"G. L. Bradford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> "Bernhard Kuemel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Hi sa, sp!
>> A friend learned in school that 69! is bigger than the number of
>> atoms in the universe. "Nonsense!" I said, "The universe is
>> infinite, so it has infinite atoms."
>> After some research it turned out that it is unknown if the universe
>> is finite or infinite. However, some sources claim a singularity at
>> the big bang where the mass of the universe was contained in a point
>> (or ring) with 0 volume. I find it hard to imagine that a 0 volume
>> can instantly explode to an infinite volume. Is this actually
>> possible? Hmm, if the singularity contained infinite matter and then
>> expanded so there was finite space between particles then it must
>> become infinitely big. Hmm, I guess, an infinitely heavy singularity
>> would be surrounded by an infinitely big event horizon. Could the
>> matter in the singularity spread over the infinite volume in the
>> event horizon?
>> Thanks for your wisdom. Sorry if this is a FAQ. The number of atoms
>> in the *observable* universe < 69!.
> Depends on how you see "infinite." It every point in the Universe (U) is
> seen at that point to be the center of the entire Universe, and if
> distance to the most distant horizon (Big Bang, speed of light,
> Planck.....) in every possible direction of the observable universe (u) is
> seen from every point that can witness that horizon to be precisely the
> same for all points -- whatever their relativity of position or velocity
> or time to other points, then the Universe should be infinite.
> It is presupposed that all space is one space (one space-time continuum).
> Since we can't see it as being such, since it is unobservable simultaneity
> (simultaneousness) incarnate, ipso facto there is no such thing as one,
> single, absolute of [3-d] volume space. But there is only one, single,
> absolute of distantly remote collapsed (relatively speaking (the same
> horizon being universally relative to every "point") [1-d] horizon.
> Therein and therefore the Universe [is] (can only be) infinite. It has no
> volume (zero volume); it has finite [2-d] surface (as in the [2-d] surface
> of a volume bubble (all volume bubbles (that is, all local volume
> universes))) the center of which is the aforementioned "point"; and last
> but not least, it (that distantly remote collapsed [1-d] horizon) cannot
> possibly have any other length than infinite length.
> The fourth dimension of "time" ("relative time") is nothing more than the
> distance-time (measured by the speed of light (the base unit of
> distance-time)) to the distantly remote collapsed [1-d] horizon from each
> and every local, or foreground, or preferred frame of reference, or
> relative, "point" center of the Universe. There being no actual one,
> single, center point to the entire Universe, there being an endless number
> of point centers totaling an infinite length in horizon, the greater
> Universe (now also called "the Multiverse" (or "multiverse" (very
> confusing)) is an infinite Universe.
> When thinking about endless numbers of point centers to an infinite
> Universe, do not(!) think only in terms of relative positions but think
> also in terms of relative velocities. Though it may probably be denied
> that velocity has anything to do with "rubber sheet" expansion /
> contractionism, [relatively speaking] it has everything to do with it. Any
> one of those endless number of point centers may become inclusive of many
> others of the endless number of point centers, or conversely, exclusive of
> them, according to relative velocities.
Forgot something important. The potential to become "inclusive" or
"exclusive" is the potential to become "hyper-dimensional" or
"hyper-spatial" (whichever you prefer). Velocity, relatively speaking, has
everything to do with so-called "'rubber sheet' expansion / contractionism."