Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 122 of 122

Thread: Is Space Infinite.

  1. #101  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Although I am open minded about the extent of space, there is a considerable amount of dust, rocks, dead stars and planets out there,if they outnumber live stars (which presumably they would do if the universe was older than thought) this might account for it remember we cannot see the heart of andromeda because of interstellar gas and dust...
    Our sattelites take up even more space. I wonder if one day we will be able to even get out into space, or even see through, if the sky is too crowded.
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by The P-manator
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Although I am open minded about the extent of space, there is a considerable amount of dust, rocks, dead stars and planets out there,if they outnumber live stars (which presumably they would do if the universe was older than thought) this might account for it remember we cannot see the heart of andromeda because of interstellar gas and dust...
    Our sattelites take up even more space. I wonder if one day we will be able to even get out into space, or even see through, if the sky is too crowded.

    very true
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Quote Originally Posted by The P-manator
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Although I am open minded about the extent of space, there is a considerable amount of dust, rocks, dead stars and planets out there,if they outnumber live stars (which presumably they would do if the universe was older than thought) this might account for it remember we cannot see the heart of andromeda because of interstellar gas and dust...
    Our sattelites take up even more space. I wonder if one day we will be able to even get out into space, or even see through, if the sky is too crowded.

    very true
    That will form a new eco-cycle, once all the light is blotted out, global-warming will freeze us to death, the satellite orbits will decay, the sun will then shine, life will begin again, they'll invent satellites... D'ya think it's happened before? 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Perhaps. Perhaps not. Who knows?
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Guest
    Looks like frivolity has killed another thread, is that consistent with evolutionary theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106 lets make this thread last into infinite haha 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4
    >Looks like frivolity has killed another thread, is that consistent with evolutionary theory?


    awww in death...let there be life:

    how about a nice big solar panel raised up by a space elevator and positioned above the north pole which cools the icecaps by shading and generates electricity. 2 problems solved in one.

    with a system like that in place humans may evolve into 'infinite' rather than our grandchildren choking on our polution

    just a thought for my first post on here. helloo everyone. :P

    (i kept the infinite thing flowing I hope)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Guest
    Welcome to our forum, havw a nice-stay :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4
    thanking you .....ive been meaning to join a science forum for a while,

    very glad i did.

    at last! open minded people.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Guest
    Yep nothing stuffy here, You put em up, we'll knock em down! :wink:

    Seriously, there are a wide range of opinions here as will find out.
    I suggest you try something non-controversial to start with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    I agree. The contreversial stuff makes very, shall we say, interesting threads.
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Darn, I read this whole thread only to find it had died a quiet death.

    Just a few thoughts and comments that might be of no added content from the previous posts, and may very well prove that the thread is dead.

    It is true that infinity can be considered as a concept, but it also true that things can be infinite. When referring to something you consider infinite, it is safer to say "potentially infinite" to avoid the objections of those who have a "thing" about not being able to prove an "infinity".

    And the dark sky, i.e. Olbers' Paradox is defeated in a potentially infinite universe that is characterized by big crunches and big bangs here and there, now and then, because of a combination of the finite life of stars, the finite speed of light, and the 100 billion trillion light year lookout distance for a complete canopy of stars to surround us if the density of stars is as we observe it in the observable universe. During that 100 billion trillion years, maybe a billion complete big bang universes could come and go. This means that there would be a lot of dark time between big bangs that light up and fade out, and even our whole 13.7 billion year old universe blazing away would be undetectable by our best instruments at a only a tiny fraction of the lookout distance.

    I was interested in the original post and read the whole thread to see how it addresses the concept of space and infinity.

    Big Bang Theory (BBT) says that we cannot know for a fact about the singularity if there was one, or we cannot know for a fact about the universe before the first few picoseconds after the implied big bang. But BBT does maintain that space and time originated with the big bang, and before that there was nothing, in fact BBT maintains that there was no “before that”. Space-time began with the big bang and is expanding. The universe is space-time itself.

    In the BBT universe space is curved. As the universe expands, the curve is flattening, but will never be completely flat.

    In our curved space-time universe, straight lines are curved as well. This in not Euclidian space, it is General Relativity space-time; curved space. In BBT, if you go in a straight line in one direction, you will eventually get back to the beginning point. If you drop a trail of bread crumbs and carefully check to see that they are dropped in a straight line, you will still come back to the beginning of the line of bread crumbs. If you can’t believe it because you were so careful to drop them in a straight line, so you try it again, you will again come back to the beginning, but it will take you longer because the universe has expanded since the first trail of bread crumbs.

    It will always come back to the beginning, and will take longer each time, but the universe will never be completely flat.

    Now that is only true under BBT and General Relativity. Many believe that the universe has always existed and is infinite (or should I say “potentially infinite”). Those who believe that the universe has always existed and is infinite in space and content are dealing with a whole different concept.

    Under this concept, which I will abbreviate as the ISU (infinite spongy universe), a straight line is a straight line. That doesn’t change the fact that we are in an expanding big bang universe, it only eliminates the need for a beginning and therefore it eliminates the need for a singularity to start things off.

    BBT advocates point to the cosmological principle which says that our universe is homogeneous and isotropic. In other words, no matter which direction you look, the universe looks the same, i.e. edgeless, center-less, and similar on a large scale. They attribute this to the fact that space-time is curved and so there is no edge of surface of expansion, the universe is a self-contained space-time continuum complete in and of itself, and as it expands it is creating space-time.

    An ISU advocate will have to concede to the cosmological principle based on observations from Earth, but can then fall back on the finite length of time since our particular big bang event, and on the concept that big bangs are not causally connected to each other, but take place here and there, now and then, across a potentially infinite expanse of space (that has always existed).

    BBT advocates object to this ISU thinking because they consider the singularity as the simplest answer, while ISU advocates consider the existence of potentially infinite space surrounding the big bang event as the simplest answer. It is a psiing contest (oops, spelling).

    I’m sure my thoughts and comments are just blah, blah, blah to BBT advocates in the scheme of things but being an ISU advocate, I am always looking for those who don’t buy the BBT singularity and who consider the ISU as a better alternative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Bogie.....

    Very nice posts in both threads. How can you say "straight line" when the latest WMAP findings has shown a curvature which is more pronounced than initially measured.

    As you can see, I'm not a ISU advocate.

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Bogie.....

    Very nice posts in both threads. How can you say "straight line" when the latest WMAP findings has shown a curvature which is more pronounced than initially measured.

    As you can see, I'm not a ISU advocate.

    Bettina
    I can see that .

    WMAP as well as COBE confirm the big bang origin, the inflationary epoch, and even add the possibility of accelerated expansion. All of these aspects are compatible with the ISU when you consider our big bang occuring from a big crunch within a pre-existing greater universe.

    Our big bang, any big bang has the characteristics of appearing homogeneous and isotropic. What WMAP came up with is there are no clear hot or cold blobs more than about 60 degrees across. In other words, though there is some variation in the temperature of the background, the variance is less that a few tenths of one degree and averages around 2.7 degrees Kelvin, very isotropic in my book.

    The hot or cold blobs ranging up to about 60 degrees in angle are the exception, and even that degree of variance does not change the view that the entire visible universe is isotropic on a large scale.

    Nothing in WMAP has made me think that the singularity is more likely than a pre-existing greater universe within which our big bang occurred from a big crunch instead of from a singularity.

    On the other hand, I like to point out that BBT not only requires an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny (zero volume) singularity to bang into an expanding universe that not only created space-time, but contained the huge negative pressure to push the exponential expansion from within itself during the first few picoseconds.

    It is easier for me to conclude that there was an extremely low energy density existing space (generated as the big crunch formed) surrounding what must have been an almost infinitely dense mass like the universe must be envisioned in the first picoseconds after the big bang.

    It is easier for me to conclude that this extremely low energy density space (vacuum energy) existed and surrounded the highly dense big bang. If so, it would act to pull the hot dense energy from the big bang outward to cause the exponential inflation, instead of there being some unexplained negative pressure created along with the entire space-time and matter/energy of the universe coming from nothing and capable of causing the inflation.

    BBT is for busy people who want to get on with the science of what we can know without trying to deal with "what ifs" like the ISU. Very understandable, but just not right in my humble opinion. Either way though we have to deal with what caused the bang; was it an unexplained singularity or was it some as yet undiscovered physics related to matter and energy?

    I'm going with the latter, and imagine the near infinite heat and compression of a big crunch to be capable of regenerating formerly old cold matter into its component energy which gets released in a big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    I read recently that Einstein said space is not a thing. What is space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    BOGIE; since my opinion is what you call ISU, now; i at one time wrote a piece, if the BBT were true, that unit should have formed from something like, what is now our universe and called a cycle. for many years i left the BB option open and what little time i had for reading, was to prove BB wrong in science. it took a very short time to figure out, the whole BBT is built on a need for a beginning to explain something not even related to science and that since its hypothesis. inferred a beginning was generally accepted, by a good deal of the folks wanting that concept for them selfs and their personal beliefs. this entered text books, almost as fact and has progressed to what we have today. my thought on cycles, was discounted, since it inferred that beginning was not.

    also the BBT was given a boost by, Edwin Hubble and his expansion papers in 1929, picked up by LeMaitre who in 1927 to validate his BBT.
    in the 90's certain x-rays from space were detected and called the final
    proof, as they were or are thought to have generated from space and came from the outer limits. COBE, likewise is said to BBT, additional truths on expansion.

    there are countless articles that have suggested BBT is a interpretation of what each has determined after LeMaitre. none of which has budged the theory. my objective is to influence the few i could, into accepting the possibility of ISU and to question BBT for soundness. that to me is going to be required, to totally prove or disprove either and allow science to teach a more realistic science.

    you and miken-s, seem to agree or i with you, on most principles of ISU,
    and question BBT.

    billco; if your still around....if you walk in a straight line..IN MY OPINION, you will pass the last roaming galaxy and at some point reach something, for the lack of a better word, membrane. if you can see through this membrane, you may see something very much like you will, if you turned and looked at your universe, then if (and not likely) you got past this, you could walk through that and go through the same, for as many times your imagination will allow. i also think you will see a lots of company on your journey and many would let you know whats coming. None of this will affect life on earth, you or you distant offspring's, but to think this, will give reason to question, just what are we part of...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Sophomore bogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    BOGIE; since my opinion is what you call ISU, now; i at one time wrote a piece, if the BBT were true, that unit should have formed from something like, what is now our universe and called a cycle. for many years i left the BB option open and what little time i had for reading, was to prove BB wrong in science. it took a very short time to figure out, the whole BBT is built on a need for a beginning to explain something not even related to science

    and that since its hypothesis. inferred a beginning was generally accepted, by a good deal of the folks wanting that concept for them selfs and their personal beliefs. this entered text books, almost as fact and has progressed to what we have today. my thought on cycles, was discounted, since it inferred that beginning was not.
    There seems to be some reality in what you say about the appeal of a beginning that is inferred by BBT. And certainly there is some truth to your observation that people’s personal beliefs, religious beliefs, have helped BBT when compared with any of the alternatives that don’t have a beginning, like the ISU.

    also the BBT was given a boost by, Edwin Hubble and his expansion papers in 1929, picked up by LeMaitre who in 1927 to validate his BBT.
    in the 90's certain x-rays from space were detected and called the final
    proof, as they were or are thought to have generated from space and came from the outer limits. COBE, likewise is said to BBT, additional truths on expansion.
    there are countless articles that have suggested BBT is a interpretation of what each has determined after LeMaitre. none of which has budged the theory.
    There is no question that the apparent expansion of the universe was the first stimulus to the development of BBT. Additional observations like COBE and WMAP have all added to the growing body of observations and evidence that supports BBT.

    my objective is to influence the few i could, into accepting the possibility of ISU and to question BBT for soundness.


    that to me is going to be required, to totally prove or disprove either and allow science to teach a more realistic science.

    you and miken-s, seem to agree or i with you, on most principles of ISU,
    and question BBT.
    As you may be able to decipher from my posts, I don’t find anything wrong with BBT except General Relativity, lol. I know that is a rash statement because without General Relativity, BBT and ISU are identical except for a few minor additions to physics to explain why and how big crunches become big bangs.

    I think the answer is in the indestructibility of matter/energy, the matter/energy cycle, the role that crunches and bangs play in the matter/energy cycle.

    Since this thread is about “Is space infinite”, and my support clearly goes to “yes”, let me offer the seed thought that leads to my thinking on the matter/energy cycle (and how that thinking starts the controversial and un-provable speculation of some added physics needed to make big crunches become big bangs).

    The seed thought is that space is permeated with energy, and that energy is self balancing. When I say self balancing I mean that in the absence of other factors (like gravity and matter) energy itself tends toward equalization of the energy density of contiguous space. The result is that in contiguous space the density of energy in that space is equalized so that the density of energy is the same throughout the contiguous space.

    This balanced energy density can be quantified by an imaginary particle that I call the quantum of energy in space. The elementary energy particle (EEP) is defined as the smallest increment of energy that can have any meaning in our universe. Any smaller amount of energy could not have any affect on the universe because it is less than a quantum (less than the energy of an EEP).

    Using this EEP concept, then the energy density of space can be referred to in terms of the density of EEPs in space. High energy density space has high EEP content, and low energy density space has low EEP content. It is the nature of energy in space is to balance the distribution of EEP throughout contiguous space so that the EEP content is equalized throughout contiguous space.

    Following on this thought that infinite space is permeated with EEPs that are self balancing, then the concept of matter being formed from the energy in space can be visualized. Picture matter being abundantly formed from high energy density space, while little or no matter formation occurs from low energy density space.

    Picture a big bang as the highest possible energy density of space and you can see where I am going with this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    wow....

    bogie; in short; BBT-all matter to be, was forced from a central location, that position irrelevant, along with space, time into a vacuum, without previous occupation by anything and at speeds billions of times faster than light (light couldn't exist then) and this process is not at an end and will continue forever and the only result of matter is the spreading out,
    soon (well, billions of years) no galaxy could be seen by another.

    this is part of three BB views...

    i have trouble seeing this as rational, logical or anything similar to ISU, for to many reasons to explain. the activity we see in our solar system, galaxy and near by systems, with visible debris in the MW, nebula, colliding universe, galaxy being absorbed and absorbing, various size and dimension, of all the various units and now black holes all indications of an active, vibrant, self maintaining form of existence. in turn that shows me a lack of necessity to have formed from something really not explainable, moving at speeds (still) not probable, to destinations (none existent in logic) and in actions inconsistent with the premise of an outward force.

    i do understand the energy your inferring, but feel this is self manifested
    by matter with in the system and not in anyway required to have had an original source. the electromagnetic fields including visible light, seem to have a form or actual, gravitational implication. i think Mike NS has tried to bring this up, w/o success and only something i have recently tried to tackle. my goal is to implicate the word friction, into the formula and with all the waves around (not contested), may play into this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    megabrain; remember our understanding of the "electromagnetic field charts", leave plenty of room-above or below- for additional entries. for instance the relation of moving back wards and that of SOL, would give you a real (-) minus factor, though both are everyday facts. even the idea of mental telepathy, suggest energy. this is far out, but many animals are thought to communicate in ways we do not understand and there are many that the visual parts are dramatically reduced. some even think these energies cause cancer or other problems and that these forces, may be off that chart, but part of its total.

    just a thought....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    megabrain; remember our understanding of the "electromagnetic field charts", leave plenty of room-above or below- for additional entries. for instance the relation of moving back wards and that of SOL, would give you a real (-) minus factor, though both are everyday facts. even the idea of mental telepathy, suggest energy. this is far out, but many animals are thought to communicate in ways we do not understand and there are many that the visual parts are dramatically reduced. some even think these energies cause cancer or other problems and that these forces, may be off that chart, but part of its total.

    just a thought....
    Uhh? Just when have I contributed to this thread?

    At least I can't see it in the last 2 pages, which goes back before I registered!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    megabrain; remember our understanding of the "electromagnetic field charts", leave plenty of room-above or below- for additional entries. for instance the relation of moving back wards and that of SOL, would give you a real (-) minus factor, though both are everyday facts. even the idea of mental telepathy, suggest energy. this is far out, but many animals are thought to communicate in ways we do not understand and there are many that the visual parts are dramatically reduced. some even think these energies cause cancer or other problems and that these forces, may be off that chart, but part of its total.

    just a thought....
    Uhh? Just when have I contributed to this thread?

    At least I can't see it in the last 2 pages, which goes back before I registered!
    well, i left a thread unanswered on another forum, because it had you all over it and i didn't want to upset you!!

    just kidding, but always looking for answers and you do supply some...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121 abstract concept 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    It is neither a number or a function. It is a concept.
    i think of my limited understanding of pi and ask: Can an abstract concept be represented by a number ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Guest
    Short answer: Yes
    Longer answer: Ask someone else who loves math for the sake of math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •