[Top] [All Lists]

Re: infinite universe

Subject: Re: infinite universe
From: "G. L. Bradford"
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:27:10 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics
"G. L. Bradford" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
> "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!.
>> Bernhard
>  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."


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>