- #71
brerabbit
- 12
- 0
The universe is limited in mass and energy by the Big Bang constituents. Space goes beyond the expanding universe to a shell limited by the boundary created by God. God has no bounds and looks from beyond infinity inward.
No, it actually isn't. Energy isn't conserved in an expanding universe, and mass can be both produced and destroyed.brerabbit said:The universe is limited in mass and energy by the Big Bang constituents.
thanx, ChalnothChalnoth said:No, it actually isn't. Energy isn't conserved in an expanding universe, and mass can be both produced and destroyed.
Except as I pointed out, this just isn't true. Why did you repeat it?brerabbit said:The question was "Is the universe infinite".
I think we agree that it is not infinite. The mass and energy is limited by the fixed amounts produced in the big bang.
Chalnoth said:Except as I pointed out, this just isn't true. Why did you repeat it?
There's also no reason to believe that the universe was ever finite. It may be finite, it may be infinite. We just don't know.
brerabbit said:Chainoth:
You say, "Why did you repeat it?" . ...I didn't repeat anything. I did try to help you along and pointed to the thread theam. ... but alas you seem to avoid the question by skirting the premis if the Big Bang spewed out an infinate amount of mass and energy or not. ...
brerabbit
Radrook said:Even this very large number would count as nothing when compared with infinity, because infinity is NOT A LARGE NUMBER be absolutely clear on this point, IT IS NOT A LARGE NUMBER, infinity is ALL THERE IS, it is NOT a number. You could keep counting (or measuring) for ever, and never reach infinity, it is only a description. Infinity describes a thing as having no end, no limit, no boundary or edge, it literally goes on FOREVER, ad infinitum.
An infinite universe for example would exist in every direction forever, there could be nothing else, ONLY the universe. It is then very easy to understand why our universe cannot be infinite, it is because it is expanding. It cannot be both infinite and expanding. It could be infinite OR expanding, but CANNOT possibly be both, that is a contradiction in terms, and we do know it is expanding. For an explanation of the Big Bang and why we know the universe is expanding.
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What is infinity.htm
laaylowww2 said:there has to be equation for why the universe has a end...it has to and let's all agree that the univese is expanding at whatever speed what is it expanding into hummm
Deuterium2H said:Chalnoth is correct. Energy is NOT conserved in an expanding Universe. Space can be both infinite and expanding.
Please read this before continuing:brerabbit said:thanx, deuterium
The Universe or possibly the many Universes each with its own Big Bang all reside in Space at the same time. IMHO, Space is quite different, and can be finite and both expands and contracts. Energy is conserved but degrades as Entropy within the Black Holes dominate. http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1847
Chalnoth said:Please read this before continuing:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
Chalnoth said:Please read this before continuing:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
Deuterium2H said:The link Chalnoth provided is excellent, and it shows that the question of "energy" and "energy conservation" is both complicated and subtle in GR. Depending on the conventions or model one chooses may yield a different answer to the question of "energy conservation", especially in a global context. The easiest (and I think the correct) interpretation is simply this:
Question: If a photon is red-shifted due to the Cosmological expansion of space, it loses energy. Where does the energy go?
Answer: It doesn't go anywhere...because in expanding space, energy is not conserved.
This does not follow.brerabbit said:The link is only as good as its author. Red-Shift energy is a phenomena of prospective differences in velocities and wave lengths. We are discussing an atom's mass and energy after it passed thur the "Big Bang". Then looses energy due to entropy particularly in the working Black Holes. ... thus the Universe and Universes are finite.
brer
brerabbit said:The link is only as good as its author. Red-Shift energy is a phenomena of prospective differences in velocities and wave lengths. We are discussing an atom's mass and energy after it passed thur the "Big Bang". Then looses energy due to entropy particularly in the working Black Holes. ... thus the Universe and Universes are finite.
brer
No, not quite. There are two problems with this:ilsley said:I have read that, if the universe is flat or hyperbolically curved, then it must be infinite. I've also read that all observations to date suggest that the universe is flat. Would that make it infinite?
darkside00 said:space is infinite, energy/matter has a maximum value
Not at all. The expansion simply means stuff within the universe is getting further apart. It is, in a very real sense, just a change of shape of the universe. There is no reason whatsoever for there to be any "outside" at all. In fact, in General Relativity, the very concept of an outside doesn't work very well.josewrivera said:if the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into something,
Because the expansion is a large-scale, average phenomenon. Overdense regions, such as our own galaxy or solar system, are quite stable within an expanding universe.josewrivera said:if it is expanding how come we keep the same distance from the sun,
josewrivera said:if it is expanding how come we keep the same distance from the sun,
josewrivera said:, if we are moving or expanding we are just looking to occupy a different location in the infinite universe, there is no beggining or end because there is no beggining to time, and if there is no beggining to time, there is no beggining to the universe, and if there was no beggining. there was no creation, no matter how you diced or sliced, by the way I am no scientist and forgive my spelling
josewrivera said:if the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into something, isn't that something also part of the universe, if it is expanding how come we keep the same distance from the sun, the big bang was just one more explosion in the universe, one of billions and billions of explosions happening as we speak, if we are moving or expanding we are just looking to occupy a different location in the infinite universe, there is no beggining or end because there is no beggining to time, and if there is no beggining to time, there is no beggining to the universe, and if there was no beggining. there was no creation, no matter how you diced or sliced, by the way I am no scientist and forgive my spelling
Deuterium2H said:Jose, I encourage you to read the FAQ section of this forum (listed at the very top of this section). Many of your questions are answered in descriptive, non-rigourous and very accesible explanations.
As has already been explained (e.g. Chalnoth), the known physics of our Universe does not require an additional "dimension" within which to expand. The shape/curvature of our Universe is an intrinsic geometric property, and does not require a higher dimension in which it is embedded. That is to say, our Universe can be infinite, open, and expanding...but it is not expanding into any "external" pre-existing volume. This fact is precisely why thinking of the Big Bang as a single "explosion" IN Space is misleading and incorrect. The correct concept is to understand the Big Bang as occurring everywhere, and to imagine it is an explosion OF space. The Big Bang occurred simultaneously in the space now occupied by the current position of your belly-button, as well as any (and all) arbitrary points in the Andromeda galaxy.
According to the Standard model of Cosmology, there was a definite beginning of "time", which was the instant of the Big Bang. The Big Bang created our Universe which contains space and time, and our Universe does not exist "in" space and time. This is part of the "Containment Principle", which is an integral aspect of modern Cosmology.
josewrivera said:we have trouble undestanding events that ocurred only a couple thousand years ago, but we think we have the answer to what happened 5 billion years ago, the big bang didnt create the universe nothing no matter how big can affect a infinite universe in its totallity some time in the future humanity is going to come to this conclusion no beggining no end and there was time before the big bang, and is not possible to reach the beggining because there is always a second before, and a minute and an hour.
This is really sad. Why not try learning a little bit about how we have learned these things before throwing out blanket condemnations of science you know nothing about?josewrivera said:we have trouble undestanding events that ocurred only a couple thousand years ago, but we think we have the answer to what happened 5 billion years ago,
jay.yoon314 said:I think the universe is infinite in space and time, but finite in energy and mass.
skydivephil said:Everything you say may be true but I think the picture is more nuanced than that. I think most comslogigst that work on the very early universe would agree that "The Standard Model" is not to be trusted as we get v close to the Planck scale. Hell all of my textbooks say that too, so this is nothing new. In order to say there was a beginning of time at the big bang we need to trust the mdoel all the way to the Planck scale which i think very few people would say is wise.
phinds said:Do you have any SCIENCE to back up this statement or is it merely unsupported, and unsupportable, personal opinion?