Kaiser01 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 What do you think of the idea of a infinite sized universe? Personally I cant accept it because for one if the universe had a beginning point it is impossible for it to be infinite in size since when something becomes infinite it no longer has size but becomes a standard for size. How does something of infinite size fill a infinite space? Well if infinite size is no size, but is the standard for size, can it even be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wester Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Why do you need a beginning? I recommend Brian Greene's book "Hidden Reality" wherein he talks about what caused the big bang, current theories about where it came from and how, what lies on 'the other side' of the bang, the substance and structure of what actually gave birth to this universe. As well as concepts from Quantum Physics - about the possibility of multiple, interlocking or colliding universes where all possibilities exist. So it may in fact not be a universe but a massive multiverse. Relativity also helps understand that so many standards of measurement are in fact relative to the perspective of the measurer. Also I recommend a look at Georg Cantor's infinite set theory which is a foundational theory of mathematics. Cheers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 It's turtles all the way down. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Margee Posted June 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 1, 2012 Why do you need a beginning? I recommend Brian Greene's book "Hidden Reality" wherein he talks about what caused the big bang, current theories about where it came from and how, what lies on 'the other side' of the bang, the substance and structure of what actually gave birth to this universe. As well as concepts from Quantum Physics - about the possibility of multiple, interlocking or colliding universes where all possibilities exist. So it may in fact not be a universe but a massive multiverse. Relativity also helps understand that so many standards of measurement are in fact relative to the perspective of the measurer. Also I recommend a look at Georg Cantor's infinite set theory which is a foundational theory of mathematics. Cheers. I just found this and thought I'd post it for anyone interested. I am going to watch this.Thank you wester for the name of this book. This stuff fasinates me and I would love to learn more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I agree with wester. Turtles all the way down, that's how I'd explain the number of causes to causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Watching the video Margee, I gotta say, this concept makes my primate brain hurt. I get the feeling that if this is true, science is just going to get alot more outrageous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 Why do you need a beginning? I recommend Brian Greene's book "Hidden Reality" wherein he talks about what caused the big bang, current theories about where it came from and how, what lies on 'the other side' of the bang, the substance and structure of what actually gave birth to this universe. As well as concepts from Quantum Physics - about the possibility of multiple, interlocking or colliding universes where all possibilities exist. So it may in fact not be a universe but a massive multiverse. Relativity also helps understand that so many standards of measurement are in fact relative to the perspective of the measurer. Also I recommend a look at Georg Cantor's infinite set theory which is a foundational theory of mathematics. Cheers. I subscribe to the multiverse theory, but I brought this up because I was watching a show on TV and it was speaking of a new theory for how the universe began but I cannot remember what the theory was called. Basically the universe is on a kind of plane and right in front of us there Is another universe almost like a sheet of paper on top of another sheet. Eventually the two sheets collide somewhere and the energy from it is what form matter in the universe, the universe is constantly recycling itself for a infinite amount of time. The universe is infinite in size in this model and I think that just on statistics you should get an infinite amount of impacts at every moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I think the universe has always existed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Basically the universe is on a kind of plane and right in front of us there Is another universe almost like a sheet of paper on top of another sheet. Eventually the two sheets collide somewhere and the energy from it is what form matter in the universe, the universe is constantly recycling itself for a infinite amount of time. The universe is infinite in size in this model and I think that just on statistics you should get an infinite amount of impacts at every moment. This? http://en.wikipedia....rane_(M-Theory) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I think of the universe like the ring of waves a drop creates on a still surface of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I question if the universe, as a whole, is a legitimate "object" of study. From what vantage are we going to study it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 From the inside. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 From the inside. Duh. "Inside"? Where is the outside of the universe? This is what I mean. It makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The outside of the universe is on its surface. Cmon man. You're smarter than this. The surface of the universe is where we all go when we die. Its a magical land of lollipops and unicorns. you get to look down through the firmament and see what everyone is doing. I hear its pretty kick ass. Oh, we cant study it until we die. Thats the kicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Nah man, I think the way to understand the universe, is to study the things of everyday experience, like ants, or flowers. It's almost as if people believe that if they can just understand BIG things that they themselves will be big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 It's turtles all the way down. Yes, turtles all the way down. Relations, relations! It's all about relations! It's all about boldly asking "WHY?" And then humbly looking for the many instances of, "because". Causality man! That is the universe! Why am I shouting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Take your meds, you'll feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Take your meds, you'll feel better. Well man, I was growing to somewhat like you, but this is a setback for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I didnt even know you take meds bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I can see how that could be taken as offensive tho now looking back on it. My bad. I'll try to be more cautious with what I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 No problem, McD. It'll all be okay. Enjoy the day. Please don't give it a second thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I think the universe has always existed. Here is the delema with this statement. How do you define always? Most people would give a definition along the lines of "no beginning and no end", essentially a time-line that runs from negative infinity to positive infinity. However such a definition contradicts what we know about big bang cosmology. We know that the universe had a beggining and that time is a phenomena within the universe. How can a timeline run back to before the big bang? "Always", invariably refers to some concept of time, but the universe is larger than time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Bang, crunch, bang, crunch, ad infinitum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I question if the universe, as a whole, is a legitimate "object" of study. From what vantage are we going to study it? From a very tiny speck in a fraction of it, only studying a small fraction (relatively speaking) of it. However such a definition contradicts what we know about big bang cosmology. We know that the universe had a beggining and that time is a phenomena within the universe. How can a timeline run back to before the big bang? Which is why I'm inclined to believe that our theory for the big bang, what banged, how it banged, etc... is incomplete. The way I see it, either causality is true, or a "first beginning" is not. Or a "first beginning" is true, or causality is not. Not both. "Always", invariably refers to some concept of time, but the universe is larger than time. IMO, I'm inclined to see time as an illusion, something made by people. Also, there is a problem with having a physical time as a dimension, which runs contrary to the concept that the universe has a beginning or an end. Say the beginning is at stage 1, I'm at stage 2, and the end is age stage 3. A stage in this case being a measurement of time. All 3 stages, being a dimension, MUST simultaeneously exist, thereby making the universe always exist. But there's a problem, if it had an absolute beginning, then more information had to have been added, because each stage consists of the same amount of matter (its the same universe,a different time. Just like the 1 inch mark is on the same ruler as the 2 inch mark, but you need double the wood to make 2 inches). The universe had to triple its size to account from going from stage 1 to stage 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts