Question Edgeless universe?

[Helio]

Special relativity says nothing can travel faster than light speed in the cosmos.

Yes, but it helps me a little to think that we can't measure anything traveling through space to have a speed greater than c, but your point is an important one especially since SR came about because Einstein fixed the speed of light to have one and only one speed. He original called his model the "Invariant Theory" because it allowed the laws of physics to be the same regardless of the inertial frame chosen. It was the news media, apparently, that favored "Relativity" and he accepted it.

Surprisingly, it takes only knowledge of the formula the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz stated to produce the equation for time dilation. [Well, assuming the Scarecrow would have stated it correctly since he (ie the script writer) goofed, but he had just gotten a new brain after all. ]

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.

Yes, though a lesser speed used would not raise the issue that it would take infinite energy for us to reach the full speed of light.

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.

Agreed.

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.

That's helpful to note since the speed of space has not bounds. It is interesting that objects traveling away from us faster than the speed off light at extreme distances can still be observed, though I suspect it less than 3xc.

 

[David-J-Franks]

I have a friend (not myself, I hasten to add) that has asked me to raise this point.

QUOTE
If the Universe is defined as all that there is, then there cannot be more than one of them. If there were to be such a plurality then they would have to attract a different description. Vide the Universe would be made up of x number of 'your' galactiverses. If you (or anyone else) are going to start changing the English Language, or redefining fundamentals then it will lead to the sort of havoc displayed in this thread.
QUOTE

Don't shoot the messenger. I am only the postman.

Hands up, I'm guilty of changing the English language. I could see no other way of expressing my theories.

Please all look again at my post No 25 above. It makes it clear that I changed the use of universe to universes, and I've invented the phrase 'The infinite' to make it clear that this is now my new definition for 'everything that is'. So definitely no confusion or 'havoc' here. I think post 25 expresses all my ideas very clearly. I think everyone here understood exactly what I was doing/meaning, or there wouldn't have been these protests. Your friend understands my dilemma as he/she could not correct me using the English language, and so had, rightly, invented the word 'galactiverses'. so until that word gets into the dictionary, I'll continue to use 'universes'.

I believe the havoc displayed in this thread has more to do with peoples misunderstanding of edges and boundaries, and whether we exist in 2D, 3D or 4D space, whether this space is flat, curved or closed and whether we exist in 3D spheres or are walking around on the surface of them and returning to the same place!!!

I ask you all here, How else could I have expressed my Ideas?

 

[Helio]

I favor calling the universe the "observable universe" because that is not only what we see but it's all that we can conceivably see. No one has offered a way to look outside our universe. Science disallows untestable ideas and, as far as I've seen, there is no test for other universes, regardless of how certain mathematical representations may seem. They could be right, admittedly, and theories are born from suppositions.

The infinite universe was the original model for the universe including when Einstein first addressed it. It was known as the Static model (theory). When he presented his GR (General Relativity) theory (1915), things took a turn for the better. Einstein's model for the universe, however, could not explain recently discovered redshifts in the spectrum of stars. De Sitter's GR model could but his model came with no matter in the universe, ug. It was Lemaitre that saw the problem in both models and saw the solution - expansion. This also solved other problems with an infinite model including Olber's Paradox, where the universe should have no darkness.

 

[Catastrophe]

David
"I ask you all here, How else could I have expressed my Ideas?"

First. It is not necessary to change the English language, Stick with universe to mean 'the lot'. Think of universal - what does that mean? total, complete, all embracing - not dictionary words, just off the top of my head. We have a good, well established, accepted word. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Second. Given Universe (surely it deserves a capital letter - so long as there is only one) then change the smaller bits to multiverses - No, unfortunately this has acquired an undesirable secondary meaning. Fractiverses? Compoverses? Don't know = not my problem, but I'll think about it. Shame about multiverses.

Helio
I am in agreement with large tracts of your posts but not this one, sadly/
To limit "all there is" to "all that I can observe" does not sit well with me. For one thing it is relative to the observer. Each person's universe (small u) is relative to that person. Einstein would love it!

Sorry. without changing the English language, Universe is Universe.
Derivation: Uni means ONE. One Universe. Lots of bits. Call 'em summit else.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio
On reading the rest of that post I cannot see any reason to change my position. Universe is not dependant on one puny creature (nothing personal intended ) on one puny planet in one puny Solar System being the sole arbiter of the extent of the Universe (capital U).

 

[Catastrophe]

Hands up, I'm guilty of changing the English language. I could see no other way of expressing my theories.

Please all look again at my post No 25 above. It makes it clear that I changed the use of universe to universes, and I've invented the phrase 'The infinite' to make it clear that this is now my new definition for 'everything that is'. So definitely no confusion or 'havoc' here. I think post 25 expresses all my ideas very clearly. I think everyone here understood exactly what I was doing/meaning, or there wouldn't have been these protests. Your friend understands my dilemma as he/she could not correct me using the English language, and so had, rightly, invented the word 'galactiverses'. so until that word gets into the dictionary, I'll continue to use 'universes'.

I believe the havoc displayed in this thread has more to do with peoples misunderstanding of edges and boundaries, and whether we exist in 2D, 3D or 4D space, whether this space is flat, curved or closed and whether we exist in 3D spheres or are walking around on the surface of them and returning to the same place!!!

I ask you all here, How else could I have expressed my Ideas?

David Your post #25 includes:

QUOTE
First of all, I would like to suggest that the dictionary definition of the universe, ie "it is everything there is", is out of date, I suggest it was thought of well before the big bang model. This definition doesn't allow for multiple or infinite other universes or multiverse theories etc. So, I would like to add to this thread with some of my own personal ideas.
QUOTE

Sorry, mate but you are not the arbiter of the English language.
Your quote above begs the question. This definition doesn't allow for
QUOTE
multiple or infinite other universes or multiverse theories etc
Quote
You are trying to include new concepts within an existing definition where they cannot fit. This fictional book contains real places so it cannot be fictional unless the fictional characters live in non-fictional places not described in the book. See what I mean. My statement is just nonsense.
Not all of the post!?!!

 

[Helio]

To limit "all there is" to "all that I can observe" does not sit well with me. For one thing it is relative to the observer. Each person's universe (small u) is relative to that person. Einstein would love it!

That's reasonable. Things, especially religion and philosophy, are legitimate realms that help define things in the universe that are outside the science realm. Also, I believe strongly that love is real but we have no instruments that can produce reliable values when testing individuals.

If a person can observe something in such a way that can be measurable, then science can address it. If a person "observes" something that can't be tested, it certainly could be real and science could make one supposition more favorable than another, but they will remain suppositional unless a means of testing can be found, even in principle and not physically going out and doing the test (Gedanken Experiments as Einstein called them).

Sorry. without changing the English language, Universe is Universe.
Derivation: Uni means ONE. One Universe. Lots of bits. Call 'em summit else.

I don't really understand the controversy that seems to be in this thread regarding this. Is it just semantics?

Your views of any of my statements are most welcome, btw, for anything I post. They also serve to help me as well as others in making things more clear. I consider myself just an Average Joe, though I have read a lot over the years.

 

[Catastrophe]

That's reasonable. Things, especially religion and philosophy, are legitimate realms that help define things in the universe that are outside the science realm. Also, I believe strongly that love is real but we have no instruments that can produce reliable values when testing individuals.

If a person can observe something in such a way that can be measurable, then science can address it. If a person "observes" something that can't be tested, it certainly could be real and science could make one supposition more favorable than another, but they will remain suppositional unless a means of testing can be found, even in principle and not physically going out and doing the test (Gedanken Experiments as Einstein called them).

I don't really understand the controversy that seems to be in this thread regarding this. Is it just semantics?

Your views of any of my statements are most welcome, btw, for anything I post. They also serve to help me as well as others in making things more clear. I consider myself just an Average Joe, though I have read a lot over the years.

I don't really understand the controversy that seems to be in this thread regarding this. Is it just semantics?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.

 

[Catastrophe]

That's reasonable. Things, especially religion and philosophy, are legitimate realms that help define things in the universe that are outside the science realm. Also, I believe strongly that love is real but we have no instruments that can produce reliable values when testing individuals.

If a person can observe something in such a way that can be measurable, then science can address it. If a person "observes" something that can't be tested, it certainly could be real and science could make one supposition more favorable than another, but they will remain suppositional unless a means of testing can be found, even in principle and not physically going out and doing the test (Gedanken Experiments as Einstein called them).

I don't really understand the controversy that seems to be in this thread regarding this. Is it just semantics?

Your views of any of my statements are most welcome, btw, for anything I post. They also serve to help me as well as others in making things more clear. I consider myself just an Average Joe, though I have read a lot over the years.

Your views of any of my statements are most welcome, btw, for anything I post. They also serve to help me as well as others in making things more clear. I consider myself just an Average Joe, though I have read a lot over the years.

 

[David-J-Franks]

I am not supposed to be spending a lot of time on PCs. This is my problem - not yours. If you would please kindly bear with me. I cannot cope with sheets of writing. If there is an outstanding question, please just ask me in a few lines. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance.

I hope I made one point clear. Unless there is to be a lot of chaos and confusion, there can only be one Universe. Change its name if it helps to the all. Stop using the word universe. There is the all and there are the unibits if you like. No universes No chaos. No confusion.

For clarification please see Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski.

The use of the word 'universes' is prolific and rampant among all these top publications and by the top world-class scientists speaking in them. Google has an endless list of such quotes by famous people.

It's an established word, every one knows what it means, there is no chaos and confusion.

If it's good enough for Stephen Hawking and Nobel prizewinner Jim Peebles, it's good enough for me.

https://www.sciencealert.com/stephe...paper-theory-on-eternal-inflation-multiverses

"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," Hawking explained.

"The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested."

From today's New scientist by;

Nobel prizewinner Jim Peebles, Albert Einstein professor of science, emeritus, at Princeton University.

"Then there are those other great challenges for modern cosmology, such as explaining precisely what happened at the big bang. The elegant idea of ballooning cosmic inflation smooths out some otherwise inexplicable wrinkles in that story, and suggests the big bang may have spawned a multiverse of universes beyond our own. But again, that idea lacks evidence."

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...but-still-not-the-final-answer/#ixzz6OVJuTLsj

https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html

https://www.newscientist.com/question/are-there-multiple-universes/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ut-there-in-a-parallel-universe/#47ce2c37634f

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...el-universes-be-physically-real/#58c0904f4d3f

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160318-why-there-might-be-many-more-universes-besides-our-own

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160318-why-there-might-be-many-more-universes-besides-our-own

https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

https://www.newsweek.com/there-may-be-infinite-universes-and-infinite-versions-you-351675

https://www.newsweek.com/there-may-be-infinite-universes-and-infinite-versions-you-351675

https://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/1329...-parallel-universes-may-exist?t=1591367704226

Best Wishes, David

 

[Catastrophe]

Your views of any of my statements are most welcome, btw, for anything I post. They also serve to help me as well as others in making things more clear. I consider myself just an Average Joe, though I have read a lot over the years.

My opinion of your statements (notice not you) has just sunk near to zero K. Don't be surprised. You are without doubt one of the most intelligent people I have encountered. Hence my abhorrence of your description "just an Average Joe," If I am that wrong, then that reflects very badly on me. That is what I am very uncomfortable with.
Are you USA?

 

[Catastrophe]

The use of the word 'universes' is prolific and rampant among all these top publications and by the top world-class scientists speaking in them. Google has an endless list of such quotes by famous people.

It's an established word, every one knows what it means, there is no chaos and confusion.

If it's good enough for Stephen Hawking and Nobel prizewinner Jim Peebles, it's good enough for me.

https://www.sciencealert.com/stephe...paper-theory-on-eternal-inflation-multiverses

"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," Hawking explained.

"The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested."

From today's New scientist by;

Nobel prizewinner Jim Peebles, Albert Einstein professor of science, emeritus, at Princeton University.

"Then there are those other great challenges for modern cosmology, such as explaining precisely what happened at the big bang. The elegant idea of ballooning cosmic inflation smooths out some otherwise inexplicable wrinkles in that story, and suggests the big bang may have spawned a multiverse of universes beyond our own. But again, that idea lacks evidence."

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...but-still-not-the-final-answer/#ixzz6OVJuTLsj

https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html

https://www.newscientist.com/question/are-there-multiple-universes/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ut-there-in-a-parallel-universe/#47ce2c37634f

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...el-universes-be-physically-real/#58c0904f4d3f

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160318-why-there-might-be-many-more-universes-besides-our-own

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160318-why-there-might-be-many-more-universes-besides-our-own

https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

https://www.newsweek.com/there-may-be-infinite-universes-and-infinite-versions-you-351675

https://www.newsweek.com/there-may-be-infinite-universes-and-infinite-versions-you-351675

https://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/1329...-parallel-universes-may-exist?t=1591367704226

Best Wishes, David

Tough. I am correct. They should go back to English 'O' Level whatever else they may have done.
Best wishes, Eric

 

[Catastrophe]

"The use of the word 'universes' is prolific and rampant"

So are coronavirus, vd and racism.
Doesn't make them correct.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Change its name if it helps to the all.

If you look backpack to post 25 you will see I've already invented the phrase 'The Infinite' for 'everything that is' in my theory. This enables me to relegate the word universe and universes to finite objects which exist in 'The Infinite'.

Thanks for your suggestion 'the all' but I'm proud of my expression.

 

[Helio]

https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html

If I may just pick one to use for an example. There are indeed brilliant scientists, including Tegmark and others, who are fine with the idea that their views represent legitimate theories.

But consider these statements made in that nice article...

Is such a multiverse merely speculation? Certainly it is not as widely accepted by scientists as quantum physics or the Standard Model of particle physics. But it is motivated by real science, and it does follow from the equations of cosmology that optimally explain the origin and structure of our universe.

[my bold] A lot of things can be motivated by real science, but motivation isn't on the list of scientific tests. Astrology "optimally explained" things for a while as well.

If we are to keep science separate from pseudo science and metaphysics, we must have clear lines drawn to distinguish the boundaries between them. A scientific theory requires a prediction that can be falsified, if by principle only. Further, a theory cannot be proven, but falsified. Galileo falsified the Ptolemy model when he discovered Venus has both crescent and gibbous phases. But his claims he had "proven" the Copernican were also falsified (i.e. tides). [I am a big fan of Galileo, FWIW. ]

In fact, in some of Linde's mathematical models, cosmic inflation must be expanding eternally and chaotically.

Mathematical models are great but observable tests are necessary to make them scientific models.

What's more, once these new pocket universes are born, they are totally and forever disconnected from every other universe (including ours).

So, we must go on trust and faith?

It's reasonable that those who are brilliant and have great math abilities to address these remarkable ideas are going to promote their views. That's fine with me, but I do respect the SM (Scientific Method) that requires that a sound scientific theory must be falsifiable.

 

[Helio]

My opinion of your statements (notice not you) has just sunk near to zero K. Don't be surprised. You are without doubt one of the most intelligent people I have encountered. Hence my abhorrence of your description "just an Average Joe," If I am that wrong, then that reflects very badly on me. That is what I am very uncomfortable with.

Well, that's another claim that's falsifiable. *wink* Just give me more time and I will do so. Though I would have to remove over 45 years of dust off my degree to read it, I think it says Bachelor of Science on it and it was for mech. engineering. So I certainly can't go toe-to-toe with a PhD physicist but I do enjoy helping others with the topics where I think I can contribute.

Are you USA?

Yes, so don't let my grammar fool you, though it has improved a great deal over the last few years.

 

[Catastrophe]

So falsify the use of the English language.

It seems to be the language used for generations. So some think it should be Finnish or Swahili. Tough. It is English. I am lucky that it is one of my three best languages.

Just read the last. Nota bene. I would never have guessed. I had to ask. Your English is impeccable.. I know nothing about US universities but I would guess NE USA. Wife says Harvard or Yale. She is History I am Science.

 

[David-J-Franks]

I clearly cannot condone jiggling around with the English language. I believe that David knows that I am not being aggressive or provocative. If we are going to start redefining our language, we need common assent. We cannot say "Joe Bloggs said last year that the £ sterling henceforth will be defined as one penny". No offence intended to whomever decided that "everything that is" is no longer applicable to some theories. but how is the population of the English speaking world going to know this and on what authority is this alleged change made?

Sorry. THE Universe is clearly everything that is by definition and it will remain so until I receive some official notification of the change

I think the English language is in a permanent state of evolution. If people had not been jiggling around with the English language. We would all still be talking like Will Shakespear or King Henry the Eighth!

Many words in the dictionary sometimes have 2 or more definitions, some of these have in brackets by the side, saying "old use" so things do change. (I'm hoping the word universe will one day have such a note added to it, and a plural added )

If we are going to start redefining our language, we need common assent.

I believe it is a common assent when famous scientists and publications use it.

No offence intended to whomever decided that "everything that is" is no longer applicable to some theories.

I did not quite say this, I said the current definition of the universe ("everything that is") is no longer applicable to some theories. The"everything that is" for the 'eternal inflation' model now becomes 'the multiverse' and each universe in this, is now called a pocket or bubble 'universe' - (which is not 'everything there is' in this theory).

Sorry. THE Universe is clearly everything that is by definition and it will remain so until I receive some official notification of the change

In fact it looks to me like the phrase 'THE Universe' is meaningless in the above theory as 'everything there is' is now called 'the multiverse'.

 

[David-J-Franks]

The correct way to describe our enviroment in the eternal inflation theory would now be to say 'OUR universe' which would be one of an infinite number of other pocket or bubble universes, and so not 'everything there is'.

 

[Kabone]

"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 A and C are 2 light years apart, and both are moving towards each other at light speed, how many light years until A collides with C?
If A and C are 2 light years apart, and C is stationary, and A is moving toward C at light speed, how many light years until A collides with C?

If light is moving toward a destination at light speed, but the distance between the light and the destination is increasing >1c, how would an observer on the destination see the light?

 

[David-J-Franks]

Yes, but it helps me a little to think that we can't measure anything traveling through space to have a speed greater than c, but your point is an important one especially since SR came about because Einstein fixed the speed of light to have one and only one speed. He original called his model the "Invariant Theory" because it allowed the laws of physics to be the same regardless of the inertial frame chosen. It was the news media, apparently, that favored "Relativity" and he accepted it.

Surprisingly, it takes only knowledge of the formula the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz stated to produce the equation for time dilation. [Well, assuming the Scarecrow would have stated it correctly since he (ie the script writer) goofed, but he had just gotten a new brain after all. ]

Yes, though a lesser speed used would not raise the issue that it would take infinite energy for us to reach the full speed of light.


Agreed.

That's helpful to note since the speed of space has not bounds. It is interesting that objects traveling away from us faster than the speed off light at extreme distances can still be observed, though I suspect it less than 3xc.

I think that's because the light we see from them now, was emitted when they were a lot closer to us billions of years ago.

 

[Catastrophe]

I speak and write English. I am English.
Someone (remember said they thought I had an English Degree from Oxford) approved of my English as published by Marcel Dekker

QUOTE
Marcel Dekker was a journal and encyclopedia publishing company with editorial boards found in New York, New York. Dekker encyclopedias are now published by CRC Press, part of the Taylor and Francis publishing group.
QUOTE
.
I will not further that unless, of course, you wish to.

 

[Helio]

So falsify the use of the English language.

It seems to be the language used for generations. So some think it should be Finnish or Swahili. Tough. It is English. I am lucky that it is one of my three best languages.

Just read the last. Nota bene. I would never have guessed. I had to ask. Your English is impeccable.. I know nothing about US universities but I would guess NE USA. Wife says Harvard or Yale. She is History I am Science.

You're very kind, but I've been in Texas my entire life. My wife is from Ohio. My online experiences with other amateur and regular scientists has altered my style of speech, and all for the better, trust me.

Where are you from? I wish I knew other languages, though I know a tiny bit of Spanish/Tex-Mex.

May I assume you both combine and have a great deal of knowledge regarding the history of science? I actually enjoy the history of astronomy probably more than anything else. It's remarkable how we know what we know and by whom we have learned it. [I enjoy some of Owen Gingerich's work (History of astronomy prof. at Harvard), though he may be retired by now.]

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Mass continues in a stone cold universe.
Then a infinite dying universes eventually propagates infinite mass to all other universes.
Easier solution is a collision with the neighbors universes that stops expansion.
Return to sender
Time crunch problem on big crunch to start it again, or collision of neighbors to start it again.

Really have to have a solution that doesn't initiate infinite mass or infinite space in one region, doing either of them will result in the universe itself not being able to exist in the first place. Got to be a very simple E property that allows a universe to exist at all, a reason for it and reason it cant go on forever. Break it down to an exchange of E, then a balance of E then the universe makes for a simple what when why how reason for start and end and restart.
Starting from just a potential energy of empty space is a very good solution to most of the riddles.

 

[Catastrophe]

You're very kind, but I've been in Texas my entire life. My wife is from Ohio. My online experiences with other amateur and regular scientists has altered my style of speech, and all for the better, trust me.

Where are you from? I wish I knew other languages, though I know a tiny bit of Spanish/Tex-Mex.

May I assume you both combine and have a great deal of knowledge regarding the history of science? I actually enjoy the history of astronomy probably more than anything else. It's remarkable how we know what we know and by whom we have learned it. [I enjoy some of Owen Gingerich's work (History of astronomy prof. at Harvard), though he may be retired by now.]

I have started a conversation with you - see 'envelope'. Briefly, your English is really phenomenal. 40 to 50 years ago I was travelling all over Europe and sometimes to US and Canada for 2-3 weeks at a time. I conducted business meetings in French and German so those were pretty good, but they are gone now. Will not chat here as I was banned once for 2 days for this.