## 10^80 particles in observable v unobservable universe

 Quote by robertjford80 I realize Hawking believes that but it doesn't make sense. It's a straight-up contradiction. If you believe the universe doubled in size every 10^-34 seconds 90 times then you can't believe the universe is infinite. Moreover, if the expansion rate is finite, even if it is metric, and the age of the universe is finite, then the size of the universe is finite.
This has been very clearly explained to you several times, by several different people. The fact that you are still repeating this nonsense about the Universe growing in size suggests that you either aren't interested in learning anything about cosmology, or that you just aren't ready to been taking an interest in physics, because you clearly aren't understanding the very basic explanations that people are putting forward. Personally, I think you're just a crank. The reason you're a crank is that you seem to genuinely believe that you have discovered some sort of trivial logical argument (finite times finite equals finite!!11!) that every physicist and mathematician in the world has simply overlooked, and that, by this argument, you have undermined all of the work that has been done in cosmology over the last hundred years. This honestly reminds of the classic creationist talking point whereby every scientist in the world has simply failed to notice that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Metric expansion refers to the fact that, on a large scale, the distances between objects in the cosmos is increasing. It does not, and I repeat this for the fifth time, it does not mean that the radius of the Universe is is increasing, or expanding out into something. You should consider the possibility that the entirely of the scientific community, which seems to have no problem with the notion of an infinite Universe, may know a tad bit more than you do.

 As I've already stated roughly five times I see no reason why anyone would think the universe is infinite when they believe that it was finite at 10^-34 seconds.
Where has anyone argued that the Universe began with finite radius and has since become infinite? The authors establish a lower bound for the diameter of the universe at 10^-34 seconds; so what? What does that have to do with your argument?

 Quote by Number Nine This has been very clearly explained to you several times, by several different people. The fact that you are still repeating this nonsense about the Universe growing in size suggests that you either aren't interested in learning anything about cosmology, or that you just aren't ready to been taking an interest in physics, because you clearly aren't understanding the very basic explanations that people are putting forward. Personally, I think you're just a crank. The reason you're a crank is that you seem to genuinely believe that you have discovered some sort of trivial logical argument (finite times finite equals finite!!11!) that every physicist and mathematician in the world has simply overlooked, and that, by this argument, you have undermined all of the work that has been done in cosmology over the last hundred years. This honestly reminds of the classic creationist talking point whereby every scientist in the world has simply failed to notice that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.
All this is a long winded ad hominem attack and it demonstrates you're inability to understand what rational argument is. It also proves that you are unable to understand any other point of view than you're own.

The only reason why you threw out those insults is because you've realized you have no evidence that the size of the universe is infinite and you're afraid to admit you're wrong. Instead what you do is say something like the following:

 Metric expansion refers to the fact that, on a large scale, the distances between objects in the cosmos is increasing. It does not, and I repeat this for the fifth time, it does not mean that the radius of the Universe is is increasing, or expanding out into something.
We've already dealt with this issue. You've admitted that metric expansion does not imply an infinite universe so this point is now moot. At issue here is whether the size of the universe is infinite not whether the radius of the Universe is is increasing.

 You should consider the possibility that the entirely of the scientific community, which seems to have no problem with the notion of an infinite Universe, may know a tad bit more than you do.
This is another irrelevant statement and demonstrates your inability to understand what reason is.

 Where has anyone argued that the Universe began with finite radius and has since become infinite? The authors establish a lower bound for the diameter of the universe at 10^-34 seconds; so what? What does that have to do with your argument?
You wrote:
 Your argument was as follows: the expansion of the Universe involved the Universe beginning with finite size and increasing in radius over time, therefore the current size of the Universe must be finite. You grossly misunderstand the notion of inflation in Big Bang cosmology and your argument fails utterly when expansion is understood as metric expansion.
In other words, you're taking the contrary view and you're asserting that metric expansion refutes my argument. You then proceded to fail to back up your assertion with any rationale which again demonstrates your inability to understand the basics of logical argument. You're only capable of bald assertions and begging the question.

I'm through with you Number Nine. All your posts in the future will be ignored. I have ample evidence to conclude that I have nothing to learn from you. Other people on this forum are 100 times more helpful than you such as nicksauce and isometricpion.

 Quote by Dickfore Hey OP, would you agree that the Universe is infinite if it is flat?
 Quote by robertjford80 I realize Hawking believes that but it doesn't make sense. It's a straight-up contradiction. If you believe the universe doubled in size every 10^-34 seconds 90 times then you can't believe the universe is infinite. Moreover, if the expansion rate is finite, even if it is metric, and the age of the universe is finite, then the size of the universe is finite.
So, do you agree or do you not agree with my question? Because your response has nothing to do with my query?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Dickfore So, do you agree or do you not agree with my question? Because your response has nothing to do with my query?
You are SO wasting your time. This guy is clearly not listening to anything anyone is saying. He just keeps repeating the same nonsense over and over.

 Quote by phinds You are SO wasting your time. This guy is clearly not listening to anything anyone is saying. He just keeps repeating the same nonsense over and over.
Yet, I would like to get a straight answer from him (her).

Mentor
Blog Entries: 8
 Quote by robertjford80 If this is true, then what are they? You can't tell because you're just guessing that the odds of a prime below 9 digits is more or less similar to the odds of a prime above 9 digits.
 I asked you to go ahead and calculate the probability of a number being prime and you didn't but said that someone else has done it.
If we define for $A\subseteq \mathbb{N}$

$$d(A)=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{|A\cap \{1,...,n\}|}{n}$$

as our "probability", then the prime number theorem gives us that the probability that a number is prime is exactly 0.

 You can't get an exact number with infinity. Infinity divided by infinity equals infinity.
Wrong. Check this FAQ about the use of infinite in mathematics: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507003

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by micromass If we define for $A\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ $$d(A)=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{|A\cap \{1,...,n\}|}{n}$$ as our "probability", then the prime number theorem gives us that the probability that a number is prime is exactly 0. Wrong. Check this FAQ about the use of infinite in mathematics: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507003
You are wrong. Hawking is wrong. Science is wrong. Since the universe has a finite age the prime number theorem, although independent of the universe's age, is wrong. Also, Infinity / Infinity = Infinity because math.
/sarcasm

Mentor
Blog Entries: 8
 Quote by WannabeNewton You are wrong. Hawking is wrong. Science is wrong. Since the universe has a finite age the prime number theorem, although independent of the universe's age, is wrong. Also, Infinity / Infinity = Infinity because math.
You're right. Science is just a theory.
 Recognitions: Gold Member I have a feeling that the OP doesn't know what differential geometry is so what exactly is the point of this kind of argument? It's like arguing the finer points of QED with someone who seems like they just learned trigonometry and claims they can calculate cross-sections using similar triangles.

 Quote by Dickfore So, do you agree or do you not agree with my question? Because your response has nothing to do with my query?

 Quote by robertjford80 Just make your argument.
My argument is contained within this article. Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia article
 Mentor Blog Entries: 8 This thread is becoming silly. Locked.

 Similar discussions for: 10^80 particles in observable v unobservable universe Thread Forum Replies Cosmology 24 Beyond the Standard Model 3 Cosmology 7 Cosmology 4 Beyond the Standard Model 10