Scale Of Universe Revealed In New Ultraprecise Galaxy Map

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


What if space and time are independent.

Time always advances, space does not.

There is no need of wrapping or bending of time-space as you call it. These are theories yet unproven by evidence. These things should not be called science at all.

paradox
reply to post by spav5

 

I definitely see what you're saying and it is extremely hard to attempt to comprehend these theories, most likely impossible even, even down to the quantum level with understanding things like superposition. But this is what all the data has pointed to, and so it is what it is. A very strange universe indeed.

Even if I agree that is what the data says..the data next decade will likely change.

Circle is only a concept as well..there are no known circles in the Universe yet we conduct our business as if there is...we even claim to draw them

They can write all of the physics formulas and theories that they want...but if they claim that they can wrap their minds around the concept of infinity(the concept not LIKE anything..not LIKE Endless..but infinity) or likewise wrap their brains around the concept of a finite universe and what is beyond it..they are fools either trying to fool you or just fooling themselves. They can't even produce a circle.

If the problem is ever solved it will be by intuition...not physics.

Peace

ChaoticOrder
Infinity does not mean "everything", it simply means something which is endless. If you have a pool and it has an endless amount of water in it, then adding more water to that pool is not going to change the fact it has an endless amount of water in it. It's as simple as that.

how does a pool have an endless supply of water in it, that would imply it has no edges and if it has no edges then all that exists would be a pool, you're jumping from figurative quantities to physical quantites and back and forth.

here's my definitions seeing as the oxford dictionary isn't good enough for you:

finite = must be known to have an end, a certain quantity that can be measured in one form or another
infinite = has no end, unknown quantity that CANNOT be measured, attempting to add anything to infinite is a fruitless exercise and would be a play of words

what gets me even more than the fact you are bending the real definition of infinity is that you seem determined to prove that you can add to infinity even though you yourself say it is pointless, and the calculator you are using as your only real source of supposed evidence tells you that it is pointless as well, it changes nothing.

What it comes down to is that infinity is reserved for that which is "unbounded" has no limit, so now give us an example where adding anything to infinity would be beneficial, or are you just content to argue meaningless points?

DeadSeraph

... I'm certainly no astrophysicist but how can the universe be infinite when current models strongly support the big bang? If the big bang was the beginning of the universe then how can it be infinite? It would have to be expanding, wouldn't it?

I would appreciate it if someone with a bit more knowledge on the subject could put that into laymans terms for dummies like me, since everything I've read seems to suggest that the infinite universe theory was abandoned years ago.

If there is a "big bang" in the middle of nothing ('nothing' being the total non-existence of a-thing-at-all) then there isn't any-thing to stop it expanding because, as we know; before it even started there was and still is nothing around it - not even light; travelling at 186,000miles per second for the last 13.8 billion years.

There is a physical edge to our current 3 dimensional universe. If you could see the entire thing from an outside perspective it would look simlar to a scaled up version of a galaxy and is approximately 152,508,080,000,000,000,000,000miles in diameter.
(I am not even too sure how to say that many miles, it's that ridiculously vast).

Without the possibility of something already pre-existence before it though, on the outside, there is always more 'nothing' to fill up. (I imagine it would appear visibly black if you were at the edge for the fact that there isn't a light source coming from the outside, no galaxies, no stars and you wouldn't be able to judge distance from the edge because there actually isn't a point of reference to measure to). What happens beyond this point is that the contents of the universe continues to make more existence, forevermore, by simply fleeting waves & particles of existence into it.

To put it very crudely - Existence is procedurally generated into nothing. Exactly the same way it started.

I don't think understanding infinite is possible. You can either accept it or not.

'In the beginning there was nothing, and then...'

reply to post by ChefSlug


Here's the graphic with the OP source. Very familiar to me when I saw it, as my whole life when I look at pics of many stars I've seen the bubble outlines. It seems in almost any photo of many stars or galaxies (or in this case, trillions of galaxies) there are circles which are bordered by stars. Here is, apparently, the universe:



The caption to the graphic:

An artist's concept of the latest, highly accurate measurement of the universe from the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey. The spheres show the current size of the "baryon acoustic oscillations" (BAOs) from the early universe, which have helped to set the distribution of galaxies that we see in the universe today. BAOs can be used as a "standard ruler" (white line) to measure the distances to all the galaxies in the universe. | Zosia Rostomian, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab

From the OP source, and it once again has proven the cosmological constant:

"There are not many things in our daily lives that we know to 1-percent accuracy," David Schlegel, a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the principal investigator of BOSS, said in a statement. "I now know the size of the universe better than I know the size of my house." [The History & Structure of the Universe (Infographic)]

Scientists working with BOSS mapped the locations of 1.2 million galaxies and found that their new measurements support the idea of the "cosmological constant" — an idea first proposed by Albert Einstein. This idea suggests that dark energy has remained constant throughout the history of the universe.

GargIndia
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

What if space and time are independent.

Time always advances, space does not.

There is no need of wrapping or bending of time-space as you call it. These are theories yet unproven by evidence. These things should not be called science at all.

It's called space-time. A concept. And it's fruits are backed by empirical evidence.

Link

Link

Whether or not it is the most accurate model that can be used to describe reality, is besides the point.

reply to post by Haxsaw

how does a pool have an endless supply of water in it, that would imply it has no edges and if it has no edges then all that exists would be a pool

That is not true, the pool could be infinitely deep in one direction but finite in size in the other directions, and that would still mean it holds an infinite amount of water.

infinite = has no end, unknown quantity that CANNOT be measured, attempting to add anything to infinite is a fruitless exercise and would be a play of words

The only part of that I would agree with is the first 3 words. The reason you cannot measure infinity is because it's endless. Being endless does not make it unknown, we know exactly what the quantity is... it's endless!!!

what gets me even more than the fact you are bending the real definition of infinity is that you seem determined to prove that you can add to infinity even though you yourself say it is pointless, and the calculator you are using as your only real source of supposed evidence tells you that it is pointless as well, it changes nothing.

Just because it doesn't change anything doesn't mean it isn't a valid operation. I have provided several sources so far, my main source is all the mathematicians in history who have developed these ideas into what they are now. My calculator wouldn't give me that answer unless it was very well established as a valid concept within the mathematics community. I'm not twisting the definition of anything, the Oxford definition is just extremely poor.

ChaoticOrder
This is not the only research which suggests the universe is flat and infinite. There are many good reasons for why it must be infinite and many different lines of research which have reached this exact same conclusion:

Although the shape of the universe is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, based on the recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error", according to NASA scientists.
---
The model most theorists currently use is the so-called Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. According to cosmologists, on this model the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the universe is infinite and flat

en.wikipedia.org...

This has been discussed earlier in the thread, but probably deserves more discussion. So the universe is essentially flat. And looks like the pic in my last post. So it's a flat "something" on which everything stays in an almost flat plane. I had envisioned it as a bubble, a round universe. So it's flat? What's on either side of it? And I thought everything was expanding away from everything else, like a balloon (which is how it's often described), how could that happen on a flat universe? Thanks for the info, and Wikipedia link.

Ok, this is my take on the situation:

We start off with the simplest possible state for the universe: nothing. Now it's obvious that we have an infinite amount of nothing. It's just an infinite void. Now the big bang occurs, and then we eventually evolve into existence and start measuring stuff, only to find that space-time appears to be infinite in all directions and has no curvature.

At this point we have two possible options: either the big bang instantaneously filled the void with an infinite amount of space-time OR the infinite amount of space-time we are observing is in fact the void, we happen to exist in it and call it "space". I prefer the latter option, I think neutral/empty space-time is the equivalent of the void.

Now it becomes a bit easier to imagine how the universe could be infinite... endless space-time is really just endless nothingness. Our big bang is just an isolated clump of energy which spontaneously occurred within the void due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and that is also what causes vacuum energy to constantly appear out of no where.

But now the real problem becomes... how can "nothing" expand or bend or have any properties that space-time seems to have. That I cannot claim to have the answer to, and it is something that has baffled many great minds in the past. Nikola Tesla refused to believe space-time could bend for reasons very much related to this topic.

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

~ Nikola Tesla

reply to post by Aleister

So it's a flat "something" on which everything stays in an almost flat plane. I had envisioned it as a bubble, a round universe.

It's not an infinite flat plane and it's not a finite bubble. Read my post at the bottom of the last page. Flat does not mean literally flat in a 2D sense.

REPLY to post by ChaoticOrder

That is not true, the pool could be infinitely deep in one direction but finite in size in the other directions, and that would still mean it holds an infinite amount of water.

nope, another oxymoron, you cant have infinite in one direction only, if it was infinite in size it would be everywhere, limitless no boundaries, unbounded, no edges, sorry to say

The only part of that I would agree with is the first 3 words. The reason you cannot measure infinity is because it's endless. Being endless does not make it unknown, we know exactly what the quantity is... it's endless!!!

lol, what?, more absolute contradictions, again sorry, but yes being 'endless' implies exactly that, it's unknown and unmeasurable, in fact as it stands the word INFINITE itself could be regarded as completely useless to measure anything in this life due to the fact it cannot be proven, there is absolutely no way to prove anything is infinite, none whatsoever, go ahead prove me wrong.

Just because it doesn't change anything doesn't mean it isn't a valid operation. I have provided several sources so far, my main source is all the mathematicians in history who have developed these ideas into what they are now. My calculator wouldn't give me that answer unless it was very well established as a valid concept within the mathematics community. I'm not twisting the definition of anything, the Oxford definition is just extremely poor.

you repeating meaningless dribble of past mathematicians doesn't make anything valid, and obviously by your silence to my actual question you are subtly admitting that adding anything to infinity is always going to by a meaningless exercise that will never benefit a single thing, and that you're still content to argue over doing it, rather than to admit that it is completely meaningless. I'll be still waiting for you to prove that adding anything to infinity will benefit something/anything, continued silence to this question will be taken as you agreeing that you are arguing a pointless, meaningless argument just for the sake of an argument.

reply to post by Haxsaw

you cant have infinite in one direction only

And why not?

but yes being 'endless' implies exactly that, it's unknown and unmeasurable

It's unmeasurable because you can never reach the end, but saying it's unknown implies it has an exact value. Is it logical to say that we don't know how many numbers there are? Saying that you don't know how many numbers there are implies that there is a finite amount of numbers, but of course there is an infinite amount of numbers. We do know how many numbers there are: an endless amount.

I'll be still waiting for you to prove that adding anything to infinity will benefit something/anything

Why does something need to be beneficial to be true? How about the very thing we are discussing in this thread: cosmological expansion. If that didn't occur then all the galaxies would have crashed together and we wouldn't be here right now. But of course you're just going to say space-time isn't really infinite so it's not like adding more space to infinite space.

If it is infinite that means that.

"A long time ago in a Galaxy far away" actually happened and will happen again and is happening right now somewhere

Cool but that also means there are infinite versions of me somewhere...I think Oh God my head hurts.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Haxsaw

 

you cant have infinite in one direction only.
And why not?

because if there was an infinite pool as you suggested then it would fill everything

It's unmeasurable because you can never reach the end, but saying it's unknown implies it has an exact value. It is logical to say that we don't know how many numbers there are? Saying that you don't know how many numbers there are implies that there is a finite amount of numbers, but of course there is an infinite amount of numbers. We do know how many numbers there are: an endless amount.

you just said that implying that something is "unknown' is in fact saying that it is "known" lol, another oxymoron, sheer madness indeed, implying something is unknown neither implies something has an exact value or doesn't have an exact value. "Johnny how many fingers am I holding up"..."I don't know because I am blind, so it is unknown to me".

Sorry but jumping from figurative to physical is not proving a single thing. Firstly just because we cant put a value on something that is not physical(numbers) and we can say there is an infinite amount of numbers, in no way can be linked to the physical. Getting back to the subject it would seem to me to be a useless grasp of todays useless scientists who have come to terms that they will never find an edge/end of the universe in their time to say that it is 'infinite', you cannot PHYSICALLY measure/prove a PHYSICAL INFINITE, making it totally meaningless to the physical world.

Why does something need to be beneficial to be true? How about the very thing we are discussing in this thread: cosmological expansion. If that didn't occur then all the galaxies would have crashed together and we wouldn't be here right now. But of course you're just going to say space-time isn't really infinite so it's not like adding more space to infinite space.

as far as you know you get one life, and you want to spend it discussing that which is of no benefit to a single thing? I think you missed my point on this one if these scientists are using my finite tax dollars then they better come up with something beneficial to something/anything or they may as well put their heads up their crack hole and rotate as far as I'm concerned.

By the way you talk about being 'true', you cannot prove that adding +1 to that which is infinite can be done, don't be so lame as to tell me others said it could and my calculator doesn't give me an error when I do it lol.

I'm done for now, there's no way you or anyone can prove that anything physical is infinite, it's not going to happen in this life mate, I'm sure you can find better things to do with your precious finite time, than discuss the meaningless diatribe the wannabe scientists grovel over.

We as human beings will never understand infinite because we grow up on an finite world, maybe when we have space babies they may get their head around the idea but us at this moment of time..nope.

reply to post by Haxsaw

because if there was an infinite pool as you suggested then it would fill everything

That is not an answer for why something can't be infinite in only one direction.

implying something is unknown neither implies something has an exact value or doesn't have an exact value

Yes it does in the context of our discussion. I will repeat: does it make sense to say that we don't know how many numbers there are? YES or NO? If you answer no then you must admit that saying the quantity of infinity is unknown is not a meaningful or logical statement.

you cannot PHYSICALLY measure/prove a PHYSICAL INFINITE, making it totally meaningless to the physical world.

Of course you cannot measure infinity, that is not why we think the universe is infinite. There are many complicated reasons for why we think the universe is infinite, if you really want to understand why scientists have reached the conclusion then do some research. Trust me, most scientists would rather believe the universe is finite, that is why our theories started off that way, but the CMB evidence and all the data we have does not fit a finite model of the universe.

as far as you know you get one life, and you want to spend it discussing that which is of no benefit to a single thing?

So understanding the biggest mysteries of the universe doesn't benefit a single thing? Even if it didn't benefit a single thing I would still want to understand and learn about these mysterious aspects of the universe.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by GargIndia

 

Since galaxies appear in every direction in the space surrounding earth, and span considerable depth, it is unlikely that Universe is flat.

They don't mean flat in a 2D sense, it means that space-time is not curved. In a finite universe space-time must be curved because it will eventually loop back in on its self to form a closed finite space-time, so if you looked far enough you would eventually see the back of your own head because light would follow the curvature of space-time and come back to where it started. In infinite space it just goes on for infinity in all directions and so it has no curvature (on average), so we say that it is "flat".

edit on 10/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

So with no curvature on average, is it still in the shape of a large (largest) ball? So by flat do you mean the ball, or bubbles, edges - surface area - are so very thin that they can be called flat? Thanks.

And since it this data once again proves the cosmological constant, here is user Mr Mask's excellent recent vid on the odds of the constant actually being used in our universe. A must see imnho:

neo96


Energy can't be created or destroyed just transformed that is how interstellar bodies are created unless I have miss understood.

I hate to say it Neo and it pains me but for once your pretty much right

reply to post by Aleister


First you need to understand what curved space means. It's the same thing as saying space curves in the presence of a mass and that curvature is what creates gravity. Saying the universe is flat and infinite just means that if you shine a laser in any direction, the beam will travel in a straight line forever. A sphere shaped universe should contain curved space, and if you shined a laser the beam would eventually come back to where it started because of that curvature. The universe could be a sphere shape and it's just too large for us detect the curvature, but most scientists don't think that is the case because there's a lot of other data which indicates that the universe is infinite.

boncho

GargIndia
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

What if space and time are independent.

Time always advances, space does not.

There is no need of wrapping or bending of time-space as you call it. These are theories yet unproven by evidence. These things should not be called science at all.

It's called space-time. A concept. And it's fruits are backed by empirical evidence.

Link

Link

Whether or not it is the most accurate model that can be used to describe reality, is besides the point.

edit on 10-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Can you please include the evidence you are quoting in your post before giving a link.

The time dilation is a theory. It is not proven by evidence.

Let me give you an example. If you are on a spaceship which is travelling at the same speed as light (or even faster than light), you are not supposed to age at all due to this theory.

No Sir! You will age and time will elapse despite your speed.