We have an Infinite Universe that is continuously expanding...
Trying to catch up with this thread, yours is next. Thanks for bringing the eternal inflation topic up, it reminded me that in my above posts I meant to add that I do not subscribe to this theory. I think eternal inflation is one of the wackiest 'something from nothing' theories I've read. I was merely quoting it to demonstrate to Catastrophe and others that the dictionary definition of 'The Universe' - that it is 'everything that is', is not applicable for some theories. In eternal inflation and other theories, our universe is clearly not 'everything that is'. Here's a quote from that article;David-J-Franks, Catastrophe, et al. I see references to eternal inflation and the multiverse. Here is a 14-May report some may find interesting. The Founder of Cosmic Inflation Theory on Cosmology's Next Big Ideas, "Physicist Alan Guth, the father of cosmic inflation theory, describes emerging ideas about where our universe comes from, what else is out there, and what caused it to exist in the first place."
The brief report has some interesting graphs. This *origin model* uses repulsive gravity force *in the beginning* and space expanding > 1E+20 c. There are those in science who live for theory, I enjoy the practical side of the scientific method. What we can observe and verify like Galileo could show others the tiny lights moving around Jupiter when debating the geocentric astronomy teachers. Quantum mechanics has verifiable observations based upon experiments conducted in laboratories, so does the heliocentric solar system astronomy. I do not consider that inflation, multiverse, and eternal inflation theories or string theory is on the same scientific level of verification (95+% confidence level for example) as particle experiments in QM or heliocentric solar system astronomy or for example, exoplanet studies.---Rod
Mass continues in a stone cold universe.Trying to catch up with this thread, yours is next. Thanks for bringing the eternal inflation topic up, it reminded me that in my above posts I meant to add that I do not subscribe to this theory. I think eternal inflation is one of the wackiest 'something from nothing' theories I've read. I was merely quoting it to demonstrate to Catastrophe and others that the dictionary definition of 'The Universe' - that it is 'everything that is', is not applicable for some theories. In eternal inflation and other theories, our universe is clearly not 'everything that is'. Here's a quote from that article;
"The theory of eternal inflation says that once inflation starts, it never completely stops. Rather, it ends in places, and universes form there. We call them pocket universes because they’re not everything that exists. We are living in one of these pocket universes. And even though the pocket universes keep forming, there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession.
Each individual pocket universe will presumably ultimately die, in the sense that it will run out of energy and cool down. But in the big picture of all the pocket universes, life would not only go on eternally, but there’d be more and more of it every instant."
"there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession."
This is just pure magic, if he's going to introduce such a magical material he should say something about it. Introducing magic materials like this could solve all of sciences mysteries overnight.
To me I see A and C separating by 2000m/s. The number of intermediate points chops that number down. I don't see intermediate points increasing the speed of separation. This is another problem I think I have. A point on the exact opposite side would be moving away at only the rate at which the universe is expanding. Because on the exact opposite side any movement would be moving toward us and we see everything moving away. That would lend to the theory that I believe Catastrophe mentioned that nothing is moving. It's the distances between that are getting larger and hence has the appearance of movement.And easy way to demonstrate this is to imagine three points, A, B, and C., in a straight line, equidistant apart. From A to B is 1 billion miles, from B to C is 1 billion miles. Then, from A to C is 2 billion miles. If A is moving away from B at 1000m/s, and B is moving away from C at 1000m/s, then C is moving away from B at 1000m/s,, but moving away from A at 2000m/s. The further away a give point is, the faster it is moving relative to the observer.
First, can I remind you that I could only find paid-for versions of the article: "Have we found the edge of the Universe? All About Space May 2020 pp 40-46, do you know of a free source. Otherwise, I can't comment on those topics."So why don't you think there is a boundary (edge) and a beyond for the universe?"
I will now do my best to answer your question in a polite and constructive manner. By that, I am conveying that it will be polite, and I will try to answer it in an understandable way.
As you will see, there are many views in the article quoted. All about Space, Issue 104. There are unknowable things in the Universe and this may be one of them. My personal view is that there are problems of semantics. Our vocabularies (I include all humanity's) are incapable of describing certain issues. This may be one of them and, I believe this was the root of our communication difficulties. I would point you here to the science of General Semantics as introduced in Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski.
You mention straight lines and meeting yourself etcetera. I will not go back to my view that if you propose impossible starting conditions, such as being at the edge of the Universe (Who knows where that is, etc,) you will not get productive answers,. Take that off the table.
Let us assume you are at Quito. Your 'straight line' is around the Equator, governed by gravity. If you take the flatlander analogy, this means that you do return to your starting position - Quito. If you apply that to the Universe (or our universe, if you prefer - that is irrelevant in this example), and if the Universe is circular then you will return to the same place Not mentioning that there is no way whatsoever to know where that place is / was. Meeting yourself in Quito is not actually possible, but you could have left a marker saying "I was here". So your argument stands, there. Going around 'our universe' there is no way to identify that location.
Let me go back to the Quito analogy. If we were flatlanders, and all this stuff is widely discussed and available, we would behave and return exactly as you described.
Now, to the flatlander, there is no 3rd space dimension. He (or she, hereinafter assumed) has no appreciation of what we call our 3rd space dimension. There is no edge to his universe.
Whilst not engaging in the flatlander assumption, I quote from the article referenced above:
There is no current reason to suspect that the Universe ends with our cosmic horizon, just as we know that the Earth doesn’t end just because the rest of the planet is hidden from view by its curvature.
If we return to our flatlander analogy, we can say that the flatlander will know of the existence of the surface of the sphere, which will be the whole discoverable universe to him (granted it continues in a 3rd time dimension).
We know that the flatlander has no spatial sense to discover a non-existant (to him) 3rd space dimension. He may face the same dilemma that we face, namely that if his universe is expanding (as ours may be) then distances on the surface will increase, measured by his local measuring sticks.
We do not know why this happens. If everything were to expand, including our rulers, then our measurements of the Universe would show no expansion. If we measure a table in our living room and it measures 4 feet and it expands x 2, our rulers tell us 8 feet. If the ruler itself also expanded x 2, then the table would measure 4 new (or x 2 expanded) feet.
Now, don’t forget that the flatlander cannot perceive a dimension perpendicular to his sphere or, more correctly, to the surface of his sphere. He cannot perceive inside or outside that surface. (Leaving aside his time dimension). If we are super beings with that extra perception , we can say that his universe is expanding - the radius of his universe is increasing as well as the area of his universe. His universe has no edge. He is totally unware of expansion perpendicular to his surface.
His universe is limited to the surface of a sphere which has no edge.
If you, as a superbeing, can postulate that his universe as seen by us has an edge which is the two-dimensional surface of his world. I would not consider this assertion to be safe – others might. Please see Korzybski below.
Coming back to the flatlander, whilst we can postulate ‘an outside’ which allows expansion along the radius as well as expansion of the area (being his entire universe) he does not have the sensory equipment or understanding to operate mentally.
If you now postulate that we are living in a closed universe, we have directly analogous limitations. There may be expansion of the Universe in some postulated dimension that we do not have the sensory equipment to understand, and some super being with extra senses may say that there is ‘an outside’ into which our Universe is impinging but these observations are not open to us and we cannot perceive an edge or an outside. It is meaningless to contrive some combination of words which endeavours to circumvent this.
It is a shame that General Semantics is not a compulsory subject in schools. Its catch phrase is The map not the territory. In this case it would be immediately visible to the GS student that to use words to describe an imaginary event is futile. The map (the words, the verbal description) IS not the territory (the reality). You cannot create a reality just by wrapping words around a verbal assertion.
"So why don't you think there is a boundary (edge) and a beyond for the universe?"
Such a thing is unknowable to any being with the limitations imposed upon us by our physical makeup.
Any such enquiry is exacerbated by introducing assumptions of conditions unattainable in reality e.g., reaching an assumed edge of the Universe and possibly returning to it.
I hope you will agree that I have taken a lot of time writing the above, and that it contains no criticism (explicit or implicit) of your good self. My motivation has been to explain and reply to your final stated question. I hope that I have succeeded in this and that you may have benefited from my efforts. Nevertheless, if I have not achieved that result, then I am sorry for my failure and I am willing to do my best to answer any further points you may wish to raise. The offer is of course open to any other members who may wish to join in.
With sincere best wishes
It wasn't me mentioning straight lines and me meeting myself, it was Kabone. I don't believe in such ideas.You mention straight lines and meeting yourself etcetera. I will not go back to my view that if you propose impossible starting conditions, such as being at the edge of the Universe (Who knows where that is, etc,) you will not get productive answers,. Take that off the table.
I fully understand your earth closed space analogy. I think you have confused my beliefs with the ideas expressed by Kabone. I don't believe in a closed or curved universe. It is an excellent analogy for what Kabone is trying to say. In fact, your descriptive use of the English language is amazing, did you study English at Oxford or something?Nevertheless, if I have not achieved that result, then I am sorry for my failure and I am willing to do my best to answer any further points you may wish to raise.
I appreciate it, It also takes me a long time to write my posts, I fully understand. So, I thought it deserved a considered replyI hope you will agree that I have taken a lot of time writing the above,
Cat is taking some time off. Please be patient. Thank you.First, can I remind you that I could only find paid-for versions of the article: "Have we found the edge of the Universe? All About Space May 2020 pp 40-46, do you know of a free source. Otherwise, I can't comment on those topics.
So onto this It wasn't me mentioning straight lines and me meeting myself, it was Kabone. I don't believe in such ideas.I fully understand your earth closed space analogy. I think you have confused my beliefs with the ideas expressed by Kabone. I don't believe in a closed or curved universe. It is an excellent analogy for what Kabone is trying to say. In fact, your descriptive use of the English language is amazing, did you study English at Oxford or something?
To make clear, Im proposing, as from posts 25 and30 that:
"Our universe started with a finite size, it has a finite rate of expansion and a finite age, so it must now have a finite size. I now treat the universe as an object. Objects exist in a space, they don't create all of space. I think the space our universe is in must be infinite, I call this space 'The Infinite'. So, I now see 'The Infinite' as 'everything there is'."
"Forgot to mention that if our universe is to be treated as an object, then it also has a centre. Having an edge and centre now means it does not comply with the cosmological principle ie that it's the same in all directions from here and the same from any other point in space"
My original question to you, post 44, was:
"I'm still puzzled why you think my statement "If it has a finite size there must be a beyond" is wrong. We live in a 3D space. If our universe started with a finite size, has a finite rate of expansion and finite age, then isn't it, as such, a finite 3D object? All 3D objects have an inside and outside or beyond (please don't mention klien bottles ). So why don't you think there is a boundary (edge) and a beyond for the universe?"
Is it know possible to answer, knowing that my perspective is for a flat universe, not a curved or closed one, and so, therefore, your earth analogy is no help in my case.
Sorry if I'm making all a bit boring and repetitive, I will fully understand if you don't want to continue.
I appreciate it, It also takes me a long time to write my posts, I fully understand. So, I thought it deserved a considered reply
I have a friend (not myself, I hasten to add) that has asked me to raise this point.One of the most mainstream ideas at the moment is the 'Eternal Inflation' model of the big bang. This has it that bubble universes are continuously popping into existence out of an eternal inflation field. OUR universe is one such bubble of an infinite number of other bubble universes.
There are many other theories which postulate multiple or infinite other universes.
According to this theory and others, and to continue in the tone of your post;
OUR universe is NOT complete it is NOT 'everything there is', so accordingly there IS a beyond.
The word now to describe 'everything there is' becomes 'The Multiverse' not 'The Universe'
Now take that on board, please
Sorry, still lost. I see it as if I'm anywhere between A and C, not just exactly in the middle, A and C are moving away from me at 1000m/s. What am I missing?One more time. If A is moving away from C at 2000m/s, and you are exactly in the middle, then each is moving away from you at 1000m/s. If D is in line 1billion miles from C, and moving directly away from C at 1000m/s, then D is moving away from you at 2000m/s, not 1000m/s. The further way it is, the faster it is moving relative to you.
A <– 1 billion miles –> B <– 1 billion miles –> C <– 1 billion miles –> D
I would say that you can calculate your distance from A and C, if you are not exactly at B. You are somewhere near to it, you can calculate it.I’ve been thinking about this a little more. How am I supposed to know how fast D is moving from C? I’m thinking all I can measure is how fast D is moving from me and how fast C is moving from me. If C and D are along the same line then the only
way I know how fast D is moving from C is the difference between the 2. And would there be a difference in your theory between a closed universe and other models?
Excellent conversation aside from a couple diversions, and thank you for the replies. Mr. Franks I thank you especially because you’re the only one who answered my question.
I think I have a problem with the closed/edgeless model. The shape from the articles is a donut. But it did get me thinking. If we see a galaxy way out there and it’s moving away from us faster than we could ever catch up, perhaps they best way to get there is to go in the opposite direction where it is instead moving toward us. If the galaxy is moving at light speed and we could move at light speed then the distance would be closing at 2c. That’s just my curiosity.
The problem I think I have with the closed model is if we see a star, why don’t we see the same star we we look in the opposite direction?
Special relativity says nothing can travel faster than light speed in the cosmos. If you are travelling at light speed toward something coming to you at light speed you will still see it as a combined seed of 1xc, not 2xc. Also, any independent observer watching both objects approach each other will still only see a maximum closing speed of 1xc. Things such as time and length dilation come into play. I don't know much about relativity but I think the essence of what I say is about right, if not the exact details. If you want to know more, look up Einstein's special theory of relativity. the only exception to this is that the expansion of space is not restricted to light speed. Even the space of the outer reaches of our observable universe is expanding faster than light speed, I think around 3xc (needs checking). This gives the impression that the outer galaxies are moving faster than light, but they are not moving through space, it's the space between them which is expanding faster than light.If the galaxy is moving at light speed and we could move at light speed then the distance would be closing at 2c.