Is it not obvious that the universe is infinite when you look at the alternative? Either we are one infinite universe of infinite size. Or we are just one of an infinite amount of universes which would make our universes a size zero. We exist and our universe has size therefore it must be the only one that exist.
Is our universe infinite?
- Thread starter binbots
- Start date
- Status
Just a little playing with infinity, consider infinity to the power of infinity. Now there can be an infinite number of infinite universes. Mind blowing. Consider any section of a infinite line. Depending on the scaling it can appear to be a point or infinitely long.
Yes the universe is infinite.
Years gone by we were limited by our instruments.
We thought our universe was limited to our MILKYWAY.
Later with deep field images we see beyond 13 billion light years with billions of galaxies.
James Web will allow us to see beyond.
We will resolve questions such as:
Is the Universe expanding?
Is the universe contracting?
Is the universe accelerating?
Do Black Holes (classical) exist?
How do Galaxies form?
Why do Stars live for billions of years?
What creates the hour glass nebulae formation?
Why do stars form red giants?
What evidence supports the BBT and I mean evidence?
CMB is it evidence supported by science?
We are at the steps of understanding.
Years gone by we were limited by our instruments.
We thought our universe was limited to our MILKYWAY.
Later with deep field images we see beyond 13 billion light years with billions of galaxies.
James Web will allow us to see beyond.
We will resolve questions such as:
Is the Universe expanding?
Is the universe contracting?
Is the universe accelerating?
Do Black Holes (classical) exist?
How do Galaxies form?
Why do Stars live for billions of years?
What creates the hour glass nebulae formation?
Why do stars form red giants?
What evidence supports the BBT and I mean evidence?
CMB is it evidence supported by science?
We are at the steps of understanding.
Two important questions in cosmology are: 1) Is our Universe infinite? 2) Is our Universe just one of countless number of the Universes?
Answer 1): With our modern telescopes we see 13.8 bn years age of the Universe. Since spacetime is expanding (stretching) the Universe is much bigger than 13.8 bn light years - having radius of 46 bn light years and diameter of 92 bn light years.
That is not infinite but the tendency is such: it looks like it is going towards infinity which will be reached after an eon has passed (here I refer to the Penrose "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" or CCC for short).
Hence, the answer to the first question is "no, the Universe is not infinite but it is going towards infinity". But for us humans - having our narrow perception and physical limits - Universe can easily be regarded as infinite.
What will happen with our Universe? I am closest to the opinion that it will dissipate one day in far, far future. We are talking about an eon - order of magnitude incomprehensible to our human senses. Galaxies will spread, stars will spend their nuclear fuel and collapse forming new stellar black hole in every constellation consequently pulling all the matter inside and compressing to the singularity, whatever matter is left, if there is any left, will decay. The Universe will turn to the dust and sprinkle around, space will cool down to the absolute zero, cosmos will reach the state of oblivion. From that state and out of quantum fluctuations new Universe(s) will be born extending the infinite and eternal cycle of cosmic births, deaths and re-births. Do not be depressed about this thought. We must not consider death as the end of existence but rather as a transition phase or dreaming. Just like humans sleep and wake, which both are natural occurances, Universe does also but on the majestic scale.
Answer 2): I believe it is. Why? Because it started from the infinitesimal size, smaller than atom, which means that quantum physics laws applied. And quantum physics speaks about superposition of all possible outcomes. I think that multiverses exist in the form of parallel realities, each in their own quantum frame and recorded on the temporal track visible only from the external (non-physical) point of the view. Of course, this is pure speculation but it looks most appealing to me. Other theories I find less attractive based on all evidence and observations gathered so far.
With kind regards,
Teo Klima
Answer 1): With our modern telescopes we see 13.8 bn years age of the Universe. Since spacetime is expanding (stretching) the Universe is much bigger than 13.8 bn light years - having radius of 46 bn light years and diameter of 92 bn light years.
That is not infinite but the tendency is such: it looks like it is going towards infinity which will be reached after an eon has passed (here I refer to the Penrose "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" or CCC for short).
Hence, the answer to the first question is "no, the Universe is not infinite but it is going towards infinity". But for us humans - having our narrow perception and physical limits - Universe can easily be regarded as infinite.
What will happen with our Universe? I am closest to the opinion that it will dissipate one day in far, far future. We are talking about an eon - order of magnitude incomprehensible to our human senses. Galaxies will spread, stars will spend their nuclear fuel and collapse forming new stellar black hole in every constellation consequently pulling all the matter inside and compressing to the singularity, whatever matter is left, if there is any left, will decay. The Universe will turn to the dust and sprinkle around, space will cool down to the absolute zero, cosmos will reach the state of oblivion. From that state and out of quantum fluctuations new Universe(s) will be born extending the infinite and eternal cycle of cosmic births, deaths and re-births. Do not be depressed about this thought. We must not consider death as the end of existence but rather as a transition phase or dreaming. Just like humans sleep and wake, which both are natural occurances, Universe does also but on the majestic scale.
Answer 2): I believe it is. Why? Because it started from the infinitesimal size, smaller than atom, which means that quantum physics laws applied. And quantum physics speaks about superposition of all possible outcomes. I think that multiverses exist in the form of parallel realities, each in their own quantum frame and recorded on the temporal track visible only from the external (non-physical) point of the view. Of course, this is pure speculation but it looks most appealing to me. Other theories I find less attractive based on all evidence and observations gathered so far.
With kind regards,
Teo Klima
It was in the 1400s when Cardinal Nikolas of Cusa introduced his views of an infinite universe. He felt this implied that the Earth wouldn't make much sense to claim itself as the center. This did stir some angst since it was counter to the dogma that held tightly to Aristotle's views. He held a few other modern views as well. He wrote a book about this and other reasoning, or lack thereof.
So, just the thought of infinity allowed the introdcution thoughts that didn't get moving properly until the Renaissance.
The discovery of a "beginning" suggests little need for an infinite universe. We have no way to say what is beyond the Universe, so the question is somewhat superfluous, as Einstein felt about the aether.
So, just the thought of infinity allowed the introdcution thoughts that didn't get moving properly until the Renaissance.
The discovery of a "beginning" suggests little need for an infinite universe. We have no way to say what is beyond the Universe, so the question is somewhat superfluous, as Einstein felt about the aether.
What is the definition of 'horizon'? And whatever might come out of, come from, emerge from points (0-point portals) of 'horizon'?
Some people try to tell the rest of us that there is no such thing as the breakdown (collapse) of relativity. Nothing in, nothing to, any such thing as a breakdown (collapse). Nothing beyond it since there is no such as a breakdown (collapse) of relativity.
Reminds me of the librarian in the Star Wars movie that said something to the effect, "If it isn't in our archives, it doesn't exist!"
An infinite Universe (U) has meaning in input / output to an infinity of finite universes (u). The observable horizon, always background horizon, of an always unobservable infinity may be construed as "beginning," a constant of "beginning" (the fabled 'Horn of Plenty'). And the return ((turn) (fr. 'trope') (gk. 'tropos')) is relentlessly always back to it.
Some people try to tell the rest of us that there is no such thing as the breakdown (collapse) of relativity. Nothing in, nothing to, any such thing as a breakdown (collapse). Nothing beyond it since there is no such as a breakdown (collapse) of relativity.
Reminds me of the librarian in the Star Wars movie that said something to the effect, "If it isn't in our archives, it doesn't exist!"
An infinite Universe (U) has meaning in input / output to an infinity of finite universes (u). The observable horizon, always background horizon, of an always unobservable infinity may be construed as "beginning," a constant of "beginning" (the fabled 'Horn of Plenty'). And the return ((turn) (fr. 'trope') (gk. 'tropos')) is relentlessly always back to it.
The parts within the universe cluster.
The infinite universe has infinite clusters.
The MILKYWAY clusters and has a merging galaxy and many small dwarf galaxies surrounding.
No sign of expansion, but the movement towards the centre.
M87 is the centre of our local group of galaxies over 200, gravity bound by M87.
My question is where is the expansion of the universe.
The infinite universe has infinite clusters.
The MILKYWAY clusters and has a merging galaxy and many small dwarf galaxies surrounding.
No sign of expansion, but the movement towards the centre.
M87 is the centre of our local group of galaxies over 200, gravity bound by M87.
My question is where is the expansion of the universe.
This is a question frequently asked, Is our Universe Infinite? Here is a report that may illustrate how difficult it is to verify a correct answer here
ARE THESE THE MOST DISTANT GALAXIES YET SEEN?, https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/are-these-the-most-distant-galaxies-yet-seen/
Apparently z=13.27 is now measured Reference papers, A Search for H-Dropout Lyman Break Galaxies at z~13, https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.09141, 21-Dec-2021, Are the Newly-Discovered z∼13 Drop-out Sources Starburst Galaxies or Quasars?, https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.00823, 03-Jan-2022.
My observation. Using this cosmology calculator, https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/tb_calclinks.cfm with defaults and z=13.27, age at z = 0.323 Gyr, look back distance or light time distance = 13.399 Gyr, and comoving radial distance = 33.420 Gly. 33.420 Gly is the 4D space position now showing expansion > c velocity, hyperspace coordinate. We cannot see 33.420 Gly out from earth according to Special Relativity. Using this cosmology calculator, https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php, z=13.27 with defaults, age of universe at z = 0.319685 Gyr, look back time distance = 13.5102 Gyr, comoving radial distance = 10232 Mpc = 3.3372321E+10 LY or 33.372 billion light years distance. Thus 4D space expanding faster than c velocity using hyperspace coordinate to explain such large redshifts using the BB model. Using 13.4 billion light-years distance, a galaxy with diameter 50,000 light years = 1.3E-2 arcminute or 0".78 angular size. Applying this to the comoving radial distance about 33.4 billion light years distant or 1.024048649E+10 pc, the galaxy size of 50,000 light years diameter close to 5E-3 arcminute angular size or close to 0.3 arcsecond size.
It is difficult to measure these sizes and distances The comoving radial distances need to be reported to the public too and show what happens when factored in to the discussion about distances from Earth. Post #4 says, "Answer 1): With our modern telescopes we see 13.8 bn years age of the Universe. Since spacetime is expanding (stretching) the Universe is much bigger than 13.8 bn light years - having radius of 46 bn light years and diameter of 92 bn light years."
That radius of 46 billion light years is from earth and uses the comoving radial distance for the CMBR z = 1100. This is 4D space with hyperspace coordinate expanding faster than c velocity and if any galaxies are in that volume of space, very tiny sizes, none that can be observed and measured today from earth.
ARE THESE THE MOST DISTANT GALAXIES YET SEEN?, https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/are-these-the-most-distant-galaxies-yet-seen/
Apparently z=13.27 is now measured
Reference papers, A Search for H-Dropout Lyman Break Galaxies at z~13, https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.09141, 21-Dec-2021, Are the Newly-Discovered z∼13 Drop-out Sources Starburst Galaxies or Quasars?, https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.00823, 03-Jan-2022.My observation. Using this cosmology calculator, https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/tb_calclinks.cfm with defaults and z=13.27, age at z = 0.323 Gyr, look back distance or light time distance = 13.399 Gyr, and comoving radial distance = 33.420 Gly. 33.420 Gly is the 4D space position now showing expansion > c velocity, hyperspace coordinate. We cannot see 33.420 Gly out from earth according to Special Relativity. Using this cosmology calculator, https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php, z=13.27 with defaults, age of universe at z = 0.319685 Gyr, look back time distance = 13.5102 Gyr, comoving radial distance = 10232 Mpc = 3.3372321E+10 LY or 33.372 billion light years distance. Thus 4D space expanding faster than c velocity using hyperspace coordinate to explain such large redshifts using the BB model. Using 13.4 billion light-years distance, a galaxy with diameter 50,000 light years = 1.3E-2 arcminute or 0".78 angular size. Applying this to the comoving radial distance about 33.4 billion light years distant or 1.024048649E+10 pc, the galaxy size of 50,000 light years diameter close to 5E-3 arcminute angular size or close to 0.3 arcsecond size.
It is difficult to measure these sizes and distances
The comoving radial distances need to be reported to the public too and show what happens when factored in to the discussion about distances from Earth. Post #4 says, "Answer 1): With our modern telescopes we see 13.8 bn years age of the Universe. Since spacetime is expanding (stretching) the Universe is much bigger than 13.8 bn light years - having radius of 46 bn light years and diameter of 92 bn light years."That radius of 46 billion light years is from earth and uses the comoving radial distance for the CMBR z = 1100. This is 4D space with hyperspace coordinate expanding faster than c velocity and if any galaxies are in that volume of space, very tiny sizes, none that can be observed and measured today from earth.
Last edited:
As I understand it, but open to correction, the co-moving distance is the ”proper distance“ divided by the z+1 redshift. I tried to find a reference that was clear on the definitions, but could not.
My view of their meaning, converting to georgeeze, is to invoke the magic wand to demonstrate the differences...
We use the wand to rewind expansion in time, say 1 billion years, then we freeze the expansion to allow us to measure the distance to a distant galaxy far, far away, call it Leia. If it’s 1 billion lyrs. by our measuring tape then the co-moving distance is 1 billion lyrs. to Leia. We now unfreeze the universe. The light from Leia being emitted at this point in time will now have to travel that 1 billion lyrs. but will take even longer as the universe is now expanding, thus the distance is growing; we are becoming increasingly farther from one another.
Once, back on Earth, we see this billion year old light, we freeze the universe again and remeasure. This new greater distance is known as the proper distance.
If this is correct, co-moving distances will always be less for earlier time, as will proper distances. But their difference is a result of expansion during the light’s travel time.
My view of their meaning, converting to georgeeze, is to invoke the magic wand to demonstrate the differences...
We use the wand to rewind expansion in time, say 1 billion years, then we freeze the expansion to allow us to measure the distance to a distant galaxy far, far away, call it Leia. If it’s 1 billion lyrs. by our measuring tape then the co-moving distance is 1 billion lyrs. to Leia. We now unfreeze the universe. The light from Leia being emitted at this point in time will now have to travel that 1 billion lyrs. but will take even longer as the universe is now expanding, thus the distance is growing; we are becoming increasingly farther from one another.
Once, back on Earth, we see this billion year old light, we freeze the universe again and remeasure. This new greater distance is known as the proper distance.
If this is correct, co-moving distances will always be less for earlier time, as will proper distances. But their difference is a result of expansion during the light’s travel time.
Last edited:
How many curves does the light have to travel to get here? How many corners does it have to go around? How much longer in time, space-time, does it take to go from point A to point Z -- through so many windings (curvatures) -- in the doing? In the light it looks straight-line, and virtually motionless, from point A to point Z, but in no way is it straight-line and without motion from point A to point B, to point C, to point . . ., to point X, to point Y, to point Z. If all the quanta-like chaos is collapsed and simplified in the light....This is a question frequently asked, Is our Universe Infinite? Here is a report that may illustrate how difficult it is to verify a correct answer here
ARE THESE THE MOST DISTANT GALAXIES YET SEEN?, https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/are-these-the-most-distant-galaxies-yet-seen/
Apparently z=13.27 is now measured
My observation. Using this cosmology calculator, https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/tb_calclinks.cfm with defaults and z=13.27, age at z = 0.323 Gyr, look back distance or light time distance = 13.399 Gyr, and comoving radial distance = 33.420 Gly. 33.420 Gly is the 4D space position now showing expansion > c velocity, hyperspace coordinate. We cannot see 33.420 Gly out from earth according to Special Relativity. Using this cosmology calculator, https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php, z=13.27 with defaults, age of universe at z = 0.319685 Gyr, look back time distance = 13.5102 Gyr, comoving radial distance = 10232 Mpc = 3.3372321E+10 LY or 33.372 billion light years distance. Thus 4D space expanding faster than c velocity using hyperspace coordinate to explain such large redshifts using the BB model. Using 13.4 billion light-years distance, a galaxy with diameter 50,000 light years = 1.3E-2 arcminute or 0".78 angular size. Applying this to the comoving radial distance about 33.4 billion light years distant or 1.024048649E+10 pc, the galaxy size of 50,000 light years diameter close to 5E-3 arcminute angular size or close to 0.3 arcsecond size.
It is difficult to measure these sizes and distances
That radius of 46 billion light years is from earth and uses the comoving radial distance for the CMBR z = 1100. This is 4D space with hyperspace coordinate expanding faster than c velocity and if any galaxies are in that volume of space, very tiny sizes, none that can be observed and measured today from earth.
And one more thing relevant, I think, Rod. The talk of expansion faster than the speed of light. I've realized C^2 ('C' squaring) isn't a figure actually greater than 'C', no matter the resulting math. So, radially in line, the distance 13.8 billion light years and 13.8 billion years, or whatever, is covered at exactly the speed of light. An overall expansion, if actually existing, that would overall, in-straight-line radially point A to point Z wherever, would mean one speed and one speed only: exactly the speed of light (never more than exactly that, never less than exactly that). As if the observable background universe exists at exactly the speed of light coming this way from 13.8 billion light years, 13.8 billion years, or whatever it may eventually be found to be, to 0 here.
The vortices and the matter expelled that are observed such as M87 do travel close to the speed of light, close to the base, at the end of the vortices it is drastically reduced.
Why does it leave the core at near the speed of light and why does it slow down.
What happens to the matter from the core and the changes it undergoes.
Why does it leave the core at near the speed of light and why does it slow down.
What happens to the matter from the core and the changes it undergoes.
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
IMHO, we can never scientifically answer the question in the title "is our universe infinite?"
We can theorise it is, but so? We can never prove it, for we can never observe it. And how exactly would gravity work with an infinite universe? What is the definition of an infinite universe, anyway? One can say that an infinite universe would mean infinite space and not necessarily infinite matter, for that would mean that the current understanding of the make-up of the universe makes no sense and gravity would break down. But, what exactly is space? Can we directly observe space itself? Is there any space without a quark in it? We can never scientifically answer it, for, we can never observe it. Just my honest opinion.
We can theorise it is, but so? We can never prove it, for we can never observe it. And how exactly would gravity work with an infinite universe? What is the definition of an infinite universe, anyway? One can say that an infinite universe would mean infinite space and not necessarily infinite matter, for that would mean that the current understanding of the make-up of the universe makes no sense and gravity would break down. But, what exactly is space? Can we directly observe space itself? Is there any space without a quark in it? We can never scientifically answer it, for, we can never observe it. Just my honest opinion.
Proof is in the putting.
Knowing with backed up data makes it more probable and with more info from James Webb, we shall be able to predict more.
Yes the universe is infinite.
There is over a few trillion galaxies that we are able to observe within deep field 14 billion light years., all surround.
Knowing with backed up data makes it more probable and with more info from James Webb, we shall be able to predict more.
Yes the universe is infinite.
There is over a few trillion galaxies that we are able to observe within deep field 14 billion light years., all surround.
"How exactly would gravity work with an infinite universe?" The easiest of all physics questions to answer, if one understands the infinite reach and span of gravity. The span of gravity is the entire background of the universe, the entirety of all of the countless universes, the reach of all foreground gravities merged, or coalesced, -- in large -- to '1' (infinity): The intrinsically irresistible (inertialess) force of the intrinsically immovable (inertial) object, the Universe (U).
Gravity's third, or "set," dimension (the farthest inside / outside dimension) is only too obvious, even legendary; or would be if it were recognized for what it is: If infinity and the open system, thus it, were not flatly refused to already exist.
To too many physicists and astronomers there is no such as background infinity, no such thing as an open system other to their closed system, therefore no such thing as an opposed "set" gravity to relative gravities tied to an already existing (always existing) background infinity.
To me, the lack of recognition concerning infinity and gravity, and in addition, inherently, 'inertialessness', is amazing.
Gravity's third, or "set," dimension (the farthest inside / outside dimension) is only too obvious, even legendary; or would be if it were recognized for what it is: If infinity and the open system, thus it, were not flatly refused to already exist.
To too many physicists and astronomers there is no such as background infinity, no such thing as an open system other to their closed system, therefore no such thing as an opposed "set" gravity to relative gravities tied to an already existing (always existing) background infinity.
To me, the lack of recognition concerning infinity and gravity, and in addition, inherently, 'inertialessness', is amazing.
Last edited:
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Can I get your source from where you say that gravity has an infinite reach?
Can I get your source from where you say that gravity has an infinite reach?
IG2007, interesting observation and question. Gravity can be tested in binary star systems like Sirius A and B, Castor multiple star system, other binary stars, exoplanet studies, and in our solar system. However, this is not measuring over an infinite space and distance. Your post #13 touches upon the critical, observation. Discussions of an infinite universe or many others is not the same standard of science as heliocentric certainty that closed the debate over the geocentric solar system with immovable Earth vs. heliocentric solar system..
On 29-Jan and 30-Jan, I used my refractor telescope (safe glass white solar filter attached to the dew cap in front of the telescope) and observed a large sunspot active region, AR2936 reported by spaceweather.com alerts. I am confident this active region is on the Sun slowly rotating across the solar disk. However, observing the infinite universe using the same standard of verification, looks like a work in progress
Last edited:
Yes, this is the key tenet of science - objectivity. If it cannot be measured, even in principle, it is a philosophical argument or, perhaps, even just a novelty. It's likely an important idea, nevertheless, for all those who favor the Mulitverse ideas. Ideas are the seeds for advancing science, but they are precursors to science.We can never scientifically answer it, for, we can never observe it. Just my honest opinion.
Prior to BBT, the idea of an infinite universe was the mainstream view. It was known as the Static "theory", but it too was more philosophy than science. It's grip with Einstein is one reason why he missed being the discoverer of the BBT, much to his regret.
No! Can I see your evidence to the opposite?Can I get your source from where you say that gravity has an infinite reach?
IG2007
"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
You want proofs and evidences? Sure
From "Speed of Gravity", Wikipedia:
"In the relativistic sense, the "speed of gravity" refers to the speed of a gravitational wave, which, as predicted by general relativity " and, the observation to prove it (which, you did not provide me with
), "and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger, is the same speed[2] as the speed of light (c)"From "This Is Why The Speed of Gravity Must Equal The Speed of Light", Forbes.com:
"The speed of gravity not only equals the speed of light to an incredibly precise degree observationally, but these two constants must be exactly equal..."
From "What Is A Gravitational Wave?", article from spaceplace.nasa.gov:
"A gravitational wave is an invisible (yet incredibly fast) ripple in space. Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second)"
From "gravitational wave", article from Encyclopedia Britannica:
"...in Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell’s theory for electromagnetism, accelerated charges emit signals (electromagnetic radiation) that travel at the speed of light, whereas in Newton’s theory of gravitation accelerated masses transmit information (action at a distance) that travels at infinite speed. This dichotomy is repaired by Einstein’s theory of gravitation, wherein accelerated masses also produce signals (gravitational waves) that travel only at the speed of light. "
I hope my proofs are sufficient to you.
For further study, you might check the General Theory of Relativity of Albert Einstein. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
This Is Why The Speed Of Gravity Must Equal The Speed Of Light
It's been spectacularly confirmed by observation, but theoretically, it couldn't have been any other way.
www.forbes.com
What Is a Gravitational Wave? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
How do gravitational waves give us a new way to learn about the universe?
Gravitational wave | Detectors, Discovery, & Speed | Britannica
Gravitational wave, the transmission of variations in the gravitational field as waves, first directly observed in 2015.
www.britannica.com
Last edited:
Wolfshadw
Moderator
And just a reminder folks to ALWAYS remain polite, courteous, and RESPECTFUL of other's ideas AT ALL TIMES!
Wolfshadw
Moderator
Wolfshadw
Moderator
A lot of relative and myopically closed systemic viewpoint, but no evidence of the opposite to the closed systemic! No evidence that infinity does not exist. No evidence that there is no such thing as an inside-out opposed outside-in to the Universe. Your proofs regarding infinity, gravity, and inertialessness, are 1-dimensionally viewed, closed systemic, proofs and thus -- as I see them -- meaningless proofs.
My views concerning the constancy of the speed of light being a closed systemic constancy, have been stated and described many, many, times. The constant of the speed of light would still be observed to be the local constant of the speed of light even in a foreground relative environment where the background environment is a hyper spatial-time ("many worlds"-like) environment. Quoting evidence from the closed systemic foreground (inside-out) from now to doomsday won't make it open systemic background (outside-in) evidence.
My views concerning the constancy of the speed of light being a closed systemic constancy, have been stated and described many, many, times. The constant of the speed of light would still be observed to be the local constant of the speed of light even in a foreground relative environment where the background environment is a hyper spatial-time ("many worlds"-like) environment. Quoting evidence from the closed systemic foreground (inside-out) from now to doomsday won't make it open systemic background (outside-in) evidence.
Last edited:
As we observe deep field in all directions we notice the true nature of the universe.
Clustering is the main observation.
Man through out history has always thought that we are centre of the universe.
You want evidence for an infinite universe its out there, understanding through research.
Clustering is the main observation.
Man through out history has always thought that we are centre of the universe.
You want evidence for an infinite universe its out there, understanding through research.
There is no where we can look to see infinity, even if it's there. Two lines of evidence supports approx. 2 trillion galaxies that are in the observable universe, and this is close to the extreme limits, so some more are likely, but not orders more, no doubt.
I've found that the unobservable isn't worth observing. Infinity, even if it exists, can never take us where it wants us to go.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 169
-
-
Astronomers urge FCC to halt satellite megaconstellation launches- Started by Admin
- Replies: 9
-
-
Question Isn't expansion just a lorentz transformation through time?- Started by Greenlight
- Replies: 0
-
Space Force's mysterious X-37B begins 'aerobraking' to lower orbit. Here's how it works (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
Earth is wobbling and days are getting longer — and humans are to blame
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 75
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram