Need Help Understanding Expanding Universe

[Farahday]

There was no concession. You claimed that there were "fewer" integers than reals because the integers are a subset of the reals. That is plainly false. My emphasis on this claim of yours seems off topic, but there is a reason I keep bringing it up (see below).

The original post by Whovian:
--snip--
For instance, there's a fairly basic proof that the number of real numbers is "more" than the number of real integers.

My response :
Duhhhh... The set of integers is a subset of the set of real numbers.

The number of integers in infinite. The number of reals is infinite. Neither set is quantifiable, but the set of integers is included in the set of real numbers and in any relative context, if the set of real numbers contains ANY number other than those found in the set of integers, that set IS relatively larger. This is simple common sense. Don't know what kind of escoteric reasoning you might have been taught, but I was probably BSing in math (3.7/4.0 GPA) when you were in diapers...never try to BS a BS'er (by your posts I assume you are an undergraduate student, my apologies if this is incorrect).

The topology of the Universe is not inconsequential. You've made several statements (e.g. regarding the cardinality of infinite sets) that suggest that you really don't have a very good understanding basic mathematics. This is fine, of course, because most people have no need to understand things like set theory. The problem is that you insist on developing and defending very strong opinions about physics and mathematics despite your lack of education. The notion of "boundedness" has already been explained to you, and you keep repeating the nonsense that I quoted above despite the corrections of several people in this thread. It is a fairly elementary result, for instance, that a 3-sphere has no boundary, nor does a 3-torus (as has been pointed out already).

I'm familiar with the Minkowski continuum and Einstein's spacetime. I am also familiar with the works of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. They have much in common. The hypotheses that time can be considered a dimension and the theory that the observed cosmological red shift is expansion related have lured the discipline of cosmology into an academic rabbit hole.

I don't, for a moment, suspect this will change within my lifetime - it does so stimulate scholars' abilities to publish curiouser and curiouser theses - but eventually common sense will prevail and eventually cosmology will awaken back to reality.

Until then I'll just 'Keep My Head'.

 

[Number Nine]

They have much in common. The hypotheses that time can be considered a dimension and the theory that the observed cosmological red shift is expansion related have lured the discipline of cosmology into an academic rabbit hole.

Do you have any credible evidence that the redshift is related to anything other than expansion? This is beginning to sound remarkably like crankery.

Neither set is quantifiable, but the set of integers is included in the set of real numbers and in any relative context, if the set of real numbers contains ANY number other than those found in the set of integers, that set IS relatively larger.

Plainly false. The reals outnumber the integers because there exists no surjective function from the integers to the reals. The even integers, on the other hand, have exactly the same cardinality as the set of all integers, because there exists a bijection between them. The same is true of the set of natural numbers and the set of rational numbers; both sets have exactly the same size, as do the set of all real numbers and the unit interval (0,1). The problem you're having here (which is the same problem you're having in physics), is that you are incapable of grasping anything that violates "common sense".

 

[Farahday]

new here and just a closet theorist .. i have always liked einsteins thought experiments and this can help navigate a way through the deeper mysteries ...if applied locally and used as a tool we can try to understand a bigger picture...

...an expanding universe can be likened to a five year old child embarking on a ''circumnavigation'' of the earth...on foot

if that child has not strayed from a set, straight course theoretically he/she should find themselves back to the exact spot they started...but as we all know...this is a total impossibility...in amongst a whole range of reasons...the surface of the Earth is not even..or homogenous..

that particular child is not worried about what is under his/her feet..nor the sky above...just the job in hand on the surface, and so what happens when that child is asked to do a second ''circumnavigation''...four or five years older, with longer strides and different eyes...then happens to miss the mark also and as well, because of the non homogenous nature of the journey

ask that young person to keep attempting this project ad infinitum and the result can only ever be...always different

no one ever informed that young child that they were in fact circumnavigating anything...we knew... but he/she didn't ..so how would that ''child'' ever ''see'' a boundary ?

we are mostly thinking like ''flat landers'' in which there is never an edge to expand from and even if we ''witnessed'' expansion...the outcome is...we wouldn't really know what we are looking at...

happy to be torn to shreds and just loving the bigger picture...cheers

Time dilation, the speed limit of 'C' and many other anomalies of contemporary science are explainable within a three spatially dimensional perspective. Pundits use the esoterically mystical 'time dimension' rather than the incantation "hocus pocus' because that archaic term is no longer acceptable to the orthodox scientific community. They use it to claim the cosmos is finite (limited) but unbounded (unlimited). Time is only a measurement - a comparison of the relative rate of change of some process against another standard such as the rotation of the Earth or the vibration of a cesium atom.

Theorists have come up with an interesting hypothetical twist in which space curves in upon itself in such a way that for every given point 'A' there is a point 'B' within a finite distance at which motion in any direction will not increase the distance between the two; in fact, if a traveler who could instantaneously traverse a sufficient distance encountered such a point, he would begin to return to his point of origin. The concept describes a "finite but unbounded" Universe and implies a cosmos enveloped in a spherical spacecage. But there is no evidence, no principle of logic, science or mathematics and no law of nature that implies the existence of any point, however distant, at which progress becomes regress.

 

[Number Nine]

Can someone close this thread? It has clearly descended into abject pseudoscience and crankery. The OP is now dismissing LCDM and general relativity entirely.

 

[Farahday]

Plainly false. The reals outnumber the integers because there exists no surjective function from the integers to the reals. The even integers, on the other hand, have exactly the same cardinality as the set of all integers, because there exists a bijection between them. The same is true of the set of natural numbers and the set of rational numbers; both sets have exactly the same size, as do the set of all real numbers and the unit interval (0,1).

LOL - That is what I said. But in English...for those who don't speak Esoterica.

The domain of all integers does not completely fill the domain of all integers PLUS any additional element.

Happy now - or do you want to continue to talk over the heads of the unannointed in hopes of bolstering your argument?

The problem you're having here (which is the same problem you're having in physics), is that you are incapable of grasping anything that violates "common sense".

Like a magician, nature is a master illusionist. Much of it seems to defy common sense until you learn THAT IT DOESN'T!

 

[Farahday]

Can someone close this thread? It has clearly descended into abject pseudoscience and crankery. The OP is now dismissing LCDM and general relativity entirely.

Goodness. You sound threatened. We certainly wouldn't want to shake the old ivory tower with additional logical discourse. If my posts were illogical as opposed to just being contrary to the status quo conventional wisdom, I suspect you would just ignore them and feel sorry for this "crankey old fart". The fact that you engaged in debate means you must have some serious doubts...and that you are not likely to continue since I pointed this out. Bye

 

[samm dickens]

Is the universe a three-dimensional grid of space-time expanding from a size of zero along each dimension to some undetermined value that may be infinity if nothing interrupts the process of expansion? Spacetime=0 would be that singularity from which the Big Bang is said to have emerged, or does the universe emerge from a condition independent of space-time?

If existence cannot come from non-existence, but the space-time universe has a definite beginning, then existence must be independent of space-time. Existence may therefore be possible before time and beyond space, having none of the qualities contingent on either space or time. We may understand what such an existence is by simply knowing what it cannot be, by what space-time contingent qualities it may not possess.

Primordial existence (as we may call it) cannot have either size or shape; it cannot have location, neither inside (substance) nor outside (number, multiplicity). All such qualities are contingent on space-time. Primordial existence also cannot have any change in its essential nature, including that it can have no beginning nor end. If it is, as it must necessarily be, then it cannot cease to be. Furthermore, although it must incorporate the potential from which our universe arises, and perhaps from which countless other universes arise, it must nonetheless remain an undiminished initial condition from which such universes arise. All this is defined by the very nature of existence independent of space-time.

The standard cosmological model is consistent with this understanding of primordial existence, and it is quite reasonable to argue that something unchanging must ultimately be the source and initial condition of all space-time universes.

Samm

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.

Can someone close this thread? It has clearly descended into abject pseudoscience and crankery. The OP is now dismissing LCDM and general relativity entirely.

When a thread turns into nonsense like this, please hit the report button so we can stop it.