sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: infinite universe

 Subject: Re: infinite universe "G. L. Bradford" Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:27:10 GMT 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. > > GLB 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." GLB ```
 Current Thread Re: infinite universe, (continued) Re: infinite universe, John Bailey Re: infinite universe, RadicalLibertarian Re: infinite universe, G. L. Bradford Re: infinite universe, Joseph Lazio Re: infinite universe, RadicalLibertarian Re: infinite universe, Bernhard Kuemel Re: infinite universe, RadicalLibertarian Re: infinite universe, Ben Rudiak-Gould Re: infinite universe, Joseph Lazio Re: infinite universe, G. L. Bradford Re: infinite universe, G. L. Bradford <= Message not available Message not available Message not available Message not available