though it might have been a thousandth of nano second, it still came after space since it can not exist outside of it. or how do you see it happening? it appeared in nothing since if they appeared simultaneously the space wasn't there where matter was appearing.
that leaves that it has always been around or matter came after space-time.

as for general relativity, it is know that it is incomplete, now that we've talked it through i'm thinking that maybe matter both bends and condenses space. i think that would maybe account for the difference in time at different altitude and the faster the expected stars at the edge of a spiral galaxy.
not that time is actually passing faster but that it seems to be, because space is condense.

what do you think?