multiple universe

[Strange]

 

the universe is the matter and it is limited. the universe is thaking place in the space wich is unlimited (=infinite)

 

Most people use the word "universe" to mean all of space and everything in it. Both space and the matter in it may be finite or infinite.

"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence,^[1][2][3][4] including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy."

"The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

 

 

if you say so how do you think that the infinite is expanding?

 

Why not. As I say, the model is not that the universe is expanding like a bubble. It is rather that distance between things are increasing (on large scales). This does not require the universe to be finite. As an analogy, take the set of natural numbers: they are infinite (1,2,3,4 ...) but you can make the series "expand" (increase the distance between them) by doubling all the valuesto get 2,4,6,8, ...

Edited December 23, 2013 by Strange

[simong]

 

Aristotle was often wrong - but a crackpot never. He probably made the greatest single contribution to western learning of anybody - some of it wrong but much of it kept learning, logic, and philosophy going through the dark ages. Many of his ideas were superseded in the Renaissance (quite a few wrongly) - but without the trove of classical knowledge that was partially founded upon the writing of Aristotle we would still be waiting for the rebirth of the western academia.

you got me wrong

simon

[Dekan]

Aristotle lived in a primitive Iron-Age agricultural community. He had no idea of modern Science. He thought the Sun went round the Earth!

 

So why should we bother with anything he said - isn't It just pre-scientific rubbish?

Edited December 23, 2013 by Dekan

[simong]

 

Most people use the word "universe" to mean all of space and everything in it. Both space and the matter in it may be finite or infinite.

"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence,^[1][2][3][4] including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy."

"The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

 

 

Why not. As I say, the model is not that the universe is expanding like a bubble. It is rather that distance between things are increasing (on large scales). This does not require the universe to be finite. As an analogy, take the set of natural numbers: they are infinite (1,2,3,4 ...) but you can make the series "expand" (increase the distance between them) by doubling all the valuesto get 2,4,6,8, ...

Expanding means expanding! The volume become bigger and bigger, that distance between things are increasing (on large scales). Therefore the last thing on the end is far from where it was. The example you give has nothing to compare with our case, numbers are infinite but not the matter!

Aristotle lived in a primitive Iron-Age agricultural community. He had no idea of modern Science. He thought the Sun went round the Earth!

 

So why should we bother with anything he said - isn't It just pre-scientific rubbish?

you didn't get the point

simon

Aristotle lived in a primitive Iron-Age agricultural community. He had no idea of modern Science. He thought the Sun went round the Earth!

 

So why should we bother with anything he said - isn't It just pre-scientific rubbish?

Did you read him, or you jus makeup you mind?

 

simon

[Strange]

Expanding means expanding! The volume become bigger and bigger, that distance between things are increasing (on large scales). Therefore the last thing on the end is far from where it was. The example you give has nothing to compare with our case, numbers are infinite but not the matter!

 

Earlier, you said this:

This is uneducated opinion, and I'll be happy to learn more, specially from my mistakes.

 

It seems you have a closed mind are are not willing to learn.

 

Modern cosmology, based on general relativity, shows that the universe is expanding. It also says that the universe could be either finite or infinite, we do not currently have enough evidence to say.

 

If you prefer to just repeatedly assert that "matter is finite" with no evidence, then a science forum is probably not the right place.

[EdEarl]

If there are other universes, then our universe is part of a multiverse, and I suppose each of the universes could be infinite, and not contained within any other universe. It is difficult to consider what infinity means.

[simong]

 

Earlier, you said this:

 

It seems you have a closed mind are are not willing to learn.

 

Modern cosmology, based on general relativity, shows that the universe is expanding. It also says that the universe could be either finite or infinite, we do not currently have enough evidence to say.

 

If you prefer to just repeatedly assert that "matter is finite" with no evidence, then a science forum is probably not the right place.

 

 

Thank you for you compliments!

 

I see you don't like what I say, you don't have to but still, "matter is finite". Maybe you try harder then you understand, don't bother about the time it will take you…

 

If this is your private forum, you just tell me, and I'm out.

 

Anyway, don't have nightmare because of me.

 

Simon

 

[Strange]

I see you don't like what I say, you don't have to

 

 

I don't like or dislike it. I am completely indifferent. I am just pointing out that it is (a) an unsupported assertion and (b) wrong.

 

 

but still, "matter is finite".

 

Feel free to provide some evidence for that. Otherwise, I will treat it as I would any other unsupported claim such as, "there is a unicorn in my garden".

[imatfaal]

Aristotle lived in a primitive Iron-Age agricultural community. He had no idea of modern Science. He thought the Sun went round the Earth!

 

So why should we bother with anything he said - isn't It just pre-scientific rubbish?

 

Primative? That "primitive Iron-Age agricultural community" built the Parthenon in Athens and other civic architecture of great beauty, had a functioning participatory democracy, axiomatised mathematics, were already seeking explanations for physical phenomena aside from the gods, had literature that is still heart-rending, and a few years after Aristotle had measured the circumference of the earth. Aristotle actually considered the earth might be moving round the sun or moving through the universe but ruled it out because he could not measure any parallax. You're trolling now. Try reading up on the work of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Aristarchus, Aristophanes etc before spouting off.

[ajb]

If this is your private forum, you just tell me, and I'm out.

This is an open forum, but there are rules and we generally expect used to obey some rules of etiquette.

 

Anyway, the amount of ordinary matter in the observable Universe is something like 10^53 kg. There are several ways to estimate this including extrapolation based on the number of stars in the observable Universe.

 

This is only for the observable universe.

[MigL]

Anyone who considers the universe BOUNDED as simong does when he asks what the furthest point is expanding into needs to do two things.

1-Explain what is on the other side of the boundary.

2-Learn the difference between bounded and finite.

 

As for Aristotle and his Greek buddies, he may have been way ahead of his contemporaries and even a lot of followers until the Renaissance, but surely we're not going to base modern science on 2500 yr old ideas.

[simong]

Anyone who considers the universe BOUNDED as simong does when he asks what the furthest point is expanding into needs to do two things.

1-Explain what is on the other side of the boundary.

2-Learn the difference between bounded and finite.

 

As for Aristotle and his Greek buddies, he may have been way ahead of his contemporaries and even a lot of followers until the Renaissance, but surely we're not going to base modern science on 2500 yr old ideas.

1. Nothing!
2. No difference in this case.

 

I raised Aristotle not for his physics but for his meta-physic!

Also, if we are talking about these ancient all the math is based on them. This is they had wisdom to develop theories but did not have the tool to experiment as we do, so don't hold

Them cheap…

 

Simon

[MigL]

1-Nothing ???? So as soon as you get to the most distant point ( from what ? ) and cross it you have a new most distant point ??? Nonsense.

2-Anyone on this forum can give you examples of unbounded lines, surfaces, volumes or higher dimensional topologies which are finite, You made the argument that in this case there is no difference; explain to us what is special about this case.

 

The Greeks and Aristotle for all their mathematical advancements, were also very lacking in certain areas of math such as limiting values and infinitesimal changes ( the basis of calculus since the 1600s ( Newton and Liebnitz ). If you're familiar with Zeno's paradox, you'll realise that for them, theoretically at least, motion from point A to point B was impossible,; you would never get there.

And for all their Euclidian geometry, they had no knowledge of curved geometries as developed in the 1700s and put on firm footing by Riemann and Poincare in the 1800s. These ideas are extremely important to modern Cosmology, as General Relativity tells us space-time curves under the influence of energy and momentum.

I don't discredit their advancements, but I don't anyone bases current science on 2500 yr old ideas.

 

Have a Merry Christmas.

Edited December 26, 2013 by MigL

[simong]

1-Nothing ???? So as soon as you get to the most distant point ( from what ? ) and cross it you have a new most distant point ??? Nonsense.

2-Anyone on this forum can give you examples of unbounded lines, surfaces, volumes or higher dimensional topologies which are finite, You made the argument that in this case there is no difference; explain to us what is special about this case.

 

The Greeks and Aristotle for all their mathematical advancements, were also very lacking in certain areas of math such as limiting values and infinitesimal changes ( the basis of calculus since the 1600s ( Newton and Liebnitz ). If you're familiar with Zeno's paradox, you'll realise that for them, theoretically at least, motion from point A to point B was impossible,; you would never get there.

And for all their Euclidian geometry, they had no knowledge of curved geometries as developed in the 1700s and put on firm footing by Riemann and Poincare in the 1800s. These ideas are extremely important to modern Cosmology, as General Relativity tells us space-time curves under the influence of energy and momentum.

I don't discredit their advancements, but I don't anyone bases current science on 2500 yr old ideas.

 

Have a Merry Christmas.

1. Yes!!! Yes!!!- the space is infinite and the universe is finite, just so simple!
2. I agree to this, but your examples are mathematical (theoretical), what I'm talking about is on the physical side, that means "the matter".

 

About paradoxes, there are, I can't explain them ether. But in general, if there is something unexplained, it does not mean there is not an explanation.

About the geometry, or mathematics, all was progressed from their points, as you know there was a big gap between them and the people you mentioned and almost no one was filling this gap.

 

So as I see, we have to be little modesty and to respect them for what they achieved.

 

Please, pay attention to what I said about Aristotle's, I mentioned his theory about the metaphysics, to say that there something behind the physics, and these you can't calculate or measure!

 

 

Simon

[MigL]

If you can't calculate or measure something, in effect prove it, then it is a faith not a science. It belongs in the Religion forum. Over here in the Physics forum we deal with thing which can be calculated, measured or proven or at least have a hope of being proven.

 

Incidentally science can prove that there is no such thing as empty space that the 'universe expands into'. Like I said ...nonsense !

[simong]

If you can't calculate or measure something, in effect prove it, then it is a faith not a science. It belongs in the Religion forum. Over here in the Physics forum we deal with thing which can be calculated, measured or proven or at least have a hope of being proven.

 

Incidentally science can prove that there is no such thing as empty space that the 'universe expands into'. Like I said ...nonsense !

Not everything is science!

 

Can you measure you feelings, thoughts and more? But they exist in this physical universe. Even here in this forum and in the scientific world there is a use of philosophical explanations/answers for new or unsolved

Scientific questions that rise in research. Like multy universe, like hologram and so on. So do not ask for a prove. I don't have to prove that you are thinking, and if I have, your participation in this forum is the prove.

 

Can you educate me how the science can prove this?

 

Simon

[Strange]

Expanding means expanding!

 

The "expanding universe" is just an analogy. It isn't supposed to be taken literally.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

 

 

The volume become bigger and bigger,

 

That is not what the theory says and so you are arguing against a straw man.

 

 

numbers are infinite but not the matter

 

You keep making this claim but provide no evidence to support it.

1. Yes!!! Yes!!!- the space is infinite and the universe is finite, just so simple!

 

Simple maybe. But with no evidence to support this claim, I see no reason to take it seriously.

Not everything is science!

 

But you are discussing science; you are making claims about the real, measurable universe. You seem to expect us to just accept what you say but you provide no justification or reason to accept it. Why is that?

[MigL]

When you start talking about 'feelings' in a science forum, I start thinking ...crackpot !

 

And even if I can't prove that, I think you've provided plenty of proof.

[simong]

 

The "expanding universe" is just an analogy. It isn't supposed to be taken literally.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

 

I don't hold any theory, I just referred to this theory and made my comments and you can read what wrote (Posted 23 December 2013 - 01:41 PM ),

There you can see that I think there is a problem with the explanation theory.

 

 

That is not what the theory says and so you are arguing against a straw man.

 

 

You keep making this claim but provide no evidence to support it.

Think about an atom, molecule, particles, stars, what ever it is limited, no infinite. If a matter was infinite it wouldn't let room for another matter to have room,

 

 

 

Simple maybe. But with no evidence to support this claim, I see no reason to take it seriously.

As I know, all theories must start with the hypothesis that the space was before the universe was created. I assume, the energy was and is limited, therefore, the universe didn't fill the all space.

 

 

 

But you are discussing science; you are making claims about the real, measurable universe. You seem to expect us to just accept what you say but you provide no justification or reason to accept it. Why is that?

 

Correct. But you have to be realistic, and as I said as note, not every thing is science and measurable. You don't have to agree but it is a fact!

 

simon

[Strange]

 

I don't hold any theory, I just referred to this theory and made my comments and you can read what wrote (Posted 23 December 2013 - 01:41 PM ),

There you can see that I think there is a problem with the explanation theory.

 

I am just pointing out that you believe there is a problem because you don't understand what the theory actually says. Your objection is that "the universe must be getting larger therefore it must be finite". The big bang model does not say that the universe is getting larger (within some larger or higher dimensional space). Therefore your objection is moot.

 

 

Think about an atom, molecule, particles, stars, what ever it is limited, no infinite. If a matter was infinite it wouldn't let room for another matter to have room,

 

Being able to list a number of finite things tells us nothing about whether the universe is finite or not. All it tells us is that your imagination is limited. This is an argument from incredulity.

 

If the universe is infinite, then there are an infinite number of atoms. If you don't like that, it doesn't really matter.

 

 

As I know, all theories must start with the hypothesis that the space was before the universe was created. I assume, the energy was and is limited, therefore, the universe didn't fill the all space.

 

As far as we know, the universe has always filled all of space.

 

You assume the energy is finite. Fine. You are free to believe that, if you wish. But it is just a baseless assumption. There is no reason for anyone to consider it true without evidence.

 

 

But you have to be realistic, and as I said as note, not every thing is science and measurable.

 

True. But totally irrelevant as we are discussing science. Actually, you aren't discussing science. You are just stating your personal belief; that is religion not science.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Strange

[Dekan]

 

Primative? That "primitive Iron-Age agricultural community" built the Parthenon in Athens and other civic architecture of great beauty, had a functioning participatory democracy, axiomatised mathematics, were already seeking explanations for physical phenomena aside from the gods, had literature that is still heart-rending, and a few years after Aristotle had measured the circumference of the earth. Aristotle actually considered the earth might be moving round the sun or moving through the universe but ruled it out because he could not measure any parallax. You're trolling now. Try reading up on the work of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Aristarchus, Aristophanes etc before spouting off.