If the Universe is Infinite
Strangest Tribe
Posts: 2,502
are we in the middle (there aint gonna be any middle anymore) or is there even a middle?
An atom must be vast compared to something and a galaxy is the size of an atom to something else and yet it can all fit nicely in the middle of infinity.
Given this infinite equation, isn't God a simple finite construct?
An atom must be vast compared to something and a galaxy is the size of an atom to something else and yet it can all fit nicely in the middle of infinity.
Given this infinite equation, isn't God a simple finite construct?
the Minions
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Scientists seem to agree that the universe IS finite, and expanding.
And one day it will probably start to collapse.
We can argue the term "agree", but a LOT of scientists are on this boat. Theory or not.
a quick read
as for the other questions,
i believe science puts us somewhere slightly closer to the edge than the center.
no, god (if you assume a god) would be a construct OUTSIDE of the finite universe,
the force behind the conception of this finite "space" known as "universe", and would have "predated" said finite existence.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
that just adds up to more questions.
the most brilliant minds developing quintessence, string theory and dark energy still use relative models to the universe as it has been studied (which it clearly has been studied with finite parameters)
It's a conundrum.
I could see the universe expanding model simply as a pill with finite parameters disintegrating into the stomach of nothingness. If the pill had its own unique physical laws which would be apparent to our studies based on the relative studies of those scientists residing in the pill itself.
...that's just the word on the street.
it gets bigger the deeper you look
There is a center of the Universe. We are not there... we are far from it. And It's probably a good thing because the center or origin is a place you don't want to be... but, it's there.
In very, very simple terms... think of it like one of thoe big fireworks explosions. There is a center and all of the sparklely things are moving away from it.
The difference being... all of the sparks would out out so far... but eventually would be falling back towards the center (origin).
Hail, Hail!!!
Beyond that? Space.
...
Is it possible that there are other Universes out there? Yeah. For all we know we are in one Universe of a billion Universes that make up a speck of dust on some woman's bra.
Hail, Hail!!!
I think it's one gigantic endless expanse of plasma that just happens to be, or in that context an electrical charge. It's all electricity imo.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Roland we are talking about atro-physics here,
it doesn't really make simple logical sense like you want.
I'm no scientist so i'm not going to throw too much muscle around here.
All i can say is that from everything i've ever read, watched, or heard, scientists seem to believe that the universe is in truth FINITE. There is an edge, and it is constantly expanding outward.
It is expanding outward faster than the speed of light, anyhow, so you and i will never be going out to that edge or past it to fulfill our curiousity of what exists beyond it.
For all intents and purposes, the entirety of existence is bound within the confines of that boundary which is expanding too fast to be surpassed.
As far as multiple (or possibly even infinite) OTHER universes, yes ... science increasingly is supporting THIS theory as well.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think science focuses on the big bang theory, but to me that's just as far out as the instruments we have at this day and age can actually "see".
At a certain point the measuring device itself skews the results themselves as no measuring device is impartial. I think science has tried to keep it simple so people's heads don't explode. That is changing hehe
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The microscopes we are using accelerate sub-atomic particles to capture the atomic structure.
But that equipment is inaccurate because it would be like hurling Cadillacs at bicycles.
This is shooting holes in the finite theories IMO.
The universe has no boundaries, but it is indeed finite. Cosmologists believe that space time is curved in such a way that if you travelled in a straight line for long enough you would eventually return to your starting point. A good analogy is walking around the surface of the earth... you eventually get back to your start point- just add an extra dimension of space and one of time to represent the universe.
For this reason, there is no middle of the universe- or perhaps more correctly, there is no single middle point- every point has equal claim on being in the middle.
Equally it is hypothesised that there is no boundary, at least not in the 4 dimensions of space time, that we can reach and 'peek' out the other side of.
There is a boundary that represents the edge of what we can see, but that is merely due to the expansion of space time at faster then light speeds in the early universe, and the time it takes for light from distant objects to reach us for the first time. The edge of the universe that we see is expanding out every second as more and more things become visable to us.
So it would seem that the universe is completely contained. There is no edge to it and every point has equal rights to being in 'the middle'. However, it is not infinite.
Hope this helps.
Not at all. Merely that a boundary to our ability to observe the entire universe exists because light from those objects that are furtherest away from us has not yet reached us.
If you imagine the universe as a dark circle (it's not- but just pretend), there is an ever increasing circle of light that is expanding toward the edge of the dark circle, and we are at the middle of that circle of expanding light. That light is not coming from us, but instead represent what we can see.
This is because the early universe expanded at a rate faster than light (this does not break special relativity because it was only space time, the fabric of space, that moved faster then light. Special relativity applies a speedlimit to matter within that fabric, not the fabric itself).
Of course, whilst these theories are supported by evidence, we are still dealing with the cutting edge of cosmology. These theories are lileky to be refined and altered as new evidence comes to hand.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I agree that the concept of nothing is but a human idea- even the purest vaccum within the universe contains a sea of fluctuating particles. The definition of nothing does need to be clarified though. We cannot talk about there being 'nothing' beyond the universe, as there is no beyond. In a similar way we cannot talk about a 'before' the universe as there was no time until the universe came into existance (see general relativity).
There is, however, a hypothesised point, known as planck scale, at which it is no longer possible to divide things any further.
At this point some scientists think the universe takes on a 'foam' type apearence, with many small bubbles. A few scientists have also proposed the idea that a false vaccum inside one of these bubbles could have created a negative pressure, (known as anti-gravity) that caused the expansion of the early universe. It is a fascinating theory.
I think the Planck scale theory is impossible to determine given the instruments available today. I say this mainly because we know so very little about the quantum world. That too will change as our skills and devices of observation improve.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It may well be that the Planck scale is not the finest scale we can identify, but that will require either a major adjustment of an existing theory or a completely new theory.
I just looked up and saw this flying over my head.
I did say i was no scientist.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Don't worry... I think the even those of us who 'understand' it are really just pretending!
It's my favorite area of science, partly because it has such massive ramifications and partly because there is so much we don't understand about this universe, let alone the concepts of multiple universes etc. I just bought a largish telescope and there is just something about looking at spectacular deep space objects that puts things into perspective. It makes me feel lucky to be alive!