Oscillating View of Infinity

[AbnormallyHonest]

The common view of the Universe does not resolve the paradox of seeing the “Big Bang”, a finite point in time, from further and farther away. Does that stand to reason that since we see the origin of the Universe that all of the matter that we see is essentially static? The amount of it being relatively even from beginning to end? How about the fact that we look at the larger Universe to see it at a “smaller” state? Also, what’s beyond our ability to see?

 

This view of the cosmos seems fraught with paradox that does not settle quite so soundly with me. I would theorize that the Universe is, in fact infinite, and has been since its inception.

 

If we were to reduce the three dimensions of space into only two dimensions, we would have an infinite Universe along two axis, but flat to our three dimensional perspective. Space as we know it would not exist. The “Big Bang” was an explosion of the third dimension, but even with the arrival of this new and increasing dimension, space was already infinite. This would explain the ability of space to expand from all points evenly without impedance—a three dimensional fractal pattern.

 

The Universe we observe is just the light that has been given enough time to travel to our perception. As time passed, and the sphere of perception grew, and our awareness of the matter that it included also increased exponentially. When should we see the inception of this matter? Logically, at the first moment it was able to emit light, just after the “Big Bang”.

 

Our limited view of the cosmos due to this finite obstacle in our perception is actually a dynamic block. I would think more like a tidal wave that increases the sphere of awareness from every point in space, for the most part, uniformly.

 

So now we see the sphere of the Universe 27.4 billion light years in diameter. If we were to perceive the Universe from the edge of that sphere, we would likely see almost the same exact picture of the cosmos, and the location of the first perception would be at the edge of that sphere. This could continue over and over again, creating an awareness of an infinite Universe.

 

Now this expansion, which is increasing at an accelerated rate, will eventually outrun the speed of light. At this point our view of the cosmos will begin to retreat back to the one perspective at the center of whatever sphere perceives it. Remember the space isn’t actually expanding, because you can’t make something that is infinite, “more infinite”. It is only our perception of a the rate of expansion as prescribed by a three-dimensional fractal pattern. When this happens, the speed of light will be the speed of light again and our view of the cosmos will begin to increase once again.

 

When this happens will the matter of the Universe also reset? Will its location in relation to the center of perspective be returned to its location before the expansion? Is the Universe actually an oscillating perspective expansion? Perhaps an cosmic “breathing”, or just the collapse of a universal waveform due to perception?

 

These questions I will probably never fully understand, but this model of the Universe reduces the level of paradox to only that of the view of infinity. In order for the Universe to accommodate this impossibility form one perspective, it is perceived as an Oscillating View of Infinity.

Edited March 25, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Strange]

The common view of the Universe does not resolve the paradox of seeing the “Big Bang”, a finite point in time, from further and farther away.

 

 

There is no paradox in the big bang model. I can only assume that if you perceive a paradox it is because you don't understand the model.

 

 

Does that stand to reason that since we see the origin of the Universe that all of the matter that we see is essentially static?

 

It isn't static. Everything is moving away from everything else (on large enough scales).

 

 

How about the fact that we look at the larger Universe to see it at a “smaller” state?

 

I don't know what that means.

 

 

Also, what’s beyond our ability to see?

 

It is generally assumed that beyond the observable universe, the rest of the universe is pretty much the same. Simply because there is no evidence to the contrary.

 

 

 

I would theorize that the Universe is, in fact infinite, and has been since its inception.

 

That is one possibility. The other is that it is finite (and has always been finite). We don't know, and may never know, which is correct.

 

 

 

Now this expansion, which is increasing at an accelerated rate, will eventually outrun the speed of light.

 

As recessional speed is proportional to distance, it is already (and always has been) expanding faster than light.

[AbnormallyHonest]

That is one possibility. The other is that it is finite (and has always been finite). We don't know, and may never know, which is correct.

 

Actually, I think we will. I think I may have a way to prove it. Our view of the the Universe is symmetrical from the center, wouldn't every center also show the same symmetry? Is there a view from somewhere in the Universe that is asymmetrical? Light from the big bang that is bent through a lensing effect. If the light is bent, it must have traveled farther than linear light to reach our perception. If you shorten the length of it to match the linear distances, the difference to resolve the disparity of how short the beam of light is to reach us, is an asymmetrical view of the Universe. Therefore, this would prove the Universe is in fact infinite, because we have to assume that if the light traveled linearly, it would have reached the center of it's Universe exactly as we see it is from ours. All perspectives are symmetrical.

Edited March 26, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[AbnormallyHonest]

Actually, I retract my first description and modify the inception of this oscillation. If you think about it, The Big Bang was an instant awareness of everything in the Universe, including light. Since there was so much "stuff" we theorize that light did not have enough room to move freely through space, so technically, if we could exist in that moment we would see the infinite light of the Universe.

 

Now, if I were to slow expansion down to the slowest possible rate... right at the moment before it becomes static... if the Universe is infinite, if you travel far enough away, at some point, not matter what, space will be expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light--from your perception.

 

We start with an infinite view of space and from that moment on, our view becomes finite and our view become ever decreasing until all our perception of the Universe converges into one moment of infinite light once again.

 

The Universe is shrinking, and for how long? No one probably has any idea.

[Mordred]

Sorry I can't find a single statement that makes any sense from above.

 

The universe doesn't respond to an observer. How do you have an infinite view observer?

 

Also recessive velocity above c is a seperation to distant observer misunderstanding. No single Mpc of space is exanding FTL. We only see an apparent FTL velocity due to simply adding up enough Mpcs rate of expansion per Mpc to sum up to an ftl recessive velocity.

 

Ie from Observer to past the Hubble horizon at 4400 Mpc from the observer. At distance less the rate of expansion is less than c.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

 

Actually, I think we will. I think I may have a way to prove it. Our view of the the Universe is symmetrical from the center, wouldn't every center also show the same symmetry? Is there a view from somewhere in the Universe that is asymmetrical?

 

 

Well, obviously, we can't know that. But all our models assume that we are not in a special place in the universe and that, therefore, it will look the same (homogenous and isotropic) wherever you are.

 

The rest of your post is incoherent and ignorant gibberish.

The Big Bang was an instant awareness of everything in the Universe, including light.

 

Please stop posting this sort of nonsense.

 

The big bang model is a description of the gradual cooling of the universe. It was not an instant and has nothing to do with awareness.

 

The rest of your post is incoherent and ignorant gibberish. That appears to be true of pretty much all of your posts.

[AbnormallyHonest]

Sorry I can't find a single statement that makes any sense from above.

 

The universe doesn't respond to an observer. How do you have an infinite view observer?

 

Also recessive velocity above c is a seperation to distant observer misunderstanding. No single Mpc of space is exanding FTL. We only see an apparent FTL velocity due to simply adding up enough Mpcs rate of expansion per Mpc to sum up to an ftl recessive velocity.

 

Ie from Observer to past the Hubble horizon at 4400 Mpc from the observer. At distance less the rate of expansion is less than c.

 

I'm simply being practical by visualizing the Big Bang from within, as it does not make sense to be an outside observer. At the moment of the Big Bang, the Universe was already infinite, as in my original post, and everything would have been within view at that instantaneous bright inception of everything we can see and everything we can infer, plus a whole lot we cannot. There would have been no distinction between what we see up close or at a distance. Once the Universe expanded enough, and everything calmed down and left only the energy and baryon matter we see today, that infinite view would've become finite. From what distance I cannot speculate.

 

As far as the luminosity, do we see the horizon at a point that is our actual potential horizon, or just the horizon where luminosity becomes to faint to be detected as the energy is stretched from the wave. The distance paired with the expansion would suggest that we would not be able to see the actual limit, but our likely horizon would be slightly before the actual termination. So our limit wouldn't be at the inflection of the rate, but rather "at distance less the rate of expansion is less than c."

 

Also, I do not speculate about our view of the Universe as being recessive or increasing, only that our perception of it is narrowing. The boundary could be static for all I know, just allowing matter to slide into the observable bubble at the same rate as light would allow our awareness of new matter, but I have no proof of that. What I do have supporting evidence of, is the expansion of space, the probability that it is infinite, and the limit of our perception cannot be increasing. Logic would tell you that a 3 dimensional fractal expansion in an infinite volume would imply that no matter how slow the rate was, at some displacement, that rate will exceed "c".

 

 

Well, obviously, we can't know that. But all our models assume that we are not in a special place in the universe and that, therefore, it will look the same (homogenous and isotropic) wherever you are.

 

The rest of your post is incoherent and ignorant gibberish.

 

Please stop posting this sort of nonsense.

 

The big bang model is a description of the gradual cooling of the universe. It was not an instant and has nothing to do with awareness.

 

The rest of your post is incoherent and ignorant gibberish. That appears to be true of pretty much all of your posts.

 

Well I can always appreciate scientific objective criticism, especially one which utilized such compelling arguments supported by actual research and data that can easily be agreed upon.

Edited April 18, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Strange]

Well I can always appreciate scientific objective criticism, especially one which utilized such compelling arguments supported by actual research and data that can easily be agreed upon.

 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[Mordred]

Well for starters Physicists already know how to deal with observer limitations. Those same limitations confirm our universe is expanding.

 

Simply put objects we can see, we have confirmed an expanding universe. Its not merely an illusion but also reflects on thermodynamic laws. Ie an increasing volume leads to decreasing temperature and average density. This is an important detail often overlooked.

 

That detail itself does not depend on observer distance measurements. As far as the universe being infinite or finite is still an open question.

 

Nothing you have posted supplies a means of determining either case.

 

Several times you have posted " infinite view becoming finite". Which is simply put an impossibility and utter garbage. You can never have an infinite view. All views are finite never infinite. That finite view is simply our observable universe. Which encompasses the region of shared causality.

 

I would also suggest you consider Olbers paradox.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27s_paradox

Edited April 18, 2017 by Mordred

[AbnormallyHonest]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

I see, your ironic parallelism escaped me at first, but thank you for your opinion. I'll take that as appropriate etiquette to post opinions of topics that are irrelevant and even of a different genre. I may not be as educated as yourself, but a mind with so much to offer seems so disappointing.

Well for starters Physicists already know how to deal with observer limitations. Those same limitations confirm our universe is expanding.

Simply put objects we can see, we have confirmed an expanding universe. Its not merely an illusion but also reflects on thermodynamic laws. Ie an increasing volume leads to decreasing temperature and average density. This is an important detail often overlooked.

That detail itself does not depend on observer distance measurements. As far as the universe being infinite or finite is still an open question.

Nothing you have posted supplies a means of determining either case.

Several times you have posted " infinite view becoming finite". Which is simply put an impossibility and utter garbage. You can never have an infinite view. All views are finite never infinite. That finite view is simply our observable universe. Which encompasses the region of shared causality.

I would also suggest you consider Olbers paradox.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers's_paradox

I have not contested the actual "expansion" of space, although I do refer to it as only a relative term from the displacemet of fixed points in space. I also would consider the Big Bang itself as being an infinite view, as it would be inviewable as you say, and completely consistent with Olbers Paradox. This post is actually an attempt to describe the mechanics of an infinite view without paradox, and with predictable observation.

 

Also, the diffusion of thermodynamic energy will always reach the extreme displacement prior to the actual mathematical limit of its energy being realized due to the diffusion of space that contains it. Therefore the view of extreme displacement for that energy would always be within the perspective of an expanding view, and never outside the limit of a narrowing perspective. Basically we would see the energy drop to zero before the actual limit of the inflection where expansion overtakes viewability.

Edited April 18, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Mordred]

Well I'm at a loss as to what your trying to describe in your illogical word salad above. I'm strugglung to find any logical grounding behind your posts this thread.

 

Perhaps you should start with actual dataset examples and apply the observer dependant formulas to redshift/temperature etc. As it is your posts are extremely random

Edited April 19, 2017 by Mordred

[goldglow]

 

an increasing volume leads to decreasing temperature and average density. This is an important detail often overlooked.

 

.

 

 

 

 

Allow me, please, for a moment, to bring things down to my level and ask this: as expansion is accelerating, does this acceleration increase the total mass of the Universe? Also, is there a method, a formula perhaps, or even a law, used in determining the ratios in the changing of mass, volume and density in acceleration? In passing, can i add that Dr. David Bohm said he believes that the human brain is infinite, but that may be a topic on it's own.

[Mordred]

Yes its called the ideal gas laws. Cosmology models the universe as a perfect fluid as it is homogeneous and isotropic. (no preferred location or direction).

 

The FLRW metric has two main components the metric (geometry) and the fluid equations.

 

For each matter/force field there is a corresponding equation of state. These EoS are used in the FLRW metric to determine the average temperature/density and less often pressure.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

For an accelerating expansion the driving force is the cosmological constant (aka dark energy) this particular constant is unique in that it doesn't follow the ideal gas laws in so far as its the only thing that stays constant in average density as the volume increases. ( you have no idea how much of a headache identifying the source of the cosmological constant that causes). These articles may help on above

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

 

A few other good references including two complete textbooks.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

 

Your formulas can be found in the first link. How to use them in the last 4 links

Edited April 20, 2017 by Mordred

[goldglow]

Wonderful! Thank you,Mordred.

[Mordred]

Your welcome

[goldglow]

Your welcome

I've had time, now, to digest the fascinating articles on the websites and download the PDFs ( though i couldn't access the Wiese.itp PDF for some reason: 404 etc.). I just have one more question that i hope is not irrelevant in this thread : as an inflated balloon is completely full of gas, is Space/Time completely full, too, of gases,dark energy and matter etc., with no complete emptiness anywhere; and does this question have any relevance to the space inside atoms etc?

[Mordred]

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf

 

This link works it didn't parse correctly from above.

 

The space between atoms is extremely difficult to describe, all particles are essentially field excitations. This makes it tricky. For example the Proton is made up of two up and 1 down quark but in actuality that is the excess. In point of detail there is a literal sea of quarks/gluons surrounding and enveloping the atom. This is descibed under the S-matrix in QFT. When you get down to it the real illusion is what we think of as "solid". Particles aren't little bullets, but excitations and for the most part have indeterminant volume as a result.

 

This is why you never see volume described as a property of a particle.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Mordred

[goldglow]

The Wiese PDF downloaded fine this time. Thanks again for your help.

[Airbrush]

I've had a problem with "Olber's Paradox" based on the results of the Hubble Telescope's deep field image. In a tiny region of apparently black, empty space, when looking long enough, that region is actually populated by thousands of galaxies. So it seems that the night sky would NOT appear bright because most of the infinite number of stars are so far away that they are effectively invisible, even to the Hubble telescope. What am I missing with the "paradox"?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field

 

If the universe is finite in size, does that mean that infinity does not exist? Could the universe be a finite structure, one of many, contained within an infinite multiverse?

Edited April 23, 2017 by Airbrush

[Mordred]

Your missing the number of photons emitted by all the stars in the course of their lifetime. If expansion didn't occur space would be bright and there would be no nighttime