Predetermined. (701 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.36 on 72 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by paperboy (View user info) at 2007-01-20 20:13:53 EST
There is an edge to what we are able to see and could ever possibly see in our universe. The most distant galaxy we can observe is 13.23 billion light-years away. We could never see a galaxy that is farther away in light travel time than the universe is old, an estimated 14 billion or so years. We are surrounded by a "horizon" that we cannot look beyond, a horizon set by the distance that light can travel.
We have to look very, very far away to find a star in most directions. When you look at anything from this distance, you are in fact looking back in time since it can take billions of years to travel to us from the object. In fact, aliens located 4.5 billion light years away from earth could be watching our planet cool and form through a telescope right now.
The universe is infinite in size and the distribution of stars is uniform throughout. Space only holds an estimate of 1 atom per 88 gallons. Still, it is understood that no matter which way you look there is a star. If light traveled instantaneously, the night sky would be as bright as day and not a single speck of space would be visible. Has your head exploded yet?
We can only see those parts from which light has had time to reach us since the beginning of the universe.
If the universe is infinite though, then that would mean there is another Milky Way galaxy, and everything that has happened here in our galaxy, would happen the exact same in that galaxy. It would also mean an infinite amount of other possibilities, such as a universe where Ubersite and I do not exist.
There are quite a few theories out there that try to deal with this since it essentually means EVERYTHING is pre-determined. The clone of me that exists in a parallel universe didn't write this up so I did, understand? Neither of us decided first. It was a simultaneous action (or non-action) in both our universes and neither of us had a choice.
So, sorry if you didn't enjoy reading this. Somewhere out there you actually wrote this yourself, though.
User Reviews
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-25 22:23:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-25 17:34:09 (#)
Ranking: -2
blah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-25 16:56:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
blah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-25 16:45:59 (#)
Ranking: 1
blah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The funniest part is when you suggested I have never read Hawking. For someone claiming to have also read and understood him this should be easy stuff. Second, you should know I am using the same 3 models for the universe even he himself considers as a possibility. I would address your grievances point by point but that has already been done with DC.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-25 17:34:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Go read this all of you that were arguing. None of you will explain it better than that man. You will notice precious few (if any?) uses of infinity. All the most current, respected theories center around the often very large but still finite nature of things, be it space, time or any crazy combination concept thereof.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
He's a funny dude: " To show this diagram properly, I would really need a four dimensional screen. However, because of government cuts, we could manage to provide only a two dimensional screen. I shall therefore be able to show only one of the space directions. "
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-25 16:56:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Paperboy,
What kind of dickhead pseudo-intellectual are you? What kind of dickhead pseudo-intellectual are you? I got bored of reading your squabbling below but I see making both the statement that the universe is infinite and that it's expanding up to an infinite size. These two statements are mutually exclusive. If it's infinite now it can't be expanding because it's already infinite. You can't get any bigger than infinity. If it's expanding then it can't yet be infinite because it's still getting larger.
The idea that the universe is still expanding is generally accepted. If I remember correctly one of the many things that points to is red and blue shifts indicating speed and direction of the movement of stars - but taht could be way outdated by now for all I know. The point is its accepted that the universe is expanding, it is there for accepted that it is not infinite in size. You argue both sides of it.
Astrophysics is not a good thing for the dim witted to study - I think you should stay away from it.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-25 16:45:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Iteresting to read but there's alot of problems with what you're saying.
This is theory.
"The most distant galaxy we can observe is 13.23 billion light-years away. We could never see a galaxy that is farther away in light travel time than the universe is old, an estimated 14 billion or so years. "
"The universe is infinite in size and the distribution of stars is uniform throughout."
Says who? The generally accepted theories of our time (as far as I know) support the notion that the universe is still expanding. If it's already infinite it can't very well expand can it?
" Space only holds an estimate of 1 atom per 88 gallons."
Gallons is a bizare unit of volume to use in this context.
"If light traveled instantaneously, the night sky would be as bright as day and not a single speck of space would be visible."
That's not true. Just becuase it's traveling faster doesn't mean the intensity has to increase. This stuff is all theory anyway but that's a rather bizarre statement to make. The reason the stars that are far away aren't as bright as our sun is that the intensity of the light is much less, it's being difused and the projection of the photos is much more scattered at this distance. That doesn't have anything to do with how long it took to get here.
"If the universe is infinite though, then that would mean there is another Milky Way galaxy, and everything that has happened here in our galaxy, would happen the exact same in that galaxy. "
Yea that's not really a generally accepted fact.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-22 22:11:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-01-22 20:59:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
The universe is not infinite - according to the most well developed aspects of string theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, this is all correct IF string theory is correct. You are still arguing for a positive curvature, however you may want to put it.
The problem with string theory is there's no way to test it and no way to prove it (yet?). So it's useless as a scientific model. It's a nice mathematical concept, though :P
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-01-22 20:59:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The universe is not infinite.
The universe we can perceive is a 3 dimensional skin on a 10 dimensional framwork - according to the most well developed aspects of string theory.
What you can see is much like the skin of a soap bubble. We perceive it to be expanding because for us the fourth dimension of space/time (being time) is a unidriectional absolute. This is not the case for other parts of the dimensional structure, nor is it nessecarily so for other view points. The most recent theories posit a revision of cause and effect in much the same way that the theory of relativity meant a revision in the relationship of space and time.
Oh, space/time is also curved. Whilst it's curvature can be locally impacted by bodies of sufficient mass, giving rise to the phenomenon of gravity (picture a lead weight on a stretched out rubber sheet), we have no evidence that the overall curvature of space changes. If the curvature remains constant then at some point space/time must curve back on itself.
In other words, if you could only see far enough in one direction, you'd finally be able to see that pimple on the back of your neck.
Submitted by sweetcheebs (user info) at 2007-01-22 20:29:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
The universe is big, real big.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2007-01-22 13:59:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This kind of stuff makes my head explode, but I find it infinitely interesting.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-21 23:28:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Heheh, well, I'm not gonna start going into that after all the trouble we had simply deciding what we meant by 'universe', but yeah, nice to have an intelligent (if poorly spelt) debate on Uber.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 23:17:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-21 22:58:46 (#)
Ranking: 2
And now you know what I mean, do you accpet I'm right and there isn't an identical copy of you out there, living in Mumbai?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha, NEVAH! I still hold that space and time are very much part of the universe!
I cannot say with 100% confidence that a copy of me exists out there. It is just one of the many possible outcomes if our universe (errr, spacetime) is infinite.
Good debating with you though.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-21 22:58:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"But when you say the universe you must include space and time. I know what you mean though."
Scientifically yeah, but I wasn't expecting you to know so much about this stuff. And now you know what I mean, do you accpet I'm right and there isn't an identical copy of you out there, living in Mumbai?
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 22:53:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-21 22:48:43 (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes but as I said, I was referring to the universe as the extent of stuff (galaxies etc), not the amount of room there is for it to expand into.
----------------------------------------------------------
But when you say the universe you must include space and time. I know what you mean though.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 22:50:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-01-21 22:40:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
oooooh...pretty
--------------------------------------------------------
Sure is....
It is a pic of the most distant known galaxy in the universe. Located an estimated 13.23 billion light-years away.
You are looking at the universe about 750 million years after the big bang happened, when the universe was barely 5 percent of its current age.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-21 22:48:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes but as I said, I was referring to the universe as the extent of stuff (galaxies etc), not the amount of room there is for it to expand into.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-01-21 22:40:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
oooooh...pretty
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 22:17:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-21 20:47:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
Can you see what I'm getting at now? And can you see that there's a difference between the nature of space time and the expanse of matter therein?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I think this is where our argument is breaking down. Spacetime IS a part of the universe by all scientific definition. They are inseparable. If space has a flat or negative curvature then space extends forever in time. Spacetime is infinite and so is the universe.
If you want to convince me that the universe is finite, you have to prove that space has a positive curvature, meaning space does not extend forever in time.
That is the nature of this debate as I understand it...to contend spacetime is separate from the universe is working outside the scientific definition.
If the universe has the potential to expand forever then it must have infinite room (spacetime) to expand within.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-21 20:47:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Eh, this is a tricky one.
I was talking about the universe as in the expanse of matter, which I still say cannot possibly have reached an infinite extent within the bigbang model.
You're talking about the universe as in the expanse of spacetime, which could well, indeed probably is, infinite (although it looks to me as if only the flat model supports infinity, an open model would surely expand to the shape of one of those inflatable rubber rings right?)
I never intended to start going on about spacetime, I was contending your claim that the inviverse is infinite as in....well as in the way you said, as in the expanse of matter being infinite, so we had almost identical copies of us doing slightly different things....and I still say that my earlier test shows this.
the key thing to remember here is that I am talking about the expanse of matter not being infinite, I am not talking about the nature of spacetime, those are two different things.
1 pick age of universe.
2 pick average rate of expansion of universe since it began.
multiply and see if the answer is finite or infinite
I know that you can't give an accurate estimate of the average expansion rate of the spread of matter since the bigbang, that's not important....it doesn't really matter what the numbers are, only whether or not they are infinite or not, finite*finite=finite.
The matter in the universe cannot have spread over an infinite area (even though there may be an infinite area for it to spread into), unless it has
a) been expanding for an infinite time.
(Which goes against the big bang, and kinda messes with everyones head)
OR
b) has, at some point, expanded infinitely fast
(which would mean that at that point it in essense, jumped, during the smallest possible unit of time (and whether or not time is finitely divisible is a bugger to think about in itself), from it's previous expanse to cover everything....which is tricky to think about, and has strange implications for the fact that we have always assumed that the universe is still expanding right now.)
Can you see what I'm getting at now? And can you see that there's a difference between the nature of space time and the expanse of matter therein?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-21 19:21:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm gonna go look into that in more detail as I'm having trouble understanding how something can both expand forever and be infinite at the same time.
As I understand it a universe that is constantly expanding cannot be infinite, as it would have grown since yesterday, so can't possibly have been infinite then, and it can't be infinite now, because it'll be even bigger tomorrow.....
I'll be back in a while
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 17:12:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-21 17:08:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
That wasn't an argument. I was merely passing the time.
------------------------------------------------------------
Bastard :P
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-21 17:08:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
That wasn't an argument. I was merely passing the time.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 17:06:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-21 16:31:31 (#)
Ranking: 2
1. It's spelled grammar.
2. It was a fucking joke.
3. Watch what you bet. You have absolutely
no knowledge of my math ability. Because you
are good doesn't mean someone else isn't.
------------------------------------------------------------
1. Yep, you are right. I suppose you are starting to figure out I am not an English major and I dont use spell-check.
2. Sorry, didnt pick up on that. Sarcasm doesnt work on paper with me.
3. I wouldnt have made the bet unless I was absolutely confident. I am also quite aware many others excel far beyond me in this field, if you are actually trying to point that out.
This is a rather stupid argument we are having if you really were "joking". Just say you were joking and end it there. I promise to use spell-check from now on, okay?
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2007-01-21 16:49:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-21 16:31:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 16:26:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-21 03:55:42 (#)
Ranking: 2
2. Those who consistently misspell simple words in their native tongue, words such as
infinite, argument, and essentially, are not to be trusted.
-------------------------------------------------------------
And what does knowledge of grammer have to do with an understanding of the universe?
I bet I could run rings around you with any advanced mathematics problem but I do not disqualify you as a writer for that.
*****************
1. It's spelled grammar.
2. It was a fucking joke.
3. Watch what you bet. You have absolutely
no knowledge of my math ability. Because you
are good doesn't mean someone else isn't.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 16:26:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-21 03:55:42 (#)
Ranking: 2
2. Those who consistently misspell simple words in their native tongue, words such as
infinite, argument, and essentially, are not to be trusted.
-------------------------------------------------------------
And what does knowledge of grammer have to do with an understanding of the universe?
I bet I could run rings around you with any advanced mathematics problem but I do not disqualify you as a writer for that.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 15:59:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
These links might explain better....
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/geometry.html
http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo21.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/fried.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=62
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 15:59:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is the point you are missing...
We have 3 possibilities for the shape of the universe and that is what determines if the universe is infinite/open or finite/closed.
You are arguing for a positive curvature which means one day the universe will collapse back in on itself. That is a closed universe and it is finite.
I am arguing for negetive or zero curvature. Both are infinite and OPEN (meaning spacetime extends forever) according to every scientist and mathematician alive today. If you want ot argue against that then good luck but I will ignore those points since they have no scientific basis.
You can argue for a finite universe and I dont mind that. You cannot argue that point without understanding it has a positive curvature of spacetime and it is a closed universe.
So asking me to abandon those ideas of closed or open universe is pointless, you cannot. It all has to do with the shape of the universe and it's density. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rate of expansion or how old the universe is. Ask any astronomer or astrophysicist!
Spacetime extends infinitely if the universe has a flat or negative curvature. Spacetime is finite if the universe has a positive curvature.
....continued again (fuck this fucking filter)....
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 15:58:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If at every time, space at every point looks the same in every direction, then space has to have constant curvature. If the curvature was different at any point, then space would look different in that direction from every other point. Therefore if space is maximally symmetric, the curvature has to be the same at every point.
So that narrows us down to three options for the geometry of space: positive, negative or zero curvature.
...continued in next post (fucking lame filter)...
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-21 12:09:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think I'm going to have to restate my point.
I am not arguing at all over whether the universe is open or closed.
You said "The universe is infinite in size"
And I said that it isn't.
That it the point I am trying to make, I am trying to show that the universe is not infinite, I am not arguing about whether or not the universe is open or closed.
My point is very simple, it is generally agreed (using the bigbang theory) that the universe came into being a finite amount of time ago. If you disagree with this point say so.
No-one has any reliable idea about how fast it has expanded over that time, but it is reasonable to assume that it has not expanded infinitely fast, there fore whatever the rate of expansion may be, it is a finite speed. If you disagree with this point say so.
A finite amount of time multiplied by a finite rate of expansion means a finite size. If you disagree with this point say so.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-21 12:00:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"2. Those who consistently misspell simple words in their native tongue, words such as
infinite, argument, and essentially, are not to be trusted."
:(
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-01-21 09:20:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Aight.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-21 03:55:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
1. Physics concepts concerning the nature of the universe are debated by two youngsters,
neither of whom is a qualified physicist.
2. Those who consistently misspell simple words in their native tongue, words such as
infinite, argument, and essentially, are not to be trusted.
3. :D
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 01:03:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:46:39 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm off to bed
---------------------------------------------------------
Think I will do the same. Getting cranky here.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 00:20:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
1 pick age of universe.
2 pick average rate of expansion of universe since it began.
------------------------------------------------------------
In order to determine the avg expansion rate of the universe I would have to have multiple sample points. What you are asking me to do is impossible.
It also doesnt take into effect the shape of the universe which is what this arguement is about in the first place.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-21 00:04:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:46:39 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm off to bed, so I'll just leave you this little thing to demonstrate my point.
1 pick age of universe.
2 pick average rate of expansion of universe since it began.
Multiply answer to 1 by answer to 2.
This is your suggested size of the universe right now. The answers to 1 and 2 are of course highly debatable, so pick whatever you think best supports your theory.
Unless you suggest that the universe is either infinitely old, or has expanded infinitely fast,
you will get a finite result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with either the age of the universe or the rate at which it expands. Why cant you understand that?
The arguement boils down to one point, "Is there enough mass in the universe to make it collapse back in on itself?".
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:56:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:32:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
And I hope anyone reading this can see that that's just a load of bollocks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I am running out of ways to explain it to you. That was the simpliest way I could think of.
Here are some better explainations of the three current theories:
"If at every time, space at every point looks the same in every direction, then space has to have constant curvature. If the curvature was different at any point, then space would look different in that direction from every other point. Therefore if space is maximally symmetric, the curvature has to be the same at every point.
So that narrows us down to three options for the geometry of space: positive, negative or zero curvature. When there is no vacuum energy present, just matter or radiation, the curvature of space also tells us the time evolution of the spacetime in question:
A sphere has constant positive curvature.
Positive: The unique N-dimensional space with constant positive curvature is an N-dimensional sphere. The cosmological scenario where space has positive constant curvature is called a closed Universe. In this spacetime, space expands from zero volume in a Big Bang but then reaches a maximum volume and starts to contract back to zero volume in a Big Crunch.
Zero: A space with zero curvature is called (no surprise here) a flat space. A flat space is noncompact, space extends infinitely far in any direction, so this option also represents an open Universe. This spacetime has space expanding forever in time.
A hyperboloid has constant negative curvature.
Negative: The unique N-dimensional space with constant negative curvature is an N-dimensional pseudosphere. To compare this funny word with something more familiar, a hyperboloid is a two-dimensional pseudosphere. With negative curvature, space has infinite volume. The negative curvature option represents an open Universe. This spacetime also has space expanding forever in time.
What determines whether a Universe is open or closed? For a closed Universe, the total energy density r in the Universe has to be greater than the value that gives a flat Universe, called the critical density r0. Let W = r/r0. So a closed Universe has W > 1, a flat Universe has W = 1 and an open Universe has W < 1."
from http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo21.html
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:46:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm off to bed, so I'll just leave you this little thing to demonstrate my point.
1 pick age of universe.
2 pick average rate of expansion of universe since it began.
Multiply answer to 1 by answer to 2.
This is your suggested size of the universe right now. The answers to 1 and 2 are of course highly debatable, so pick whatever you think best supports your theory.
Unless you suggest that the universe is either infinitely old, or has expanded infinitely fast,
you will get a finite result.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:32:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Think of it like earth. You can essentually say the earth is infinite. I could walk forever and ever and never reach the end. The earth could expand to twice it's size and that would only give me a larger distance to travel "around" the earth but the earth is still infinite in nature. It also doesnt matter how fast this earth expands...it is still infinite."
And I hope anyone reading this can see that that's just a load of bollocks.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:31:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
no no no, you said the universe is infinate in size. the universe is not infinate in size, and I am under the distinct impression that many scientists agree with me.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:27:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:13:44 (#)
Ranking: 2
I think where you're going wrong is in thinking that an open universe must mean an infinate universe.
It could expand forever at a rate of a million lightyears a second, but still not beomce infinate, as it's size would always be 1million lightyears multiplied by the number of seconds since the bigbang.
Or whatever, a billion lightyears a nano-second, it doesn't matter, it's still not infinate.....
open=/=infinate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not only I making this "mistake". It is just about every astronomer/astrophysicist on earth. If the universe can expand forever (meaning it doesnt have enough mass to collapse back in on itself) then space is infinite. Which essentually means there is NO BOUNDRY.
Think of it like earth. You can essentually say the earth is infinite. I could walk forever and ever and never reach the end. The earth could expand to twice it's size and that would only give me a larger distance to travel "around" the earth but the earth is still infinite in nature. It also doesnt matter how fast this earth expands...it is still infinite.
Quick thinking in traditional terms like cars racing each other to the finish line.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:15:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
like viewing a distant street light thru a glass of wine
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:13:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think where you're going wrong is in thinking that an open universe must mean an infinate universe.
It could expand forever at a rate of a million lightyears a second, but still not beomce infinate, as it's size would always be 1million lightyears multiplied by the number of seconds since the bigbang.
Or whatever, a billion lightyears a nano-second, it doesn't matter, it's still not infinate.....
open=/=infinate
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:03:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Second, if the universe has the possiblity to expand infinitely then there must be infinite space in which to expand."
Please please please let's not even go there....that's a whole can of worms that I do not wanna open, all I'm trying to do here is show that the universe (using the bigband model) isn't infinate.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 23:01:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Please dont make me explain why it is perfectly possible that the universe could expand even quicker than light."
You miss my point, it's not about the speed it's moving at it's about the acceleration....the number of times that speed has doubled......let me explain.
Say the universe is expanding at way way faster than the speed of light, 100 lightyears a year.
Then, the universe would simply be the number of years since the bigbang multiplied by 100 lightyears. Which isn't infinite is it?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:56:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"or if it will expand forever (open/infinite universe)."
Interesting isn't it, the only way the universe could possibly ever become infinate, is by expanding exponentially, but mathematics tells us that exponential expansion can't get to infinity, as infinity can't be reached by simply counting or adding up numbers...which also rather knocks a whole in zenos hercules and tortoise paradox being an example of the concept of infinity and having a mathematical answer. If you know what I mean.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:52:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:40:19 (#)
Ranking: 2
"There really is no answer to as to if our universe is infinite or not right now."
That's what I'm mainly disputing (as the other part is hella complicated), presuming we're working with the big-bang theory here (I'm not really convinced, but for the purposes of debate no-one seesm to have any better ideas), correct me if I'm wrong and you aren't a supporter of big-bang...
but if you are, and we accept that the bigbang happened erm, howvere many billion years ago, (can't remmeber right now) and simply has not had the time to expand to infinity yet, even the 'open' universe people don't think it's accelerating, or ever consistently has, fast enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you are not thinking of this in the correct context and there is NO EVIDENCE backing your theory. Please dont make me explain why it is perfectly possible that the universe could expand even quicker than light. Which neither open or closed universe advocates argue against, BTW. You are using Newtonian physics here and it wont work.
Second, if the universe has the possiblity to expand infinitely then there must be infinite space in which to expand.
Explaining this stuff isnt simple so forgive me if those are over-simplified answers.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:47:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Haha, I see where my long brackets gave you that impression now.
LSD; I know :(
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:45:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:42:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Holy crap, I just realized I was debating with someone that just said the universe is not expanding.
A VERY easily verified fact which actually has nothing to due with our arguement.
The actual arguement (follow me here) is if the universe will one day collapse on itself (closed/finite universe) or if it will expand forever (open/infinite universe).
No self-respecting scientist alive today would contend the universe is not expanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said the universe isn't expanding, I said it isn't expanding at a rate of acceleration fast enough for it to have had time to become infinate.
Submitted by LSD420 (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:43:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
DCwoody you may know your physics (as do I to a certain extent) but you sure need to work on your sarcasm detecting skills.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:42:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Holy crap, I just realized I was debating with someone that just said the universe is not expanding.
A VERY easily verified fact which actually has nothing to due with our arguement.
The actual arguement (follow me here) is if the universe will one day collapse on itself (closed/finite universe) or if it will expand forever (open/infinite universe).
No self-respecting scientist alive today would contend the universe is not expanding.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:41:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by snagglepuss (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:32:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
...dcwoody apparently took a "special" correspondence course in "physics for 'tards", but forgot the course in english spelling..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of spelling mistakes and typos doesn't mean the person isn't correct, though it can be a good indicator.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:40:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"There really is no answer to as to if our universe is infinite or not right now."
That's what I'm mainly disputing (as the other part is hella complicated), presuming we're working with the big-bang theory here (I'm not really convinced, but for the purposes of debate no-one seesm to have any better ideas), correct me if I'm wrong and you aren't a supporter of big-bang...
but if you are, and we accept that the bigbang happened erm, howvere many billion years ago, (can't remmeber right now) and simply has not had the time to expand to infinity yet, even the 'open' universe people don't think it's accelerating, or ever consistently has, fast enough.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:35:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by LSD420 (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:20:22 (#)
Ranking: 2
SUBMITTED BY DCWOODY (USRE INFO) AT SUM TIME TONIGHT (#)
RATING: 2
DRRRR IM DCWOODY IM A DUMMY LOOK HOW DUM I AM I THINK ILL JUST MAKE UP SOME BIG WORDS LIKE "CANTOR" AND "DISPROVE" AND HOPE LSD WILL LEAVE ME A LONE CAUSE IM SO AFRAID OF HIM CAUSE HES BIG AND SMART.
---
WELL YOU'RE RIGHT I M BIG _AND_ SMART! COME HERE AND ILL TEACH YOU ABOUT THE QUANTUM MECHANICS OF MY FOOT IN YOUR ASS. THATS RIGHT, TOO CAN PLAY AT THIS GAME MISTER SMARTIEPANTS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cantor is the Mathematician who came up with the concept you alluded to of muiltiple infinities.
Submitted by snagglepuss (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:32:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
...dcwoody apparently took a "special" correspondence course in "physics for 'tards", but forgot the course in english spelling..............
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:30:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:08:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 20:37:22 (#)
Ranking: 2
Interesting post, but incorrect, the universe isn't infinate and the parallel universe theory is just physicists not thinking very clearly and taking a mathematical theory about particle movements as literal reality.
I correct people about things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Care to elaborate on how QED and the second quantization underlying it, the most accurate physical theory known to man, is wrong?
I am not saying you are incorrect but I would love to hear your input if you arent talking out your ass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, googled QED, Quantum Electro Dynamics is what I presume you're talking about.....the maths part? You realise that's just what I was talking about? a way of calculating particle movements....the alternative paths don't actually happen.....can't actually happen, if they actually happened then it wouldn't be possible predict their movements using that calculation.
If what some people interperet that mathematical theory as suggesting actually happened, then the mathematical theory itself wouldn't work.
If you were right about it then what you base it on would have to be wrong.
This is complicated to explain at 3:30am in the morning, but trying to use that to proove the parallel universe thing would involve disprooving your proof.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:28:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:19:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
wow that does sound like I'm talking shit doesn't it
----------------------------------------------------------
Haha, sure does but this stuff isnt for the faint of heart.
QED= Quantum Electrodynamics, BTW.
There really is no answer to as to if our universe is infinite or not right now. In theory, we believe the universe is just as uniform in density for the part of the universe we can observe, as the parts we cannot observe. This belief is held by both sides of the "open" and "closed" universe models so right there we have non-verifiable data to work with. Both sides could be wrong.
But let's say they are right and the universe has roughly the same density of matter throughout. Here are where the arguements start. One side holds that the universe will expand forever (open/infinite universe) and the other believes the universe will eventually collapse back in on itself (closed/finite universe).
Both sides are squabbling over the density of matter in the universe right now. Although, with the latest proof that dark matter does actually exist: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/dark_matter_proven.html
we should have a much greater understanding soon.
Submitted by LSD420 (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:20:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
SUBMITTED BY DCWOODY (USRE INFO) AT SUM TIME TONIGHT (#)
RATING: 2
DRRRR IM DCWOODY IM A DUMMY LOOK HOW DUM I AM I THINK ILL JUST MAKE UP SOME BIG WORDS LIKE "CANTOR" AND "DISPROVE" AND HOPE LSD WILL LEAVE ME A LONE CAUSE IM SO AFRAID OF HIM CAUSE HES BIG AND SMART.
---
WELL YOU'RE RIGHT I M BIG _AND_ SMART! COME HERE AND ILL TEACH YOU ABOUT THE QUANTUM MECHANICS OF MY FOOT IN YOUR ASS. THATS RIGHT, TOO CAN PLAY AT THIS GAME MISTER SMARTIEPANTS.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 22:00:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"DUH IM DCWOODY AND IVE NEVER HERD ABOUT THIRTY INFINITY. ITS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU MULTIPLY INFINITY BY THIRTY JUST LIKE INFINITY AND ONE IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ADD ONE AND INFINITY TOGETHER BUT I WOULDN'T KNOW THAT CAUSE I'M DCWOODY DUUURRRRRRR"
You really want to start talking about Cantors multiple infinities thoery on Ubersite? don't you think it kinda disprooves the entire concept of infinity?
Submitted by LSD420 (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:56:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And this, sir, is to even out the 0 I just accidentally gave you.
Submitted by LSD420 (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:56:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:46:39 (#)
Ranking: 2
"The universe is infinite in size and the distribution of stars is uniform throughout."
And this line, is extremely tenuous.....if the dsitribution of starts is infinate throughout.....for example one every 30 light years (number plucked from thin air) then the universe cannot be infinate.
For; if the universe is infinate then the number of stars must also be infinate, for if the number of stars wasn't infinate then we could work out, and put a number to, the size of the universe as we know there is 30 lightyears of it for every star.
However, the number of stars cannot possibly be infinate, for we know that there is only one star per 30 lightyears, and if there were infinate stars then the size of the universe must be infinity*30, which is impossible, can't multiply infinity by 30 as nothing can be bigger than infinity.
So, there could not be a uniform distribution of stars throughout a infinate universe as it would require the number of stars to be infinate, which would require the size of the universe to be larger than infinity, which is impossible.....therefore either the universe is not infinate, or there is not a uniform distribution of stars throughout the universe.
---
DUH IM DCWOODY AND IVE NEVER HERD ABOUT THIRTY INFINITY. ITS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU MULTIPLY INFINITY BY THIRTY JUST LIKE INFINITY AND ONE IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ADD ONE AND INFINITY TOGETHER BUT I WOULDN'T KNOW THAT CAUSE I'M DCWOODY DUUURRRRRRR
Submitted by LSD420 (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:54:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You're lucky I'm stoned or I would have given you a -2 and a sarcastic comment like "paperboy: world famous astrophysicist".
As it stands, I would like - at least for the moment - to be able to forget what I know to be true and false about space and say "Damn. This is blowing my mind." like i did when i was a little creature.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:49:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's almost 3am over here so apologies if what I write is a little unclear
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:46:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"The universe is infinite in size and the distribution of stars is uniform throughout."
And this line, is extremely tenuous.....if the dsitribution of starts is infinate throughout.....for example one every 30 light years (number plucked from thin air) then the universe cannot be infinate.
For; if the universe is infinate then the number of stars must also be infinate, for if the number of stars wasn't infinate then we could work out, and put a number to, the size of the universe as we know there is 30 lightyears of it for every star.
However, the number of stars cannot possibly be infinate, for we know that there is only one star per 30 lightyears, and if there were infinate stars then the size of the universe must be infinity*30, which is impossible, can't multiply infinity by 30 as nothing can be bigger than infinity.
So, there could not be a uniform distribution of stars throughout a infinate universe as it would require the number of stars to be infinate, which would require the size of the universe to be larger than infinity, which is impossible.....therefore either the universe is not infinate, or there is not a uniform distribution of stars throughout the universe.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:35:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh yeah, infinate universe simple one.
Big bang happened a finate amount of time ago, universe is not expanding (and never has, as far as we know...all this is simply as far as humanity knows(or thinks anyway)) at a rate of speed with enough acceleration to double often enough to have reached the theoretical paradox infinity by now.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:31:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I liked this.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:20:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
whoops......
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:19:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Care to elaborate on how QED and the second quantization underlying it, the most accurate physical theory known to man, is wrong?
I am not saying you are incorrect but I would love to hear your input if you arent talking out your ass."
as far as I know QED is Quod Erat (erot?) Demostandum.....but I guess you're talking about some other QED....I'm not talking outta my arse, I am confident in what I said, and once I would have knoew the reasoning behind it, but with my memory I can only really remember that it's right, not why.....the universe not being infinate I think is a (relatively) straightforward....thing that prooves it, but I can't for the life of me remmebre what it is.
I remember more about the parralel unvierses being rubbish, but it's more complex to begin with, and only very vague as to what I remember....in fact I already pretty much said what I recall.....lemme know what you're on about and I'll see if it jogs my memory.
wow that does sound like I'm talking shit doesn't it....I read up on a fair bit of this stuff, I can just never remember much of it.....anyway, which are you disputing, the universes non-infinity, or the non-existence of parallel universes?
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-20 21:08:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 20:37:22 (#)
Ranking: 2
Interesting post, but incorrect, the universe isn't infinate and the parallel universe theory is just physicists not thinking very clearly and taking a mathematical theory about particle movements as literal reality.
I correct people about things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Care to elaborate on how QED and the second quantization underlying it, the most accurate physical theory known to man, is wrong?
I am not saying you are incorrect but I would love to hear your input if you arent talking out your ass.
Submitted by Amontillado (user info) at 2007-01-20 20:59:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I love astronomy.
Submitted by Hagard (user info) at 2007-01-20 20:47:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The way that I like to think of it is this, in some parillel universe I am wareing a cowboyhat whilst typeing on a pice of electronic dung.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-01-20 20:37:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Interesting post, but incorrect, the universe isn't infinate and the parallel universe theory is just physicists not thinking very clearly and taking a mathematical theory about particle movements as literal reality.
I correct people about things.
Submitted by kaioken (user info) at 2007-01-20 20:26:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-20 20:24:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
You're gonna need the +2 because you left yourself wide open....
"It would also mean an infinite amount of other possibilities, such as a universe where Ubersite and I do not exist."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha, thanks.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-01-20 20:24:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You're gonna need the +2 because you left yourself wide open....
"It would also mean an infinite amount of other possibilities, such as a universe where Ubersite and I do not exist."