reply to post by Grock
Hi Grock, although I disagree with you, I like the fact that you're trying to back up your claim with an valid proposition, so with that in mind,
your statements deserve a considered response.
Regarding the "Rubak" link, there are some fundemental issues with this argument, the 1st is concerned with the "Problem of size". The argument
relies on the fact that it is assumed that "space" is simply 3 dimensional and whether empty or not, exists beyond the scope of the actual matter of
the universe. This is not necessarily the case, the concept being that the empty space is also a creation of the BB. The empty space beyond the
limit or outer edge of "space" doesn't actually exist in any dimensional sense. Granted, whether this means you go out one side and come in the
other is a different matter. This does create other issues of dimensional creation beyond the matter itself (i.e. the whole "universal constants"
thing and the speed of light being used to calculate the limit of a vector from the BB epicentre).
The 2nd issue, "Problem of Expanding" is covered by my response to the 1st issue, this is not necessarily a 3 dimensional issue and so the concept
of space existing beyond the outer limits of matter is somewhat blurry.
The 3rd issue concerning time is again related to the 1st response, but there is also the issue of time being a univeral constant. This is not
necessarily so and I do not mean in a relative sense. Time itself need not be constant and was almost certainly not so at the point of creation of
matter. We cannot expect all the rules of physics to have been instantaneously created in one go... now that WOULD be crazy! (Sorry Professor S.)
The 4th issue concerning light assumes that the universe collapses. It needn't do so. Put it this way, it terms of the BB it will either keep
expanding or collapse. I've always been a "free beer tomorrow" man myself but this does not mean that the universe will keep getting bigger per
se. Even if you disregard the whole heat death thing then there will be a paradox as the universe heads toward an infinite radius at time point
infinity because although there universe matter will be a finite mass within a near infinite space it would reach a point of such dissipation that it
effectively ceases to exist. I would expect to see a complete breakdown of Newtonian physics at this point - imagine single particles each with an
"infinite" space between them... the mass still exists but kind of doesn't, if you see what I mean?
The "Problem of the Edge" proposition is again based on 3 dimensional physics. The edge is, admittedly, a form of horizon but it is not "fact"
that the edge of matter is preceded by "space" as we know it. However, there are some interesting truths hidden in there... The statement that the
universe is infinite in size at all times requires terms of reference though. Firstly, we cannot state that "empty space" existed prior to the
creation of matter. There may have been an instantaneous inversion of "nothingness" to physical space" at the time of creation which would have
created infinite empty space that did not exist prior to the insertion of matter into the void. Also, since time (probably) did not exist prior to
creation then the concept of dimensional space does not apply to pre-creation empty space, if you see what I mean?
The upshot? The universe was most likely created (hell, I wasn't there, I don't know for fact) and it will cease to exist at some point. Not, I
believe as the result of a collapse following standard Newtonian physics (i.e. and nice big crunch) but most likely an inversion that converts the
near-infinately spaced matter conclusively back to a stage of zero dimensional existence (if you can grasp that, I'll buy you a drink... maybe) which
will instantaneously invert to a point of creation again. Round and round...
) but if you look at the
way it has entered popular culture and therefore becomes an accepted thing you can draw an analogy with religion there.
