An infinite universe
dave
dave
Hints of a finite universe
Perplexing observations beamed back by a NASA spacecraft are fuelling
debates about a mystery of biblical proportions - is our Universe infinite?
Scientists have announced tantalising hints that the Universe is actually
relatively small, with a hall-of-mirrors illusion tricking us into thinking
that space stretches on forever.
However, work by a second team seems to contradict this, and scientists are
now busy trying to resolve the conundrum. "Whether space is finite is
something people have been asking since ancient times, and probably before
that," says mathematician Jeffrey Weeks from Canton, New York. "If we
resolved this and confirmed that space is finite, this would be an enormous
step forward in our understanding of nature."
kathryn
"dave" <dk...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
news:cpslvh$a0k$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Is the universe infinite or finite? Lets leave God out of this one!
>
You know I have no idea.....
TCS
>Is the universe infinite or finite? Lets leave God out of this one!
who cares?
Melchizedek
>
Design From a Benevolent Creator
CSI-100 Creation Studies Study Guide
ftp://ccbible:fall...@65.127.169.45/csi-100/public-csi-100-study-guides-1-10.pdf
Bill
somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million Light Years. A Light Year is the
distance that light travels in one year at a speed of 186,000 MILES per
SECOND.
Anything even remotely approaching this size makes the argument of finite or
infinite sort of academic.
--
Bill
"dave" <dk...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
news:cpslvh$a0k$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
TCS
>Current scientific estimates are that the diameter of the Universe is
>somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million Light Years. A Light Year is the
shouldn't that be billions of light years?
Denis Loubet
If it were infinite, the surface of the earth would be as hot as the surface
of the sun.
So no, it's not infinite.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
TCS
>"dave" <dk...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
>news:cpslvh$a0k$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Is the universe infinite or finite? Lets leave God out of this one!
>If it were infinite, the surface of the earth would be as hot as the surface
>of the sun.
That does not follow. An infinite sized universe can still be spread
out enough so that the night sky is exactly as we see.
>So no, it's not infinite.
you don't know that.
Fred Stone
news:V4KdnWu_oYs...@io.com:
>
> "dave" <dk...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
> news:cpslvh$a0k$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Is the universe infinite or finite? Lets leave God out of this one!
>
> If it were infinite, the surface of the earth would be as hot as the
> surface of the sun.
>
> So no, it's not infinite.
>
>
That is known as Olbers' Paradox, but it doesn't prove that the Universe
isn't infinite.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
DianaC
Question:
If it's not infinite, what's on the outside?
Denis Loubet
"TCS" <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
news:slrncs4d1u.mld.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net...
Well, I suppose you could concoct a universe where an infinite number of
stars are hiding behind a finite number, but that starts to really get into
silly territory.
If the distribution of the infinite stars is anything like the distribution
we currently see, then it doesn't matter how they are "spread out", every
line of sight will intersect a star's surface. Photons don't "cool down"
with distance.
>>So no, it's not infinite.
>
> you don't know that.
It's what the evidence seems to indicate. I'll go with that.
Randy Story
>
>
Since the universe is expanding it cant be infinitely large, it may be
potentially infinite but it is definitely finite at present.
Denis Loubet
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C1CECBE...@205.188.138.161...
> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in
> news:V4KdnWu_oYs...@io.com:
>
>>
>> "dave" <dk...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:cpslvh$a0k$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>> Is the universe infinite or finite? Lets leave God out of this one!
>>
>> If it were infinite, the surface of the earth would be as hot as the
>> surface of the sun.
>>
>> So no, it's not infinite.
>>
>>
>
> That is known as Olbers' Paradox, but it doesn't prove that the Universe
> isn't infinite.
True. But the possible reasons run from the absurd (stars hiding beheind
other stars) to the unlikely (the distribution of stars is radically
different far away) to the reasonable (Red shift or light not reaching us
yet.)
However, I would suspect the universe might look different than it does if
those reasonable reasons were the case. But I could easily be wrong.
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html
Very succinct.
But interestingly, none of those reasons require the universe to be
infinite, just bigger than it looks.
Woden
news:TEqwd.71$tG3.54@trnddc02:
The same thing that on the other side of a Moebius strip.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
BTR1701
"DianaC" <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Nothing. Not even vacuum.
TCS
>"TCS" <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
>news:slrncs4d1u.mld.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net...
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:47:17 -0600, Denis Loubet <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"dave" <dk...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
>>>news:cpslvh$a0k$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>>> Is the universe infinite or finite? Lets leave God out of this one!
>>
>>>If it were infinite, the surface of the earth would be as hot as the
>>>surface
>>>of the sun.
>>
>> That does not follow. An infinite sized universe can still be spread
>> out enough so that the night sky is exactly as we see.
>Well, I suppose you could concoct a universe where an infinite number of
>stars are hiding behind a finite number, but that starts to really get into
>silly territory.
You assuming that starlight can be seen an infinite distance. This
is a false assumption.
Denis Loubet
No, photons don't evaporate, and infinity is a really really large number.
In that instance, every area of the sky subtending 1 degree, would contain
an infinite number of stars, and although all the stars in that area
wouldn't fire a photon down that line of sight, there would still be an
infinite number of stars in that 1 degree area that did. The only thing
saving us from an infinite number of photons, and infinite temperatures, is
the stars in front blocking the ones behind. That leaves the 1 degree of the
sky as hot as the average surfaces of the stars filling that degree.
It would be REAL hot.
Now, if you're suggesting that we can't see them because the light hasn't
gotten here yet, or is red-shifted out of detection, then we don't know such
stars are there, and can't claim the universe to be infinite.
Al Klein
<The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> said in alt.atheism:
And a few less than 20?
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Al Klein
<dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>If it's not infinite, what's on the outside?
What outside? "Not infinite" doesn't mean "part of something larger".
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>Anything even remotely approaching this size makes the argument of finite or
>infinite sort of academic.
Only to those who don't understand.
--
Zymurgist # 2
Al Klein
<rsto...@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
>"dave" <dk...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
>news:cpslvh$a0k$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Is the universe infinite or finite? Lets leave God out of this one!
>Since the universe is expanding it cant be infinitely large
Whyever not? One (expanding) has nothing to do with the other
(infinite).
TCS
Starlight intensity diminished with the square of the distance. It is
not a constant.
Enkidu
news:slrncs4q15.5o1.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net:
And the energy of a photon decreases via red shift as it crosses an
expanding universe.
--
Enkidu
"Yee-Ha" is not a foreign policy.
Denis Loubet
Sigh. A single photon doesn't give a shit about the square of the distance.
A single photon delivers its package of energy undiminished by time or
distance. The reason stars dim with distance is not that the photons get
tired and less powerful, it's that you're seeing FEWER photons. But the
infinite number of stars in this little scenario takes care of that problem
by supplying an infinite amount of photons. Everywhere you look, you're
getting a photon from the surface of a sun, its energy undiminshed by
distance.
Denis Loubet
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ojp4s0t1a0q0rls8o...@4ax.com...> said in alt.atheism:
>
> >If the distribution of the infinite stars is anything like the
distribution
> >we currently see, then it doesn't matter how they are "spread out", every
> >line of sight will intersect a star's surface. Photons don't "cool down"
> >with distance.
>
> its photons will never reach us.
If the receding is due to the expansion of the universe itself, perhaps.
DaveJr
Something(or rather nothing) was outside during that time. Why should now
be any different. Also...size is irrelivant...remember Men in Black.
However, that was a galaxy not the entire universe. I think it's all
relative. Marbles within marbles within marbles.
dave
Why isn't the night sky as uniformly bright as the surface of the Sun? If
the Universe has infinitely many stars, then it should be. After all, if
you move the Sun twice as far away from us, we will intercept one quarter as
many photons, but the Sun will subtend one quarter of the angular area. So
the areal intensity remains constant. With infinitely many stars, every
angular element of the sky should have a star, and the entire heavens should
be as bright as the sun. We should have the impression that we live in the
center of a hollow black body whose temperature is about 6000 degrees
Celsius. This is Olbers' paradox. It can be traced as far back as Kepler
in 1610, and was rediscussed by Halley and Cheseaux in the eighteen century;
but it was not popularized as a paradox until Olbers took up the issue in
the nineteenth century.
There are many possible explanations which have been considered. Here are a
few:
1.. There's too much dust to see the distant stars.
2.. The Universe has only a finite number of stars.
3.. The distribution of stars is not uniform. So, for example, there
could be an infinity of stars,
but they hide behind one another so that only a finite angular area is
subtended by them.
4.. The Universe is expanding, so distant stars are red-shifted into
obscurity.
5.. The Universe is young. Distant light hasn't even reached us yet.
The first explanation is just plain wrong. In a black body, the dust will
heat up too. It does act like a radiation shield, exponentially damping the
distant starlight. But you can't put enough dust into the universe to get
rid of enough starlight without also obscuring our own Sun. So this idea is
bad.
The premise of the second explanation may technically be correct. But the
number of stars, finite as it might be, is still large enough to light up
the entire sky, i.e., the total amount of luminous matter in the Universe is
too large to allow this escape. The number of stars is close enough to
infinite for the purpose of lighting up the sky. The third explanation
might be partially correct. We just don't know. If the stars are
distributed fractally, then there could be large patches of empty space, and
the sky could appear dark except in small areas.
But the final two possibilities are surely each correct and partly
responsible. There are numerical arguments that suggest that the effect of
the finite age of the Universe is the larger effect. We live inside a
spherical shell of "Observable Universe" which has radius equal to the
lifetime of the Universe. Objects more than about 13.7 thousand million
years old (the latest figure) are too far away for their light ever to reach
us.
Historically, after Hubble discovered that the Universe was expanding, but
before the Big Bang was firmly established by the discovery of the cosmic
background radiation, Olbers' paradox was presented as proof of special
relativity. You needed the red shift (an SR effect) to get rid of the
starlight. This effect certainly contributes. But the finite age of the
Universe is the most important effect.
References: Ap. J. 367, 399 (1991). The author, Paul Wesson, is said to be
on a personal crusade to end the confusion surrounding Olbers' paradox.
Darkness at Night: A Riddle of the Universe, Edward Harrison, Harvard
University Press, 1987
TCS
The single photon has to hit it's target. The farther away the target is,
the less likely the vector will be such that it'll hit it.
That's why a flashlight in more visible one foot away then
one mile away.
DianaC
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:30:27 GMT, "DianaC"
> <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>
>>If it's not infinite, what's on the outside?
>
> What outside? "Not infinite" doesn't mean "part of something larger".
Perhaps it's my non-mathematical head...I can't get my mind around the
concept that a boundary doesn't have two sides.
DianaC
"Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95C1E2CCE45C...@69.28.186.121...
> "DianaC" <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
> news:TEqwd.71$tG3.54@trnddc02:
>
>>
>> "dave" <dk...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:cpsm8v$aml$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>>
>>> Hints of a finite universe
>>> Perplexing observations beamed back by a NASA spacecraft are fuelling
>>> debates about a mystery of biblical proportions - is our Universe
>>> infinite? Scientists have announced tantalising hints that the
>>> Universe is actually relatively small, with a hall-of-mirrors
>>> illusion tricking us into thinking that space stretches on forever.
>>>
>>> However, work by a second team seems to contradict this, and
>>> scientists are now busy trying to resolve the conundrum. "Whether
>>> space is finite is something people have been asking since ancient
>>> times, and probably before that," says mathematician Jeffrey Weeks
>>> from Canton, New York. "If we resolved this and confirmed that space
>>> is finite, this would be an enormous step forward in our
>>> understanding of nature."
>>
>> Question:
>>
>> If it's not infinite, what's on the outside?
>>
>>
>>
>
> The same thing that on the other side of a Moebius strip.
A Moebius strip does have two sides. They just trade places somewhere in the
middle.
DianaC
"BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-CD7361...@news.giganews.com...
I don't think so. Besides which, isn't the universe expanding? In which
case, if it is not infinite, isn't it becoming so....and thus isn't it
already so?
Les Hellawell
Where is the middle?
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
DianaC
Please excuse the English major who is allergic to math, please...but is
there any reason to assume that an infinite universe MUST be filled with
stars?
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
...
> Since the universe is expanding it cant be infinitely large, ...
Baloney. Infinities can be expanded by a finite or infinite amount.
> ... it may be
> potentially infinite ...
Nonsense. There is no progression from the finite to the infinite.
> ... but it is definitely finite at present.
Please produce your evidence for a finite universe.
Regards,
Josef
Knowledge consists not just in the assertion of what is true, but in the
exclusion of what is false.
-- Albro Swift
Therion Ware
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:27:33 GMT in alt.atheism, DianaC ("DianaC"
<dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
[snip]
>Please excuse the English major who is allergic to math, please...but is
>there any reason to assume that an infinite universe MUST be filled with
>stars?
Dunno for sure, but I think it's more of an observation than a "must"
in as much as the nights sky is pretty isotropic. Combine that with
the "principle of mediocrity" and you've probably got the makings of
reasonable assumption.
Mind you, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that an infinite
universe (with an infinite number of stars, etc) would be prone to
catastrophic gravitational collapse. Don't know if that's true or not.
Mekkala
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
> Question:
>
> If it's not infinite, what's on the outside?
Does it make any sense to speak of "outside" the universe? Probably not.
As far as we can tell, the concept of "outside" is undefined for the
universe.
You need to stop thinking of these things in ordinary terms. Much of
modern physics and cosmology can't be represented in any form that most
people would understand. The universe isn't like a big egg -- it's a
strange thing with strange properties, and what applies to small objects
within it doesn't necessarily apply to the universe as a whole.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
Denis Loubet
Yes! You are correct! Now do the math! If you have an infinite number of
stars that all have a chance of sending a photon right down that vector, how
many will send one right down the vector?
That's right! An infinite number of stars will send a photon right down that
vector.
Is it hot in here, or is it just me?
TCS
Photons aren't put out to every vector at an infinite rate.
If that vector receives photon's infrequently enough, you won't see
anything.
Randy Story
"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2cc5107...@206.172.150.13...
>
> In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
> with the following:
>
>
> ...
>
>
> > Since the universe is expanding it cant be infinitely large, ...
>
>
> Baloney. Infinities can be expanded by a finite or infinite amount.
Only mathmatical infinites can be expanded not an actual infinite. A real
thing without limits means that it can not increase, it is all it can be. So
try again Josef.
Therion Ware
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:34:15 -0800 in alt.atheism, Randy Story
("Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
>
>"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1c2cc5107...@206.172.150.13...
>>
>> In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
>> with the following:
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> > Since the universe is expanding it cant be infinitely large, ...
>>
>>
>> Baloney. Infinities can be expanded by a finite or infinite amount.
>
>Only mathmatical infinites can be expanded not an actual infinite.
As a matter of interest, how do you know?
>A real
>thing without limits means that it can not increase, it is all it can be. So
>try again Josef.
Again, as a matter of interest, "why not"? After all, if an actual
infinite can actually exist, what stops it having the properties
described by mathematical infinites?
Denis Loubet
That's just it, they ARE when you have an infinite number of stars.
> If that vector receives photon's infrequently enough, you won't see
> anything.
But with an infinite number of stars, it won't BE infrequent.
What do you get when you cut infinity in half? You get 2 infinities. It
doesn't matter how you cut it, any miniscule portion of infinity is still
infinite. It doesn't matter how infrequently a star might send a photon down
a certain vector, there will be an infinite number of photons crowding down
each and every vector if you have an infinite number of stars.
If every trillionth star puts a photon down that vector, that means there
will be an infinite number of stars putting a photon down that vector. Same
for every quadrillionth star, every gooleplexth star. The proportion is
irrelevant. Infinity is infinity.
Denis Loubet
"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:5gv5s0pbb27hs1j0q...@4ax.com...
Enough additional matter would reverse the expansion of the universe, and if
it's infinite, then I imagine the reversal would be catastrophic.
Observations, however, suggest that the universe is expanding, and will
continue to expand forever. So that data alone should really count strongly
as evidence against an infinite universe.
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>Soon after the big bang, the universe had an inside and an outside.
Not really. The universe may very well be something that has a
one-sided boundary.
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
Al Klein
<dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>news:pfp4s0p7i7081hm38...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:30:27 GMT, "DianaC"
>> <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>>>If it's not infinite, what's on the outside?
>> What outside? "Not infinite" doesn't mean "part of something larger".
>Perhaps it's my non-mathematical head...I can't get my mind around the
>concept that a boundary doesn't have two sides.
Nor can you get your mind around infinity (or even some very huge
number). But the universe can be finite yet the only thing there is.
Of course there's no evidence that it IS finite. Nor is there any
that it's infinite. All we know is that we can only a certain
distance into it (due to expansion and the speed of light), and it
looks finite.
XL
Randy Story wrote:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c2cc5107...@206.172.150.13...
>
>>In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
>>with the following:
>>
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Since the universe is expanding it cant be infinitely large, ...
>>
>>
>>Baloney. Infinities can be expanded by a finite or infinite amount.
>
>
> Only mathmatical infinites can be expanded not an actual infinite. A real
> thing without limits means that it can not increase, it is all it can be. So
> try again Josef.
Balderdash. There is something to do with time that you are neglecting.
See: http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c2cc5107...@206.172.150.13...
> > In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
> > with the following:
> > > Since the universe is expanding it cant be infinitely large, ...
> >
> >
> > Baloney. Infinities can be expanded by a finite or infinite amount.
>
> Only mathmatical infinites can be expanded not an actual infinite.
Please demonstrate that there ARE actual infinities, and please provide
references as to their characteristics.
And, in the rather unlikely event that you succeed, then please
demonstrate that the mathematics of infinities cannot describe these
actual infinities.
...
Regards,
Josef
Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no belief
that cannot be justified.
-- Donald Morgan
Fred Stone
news:Uzvwd.1127$Lw.1...@news.uswest.net:
> Soon after the big bang, the universe had an inside and an outside.
Not necessarily.
> Something(or rather nothing) was outside during that time.
Nothing is not a thing.
> Why
> should now be any different. Also...size is irrelivant...remember
> Men in Black. However, that was a galaxy not the entire universe. I
> think it's all relative. Marbles within marbles within marbles.
>
MIB was a movie, it has no more relevance than Harry Potter.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
Therion Ware
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:01:08 GMT in alt.atheism, XL (XL <X...@XL.net>)
said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
>
>
I suspect Randy's line of argument may be necessary to him in the
context of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If he allows the existence
of "actual infinites" the Kalam argument fails, I think. But as I say,
it's merely a suspicion.
Tukla Ratte
> In article <TEqwd.71$tG3.54@trnddc02>,
> "DianaC" <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
< snip >
>>If it's not infinite, what's on the outside?
>
>
> Nothing. Not even vacuum.
...Because there is no "outside".
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
Tukla Ratte
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-CD7361...@news.giganews.com...
>
>>In article <TEqwd.71$tG3.54@trnddc02>,
>>"DianaC" <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
< snip >
>>>If it's not infinite, what's on the outside?
>>
>>Nothing. Not even vacuum.
>
>
> I don't think so.
LOL! Then why did you ask? What do *you* think is "outside"?
> Besides which, isn't the universe expanding? In which
> case, if it is not infinite, isn't it becoming so....
I can't see how a finite volume could turn into an infinite volume
simply by expanding.
> and thus isn't it
> already so?
???
Tukla Ratte
I don't think anyone can actually *visualize* such a state. It's like
trying to picture a four-dimensional room or the wave/particle duality
of a photon.
TCS
>BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <TEqwd.71$tG3.54@trnddc02>,
>> "DianaC" <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
>< snip >
>>>If it's not infinite, what's on the outside?
>>
>>
>> Nothing. Not even vacuum.
>...Because there is no "outside".
Somebody has to post this: (Douglas Adams /HHGTTG)
Universe, The
Some information to help you live in it.
1. Area: infinite.
2. Imports: none.
It is impossible to import things into an infinite area, there being no
outside to import things from.
3. Exports: none.
See Imports.
4. Population: none.
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because
there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every
one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of
inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to
nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in
the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the
population of the whole Universe is zero, and that any people you may meet
from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
5. Monetary Units: none.
In fact there are three freely convertible currencies in the Galaxy, but
none of them count. The Altairian Dollar has recently collapsed, the
Flainian Pobble Bead is only exchangeable for other Flainian Pobble Beads,
and the Triganic Pu has its own very special problems. Its exchange rate of
eight Ningis to one Pu is simple enough, but since a Ningi is a triangular
rubber coin six thousand eight hundred miles along each side, no one has
ever collected enough to own one Pu. Ningis are not negotiable currency,
because the Galactibanks refuse to deal in fiddling small change. From this
basic premise it is very simple to prove that the Galactibanks are also the
product of a deranged imagination.
6. Art: none.
The function of art is to hold the mirror up to nature, and there simply
isn.t a mirror big enough . see point one.
7. Sex: none.
Well, in fact there is an awful lot of this, largely because of the total
lack of money, trade, banks, art, or anything else that might keep all the
nonexistent people of the Universe occupied.
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> Mind you, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that an infinite
> universe (with an infinite number of stars, etc) would be prone to
> catastrophic gravitational collapse. Don't know if that's true or not.
That's true in a static universe, but not in an expanding one.
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> Sigh. A single photon doesn't give a shit about the square of the distance.
> A single photon delivers its package of energy undiminished by time or
> distance.
Sorry, no. As a photon travels through expanding space, it *does* lose
energy because the expansion of space stretches the photon's wavelength.
That's why we have a microwave background of 3 Kelvin: the photons
produced in the super-hot early days of the universe have been stretched
out to the point where they near absolute zero.
< snip >
TCS
>tired and less powerful, it's that you're seeing FEWER photons. But the
>infinite number of stars in this little scenario takes care of that problem
>by supplying an infinite amount of photons. Everywhere you look, you're
>getting a photon from the surface of a sun, its energy undiminshed by
>distance.
An infinite source do not necessarilly add up to infinity.
Take the serices X=1/3 + 1/5 + 1/7 + 1/9 +...
It adds up to a finite number (I forget what)
Or, take sunlight reflecting off the earth as ambient light. The reflected
light and light twice reflected etc. that hits a subject is coming from an
infinite number of directions. It doesn't add up to infinity.
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> Enough additional matter would reverse the expansion of the universe, and if
> it's infinite, then I imagine the reversal would be catastrophic.
> Observations, however, suggest that the universe is expanding, and will
> continue to expand forever. So that data alone should really count strongly
> as evidence against an infinite universe.
Unfortunately, you have it exactly backward. A closed, finite universe
will eventually collapse, while an open, infinite universe will not.
It's not just how much mass the universe has, it's also how fast it's
expanding.
http://cas.sdss.org/dr3/en/astro/universe/universe.asp
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/cosmos/omega.htm
Now, when they say "infinite universe", I don't know if that translates
into "an infinite number of stars" or if it just means that space is
expanding faster than you can ever traverse it. Notice the last
paragraph in the second link:
"There are other problems with Omega being less than one. If this is the
case, the Universe must have been infinite even at the Big Bang and that
easily observable parts of the Universe - on opposite sides of the sky,
say - could never have been in any sort of contact. It's then very hard
to explain why these opposite sides look so similar, rather than having
developed in totally different ways."
Tukla Ratte
> "TCS" <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
> news:slrncs65uq.9ek.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net...
>
>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:45:41 -0600, Denis Loubet <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"TCS" <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
>>>news:slrncs5pk7.5o1.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net...
< snip >
>>Photons aren't put out to every vector at an infinite rate.
>
>
> That's just it, they ARE when you have an infinite number of stars.
>
>
>>If that vector receives photon's infrequently enough, you won't see
>>anything.
>
>
> But with an infinite number of stars, it won't BE infrequent.
>
> What do you get when you cut infinity in half? You get 2 infinities. It
> doesn't matter how you cut it, any miniscule portion of infinity is still
> infinite. It doesn't matter how infrequently a star might send a photon down
> a certain vector, there will be an infinite number of photons crowding down
> each and every vector if you have an infinite number of stars.
>
> If every trillionth star puts a photon down that vector, that means there
> will be an infinite number of stars putting a photon down that vector. Same
> for every quadrillionth star, every gooleplexth star. The proportion is
> irrelevant. Infinity is infinity.
An excellent description of Olber's Paradox.
But!
In an expanding universe, most of those infinite number of stars will be
moving away from us at faster-than-light rates, so their photons will
never reach us.
(I feel like I'm jumping all over you in this thread, Denis. I'm sorry.
Personally, I don't see how there could be an infinite number of
stars, either. It doesn't matter how many cosmology books I read; I
just can't see how space could be infinitely large yet also crammed
together at the Big Bang.)
Tukla Ratte
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ojp4s0t1a0q0rls8o...@4ax.com...
< snip >
>>If the star is receding from us at greater than the speed of light,
>>its photons will never reach us.
>
>
> If the receding is due to the expansion of the universe itself, perhaps.
It is.
Tukla Ratte
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:34:15 -0800 in alt.atheism, Randy Story
> ("Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com>) said, directing the reply to
> alt.atheism
< snip >
>>Only mathmatical infinites can be expanded not an actual infinite.
>
>
> As a matter of interest, how do you know?
Divine revelation?
< snip >
Denis Loubet
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla...@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:32h24sF...@individual.net...
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> Enough additional matter would reverse the expansion of the universe, and
>> if it's infinite, then I imagine the reversal would be catastrophic.
>> Observations, however, suggest that the universe is expanding, and will
>> continue to expand forever. So that data alone should really count
>> strongly as evidence against an infinite universe.
>
> Unfortunately, you have it exactly backward. A closed, finite universe
> will eventually collapse, while an open, infinite universe will not. It's
> not just how much mass the universe has, it's also how fast it's
> expanding.
The first link says: The expanding universe is finite in both time and
space.
I understand how that might hold for space, but I don't understand how that
relates to time. If the universe continues expanding forever, that means
forever. Hmmm.
And the thing they say can counteract the expansion is gravity. With
infinite gravity, there would have to be a collapse, wouldn't there? I mean,
we're not talking object to object interactions that would necessarily
cancel out, we're talking about space itself. An infinite gravity should be
able to cancel out whatever expansion is going on, shouldn't it? Or is the
concept of expansion and collapse meaningless to an infinite universe? Argh!
Good questions.
> http://cas.sdss.org/dr3/en/astro/universe/universe.asp
> http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/cosmos/omega.htm
>
> Now, when they say "infinite universe", I don't know if that translates
> into "an infinite number of stars" or if it just means that space is
> expanding faster than you can ever traverse it.
I think Olber's paradox is presenting a simplified, static, eternal
universe. Obviously the real universe cannot be infinite in that way, if
it's infinite at all.
One nagging question is what constitutes the definition of universe. Can a
supposed star that has been "pushed" past the speed of light by the
expansion of the universe, so that we can no longer see it, even be
considered a part of the universe? And when we look at the "edge" of the
universe, we are looking back in time to a big bang, which means that if the
universe is infinite, it's also expanding. But since we are looking at the
beginning of the universe as we look back in time, the universe can't be
infinite, because if it is where's the rest of it?
I will have to make the statement that the universe cannot be infinite
because we can see all of it. We can see from the present here-and-now, to
the beginning as shown by the microwave background radiation. That about
covers it.
> Notice the last paragraph in the second link:
>
> "There are other problems with Omega being less than one. If this is the
> case, the Universe must have been infinite even at the Big Bang and that
> easily observable parts of the Universe - on opposite sides of the sky,
> say - could never have been in any sort of contact. It's then very hard to
> explain why these opposite sides look so similar, rather than having
> developed in totally different ways."
I don't see how the universe can be infinite if we can see to the beginning.
Now all this is just my layman's understanding of the current model with a
bunch of stream-of-consciousness bullshit attached. But I do the best I can.
;-)
I'll happily change my bullshit in the light of new data.
Denis Loubet
But can they then be considered part of the universe? They would be
indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. And there's no reason
to assume things CAN be "pushed" that fast. I don't know how time dialation
operates with respect to the expansion of the universe itself. The very idea
hurts my head. But I suspect it's complicated.
> (I feel like I'm jumping all over you in this thread, Denis. I'm sorry.
> Personally, I don't see how there could be an infinite number of stars,
> either. It doesn't matter how many cosmology books I read; I just can't
> see how space could be infinitely large yet also crammed together at the
> Big Bang.)
No problem!
I like a good bullshit duel! ;-)
Good questions, by the way. :-)
Denis Loubet
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> Sigh. A single photon doesn't give a shit about the square of the
>> distance.
>> A single photon delivers its package of energy undiminished by time or
>> distance.
>
> Sorry, no. As a photon travels through expanding space, it *does* lose
> energy because the expansion of space stretches the photon's wavelength.
> That's why we have a microwave background of 3 Kelvin: the photons
> produced in the super-hot early days of the universe have been stretched
> out to the point where they near absolute zero.
Yes, that's true, but I think we're talking about the simplified, static
universe of the Olber's paradox which doesn't take things like redshift into
account.
TCS doesn't seem to be getting it.
Denis Loubet
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
>> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ojp4s0t1a0q0rls8o...@4ax.com...
>
> < snip >
>
>>>If the star is receding from us at greater than the speed of light,
>>>its photons will never reach us.
>>
>>
>> If the receding is due to the expansion of the universe itself, perhaps.
>
> It is.
ok then. ;-)
stoney
>Is the universe infinite or finite?
Finitely infinate.
>Lets leave God out of this one!
Whatever a g-o-d is.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
stoney
>Soon after the big bang, the universe had an inside and an outside.
>Something(or rather nothing) was outside during that time. Why should now
>be any different. Also...size is irrelivant...remember Men in Black.
>However, that was a galaxy not the entire universe. I think it's all
>relative. Marbles within marbles within marbles.
/tic
and Dave lost his! :)
Woden
news:rPCwd.16$L7.14@trnddc05:
>
> "Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95C1E2CCE45C...@69.28.186.121...
>> "DianaC" <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
>> news:TEqwd.71$tG3.54@trnddc02:
>>
>>>
>>> "dave" <dk...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
>>> news:cpsm8v$aml$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>>>
>>>> Hints of a finite universe
>>>> Perplexing observations beamed back by a NASA spacecraft are
>>>> fuelling debates about a mystery of biblical proportions - is our
>>>> Universe infinite? Scientists have announced tantalising hints that
>>>> the Universe is actually relatively small, with a hall-of-mirrors
>>>> illusion tricking us into thinking that space stretches on forever.
>>>>
>>>> However, work by a second team seems to contradict this, and
>>>> scientists are now busy trying to resolve the conundrum. "Whether
>>>> space is finite is something people have been asking since ancient
>>>> times, and probably before that," says mathematician Jeffrey Weeks
>>>> from Canton, New York. "If we resolved this and confirmed that
>>>> space is finite, this would be an enormous step forward in our
>>>> understanding of nature."
>>>
>>> Question:
>>>
>>> If it's not infinite, what's on the outside?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The same thing that on the other side of a Moebius strip.
>
> A Moebius strip does have two sides. They just trade places somewhere
> in the middle.
>
>
Whooossssssh.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
wbarwell
> Is the universe infinite or finite? Lets leave God out of this one!
Infinite.
--
Apes bad! Dust good!
Apes bad! Dust good!
21st Century American Christianity
in a nutshell.
Cheerful Charlie
DianaC
"Les Hellawell" <myshr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:alu5s01top0td5pie...@4ax.com...
Wherever you want to put it, I suppose.
DianaC
"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:che6s0hja92qieor9...@4ax.com...
.....and it is expanding? But if it is exanding, yet finite, where is it
going?
(honestly confused)
DianaC
"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:5gv5s0pbb27hs1j0q...@4ax.com...
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:27:33 GMT in alt.atheism, DianaC ("DianaC"
> <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net>) said, directing the reply to
> alt.atheism
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>Please excuse the English major who is allergic to math, please...but is
>>there any reason to assume that an infinite universe MUST be filled with
>>stars?
>
> Dunno for sure, but I think it's more of an observation than a "must"
> in as much as the nights sky is pretty isotropic. Combine that with
> the "principle of mediocrity" and you've probably got the makings of
> reasonable assumption.
>
> Mind you, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that an infinite
> universe (with an infinite number of stars, etc) would be prone to
> catastrophic gravitational collapse. Don't know if that's true or not.
All I can work with is words, since mathematical concepts escape me. That
said...I understand that there was something about the 'big bang' which
started everything. But...what is 'everything'? Is there any reason to
believe that the 'everything' the big bang started was the universe itself,
rather than something else, like the matter that is beginning to expand to
fill the universe?
Is there any reason to assume that there MUST be matter in a universe?
DianaC
Well, that happens to me quite often. ;-)
TCS
>All I can work with is words, since mathematical concepts escape me. That
>said...I understand that there was something about the 'big bang' which
>started everything. But...what is 'everything'? Is there any reason to
>believe that the 'everything' the big bang started was the universe itself,
>rather than something else, like the matter that is beginning to expand to
>fill the universe?
>Is there any reason to assume that there MUST be matter in a universe?
The big bang is merely extrapolated observation. Take the current vectors
of stars and go backward in time. The universe is expanding and the big
bang is a theory that it started from a point.
But.... who really cares? I wasn't there and it really doesn't affect me
and I bet it really affect you either.
Randy Story
"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
>
> In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
> with the following:
>
>
> > "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c2cc5107...@206.172.150.13...
>
>
> > > In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the
fire
> > > with the following:
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Baloney. Infinities can be expanded by a finite or infinite amount.
> >
>
> Please demonstrate that there ARE actual infinities, and please provide
> references as to their characteristics.
First, I did not say for this post that there were actual infinites. What
was said was that only mathmetical or theoritical infinites could be
possible when thinking about our physical universe. Example: Theoritically
it is possible to have an infinite number of theoritical points on a given
length of line, but it is not possible to have an actual infinite number of
points on a line, or books on a bookshelf or stars in the universe.
Theoritically you can always add one more point which mean it has no limits,
but actually you cant. You can only get a point so small or a book or a
star.
So what type of existence would be an actual infinite. you already know my
response. Only something that is immaterial or purely spiritual, I.E. God.
What is our expanding universe expanding into, God which is without limits
of any type except those of its own nature.
> And, in the rather unlikely event that you succeed, then please
> demonstrate that the mathematics of infinities cannot describe these
> actual infinities.
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef
>
>
>
> Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no belief
> that cannot be justified.
>
> -- Donald Morgan
Al Klein
<dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:che6s0hja92qieor9...@4ax.com...
>> Of course there's no evidence that it IS finite. Nor is there any
>> that it's infinite. All we know is that we can only a certain
>> distance into it (due to expansion and the speed of light), and it
>> looks finite.
>.....and it is expanding? But if it is exanding, yet finite, where is it
>going?
>(honestly confused)
As in "expanding into what?"
It's not. The "what" is expanding. "The universe is expanding"
doesn't mean that matter is expanding, although it is, it means that
the location in which matter finds itself is "expanding". Space-time
itself is growing larger. It's a more difficult concept than the one
that, in the Big Bang, nothing actually banged (or exploded). The
problem lies in the fact that it can't be expressed in natural
language - it's a mathematical concept. It's like trying to explain
"red" to someone blind from birth, or "loud" to someone deaf from
birth. The only language you can use doesn't have referents that
apply to the problem.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> "Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c2d093ff...@206.172.150.13...
> >
> > In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
> > with the following:
...
> > > Only mathmatical infinites can be expanded not an actual infinite.
> >
>
> > Please demonstrate that there ARE actual infinities, and please provide
> > references as to their characteristics.
>
> First, I did not say for this post that there were actual infinites.
Therefore, your claims about "actual infinities" and their
characteristics are pure speculation.
...
> So what type of existence would be an actual infinite. you already know my
> response. Only something that is immaterial or purely spiritual, I.E. God.
Your deity is logically impossible, as was previously shown to you.
> What is our expanding universe expanding into, ...
Nothing that we know of.
> ... God which is without limits
> of any type except those of its own nature.
So your "unlimited" deity has limits, as you acknowledge.
Regards,
Josef
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and
it remains premature today.
-- Isaac Asimov
Al Klein
<rsto...@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
>So what type of existence would be an actual infinite. you already know my
>response. Only something that is immaterial or purely spiritual, I.E. God.
Or the universe itself.
>What is our expanding universe expanding into
It's not. It's expanding, but not into anything.
>God which is without limits
>of any type except those of its own nature.
So can your god create a rock too heavy for him to move? Can he make
a 4-sided triangle? He can't even defeat an army with iron chariots.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
Al Klein
<rsto...@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
>Only mathmatical infinites can be expanded not an actual infinite. A real
>thing without limits means that it can not increase, it is all it can be.
The universe is bounded, but unlimited, so it can increase even though
it can be infinite.
>> Please produce your evidence for a finite universe.
None, eh?
Enkidu
news:10s666q...@corp.supernews.com:
>> Baloney. Infinities can be expanded by a finite or infinite amount.
>
> Only mathmatical infinites can be expanded not an actual infinite. A
> real thing without limits means that it can not increase, it is all it
> can be. So try again Josef.
You have some reason to make such an absurd statement? Can you define a
"mathmatical infinity" or an "actual infinity"? What do you mean by
"expand"?
--
Enkidu
"Yee-Ha" is not a foreign policy.
wbarwell
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:27:33 GMT in alt.atheism, DianaC ("DianaC"
> <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net>) said, directing the reply to
> alt.atheism
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>Please excuse the English major who is allergic to math, please...but is
>>there any reason to assume that an infinite universe MUST be filled with
>>stars?
>
> Dunno for sure, but I think it's more of an observation than a "must"
> in as much as the nights sky is pretty isotropic. Combine that with
> the "principle of mediocrity" and you've probably got the makings of
> reasonable assumption.
>
> Mind you, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that an infinite
> universe (with an infinite number of stars, etc) would be prone to
> catastrophic gravitational collapse. Don't know if that's true or not.
No. Because its infinite. Collapse would imply that there is a center to
collapse into. If you have an infinite Universe, any gravitational effects
would be local. Such as a star may move past another star without being
drawn into orbit around it if its moving fast enough or far away enough
from the first star, an infinite Universe would be the same everywhere,
on large enough scale. Only on a small scale would local effects
matter. In our island Universe, most space is pretty empty, only
the local enviroment of galaxies really has much going on in them,
but by comparison, galaxies take up a tiny fraction of space.
If space is big enough, then we could have an infinite number of island
universe like this, but if they are far enough apart, laws of physics
would mean we can never see or interact with any, even our neighbors.
Because of expanding space, there is an event horizon beyond which we can
never see because space's expansion beyond a certain size of an exanding
island Universe, means effectively to see beyond that point its expanding
faster than the speed of light so light even at the speed of light,
information outside this horizon cannot reach us.
As the Universe ages, we will lose sight of its 'edge' because it will be
beyond our observational event horizon thanks t ospace' expansion.
Likewise, outside information leaking in from the edge from outside
would always be beyond our ability to see it once our Universe
is big enough.
The only way we could see anything outside would be if our Universe
has come into existance close to another similar island Universe early in
its existance and they overlapped. This would be real obvious. So it
didn't happen as far as we can see. Or if it did a few billion years ago,
that light hasn't made it here yet.
Space itself is expanding. At what rate I have not been able to find out.
I am not sure when we pass the point where the edge we see now goes over
the observational event horizon. I am not sure where that horizon is now.
Gravitation effects are hard to deal with since we really have no idea
how gravity fits in the real world in relation to matter with its other
three forces. We don't know if gravitation propagates at the speed of
sound though relativity indicates it must. But it may turn out gravitation
does not obey relativity.
We could be an island Universe imbedded in other island Universes
into infinity, and we would have a hard time telling that this is so
directly at least. Any backround evidence in this extended deep space
if any, was probably swamped by the early hot phase of the Universe
and any tell-tale outside evidence destroyed.
And there may not have been any evidence, as universe age, they
would get immense in size and age and its constitute particles
would start disintergrating. Eventually, no matter would exist.
If Island Unverses are far enough apart, there would be no
matter left in overlapping Universes. We could be living in fossil space
of infinite past Universes but would never have any evidence
left from older Universes, except maybe the occasional fossil
proton left over from the last one. Which of course we could not look at
and tell its a fossil proton.
wbarwell
>
> "Tukla Ratte" <tukla...@tukla.net> wrote in message
> news:32h24sF...@individual.net...
>> Denis Loubet wrote:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> Enough additional matter would reverse the expansion of the universe,
>>> and if it's infinite, then I imagine the reversal would be catastrophic.
>>> Observations, however, suggest that the universe is expanding, and will
>>> continue to expand forever. So that data alone should really count
>>> strongly as evidence against an infinite universe.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you have it exactly backward. A closed, finite universe
>> will eventually collapse, while an open, infinite universe will not. It's
>> not just how much mass the universe has, it's also how fast it's
>> expanding.
>
> The first link says: The expanding universe is finite in both time and
> space.
>
> I understand how that might hold for space, but I don't understand how
> that relates to time. If the universe continues expanding forever, that
> means forever. Hmmm.
It means it is finite. Because it had a beginning.
It might exand for infinity, but now its 14 billion years old.
A finite time and age.
> And the thing they say can counteract the expansion is gravity. With
> infinite gravity, there would have to be a collapse, wouldn't there?
No. Infinite doesn't mean much. As things get further away,
their gravity is weaker. Double its distance, gravity is now
4 times as weak, triple the distance, gravity is now 1/9th
as strong. In theory, gravitation would have infinite range,
but in practice, at far distances, its neglegible. If the Universe gets
big enough, all gravitation effects would be strictly local.
Galaxies would be so far apart thanks to the expansion of
space that eventually gravity would be so weak you might as
well not have any at all between distant galaxies.
Gravity as far as we can tell is weak enough now that
matter a the edges will never slow down and start collapsing.
Galaxies may experience gravitational forces for some time, just
not enough to do anything.
I
> mean, we're not talking object to object interactions that would
> necessarily cancel out, we're talking about space itself. An infinite
> gravity should be able to cancel out whatever expansion is going on,
> shouldn't it? Or is the concept of expansion and collapse meaningless to
> an infinite universe? Argh!
What matters is not gravity's infinite reach but its current
strength at the observable edge. The Universe has only
so much matter. And thus so much gravity. we are short quite a bit to
theoretically collapse the Universe.
--
wbarwell
>
> "Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
> news:5gv5s0pbb27hs1j0q...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:27:33 GMT in alt.atheism, DianaC ("DianaC"
>> <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net>) said, directing the reply to
>> alt.atheism
>>
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>Please excuse the English major who is allergic to math, please...but is
>>>there any reason to assume that an infinite universe MUST be filled with
>>>stars?
>>
>> Dunno for sure, but I think it's more of an observation than a "must"
>> in as much as the nights sky is pretty isotropic. Combine that with
>> the "principle of mediocrity" and you've probably got the makings of
>> reasonable assumption.
>>
>> Mind you, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that an infinite
>> universe (with an infinite number of stars, etc) would be prone to
>> catastrophic gravitational collapse. Don't know if that's true or not.
>
> All I can work with is words, since mathematical concepts escape me. That
> said...I understand that there was something about the 'big bang' which
> started everything. But...what is 'everything'?
Really, all it means is all we can see, this observable island Universe.
Its a horrible phrase since it strongly implies this is all there is.
When we know in certain ways it isn't.
>Is there any reason to
> believe that the 'everything' the big bang started was the universe
> itself, rather than something else, like the matter that is beginning to
> expand to fill the universe?
No and good reason to suspect otherwise.
> Is there any reason to assume that there MUST be matter in a universe?
No. Its reasonable, but some theorists suggest that Island Universe
like ours are created all the time in vast numbers.
Some may be simple, still-born Universes with no real complex phyiscs,
many may start and die in microseconds. Some may live and expand,
like ours with differing rules. Some may have matter, many probably won't,
or simple matter. Some may be more complex. A few like ours would
have a physics something like ours.
Some may be right for further emergent rules that create physics and
chemistry.
There is much theorizing going on. Brane theory and other branches
of physics are trying hard to figure out how this Universe works.
It may well tell us down the road if physics as we know it is inevitable or
not.
wbarwell
>
> "TCS" <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
> news:slrncs5pk7.5o1.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net...
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:43:50 -0600, Denis Loubet <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"TCS" <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
>> >news:slrncs4q15.5o1.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net...
>> >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:02:12 -0600, Denis Loubet <dlo...@io.com>
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"TCS" <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>>news:slrncs4kta.5o1.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net...
>> >> >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:52:44 -0600, Denis Loubet <dlo...@io.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"TCS" <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >>news:slrncs4d1u.mld.The-...@linux.client.comcast.net...
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:47:17 -0600, Denis Loubet
>> >> >> >> <dlo...@io.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>"dave" <dk...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>news:cpslvh$a0k$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> >> >> >>>> Is the universe infinite or finite? Lets leave God out of this
>> >one!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>If it were infinite, the surface of the earth would be as hot as
> the
>> >> >> >>>surface
>> >> >> >>>of the sun.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That does not follow. An infinite sized universe can still be
>> >spread
>> >> >> >> out enough so that the night sky is exactly as we see.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Well, I suppose you could concoct a universe where an infinite
> number
>> >of
>> >> >> >stars are hiding behind a finite number, but that starts to really
> get
>> >> >into
>> >> >> >silly territory.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You assuming that starlight can be seen an infinite distance. This
>> >> >> is a false assumption.
>> >>
>> >> >No, photons don't evaporate, and infinity is a really really large
>> >number.
>> >> >In that instance, every area of the sky subtending 1 degree, would
>> >contain
>> >> >an infinite number of stars, and although all the stars in that area
>> >> >wouldn't fire a photon down that line of sight, there would still be
> an
>> >> >infinite number of stars in that 1 degree area that did. The only
> thing
>> >> >saving us from an infinite number of photons, and infinite
> temperatures,
>> >is
>> >> >the stars in front blocking the ones behind. That leaves the 1 degree
> of
>> >the
>> >> >sky as hot as the average surfaces of the stars filling that degree.
>> >>
>> >> Starlight intensity diminished with the square of the distance. It is
>> >> not a constant.
>>
>> >Sigh. A single photon doesn't give a shit about the square of the
> distance.
>> >A single photon delivers its package of energy undiminished by time or
>> >distance. The reason stars dim with distance is not that the photons get
>> >tired and less powerful, it's that you're seeing FEWER photons. But the
>> >infinite number of stars in this little scenario takes care of that
> problem
>> >by supplying an infinite amount of photons. Everywhere you look, you're
>> >getting a photon from the surface of a sun, its energy undiminshed by
>> >distance.
>>
>> The single photon has to hit it's target. The farther away the target
>> is, the less likely the vector will be such that it'll hit it.
>>
>> That's why a flashlight in more visible one foot away then
>> one mile away.
>
> Yes! You are correct! Now do the math! If you have an infinite number of
> stars that all have a chance of sending a photon right down that vector,
> how many will send one right down the vector?
>
> That's right! An infinite number of stars will send a photon right down
> that vector.
>
> Is it hot in here, or is it just me?
Olber's paradox does not work with black holes.
If you have .00000001% black holes, eventually, over
long enough distances, enough black holes exist to
'eat' all incoming light. A shell of black holes would
exist to shield a given point from experiencing infinite
light. So from a given point you would have an event horizon
based on average number and distribution of black holes.
wbarwell
Yes, it does.
Since we started with finite matter in this expanding Universe, matter in
this Universe is finite. Any infinite matter would be outside this
Universe. But as space itself is still expanding, you get a point where
apparent expansion is faster then the speed of light. at that point, matter
or light outside you can never reach you. you live in a bubble of expanding
space that is forever, for all practical purposes, finite. I do not know
how big this bubble would be.
> The very idea hurts my head. But I suspect it's complicated.
>
>> (I feel like I'm jumping all over you in this thread, Denis. I'm sorry.
>> Personally, I don't see how there could be an infinite number of stars,
>> either. It doesn't matter how many cosmology books I read; I just can't
>> see how space could be infinitely large yet also crammed together at the
>> Big Bang.)
>
> No problem!
>
> I like a good bullshit duel! ;-)
>
> Good questions, by the way. :-)
>
--
georgann
> It's a more difficult concept than the one that, in the Big Bang, nothing
> actually banged (or exploded). The problem lies in the fact that it can't be
> expressed in natural language - it's a mathematical concept.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
The reality of the universe is more than a "mathematical concept" ... unless
you're suggesting it isn't real.
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท.ธธ ธธ.ทดจ `ป
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
DianaC
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:35:50 GMT, "DianaC"
> <dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>
>>"Al Klein" <CellP...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:che6s0hja92qieor9...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Of course there's no evidence that it IS finite. Nor is there any
>>> that it's infinite. All we know is that we can only a certain
>>> distance into it (due to expansion and the speed of light), and it
>>> looks finite.
>
>>.....and it is expanding? But if it is exanding, yet finite, where is it
>>going?
>
>>(honestly confused)
>
> As in "expanding into what?"
>
> It's not. The "what" is expanding. "The universe is expanding"
> doesn't mean that matter is expanding, although it is, it means that
> the location in which matter finds itself is "expanding". Space-time
> itself is growing larger. It's a more difficult concept than the one
> that, in the Big Bang, nothing actually banged (or exploded). The
> problem lies in the fact that it can't be expressed in natural
> language - it's a mathematical concept. It's like trying to explain
> "red" to someone blind from birth, or "loud" to someone deaf from
> birth. The only language you can use doesn't have referents that
> apply to the problem.
I am beginning to see that. Although I understand the concept that the
'what', (namely, the universe itself) is all there is and it is simply
getting bigger. However, that in itself raises a question. Bigger than what?
If the universe...all that is...is measured only by itself, how can we apply
relative discriptors to it, as in 'bigger' or 'smaller'? It is what it is.
Hmnnn.
DianaC
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BDE98E12.4031C%chen...@mindspring.com...
> Al Klein wrote:
>
>> It's a more difficult concept than the one that, in the Big Bang, nothing
>> actually banged (or exploded). The problem lies in the fact that it
>> can't be
>> expressed in natural language - it's a mathematical concept.
>
> georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
>
> The reality of the universe is more than a "mathematical concept" ...
> unless
> you're suggesting it isn't real.
That's a little like claiming that a vacuum cleaner is more than an
'aspirador'. Even though as far as mathematics is concerned, I'm not
bilingual, I understand that it's just another language to discribe
different things. Some languages are better at describing certain concepts
than others, is all. For instance, to us, 'snow' is just 'snow'. We have
soft snow and sleet and packed snow and powder snow...but it's all just
'snow'.
Unless you are talking to an Innuit.
I would very much like to learn "Mathematics" as a language.
DianaC
Curiosity. Pure, grade A curiousity. I HATE not knowing things.
DianaC
"wbarwell" <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:cq0ori$r...@library1.airnews.net...
Now THIS is something that resonates with me. Not that I know enough to make
an informed decision one way or another, mind you. ;-)
stoney
/innocent look
Make a 'Whoosssssssh hook(tm)' and fly anywhere you like. :)
BTW, is your mobility factor still increasing?
stoney
My understanding is "Bigger than what?" is a meaningless question.
An analogy to the expanding universe I saw once on, iirc, Hawking's
website equating the universe to a balloon. As the balloon (universe)
inflates its area continually expands.
Perhaps this site might assist.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html
>If the universe...all that is...is measured only by itself, how can we apply
>relative discriptors to it, as in 'bigger' or 'smaller'? It is what it is.
Yes, but we can apply descriptors utilizing our location as a defining
reference point.
>Hmnnn.
stoney
<dian...@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
The BB 'started' the universe.
>Is there any reason to assume that there MUST be matter in a universe?
Not that I'm aware of.
stoney
There's a lot more things not known than even 300 years ago.
stoney
You or anyone else. :)
georgann
>>> It's a more difficult concept than the one that, in the Big Bang, nothing
>>> actually banged (or exploded). The problem lies in the fact that it can't
>>> be expressed in natural language - it's a mathematical concept.
>> georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
>> The reality of the universe is more than a "mathematical concept" ... unless
>> you're suggesting it isn't real.
DianaC wrote:
> That's a little like claiming that a vacuum cleaner is more than an
> 'aspirador'. Even though as far as mathematics is concerned, I'm not
> bilingual, I understand that it's just another language to discribe different
> things. Some languages are better at describing certain concepts than others,
> is all. For instance, to us, 'snow' is just 'snow'. We have soft snow and
> sleet and packed snow and powder snow...but it's all just 'snow'. Unless you
> are talking to an Innuit.
> I would very much like to learn "Mathematics" as a language.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Its not the word mathematics I wanted clarification on from the previous
poster, it was the word "concept". Reality and concept are not
interchangeable ... unless of course you are God.
DianaC
"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
news:agp8s0tps40tkt90g...@4ax.com...
Indeed it is. Now all I have to do is get my JUMP factor up so that when the
"whoooosh" goes by I have a chance of catching it. ;-)
DianaC
Hmmn.
Well, I'm a little flummeried as to how to answer this one. As a theist, I
believe with you that there IS something more 'out there' than the physics
we know, and that 'something more' is God.
On the other hand, I'm a brand of theist that has been taught all her life,
and who firmly believes, that we not only CAN understand, eventually, the
physical properties by which the universe works and was created, but that we
are supposed to be trying to do just that. The truth of it. All of it. I
don't see a contradiction in believing that 'God did it' and trying to find
out how He did it.
I do think that resting on 'God did it' is doing a disservice to ourselves
as humans. Look at it this way; if we weren't supposed to go looking, why
did God leave all the clues?
DianaC
Ah, but they didn't know back then that they didn't know. I wonder what
there is out there to know NOW that we don't know we don't know?
(looking at the above)
(thinking)
or something....
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein wrote:
>> It's a more difficult concept than the one that, in the Big Bang, nothing
>> actually banged (or exploded). The problem lies in the fact that it can't be
>> expressed in natural language - it's a mathematical concept.
>georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
>The reality of the universe is more than a "mathematical concept" ... unless
>you're suggesting it isn't real.
Georgann, go back to the sandbox and play with the other children.
This is an adult conversation. Mind your manners.
---
CellPhonesEtc at optonline dot net
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>Its not the word mathematics I wanted clarification on from the previous
>poster, it was the word "concept". Reality and concept are not
>interchangeable ... unless of course you are God.
"It's a more difficult concept" means "it's more difficult to
understand [conceive of]". You object to my claim that one thing is
more difficult to understand than another thing?
That's why no one takes you seriously, georgann.