the universe

taormina said:
They can postulate all they want, but there is a measurement so small it cannot further be divided; it's called Planck Length. It is a unit of measure - 1.6 x 10 to the -35th meters. One cannot divide this number into a smaller physical unit of measure - the object ceases to have location.

And if it stands to reason that the universe is finite on the small end, it is also finite on the large end (i.e. it does not go on for "infinity" miles)
Click to expand...

Hmm, please read carefully what I said ! :) you just confirmed what the Greeks postulated, they said an atmos had to exist, How on earth can you argue on something we agree on :))

Sean said:
I don't necessarily see the reason in that. If the universe is finite on the small end because of the problem of matter losing location at a small size, then that wouldn't be a problem on the large end, because location is not lost on the large end of the scale - only on the small end.
Click to expand...

Thats easy to explain::

{A} Any entity that is finite is said to have a property by virtue of being limited.

{B} Any entity that is infinite is said to have a property by virtue of being unlimited.

Mathematical Proof:

So that F1 = P1 and F2 = P2 (where F is entity, and P is its related Property)
thus ::

F1 != F2 therefore

P1 ! = P2 hence it is logically invalid to say

F1 = P2

Syntactical Proof:

It can be further demonstarted that if the finite matter is limited on the "small end" and said to be infinite on the "big end" then a clear contradiction occurs because::

One of the properties of infinity is that any subset of the class of initinity has to be equal to its self! that means any divided matter has be equal to infinity, which we know is not correct because we just estbalished that it is finite.

Anhar
 
I'm sorry, I was speaking in regards to the universe as a whole. Taormina stated that
if it stands to reason that the universe is finite on the small end, it is also finite on the large end (i.e. it does not go on for "infinity" miles)
Click to expand...

I was trying to understand why finite matter inherently meant that the universe - that is, space - would also be finite. I don't see the connection.
 
Anhar - we agree - sorry - misread.

Sean - It's not physics, math, or common sense. Infinity is a concept I usually relate with God. No - I'm not getting religious here moderators, but it is hard to separate a concept so abstract as infinity from God.

The universe to me is not infinite because of Planck Length for the following reasons:

1. There is a measurment so small in meters that it cannot further be divided; it ceases to have location.

2. It stands to reason that if I take that same measurement, and keep doubling it, and doubling it, etc, I will reach a huge measurment that cannot further be doubled, a measurment so many trillions of light years to some absurd power that is so large that it cannot be doubled without it literally exceeding the confines of the universe.

It is a hypothesis and postulation of course, but I totally see a connection between the smallest measurement and the largest one. We do after all live in a finite world. I am only so tall. The world is only so big in diameter. We are only so far from the next galaxy. There is an end to it somewhere.

If you are a fish, you may think the oceans go on forever. If you are a satellite, you know better.

God on the other hand, is outside space / time. He isn't billions of years old - he has no age. He is always. He isn't subject to the laws of mass, acceleration, and gravity. He looks within our finite universe from his truly infinite one.

It's the best I can come up with.
 
SeanEmer said:
I'm sorry, I was speaking in regards to the universe

I was trying to understand why finite matter inherently meant that the universe - that is, space - would also be finite. I don't see the connection.
Click to expand...

Which is what I explained in my last post, :)

Finite matter logically leads to a finite Universe,

Let me put explain it in a another way::

Say you have your "Infinite" Universe,

Now lets say we divide this "Infinite" Universe, we have two universes that are BOTH infinite !

if we then took this half and divided for ever, we would still end up with an infinite universe each time we divided.

It that any clearer? :)
 
Last edited:
Anhar, I mean this in a good way,

every time I read your posts, I think of the TV Sitcom "the Bing Bang Theory", hie hie hie.

Seriously though, I like the fact that you don't grasp in the air and make up nonsense to irritate people who might differ from your opninion.

There is logic and rational in your answers, your obviously highly intelligent!

keep it up,

- Derrick

ps. just for the record, not making it religious, but I think a lot of what scientist come up with probably has truth, but I believe were just figuring out the way God made it all.
 
Anhar Miah said:
Which is what I explained in my last post, :)

Finite matter logically leads to a finite Universe,

Let me put explain it in a another way::

Say you have your "Infinite" Universe,

Now lets say we divide this "Infinite" Universe, we have two universes that are BOTH infinite !

if we then took this half and divided for ever, we would still end up with an infinite universe each time we divided.

It that any clearer? :)
Click to expand...

I get your logic now, but disagree completely. Ending up with an infinite universe after every division is the definition of an infinite universe... so I don't see how that disproves it. Here's a picture i whipped up to show what I mean.

wholething.jpg


You could continue to divide the universe forever and come up with infinite space every time, but still be able to localize parts of it based on a uniform reference point. I'm not saying that all matter is infinite, or that there is infinite amounts of matter; I'm just saying that there can be an infinite amount of space to the universe.
 
You think that's impressive? I just randomly checked Brandon's profile and discovered that he has over 13,000 posts at an average of over 13 a day. Which means that if you attached his posts end to end, you could wrap them around the circumference of the Earth eleven times.
 
Rick Meyer said:
You think that's impressive? I just randomly checked Brandon's profile and discovered that he has over 13,000 posts at an average of over 13 a day. Which means that if you attached his posts end to end, you could wrap them around the circumference of the Earth eleven times.
Click to expand...

:grin: :grin: :grin:



EDIT: I just checked, holy cow! you aren't kidding! :eek:

- Mikko
 
I can not see why you are unable to see the simple mathematical contradiction that an Infinite Universe creates,

Sean said:
but still be able to localize parts of it based on a uniform reference point
Click to expand...

Imagine an infinite space, now please locate the center point of that infinite space point, just as you can never reach the "outer point" (which is easier to visualise, the center point is EXCATLY the same but only in the reverse direction), i.e. ONLY a finite space can have a uniform reference point.


Put ANOTHER way::

start with a length of rope, we see it has a start and and end,

now imagine an "infinite rope", this rope can not have a start OR an end,

NOW try adding your finite rope untill the start point and end point disseappers (and thus equal to infinity) can it be done?

NO :)

you said:

Sean said:
so I don't see how that disproves it.
Click to expand...

It was disproved in my first post, and then further explained, and explained above again..

:)
 
Sorry, I still don't see the problem lol. I know that an infinite universe doesn't technically have a center, but if we used, for example, Earth or the Milkyway as a whole as the reference point, you could function the same way you would if the universe was finite. So if the universe is finite, then what is at it's end? Nothingness, right? Well, wouldn't that count as space, which could be included in a definition of the universe? Or if the universe curves back in on itself, still it technically goes on forever... just in a circle, heh.

I don't want you to get mad at me and I can tell you're starting to get frustrated, so I guess we should just drop the matter. I'll keep believing my idea, and you can keep knowing a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do :)
 
Anhar Miah said:
add to that we are looking into the past, how splendid is that!

If you ever get the chance to sail in a boat and see the wide open ocean, we can appreciate just how "big" the world is, then you realise that even our sun is 1 million times bigger, the concept of "big" goes out the window, how do you even begin to grasp something that big in terms of real world sizes!
Click to expand...


Oh man

I've been in the middle of the ocean and it is humbling. :shocked:
 
Sean, I'm not mad at all, questioning is a Good thing, I drove every single teacher, lecturer, professor mad from my all my questions untill I understood the problem.

I not going to claim I know more, or I'm right, etc, all I'm saying is, as far as I undertstand it, from the logical reasoning most probably it is such and such, now if someone can show the reasoning to be invalid, then thats fine I am willing and happy to make the correction, thats how I see it.

What is outside of space/universe? (as first asked my Mikko :) ), is something almost everyone finds impossible to imagine, I know I do, and as I have said before, its just nearly impossible for humans to imagine true nothingness aka "spacelessness", its simply goes beyound our human mind. Its not that it does not exist, it is just we can not fathom it!
 
J.R., you should look up Transcendental style in cinema... its based off of that concept.

And anhar,
Its not that it does not exist, it is just we can not fathom it!
Click to expand...

Well there goes solipsism, heh.
 
Sean if you devide infinity and still have infinity then the letter "u" disappears or rather, never existed in the first place.

Calling a point the center reference in a mass field of infinity is a fallacy... which makes it sound logical to base further logic around that... but if u=fallacy... the rest of the equation is invalid by default.

But what do I know.
 
U doesnt represent the center necessarilly. It could represent you for all intents and purposes. It merely denotes a point of reference with locality in the universe from which to base your measurements to other entities. Space itself has no locality because it is inherently empty, or rather... it is raw, untapped capacity. So infinite space doesn't necessarily mean that locality is impossible, it only means there is no center.

It is possible to have a limited infinity... thats the point I'm trying to make. Although your divided universe is infinite, it might not extend to infinity in all directions, merely because of the arbitrary division you've made. If you don't want to make arbitrary divisions, and rather systematically divide the universe, then all you have now is a system for mapping the universe en masse, using certain entities as references (like... galaxies, nebulae, etc.). Because space is infinite, relative movement within the space is meaningless, because there really is no relative movement since space extends infinitely in all directions anyway.

If what you said is true Matt, then I can't exist because there is an infinite amount of space (or rather, untapped capacity) in the universe. That just doesn't make sense to me.
 
Sean:

Infinity is the same concept as eternity. Eternity isn't millions and trillions of years - it isn't time at all. It is outside the dimension we know as space/time.

You cannot measure time where time does not exist.

The universe is measurable - we've all shown you that a few times. From Planck length up, it has measurement. There is a finite end to this.

ANYTHING THAT CAN BE MEASURED IS FINITE. Show me one thing that is infinite that can be measured.

Reflect on this.
 
Time can, and is, measured. But I'm willing to bet that time is infinite in extent. It may be altered or distorted by forces in the universe, but I believe that it extends into infinity (as you said, eternity).

Technically, eternity is time represented by x, where eternity = lim(x->infinity) Infinity is not being measured here. Distance (in which space exists) is measured between references in a sea of unending space. Matter may not extend into the farthest reaches of space. At that point, space and only space would exist, extending into infinity, but without reference. At that point, measurement is impossible, unless you exist within that space... then you're existence is a basis for measurement, but only to another detectable reference point.

I don't understand why you guys aren't seeing my point.

To clarify... I'm not saying that we can discover, for example, some object that is infinitely far from us. I am saying that even the object most far from us can still be measured as a certain distance, but beyond even that object, space extends forever as untapped capacity for physical existence. Objects can move freely into this space for an infinite distance, but they will always have a finite distance from your reference. The only thing is that this finite distance will increase infinitely, meaning that it will always increase. This is the same concept as an infinitely long decimal number, such as pi. It is a finite measurement that has the capacity to extend to infinity.
 
Last edited:
Another way to prove the universe is finite is to use the second law of thermodynamics - Entropy. Entropy is the concept that the energy to do work IN A CLOSED SYSTEM is always decreasing.

On a small scale, I could throw a rubber ball in a racquetball court, and eventually it would stop bouncing, then roll to a stop, and finally remain motionless. The court is a closed system. The energy was the initial toss.

The universe shows many parallels to this analogy. The big bang occurred, and that was the initial charge of energy. Everything is now slowing down!

Look a the speed of light - we once thought this was a constant measurement, but the further back you go, the faster it gets:

  • In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
  • In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
  • In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
  • In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)
It is slowing because of Entropy (my theory), and thus the universe MUST be a closed system. And thus finite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top