Infinity creates infinity.

Originally posted by ZeroDeep

But science doesn't claim that the universe is infinitely large. It claims that its a finite size that is expanding. That expansion might ultimately be limitless, but thats not the same thing as saying 'the universe is infinite', especially not if, as the thread starter was saying, 'if its infinite, then there are an infinite number of stars, planets, etc'.

Ah, I sort of was regretting saying my original statement, but decided that, if wrong, some would correct me. Thanks.

So, the Universe is not Infinite, but is exanding to an extent unkown ? It is not eternal though, for the universe always did not exist, right ?

From what I understand of it, which isn't much, inflation theory states that it had a temporal begining. As to exactly how inflation describes just what the universe is expanding 'into', I think that it basically says the 'expansion' is more the increasing of distance between all points within the universe, rather than an expansion into anything. I haven't decided yet if that sort of statement even means anything tho.

Deep

According to Stephen hawking the universe could do go one of two routes: It could expand indefinatley until the distance is so great between all bodies in the universe that their gravity no longer effects each other. This would be the "death" of the universe because no new stars could form, there would be Huge distances between everything etc. The second outcome could be there is a "big Crunch" that is a complement to the big bang. I don't have the research in front of me but I believe the idea behind the second theory is similar to that of a black hole, where the gravityis so great that it overtakes all the mass. I may have mixed up the last part though

Originally posted by s_e_m00re
The second outcome could be there is a "big Crunch" that is a complement to the big bang. I don't have the research in front of me but I believe the idea behind the second theory is similar to that of a black hole, where the gravityis so great that it overtakes all the mass. I may have mixed up the last part though.

I think the possibility of a Big Crunch has already been ruled out (at least for now) from the model of the universe based on the data provided by WMAP as given below. We just don't have enough gravity to overcome the expansion of the universe.

# Universe is 13.7 billion years old, with a margin of error of close to 1%.
# First stars ignited 200 million years after the Big Bang.
# Light in WMAP picture is from 379,000 years after the Big Bang.
# Content of the Universe:

* 4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, 73% Dark Energy.
* The data places new constraints on the Dark Energy. It seems more like a "cosmological constant" than a negative-pressure energy field called "quintessence". But quintessence is not ruled out.
* Fast moving neutrinos do not play any major role in the evolution of structure in the universe. They would have prevented the early clumping of gas in the universe, delaying the emergence of the first stars, in conflict with the new WMAP data.

# Expansion rate (Hubble constant) value: Ho= 71 (km/sec)/Mpc (with a margin of error of about 5%)
# New evidence for Inflation (in polarized signal)
# For the theory that fits our data, the Universe will expand forever. (The nature of the dark energy is still a mystery. If it changes with time, or if other unknown and unexpected things happen in the universe, this conclusion could change.)

So, it all depends on dark matter/dark energy. The final picture would only be possible after solving this mystery. Or there could be more mysteries?

[edit on 25-8-2004 by jp1111]

A is A, or even A makes A.

A bit basic dont you think?

Edit:Spelling, duh!

[edit on 26/8/2004 by Corinthas]

it won't expand for ever because even atoms do not exist for ever.they predict that in a 100 billion years atoms will disintegrate