
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:snWNf.589964$084.500272@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bernhard Kuemel" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4406eeda$0$562$79720d31@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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 spacetime 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 [3d] volume space. But there is only one, single,
> absolute of distantly remote collapsed (relatively speaking (the same
> horizon being universally relative to every "point") [1d] horizon.
> Therein and therefore the Universe [is] (can only be) infinite. It has no
> volume (zero volume); it has finite [2d] surface (as in the [2d] 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 [1d] horizon) cannot
> possibly have any other length than infinite length.
>
> The fourth dimension of "time" ("relative time") is nothing more than the
> distancetime (measured by the speed of light (the base unit of
> distancetime)) to the distantly remote collapsed [1d] 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 "hyperdimensional" or
"hyperspatial" (whichever you prefer). Velocity, relatively speaking, has
everything to do with socalled "'rubber sheet' expansion / contractionism."
GLB

