Do you believe that the universe is finite or infinite in volume and matter?

[Daecon]

I don't like "believing" anything, I'd prefer to know.

 

But since we can't, I'll just leave my response as "I dunno" and shrug my shoulders.

[doG]

I lack belief in both of the poll options for a lack of supporting evidence that would support a belief in either. I do, however, hypothesize that the Universe is infinite.

[Sovereign]

So, you and me... We don't take up "space?" Aren't we composed of the same "stuff?" We're not nothing, are we?

 

Of course we are made of stuff, not space. Nothing is made of space.

[iNow]

Why do I feel like I'm stuck in the middle of a Who's on First skit?

[rueberry]

Crackpots are basically people who believe stuff without scientific evidence for it. They are deluded----think they know more than they really do.

 

This is a bad poll because it gives (possibly naive) people the impression that they should believe one or the other, when they shouldn't rationally believe either. It's anti-educational, from a science forum standpoint.

 

One of the first things, most important things, people should learn is how to NOT believe, how to wait, how to be skeptical, how to refrain from deciding, or thinking they know what they don't.

 

Some are credulous by nature and have a hard time learning this. We don't want to encourage people to act like crackpots and jump to conclusions on insufficient grounds.

 

The way the poll is set up, anybody who answers is acting like a crackpot, or like a credulous naive person. That's why the thread belongs either in trash or here in Pseudoscience.

martin, i understand your frustration but, if you consider our scientific history, it was the so called " crack pots " you carelessly demean that disregarded the so called rules and made speculations based more so on their gut than what were the current ideologies and constructs of their time.

 

martin, i understand your frustration but, if you consider our scientific history, it was the so called " crack pots " you carelessly demean that disregarded the so called rules and made speculations based more so on their gut than what were the current ideologies and constructs of their time. lighten up a little. we need room in science for speculation. speculation. science without curiousity is dead science.

[Mr Skeptic]

The trouble is that we can't listen to crackpots, even when they are right. How can you tell a crackpot that is right from a crackpot that is wrong? That is why crackpots have never made any contribution to science. Some scientists have been called crackpots, but the difference between a scientist and a crackpot is that a scientists deals in facts, and a crackpot deals in crack. A "crackpot" with facts is a scientist, and a "scientist" without facts is a crackpot.

[rueberry]

The trouble is that we can't listen to crackpots, even when they are right. How can you tell a crackpot that is right from a crackpot that is wrong? That is why crackpots have never made any contribution to science. Some scientists have been called crackpots, but the difference between a scientist and a crackpot is that a scientists deals in facts, and a crackpot deals in crack. A "crackpot" with facts is a scientist, and a "scientist" without facts is a crackpot.

we can't listen to crackpots ---- even when they are right??? I believe you meant give them credence. but, if they are right, reason dictates we should listen. you do agree?

[Norman Albers]

Once in the gym locker room a clearly conservative sort of young man tried to corner me as to "Are you a liberal or a conservative?" I just kept tweaking his head, saying, well get to specifics. I am this, or that, depending. He could not handle this and I was amused. Nice statement from Martin about not copping attitudes.

[Mr Skeptic]

we can't listen to crackpots ---- even when they are right??? I believe you meant give them credence. but, if they are right, reason dictates we should listen. you do agree?

 

No, reason dictates that we don't listen to them. What part of my previous post didn't you understand, or what sort of reason do you think dictates that we should listen to them?

 

To put it differently, given 500 crackpots (call them Crackpot 1, Crackpot 2, Crackpot 3, ...) each saying different things, which one should we listen to? Should we listen to all 500 of them?

[Norman Albers]

Stochastic knowledge!!!

Edited December 8, 2008 by Norman Albers
multiple post merged

[teranko]

It cannot be finite. There will always be something on the other side of the wall...

[Tugrul]

I am undecided this is becouse if the universe is expanding, it has to have something to expand in to therefore it is finite. Also the theories on multiverses mean that if our universe was infinite there wouldn't be any multi verses. However the multiverse is only a theory and the human mind can not imagine infinity.

[Sisyphus]

It cannot be finite. There will always be something on the other side of the wall...

 

That's true for Euclidian geometry, but that's not what the universe is. It can be finite, and what's on the other side of "the wall" is right where you started.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

if the universe is expanding, it has to have something to expand in to

 

That is not true. It is not "expanding" in the sense that things are moving away from each other through space, it is expanding in the sense that more space is being added between things.

 

therefore it is finite.

 

Not necessarily. How many whole numbers are there? An infinite amount, each 1 unit apart. Now multiply them all by two (thereby "expanding" the whole). Now there are still an infinite amount, and they are two units apart.

 

Also the theories on multiverses mean that if our universe was infinite there wouldn't be any multi verses.

 

Why not? There wouldn't be universes elsewhere in space, but that's already true, by the definition of "universe." Imagine an infinitely long line. Now imagine another infinitely long line, parallel to it. They are both infinite, yet there are two of them, and that isn't a contradiction.

 

However the multiverse is only a theory and the human mind can not imagine infinity.

 

However, what the human mind can imagine has no relevance to what is true.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Sisyphus
Consecutive posts merged.

[walkntune]

Very refreshing to see an imagination used in science!

“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”

Albert Einsten

 

If we are standing at the edge of space and took our last step, what's there to keep us from taking another?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That's true for Euclidian geometry, but that's not what the universe is. It can be finite, and what's on the other side of "the wall" is right where you started.

I kind of thought this also but was wondering whats outside the curve!

[Sisyphus]

If we are standing at the edge of space and took our last step, what's there to keep us from taking another?

 

Well, the fact that there is no edge of space.

 

I kind of thought this also but was wondering whats outside the curve!

 

What curve? What outside?

[walkntune]

Originally Posted by walkntune View Post

 

If we are standing at the edge of space and took our last step, what's there to keep us from taking another?

 

Well, the fact that there is no edge of space.

 

Well I guess you did get my point!

That's true for Euclidian geometry, but that's not what the universe is. It can be finite, and what's on the other side of "the wall" is right where you started.

I meant to have this in my original post so sorry I missed it!

How does this work out without a curve?

[jackson33]

Since this very old thread has been bumped; Most responders were thinking 'Space', not the 'Universe' when replying. The question was "Is the Universe?" As an old school 'Steady State' believer in the Universe, I would otherwise find, a third thinking the Universe was 'infinite', very interesting. BBT, the apparently overwhelmingly accepted theory, suggest from the BB, Space was part of the ill defined singularity and spread into what could only be nothingness. Even with String, or the newer 'Bumped' (pulsating. which is really an old theory) or any of the 2,364 different definitions of BBT, the Universe would have to be finite, where Space could be either. Said my way the U is or should be finite, though well beyond our our estimated size, but space itself should be infinite.

 

iNow; I did find your discussion with Eric 5, weirdly familiar, like being in another realm, knowing things I ought not to know....

 

 

 

It cannot be finite. There will always be something on the other side of the wall...[/Quote]

 

teranko; Since you did the bump, why must there be something past, where our Universe ends. if it does. I happen to agree, that whether this U is a creation or always been, others may well be out there beyond our own, possibly in different states to what we see and could have once been. Since space is what separates objects, if no object is available, that space would have to be infinite, to the next object.

[Mr Skeptic]

How does this work out without a curve?

 

There's a curve, but we can describe the curve from inside the curve. We don't need an outside to describe it, though I myself don't know whether an outside is needed anyhow.

[walkntune]

Its actually way out of my field but there is a contrary viewpoint that even though space- time has a curve space itself does not! I believe Nikola Tesla took this view.

I do not know because I am not sure of space being empty(nothingness).