The Infinity Experience: Can we truly comprehend infinity?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wimms
Come on, why are you doing this? Exactly next sentence is exactly what you are trying to put through.
Please don't catch me on wording. English is my 3rd language afterall. Later I said enough to be unambiguous.

No, no, your problem is still conceptual, not lingual. You use terms such as "seperated by nothing, not space, not stuff, not anything". This should mean that they are not seperated, but you still use the term "serperated by nothing". Did you mean that they weren't serperated?

BTW, I'm sorry if I offended you, by my intolerance of misuse of the word "nothing". I just hate that there are so many people who don't understand that the word "nothing" doesn't describe anything. You seem to understand that, and I commend that. Your third language? Which other two do you speak? (English is my second language, as I first spoke Spanish).

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, no, your problem is still conceptual, not lingual. You use terms such as "seperated by nothing, not space, not stuff, not anything". This should mean that they are not seperated, but you still use the term "serperated by nothing". Did you mean that they weren't serperated?

Eh, infamous Nothing. You can't even explain that you "can't separate by nothing" without getting caught Of course I meant no separation.
I hope though that my main point finally got through, that in same way as you can't separate by nothing, you can't surround by nothing. Infinite unboundedness is thus the only possibility.
I speak estonian and russian. would survive with finnish.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wimms
Please don't catch me on wording. English is
my 3rd language afterall.
...
However bad my english is, its not that bad.

It's my 3rd language too, and yours is very
good indeed.

Originally posted by wimms
Regarding "logic", agree, but I'd go further
and say its result of not only us trying, but
direct correspondence with the thing itself.
So there are not so countless possibilities,
they are not here.

Actually, it doesn't really work (in its "normal"
version) according to the "thing itself" as far as
we know it today.

Originally posted by wimms
Rules of game do not explain the existence of
game, unless, the rules IS the game.

That is a possibility but does not explain
their existence either, does it ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by wimms
Eh, infamous Nothing. You can't even explain that you "can't separate by nothing" without getting caught Of course I meant no separation.
I hope though that my main point finally got through, that in same way as you can't separate by nothing, you can't surround by nothing. Infinite unboundedness is thus the only possibility.
I speak estonian and russian. would survive with finnish.

Mentat began a thread on the semantics of nothing. It lasted about 10 pages, if I recall correctly. Nothing means "not anything" therefore saying 'this is sepereted by nothing' is actually 'this is separated by not anything'. Are you getting "nothing" confused with a void??
If you meant no seperation, what did you mean?
English is my second language. (almost my third) The point is not how many languages you speak, its your understanding.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wimms
I hope though that my main point finally got
through, that in same way as you can't
separate by nothing,

Perhaps, you're right. (Though I ussualy dislike
nearly absolute claims.)

Originally posted by wimms
you can't surround by nothing.
Infinite unboundedness is thus the only possibility.

That's an interesting logical deduction, but
I believe that other reasoning lines considered
it seems more like a semantic argument to me on
how much logical induction is present in it.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by damgo
... But back to the original question...

When we talk about the expansion of an infinite universe, we don't mean its "total size" gets bigger in the way, say, a balloon gets bigger as we blow it up. We mean that the distances between objects in the infinite universe gets larger. So if there are originall objects at {..,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} they will move to {...,-4,-2,0,2,4,..} after some time, and continue to get further apart.

And hereinafter : BB
{..,-8,-4,0,4,8,..} ... ...
{..,-16,-8,0,8,16,..} ... ...
{..,-32,-6,0,16,32,..} ... ...

And the universe became the blowed balloon, which concentrated a whole matter in the shell.
Is it so?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by wimms
Rules of game do not explain the existence of game, unless, the rules IS the game.

Originally posted by drag
That is a possibility but does not explain their existence either, does it ?

Yes, but it is interesting boundary situation that brings us to the limits of logical reasoning. Going past that will cause a short-circuit.

Think, what will remain after you "remove" all, mean ALL, from existence? To think about that, you need to apply logical reasoning. Say you conclude that what remains is nothing, oops, -> nothing remains. Just suppose, that we can imagine such condition. Then, we go on and apply logical reasoning. Or, frankly, we assert that logic remains. But logic is rules of a game, thus, if logic remains, it means existence remains. If you remove logic, you remove rules, and there is no game. Thus, rules of game and game are congruent, selfexplanatory, selfreferential. Asking anything beyond that point is invalid by ANY system of logical reasoning. Logic disintegrates.

By any system of logical reasoning, nothing is invalid state, not just impossible, but logically flawed concept. It may be "agreed" as impossible by reduction ad absurdum.

We have plenty of evidence that universe is logical, and very little evidence if at all that its absurd.
Therefore some believe that logic IS the game, rather than what it has or does. See http://ebtx.com for an interesting example.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by wimms
Yes, but it is interesting boundary situation
that brings us to the limits of logical
reasoning. Going past that will cause a
short-circuit.

Think, what will remain after you "remove"
all, mean ALL, from existence? To think
about that, you need to apply logical
reasoning. Say you conclude that what
remains is nothing, oops, -> nothing remains.
Just suppose, that we can imagine such
condition. Then, we go on and apply
logical reasoning. Or, frankly, we assert
that logic remains. But logic is rules of
a game, thus, if logic remains, it means
existence remains. If you remove logic, you
remove rules, and there is no game. Thus,
rules of game and game are congruent,
selfexplanatory, selfreferential. Asking
anything beyond that point is invalid by
ANY system of logical reasoning.
Logic disintegrates.

Precisely the point of my statement.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Much varieties of infinity is considered in a philosophy and in mathematician. The Physics tries to find one in which is realized our universe. It is correct. God had chosen for realization one of them and this means that a rest infinityes are just result of creative fantasy of people and have no relation to realities.
Any project for realization must provide such features of the object:
- it must be a most simplicity upon a conservation of all functions;
- an expenseses of energy for its operation must be a minimum;
- it must function in "real time mode" for what must be an instant feedback and a compensating influences;
- it must have a most compactness for a minimization of amount of the elements for realization purpose required;
- no a possible changes of parameter in the system must not bring about its destruction;

Certainly nobody can not know all planning of God, but list of the requirements above for a more or less complex system is known to any designer. So. The Project is approved and its realization began .

Suppose this BB and the following expansion of universe.
But this is a full ignoring of project or, more exactly, its
straight opposition. Only Devil could realize such a project which destroy all planning of God. Herewith his force must be enough to work the system, which can't be working in principle. Anyway, his force might has been enough to inspire the Illusion to realization of such project to people.
It is possible to write this so
(The Absolute zero---> 3D number(?)) * INFINITY--->3D SPACE INFINITY.
This INFINITY of the EXPANSION of THREE- DIMENSIONAL SPACE.
This is the "acting model of our universe".

Really, it is required a superconcepts and huge amount of subterfuges to present working of such "universe". Nobody can't to do it.

What must be a realization to corresponds on the minimum set of the requirements, at least?

It must be the EVOLUTION toward a certain ABSOLUTENESS, but must not BULGE SENSELESSLY in their own size to NOWHERE.
It must not achieve this ABSOLUTENESS in principle and it provides the INFINITY of the PROCESS of EVOLUTION.

Mathematically, this requirements correspond to the process of the endless fission of any real number which will not reach the ABSOLUTE ZERO never.

NUMBER / INFINITY ------> ABSOLUTE ZERO
This is a REAL INFINITY.
This is ALGORITHM, not formula, since a Number has a BINARY FORM. GOD from the beginning had used the INFORMATION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY.
Physically this process must have a FUNDAMENTAL ESSENCE presenting a number in mathematical model.
This the essence is TIME!

Michael F. Dmitriyev

 

[wimms]

-- in same way as you can't separate by nothing, you can't surround by nothing.

posted by drag
That's an interesting logical deduction, but I believe that other reasoning lines considered it seems more like a semantic argument to me on how much logical induction is present in it.

Seems? Show me the flaw. And, while at that, how does BB get away from that?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Surrounding something by nothing and seperating something by nothing are both essentially the same. That is, when you separate something by nothing, you are also surrounding it by nothing. Like wimms, I don't see the flaw...unless of course you're talking about quantum mechanics.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wimms
Seems? Show me the flaw. And, while at that,
how does BB get away from that?

That's part of my point - the BB(or the Universe
for that matter) doesn't seem to get away from that.
So, it seems that possibly it is not a real problem.

Well, about the flaw - you assume there must always
be something outside of something else.
This could possibly serve as one of the "faces"
of the PoE according to certain reasoning systems
that assume the above, but it is perfectly alright
in others, I believe.

The difference between this and the separated "by
nothing" argument is that the latter seems to
violate any reasoning we're so far aware of because
it goes against the "relation between entities" part
that is always present in them, I believe. I mean,
if there's nothing in between - there's no
relation between these separated entities, and
if there are relations - how is that possible ?
(In this case, it's the same as the action at
a distance paradox - before we found out that
the "distance" - space is not nothing.)

Live long and prosper.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Yes, Drag, your reasoning makes sense when one ignores QM.
Negative energy in a void (which is the same thing as a 'nothing', ignoring the semantics) is present when there is no positive energy present. But, of course, when one considers the semantics involved, what I said doesn't make sense, right?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by drag
That's part of my point - the BB(or the Universe for that matter) doesn't seem to get away from that. So, it seems that possibly it is not a real problem.

Eh, not that it isn't a problem, BB seems to simply ignore it.

Well, about the flaw - you assume there must always be something outside of something else.
This could possibly serve as one of the "faces" of the PoE according to certain reasoning systems that assume the above, but it is perfectly alright in others, I believe.

Its hard to follow you. Correction though: I didn't assume that, I deduced that by logic. Do I understand you correctly, that in some other system of reasoning, statement that something can be surrounded by what we called "not anything", is possibly valid? Is there possibly such a real number that is a last one?

The difference between this and the separated "by nothing" argument is that the latter seems to violate any reasoning we're so far aware of because it goes against the "relation between entities" part that is always present in them, I believe. I mean, if there's nothing in between - there's no relation between these separated entities, and if there are relations - how is that possible ?

Uhh. We just went through that. It was precisely whole point of my reasoning, to show that. I started with speculative proposition to show that its not valid. So did you above.

"relation between entities" *is* something - its 'space'. You can't distinguish separate entities if you don't separate them by something. Its like trying to distinguish 2 values whose difference is exactly 0.

Did you mean that in case for universe, there is no entity to relate to outside and thus to talk about 'relation' is invalid? Thats equivalent to searching for 'last number'. In any case, it seems that unboundedness is the only logical conclusion.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Eh, not that it isn't a problem, BB seems to simply ignore it.

Quantum mechanics allows for something to be "created out of nothing". So its not, quantum mechanically speaking, a problem, right?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

MajinVegeta, space is not nothing according
to modern science.

Originally posted by wimms
BB seems to simply ignore it.

Carefull... arguing with nature because
your "logic" tells you what you observe is
impossible is historicly shown to often
be a hopeless effort.

Originally posted by wimms
Do I understand you correctly, that in some
other system of reasoning, statement that
something can be surrounded by what we
called "not anything", is possibly valid?
Is there possibly such a real number that
is a last one?

Since any reasoning system deals with some
enitities and some relations between them
(though nothing is certain, of course),
your question is not posed correctly. After
all, not anything or nothing is NOT an
entity or a relation.

What I DID mean is that a different reasoning
system may not lead to assignment of limmits.
You talk about something outside ofeverything
as a condition, but what if I simply do not
concern myself with such a condition ?
A similar example is the once existing assumption
that cause must exist before effect, however, today
we know we might sometimes be able to observe
effect before cause, based upon the EPR
experiment and the "instant" WF collapse.
(Though personally, I still don't buy that... )

Originally posted by wimms
Uhh. We just went through that. It was
precisely whole point of my reasoning,
to show that. I started with speculative
proposition to show that its not valid.
So did you above.

"relation between entities" *is*
something - its 'space'. You can't
distinguish separate entities if you
don't separate them by something. Its
like trying to distinguish 2 values
whose difference is exactly 0.

Indeed. When it comes to the real world
"real" relations are themselves entities.
"Pure" relations can exist only in our
abstract thinking (math for example).

But, independent of how you regard
"normal" space in a particular case -
there is still a direct connection between
these "parts" of the real world. The lack
of such a connection would mean that any
abstract relation discribing this would
collapse. It would be a totally chaotic
system - cause with NO effect and chaos.
And if you did manage to tie between two
entities with no connection between them,
then you're the connection.

Originally posted by wimms
Did you mean that in case for universe,
there is no entity to relate to outside
and thus to talk about 'relation' is invalid?
Thats equivalent to searching for 'last number'.

No, you misunderstood me.

Let's try it this way:
If you have a bunch of entities interacting
directly - there's no (enitial, at least)problem
and you can then wonder - what's outside
of each entity, which is a more specific
case argument(and perhaps unnecessary).

But, if there are entities with no connection
between them then they can not possibly
communicate with each other in any manner
and hence it appears to be an impossibility
for a real world discription to include such
enitities since whoever's reasoning with this
discription has to be aware of this situation
and thus violate the lack of connection.

So, returning to the original opinions I
expressed - a limmited Universe may still
be debatable and is not as seemingly impossible
to me as separation by nothing.
(We are, of course, talking about conceptual
comprehension ability - there may be stuff
separated by nothing, but conceptually
I believe my above argument is an almost
absolute proof that we can't possibly know that.
You were implying that the basis of these
two cases is essentialy the same, and I think
it's not, even if there is some argument
as "tough" as mine above that deals with
a finite Universe and that I simply failed
to consider so far.)

Poka !

Live long and prosper.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

MajinVegeta, space is not nothing according
to modern science.

A medium.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Surrounding something by nothing and seperating something by nothing are both essentially the same. That is, when you separate something by nothing, you are also surrounding it by nothing. Like wimms, I don't see the flaw...unless of course you're talking about quantum mechanics.

I didn't think this would be necessary with you, Majin, as you usually don't misuse this word. However, I'm going to run your (quoted) post through the E.i.N.S. It becomes:

"The fact that something is not surrounded by anything, and the the fact that it is not separated by anything, are both essentially the same. That is when something isn't separated by anything, it is also isn't surrounded by anything."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
A medium.

Not just a medium. Relativity states that it is an entity, which changes and warps due to the presence (and change) of matter/energy.

 

[Kirk Gaulden]

space-temporal mechanics

Kirk Gaulden
keg963@hotmail.com

To answer your questions on space-time:

If you take the mathematical processes of relativity and apply them to
the four natural forces you come up with quantun space-time mechanics.
I cannot give specifics because my material is not published as of yet. I sent the information to the jet propulsion lab in California
for studies in space-time phenomenon regaurding mathematical gravity and how space expands, covering wormhole construction through manifolding energies to balance the energies in the universe to
the manipulation of space-times levels of gravity based on a relative
parodox method never used before. This material shows how the universe works, expanding quantum field theory to space-time fields
at different levels to expand the universes as a strand in string
theory. This information uses General Theory of Relativity as a
reference in local time and that time changes as bubbles of time that
our sun passes through that effects our evolution and progress in technologies.

 

[Kirk Gaulden]

If you take into account that space is indeed a time bubble seperate
as a multiplexed manifold as transformation points for the four fundamental forces of nature to be an infinite parodoxia and that light is indeed a hyper graviton in the field. Then relativity demands a relative position for moduli-space-time, therefore,
space can be relative entity in 2 dimensional space. Seeing that
the graviton is a superparticle like Ds is, gravitons can only be
in high quark plasma density states projected by lensing from other
time bubbles from distant stars at different rates faster or slower than the space around it in photon plasma promotes laser lensing that produces super densities at the electromagnetic level. I presented this as a base for our technology.This information is processed by
matter/anti-matter movement created in hyperspace at the center of
the universe.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Mentat
Not just a medium. Relativity states that it is an entity, which changes and warps due to the presence (and change) of matter/energy.

An ENTITY, Mentat?

 

[Kirk Gaulden]

Correct! See the stars, galaxies and even planets that have atmospheres to some point are all connected to hyperspace. They have the plasma required to manifold through densities of matter and energy. Energy states that are relative to superpatner ineractions
depend on the balancing of motions and other energies through lensing
to keep the universe from collapsing. If one area is without the weak force that is an area based for transition of energies would take place, through space-time mechanics and fermion-bosonic dynamics
balance is maintained through manifolding the fundamental forces of nature.

 

[drag]

Wow that's amazing Kirk Gaulden !
You know what I think, PF's too boring
and useless and people can't appreciate
real ideas. Why don't we try a more
serious forum like ScienceForums for
example and you could really discuss
your ideas there.

Peace and long life.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Drag, you're on ScienceForums, too?

Kirk: Very interesting, excellent way of describing the universe. I am prone to thinking that "entity" refers to a living thing.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Drag, you're on ScienceForums, too?

Nope.
But, I'm sorry I forgot you are, any other
appropriate forums out there ?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Yes! I just joined the mkaku.org community.
They have amazing discussions. I guess it is appropriate to say "far out" discussions. But nonetheless, physicsforums is much cooler.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
An ENTITY, Mentat?

Yep.

 

[Mentat]

Majin, I don't think that drag was seriously suggesting that ScienceForums.com was better than the PFs. He said something, rather similar to his comment to Kirk Gaulden, on the old PFs, and I still just don't see much humor in it - but I think that's what it's intended for.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Majin, I don't think that drag was seriously
suggesting that ScienceForums.com was better
than the PFs.

You think...

Originally posted by Mentat
He said something, rather similar to his
comment to Kirk Gaulden, on the old PFs,

I think I "tried" the same with someone
else on PF2.

Originally posted by Mentat
and I still just don't see much humor
in it -

In that case, you're suffering from one of
the following: a severe case of lack of
sense of humor/a severe case of lack of
knowledge in physics/a severe case of lack
of knowledge of the the English language.

Originally posted by Mentat
but I think that's what it's intended for.

Hard call, isn't it...

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
In that case, you're suffering from one of
the following: a severe case of lack of
sense of humor/a severe case of lack of
knowledge in physics/a severe case of lack
of knowledge of the the English language.

Actually, what is lacking is an appropriate medium for humor. I can't hear the tone of your voice, I can see your facial expressions, I can't read your mind, and I can't feel your need for sarcasm.

Aside from this, I take people's posts seriously, to lessen the risk of insulting someone.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Aside from this, I take people's posts seriously,
to lessen the risk of insulting someone.

Feel free to insult me anytime...
The worst that can happen is that it'll
either be justified or you'll be banned...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Feel free to insult me anytime...
The worst that can happen is that it'll
either be justified or you'll be banned...

Actually, both of those things can happen at the same time. Besides, I have no use for insults.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, both of those things can happen
at the same time. Besides, I have no use
for insults.

Lighten up Mentat !

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

In that case, you're suffering from one of
the following: a severe case of lack of
sense of humor/a severe case of lack of
knowledge in physics/a severe case of lack
of knowledge of the the English language.

That actually sounds like me. I'm not good with jokes...seriously, what's so funny about "I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith." the punch line: "What's the name of the other leg?" I don't see the humor.

Anyway, I was reading an article in a recent Scientific American magazine about parallel universes. According to the theory, there are several multiuniverses. We're in one multiverse. If our universe is infinite, how can there be other universes outside of this infinite one? Consequently, I have arrived at the conclusion that these multiuniverses are all(including our universe) in a bigger universe that contains all of them. What do you think?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
What is infinity? How can something infinite expand? Once and for all, how can we conclude that the universe is infinite? The fact that the universe is infinite may contradict brane theory. Consequently, could it be tenable to suggest that this brane is a subuniverse?
Of course, the idea of an infinite universe could just be based on the infinite boundary theory proposed by Stephen Hawking.

Who ever said infinite could expand?

WHo ever said the universe is infinite?

I've never heard anyone intelligent argue these two statements. Perhaps you heard this from an idiot?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

A magazine. There are multiple theories on how the universe is infinite. And the ones that say the universe is not infinite don't quite make sense with the geometry of space. Where did you hear that the universe was finite?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
A magazine. There are multiple theories on how the universe is infinite. And the ones that say the universe is not infinite don't quite make sense with the geometry of space. Where did you hear that the universe was finite?

Universe can't be both expanding and infinite. Simple as that.

I'm not stating it's either finite or infinite.

Is not light traveling outward such that the light is always reaching new distances from it's origin?

Thus is not the universe expanding?

Thus how could an expanding universe be infinite?

That is my logic.

 

[HazZy]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Universe can't be both expanding and infinite. Simple as that.

I'm not stating it's either finite or infinite.

Is not light traveling outward such that the light is always reaching new distances from it's origin?

Thus is not the universe expanding?

Thus how could an expanding universe be infinite?

That is my logic.

mass can be expanding into infinite space just as light can be traveling through infinite space.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Universe can't be both expanding and infinite.

Actually we've been through this on the
previous pages here and some people at least,
including me, had no prpoblem with that.
Things just get further apart in an infinite
expanding Universe.

Live long and prosper.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

What about that SCIAM article about parallel universes I described a post or two ago??

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
That actually sounds like me. I'm not good with jokes...seriously, what's so funny about "I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith." the punch line: "What's the name of the other leg?" I don't see the humor.

While I don't think it's funny, the point is that if his wooden leg is named "Smith", what's the name of his other leg (while originally you would have thought they meant "there's a man, named "Smith", with a wooden leg").

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
While I don't think it's funny, the point
is that if his wooden leg is named "Smith",
what's the name of his other leg (while
originally you would have thought they meant
"there's a man, named "Smith", with a wooden leg").

Majin, had he said it to me I'd personally
be deeply offended...

 

[sage]

greetings , physicists

"This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spatial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spatial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion)".


__________________

spatial dimensions are expanding only in the region of the universe which have began from big bang singularity.this is the only region we know of till date and it is here that our laws of physics hold.
beyond this our concept of spatial dimensions may not hold even!it is only that the expanding entity which we call our universe interacts in some unknown way with whatever that lies outside to create
what we call spatial dimension.same goes for our temporal dimension,physical laws,forces,matter-energy etc.so you see though the universe may be infinite "our universe" is not and so it can certainly
expand.

"and has since expanded. It is also possible that God said "Let there be light." We can never know at, least in this life, because as the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light, at least in the inflationary phase the origin, and Big Bang is outside our light cone, beyond the limit of our sight".

this is something that i have not understood about inflationary theory.if the universe expanded faster than light does that not mean it went back in time?well what does THAT MEAN?
majinvegeta,if you think big bang theory is correct then how could our universe be infinite?i know that some geometries of space time allow an infinite universe.but how can such a model be comatible with the idea that our universe began from a singularity a finite time ago?can someone illuminate me on that point.anyway parallel universes if true only strengthens my point that the universe we speak about is only a part of the whole, of which perhaps we will never know anything.
i like jokes.just let it not drown the main subject.no offence meant of course! NOTE:THE WORDS UNDER THE SIGN " " ARE QUOTES.I HAVE MERELY REPLIED TO THESE.i should have put the quotation marks before.SORRY !

 

[drag]

Originally posted by sage
If someone speaks of the spatial dimensions
themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow
that just some things could be getting farther
apart, but all things should be getting farther apart.

This objection has been expressed and answered
before in this thread, we meant - ALL things(if the
expansion occurs throughout the infinity discussed).
Anyway, what's your likely argument for this being
impossible for all objects ? (In addition to the more
traditional difficulties with infinity.)

Live long and prosper.

 

[sage]

DEAR DRAG i have edited my post somewhat.please see it again.sorry for the inconvinience!

 

[drag]

Originally posted by sage
sorry for the inconvinience!

You got it ! THE ANSWER ! God's last message
to his creation !

Originally posted by sage
spatial dimensions are expanding only in the
region of the universe which have began from
big bang singularity.

Well, some people seem to think, which is
also why such a thread was posted that the
Universe may be infinite (I mean "normal"
space-time). Anyway the issue of this
being correct or incorrect is far above me
so I'll prefer not to comment on this,
not to mention that there is seemingly no
conclusive probabalistic proof on either
side so far.

We're discussing the expansion part here
because it was proposed as one of the
main aspects in this theoretical paradox
of infinity.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sage
"This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spatial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spatial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion)".

Everyone, listen to my new good buddy, sage!

Sage, I agree entirely with you here. In fact, I have been trying to make the same point for some time now.

spatial dimensions are expanding only in the region of the universe which have began from big bang singularity.this is the only region we know of till date and it is here that our laws of physics hold.
beyond this our concept of spatial dimensions may not hold even!it is only that the expanding entity which we call our universe interacts in some unknown way with whatever that lies outside to create
what we call spatial dimension.same goes for our temporal dimension,physical laws,forces,matter-energy etc.so you see though the universe may be infinite "our universe" is not and so it can certainly
expand.

"and has since expanded. It is also possible that God said "Let there be light." We can never know at, least in this life, because as the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light, at least in the inflationary phase the origin, and Big Bang is outside our light cone, beyond the limit of our sight".

this is something that i have not understood about inflationary theory.if the universe expanded faster than light does that not mean it went back in time?well what does THAT MEAN?

The universe is not "expanding faster than light", so to speak. What is actually happening is the space between all objects is increasing.

There's the ever-famous "balloon analogy" that is often used to describe this, and it goes kind of like this: Let's say that there is a balloon with spots on it. None of the spots can move away from each other at a speed greater than 1cm/second. However, the rule doesn't apply to what happens when the balloon itself expands, because the spots are not really moving at all.

Does that help at all?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

But how do you explain the Doppler effect? It's used as evidence to prove the universe is expanding.

On the other hand, studies show that models of an infinite universe make more sense (not logical, apperently) than finite models.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
But how do you explain the Doppler effect?
It's used as evidence to prove the universe is expanding.

That's NOT a doppler effect, Majin. As space-time
expands the EM waves also expand.