is space infinate?

[Maze1125]

Also, I'm very skeptical about #2. Infinite matter and energy would mean infinite gravity, which would not just cause the expansion of the universe to slow down and reverse, but this should have happened within fractions of a second into its history. We see in fact, that the rate of expansion is increasing instead. To me, only #1 makes much sense.

As I said before, at any point in time and space, the bubble of observability from that point would only contain a finite amount of mass and therefore only a finite amount of gravity.
As you said yourself, in the early universe the bubbles of observability were only on the quantum scale and so, considering the universe was expanding faster than the bubbles at that point, there is no reason to think such small areas, even at high density, could have enough gravity to collapse the universe.

Another thing I have to ask is, what arguments are there to support the statement that the universe is infinite? You've defended your standpoint by attempting to dismiss my arguments (and you're doing a pretty good job, btw ), but I've yet to see any attempt to support your claim. What is it that suggests the universe is actually infinite?

Because General Relativity works only on complete vector spaces, so either the universe is sphere, which has been ruled out by recent observations, or it goes on forever.

Yes, it's possible that the universe does have an edge, but until we have reason to say there is, there is no reason to overcomplicate the theories so they can account for an edge. Occam's Razor.

And I'm pretty sure I have said most of that already.

Black hole =/= wormhole.

Actually, every black-hole contains a worm-hole, it's just impossible to enter it.

Of course, before you get inside the event horizon, you'll be torn to shreds by tidal forces, so you're not going to live to see what's inside.

Not all black-holes have lethal tidal forces, with super-massive black holes you could pass the event horizon without even noticing.

Oh, and if you somehow did, you'd find that inside, time stands still, which means that you wouldn't perceive anything. Your brain would be frozen in time.

Actually, time only appears to stand still from an outside perspective. To someone falling into a black-hole, it continues normally.

Of course, once you pass the event horizon, things get very messed up indeed, because your current temporal dimension become spacial and the radial spacial dimension becomes temporal.

 

[Martymer]

As I said before, at any point in time and space, the bubble of observability ... (snip)

... and since gravity only "travels" at c, anything beyond that (initially) infinitessimal bubble wouldn't give a rats ass what's in it. You got me. Infinite matter and energy is possible.

Because General Relativity works only on complete vector spaces, so either the universe is sphere, which has been ruled out by recent observations, or it goes on forever.

Ah. My knowledge of GR is limited to knowing what it's about. I understand the accelerating elevator type examples, and the consequences of them, but I haven't done any of the math. It's beyond my (current) level. Score one more for you.

Yes, it's possible that the universe does have an edge...

HIHIHIHI I got you to say it! (kidding)

...but until we have reason to say there is, there is no reason to overcomplicate the theories so they can account for an edge. Occam's Razor.

I agree that an edge would mess things up a lot, but I never implied that there was an edge. The surface area of a sphere (with finite radius) is finite, yet has no edge.

And I'm pretty sure I have said most of that already.

I don't recall you mentioning GR only working on complete vector spaces. That's what got me to accept that I'm in above my head here. You're either pulling things out of your ass (like so many others online), or you know stuff I don't (which is what I suspect is actually the case here). Since I can't argue with the GR thing (because I don't know whether it's correct or not), I'll just admit defeat.

Black hole =/= wormhole.

Actually, every black-hole contains a worm-hole, it's just impossible to enter it.

Correction: Black hole =/= wormhole a la sci-fi, where you go in one end and come out somewhere else. Go in, and you're stuck. That was my point.

Of course, before you get inside the event horizon, you'll be torn to shreds by tidal forces, so you're not going to live to see what's inside.

Not all black-holes have lethal tidal forces, with super-massive black holes you could pass the event horizon without even noticing.

How would that work...? You know what -- that probably calls for a mathematical answer that I wouldn't understand at this point, so I'll just smile and nod for now.

Oh, and if you somehow did, you'd find that inside, time stands still, which means that you wouldn't perceive anything. Your brain would be frozen in time.

Actually, time only appears to stand still from an outside perspective. To someone falling into a black-hole, it continues normally.

Right, you wouldn't *notice* time slowing down. From your frame of reference it's time for everyone else that's speeding up. And since a moment inside the black hole is an eternity on the outside, you wouldn't have time to perceive anything. All of the sudden, the black hole has evaporated (along with you). To the universe outside, it's been like 10^100 years.

 

[Kinguendo]

Space..? Cant say. The Universe...? No.

 

[Dr Namgge]

The universe is millions upon billions of clusters of mass surrounded by nothingness. This nothingness is space. It's empty, there's nothing in it. The solid matter within the universe stretches across a finite amount of this space. It's incomprehensibly large though. Far larger than most people like to imagine, because of just how ridiculously tiny they are in comparison to it.

The best way to imagine it is that everything is moving outwards never stopping, like a balloon being inflated. the surface area gets larger and larger, but there's always room for it to expand in to as it gets larger. the room outside the balloon goes on forever, so you can keep making the balloon bigger and bigger. So while the universe as we know it has a finite size in terms of how far it is from the two furthest away points, they can keep stretching further and further away indefinitely, assuming nothing stops them. Even then, it would take a conscious effort to stop them, such as a giant spaceship moving it back inwards, as there's no natural force to stop them stretching further and further apart.

 

[Maze1125]

Correction: Black hole =/= wormhole a la sci-fi, where you go in one end and come out somewhere else. Go in, and you're stuck. That was my point.

Ah, but you see, every black-hole has a wormhole that connects to a different space-time. It's just that it is impossible to travel on the required trajectory to pass through it. At least for a standard black-hole, I've heard that if the black-hole is spinning in certain ways that can allow to pass through.

How would that work...? You know what -- that probably calls for a mathematical answer that I wouldn't understand at this point, so I'll just smile and nod for now.

It's not too complicated. Small black-holes have an event-horizon close to the singularity and so the gravitation field is quite steep. More massive black-holes' horizons are a much greater distance away where the field is less steep. Since tidal forces are caused by different pulls in gravity on different places in your body. The less steep field of the massive black-hole is less damaging.

Right, you wouldn't *notice* time slowing down. From your frame of reference it's time for everyone else that's speeding up. And since a moment inside the black hole is an eternity on the outside, you wouldn't have time to perceive anything. All of the sudden, the black hole has evaporated (along with you). To the universe outside, it's been like 10^100 years.

It's not quite like that.
The main reason everything appears to slow down around a black-hole is because the light has difficulty escaping, but it has no problem falling into a black-hole.
So people looking at a black hole from far away will see everything slow down, but people who are falling into a black-hole will see little difference in the speed of events far away from the event-horizon.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I don't believe it is expanding, cause I don't believe in the big bang theory (there was nothing, then it exploded).

I hold that universes have always existed. Endlessly throughout time, no begining or end, and it is actually our liner life spans which make us think that everything has to have a start and a end.

As for space it is the same thing, you can set off in one direction and you will always encounter something even if you lived forever. Though there will be many places where all you encounter is the dark, cold, of space. It is a biiiig place, with lots of nothing between all the something after all. But even if you where to find some 'end of the universe' there would be nothing stopping you from just leaving the universe and likely finding another after what would seem a aeon of floating in whatever passes as space between whole universes.

 

[Maze1125]

I don't believe it is expanding, cause I don't believe in the big bang theory (there was nothing, then it exploded).

Except that's not the Big Bang theory in the slightest...

And you don't believe it's expanding? Then how do you explain the fact we can look out into the universe see that all galaxies are moving away from each other?

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I don't believe it is expanding, cause I don't believe in the big bang theory (there was nothing, then it exploded).

Except that's not the Big Bang theory in the slightest...

And you don't believe it's expanding? Then how do you explain the fact we can look out into the universe see that all galaxies are moving away from each other?

Your clearly not a a Terry Pratchett fan I see. It does highlight the problem with the theory though...
What was there before the big bang?
If there was nothing then where did everything come from?

As for Hubble expansion? The distance of galaxies is what puts this into doubt for me. There is no reasonable way that we can prove or disprove that Hubble is right in our life time. Hell there is the real possibility we won't have solid observations of galaxies moving, and not just some mathematical equations that look like they might be right, in the life time of our entire race! All Hubble did, after all, was take a phenomenon that was already discovered and refine the maths behind it to better explain the phenomenon. I won't say his maths is wrong, it does fit nicely into what we understand of the universe at this point, but I won't claim it is the be all and end all of this debatable topic.

Remember mathematical equations change over time. The more we learn more and more about the universe around us the more we realises we where wrong! This is the beauty of science, it is flexable when more data is collected to better refine the theories... and I wouldn't have it any other way. Face it knowing everything, to the point we are soooo sure we know everything, would be just boring and is a key problem with many of the older 'faith based' theories.

I foresee no reason that, in the future, we can not discover that Hubble only had a fraction of a much larger and likely far more complex equation worked out. And that equation would change how we view the universe, yet again. Again, wouldn't have it any other way, cause I like the pursuit of knowledge that is science.

Let me throw out a thought... I call it the 'breathing theory.' This thought is quite simple: that some mechanism we don't understand at this moment is controlling what we perceive as movements of galaxies through out space. This movement is a pattern that, should we be living forever and floating outside the universe we would see as a inward and outward motion. At this point in time we are in a outwards motion, with galaxies moving away from a universal centre we can only calculate as it has been billions of years since this started. Also the same is happening in other universes, as our isn't the only one in existence and you know, some mechanism is governing the movement of universal bodies as well... another thought for another day though.

In another few eons, or a dozen, the direction will change and become a inwards motion. This might even continue till the point all matter is once more condensed into a near solid mass. In a way this would also explain the big bang theory by giving what came before the 'bang' that created our universe... that being a universe, our universe.

Then it will move outwards, and this repeats forever....

Till we start entering a period of increased blue-shifts though, we would not observe this change in any measurable way. Curiously enough Hubbles maths would probably still be just as valid.

 

[Maze1125]

What was there before the big bang?

We don't know.
That's not the same as saying there's nothing though.

As for Hubble expansion? The distance of galaxies is what puts this into doubt for me. There is no reasonable way that we can prove or disprove that Hubble is right in our life time. Hell there is the real possibility we won't have solid observations, and not just some mathematical equations that look like they might be right, in the life time of our entire race!

Remember mathematical equations change over time. The more we learn more and more about the universe around us the more we realises we where wrong! This is the beauty of science, cause face it knowing everything would be just boring. The best case situations are when we are on the right track but where missing key details that proved us wrong. I foresee no reason that, in the future, we can not discover that Hubble only had a fraction of a much larger equation worked out.

And that equation would change how we view the universe, yet again.

When scientists were studying the atom, they found out they were composed of both negatively charged bits and positively charged bits. Models were proposed and as new information was gain they were proved wrong and new models were proposed, but at no point was idea of atoms containing two different sets of charges proved wrong, that was always a constant due to overwhelming evidence for it.

Yes, many things in science are revised, but that doesn't mean everything is in doubt.
We have multiple different ways to measuring the distance and velocity of distance objects, from measuring the light-waves coming from them, to following a method very similar to how our eyes allow us to see 3D objects, and all our observations say the same thing, the universe is expanding.

Yes, we may find a great new theory that explains the expansion in a different way, or that might give new precision to our observations, but nothing is going to change the idea that they are expanding, because we can see that they are. At least, nothing beyond a complete revolution of our understanding of physics, in which case you might was well stop believing in gravity, because that's how big it would have to be.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I won't fault that, though it is three charges in an atom.

Hubbles equations might very well be a small bit of a much larger picture, as I said, and if they are wrong then are likely they will be the stepping stone to a much more reasonable model. One that better explains what we observe in the future far better then this equation alone. Nor do I fault that the universe is moving, it would seem a natural thing for it as everything else is.

I hold fault that in just a short ten years of observations that we would have the be all and end of how the universe is moving. It would likely take many, many, generations of scientists before we collect enough observable data on something this... well massive.

If we ever manage to do so, cause a real good observational point would be outside of the universe itself and looking in. Not being in the mess and looking out. Who knows just what we are missing simply because we can not see it from this point of view.

So again: Not faulting his theories, or what he observed, but believing there is still much more to it that we have yet to understand.

PS: I really have to stop finding grammar, spelling and mis-communicational mistakes in my damn posts after I post. It leads me to rewriting the whole damn thing to try and get the point across and then again and again.... in the end I just think I make it harder to understand what I am trying to say.

 

[Maze1125]

10 years? Hubble's Law was discovered in 1929, 80 years ago.

And I don't see why we'd need to be outside the universe.
We just need to look our there and see that absolutely everything is moving away from us.

And yes, there are three different things with charge in atoms. Electrons, down quarks and up quarks.
But that just makes my point further. First all we knew was that atoms existed. Then we found that there were parts of the atoms that had positive charge and parts with negative. Then we found they were different particles, protons and electrons, and there was a third, neutrons. Then we found that protons and neutrons were made up of quarks.

The theory has expanded further and further, but at absolutely no point have the observations been wrong.
Atoms do exist. They do have positive and negative parts. Those parts are protons and electrons.

Theories expand, equations are proved wrong, observations are made more precise.
But at no point are observations completely reversed.
Everything in the universe is moving away from everything else, this is a fact.
To question it you'd have to bring into question either the reputation of every astronomer everywhere or the entire laws of physics, including gravity, as we know it.

 

[AndyMcNoob]

My thoughts are that if you look at most things in life they are in cycles so i agree with when the universe stops expanind it will contract and then it go bang again and begin to expand on the shock wave of the explosian as we are doing now

and as to how the esplosian happend i have no idea
mabey we should look at the causes of all other explosians in the universe.

Edit:dam my typos

 

[Rancid0ffspring]

It's spreading into the Negative Zone... Marvel says so

 

[Dark Prophet]

Space is not infinate. Space can only be if there is something in it, matter, light or some other emission or anything at all. If not then there is no space, then there is nothing, then there is absence of everything. "Something" creates space when it occupies the absence of everything.

 

[Vohn_exel]

I've always wondered that. I figure our "space" and all that, like our universe, if it was created in the big bang, then what would stop other places to do the same thing, just it's so big that we can't see it. I'm not talking about multiple universes, but think of it like this:

The problem is that according to our current understanding space and time were born in the big bang. So there would literally be nowhere for those 'other' big bangs to happen in, unless it is in an entirely different universe.

We have planets, that are part of solar systems.
We have Solar Systems that are part of galaxies.
We have galaxies, that are part of...

Galactic chains and clusters.

Ah thanks. Yeah I didn't know the words.

They've found like hundreds or thousands of galaxies, right?

Actually current estimates are around 100 billion galaxies within the part of the universe that is observable to us. The problem is, by pointing a telescope that is in space, like Hubble, to a seemingly 'empty' part of the night sky and giving long enough exposure time...say 12 days... you end up with this:

Spoiler

Hint, most of those things in the picture are galaxies, not stars.

Ah yeah, I love that picture. I had it for my desktop on my last computer. But yeah, my point is that there is ALOT of galaxies.

I'm sure that if we could see big enough, we'd find out that all the galaxies are grouped together in a similar fashion of stars in galaxies.

Actually no, they form more of chains and lines, at least according to what we have previously seen; Not disk-like configurations rotating around a central source of gravitational force.

My point being, still grouped together.

I believe that even if we found out that our entire universe was in a huge marble, that there would still be something outside of that marble, because I don't believe in 'Not there.'

That might be possible, but there is a difficulty: For there to be something 'outside', it would require there to be space outside of the 'marble'. And as I have said, as far as we know, all of space that is known was compressed to a tiny, tiny volume at big bang. Universe literally was was smaller than a tea-cup and space itself was confined within it: there was nowhere else, because no space existed outside of big bang. Asking what is outside of it or what was before big bang is like asking 'what is the difference between an orange' - a nonsensical question that cannot be answered because it is not defined, a logical impossibility. Universe is defined as "all matter and space considered as a whole" (COED 11th ed.) and asking what is outside of it is is a logical impossibility because we have just defined that there is no 'outside'.

I can believe in the big bang, but I cannot believe that before that, space didn't exist. Infact, that would actually mean there WAS a marble that our universe was in...well more like a bubble. But I can't just believe there was nothing there. Even if our universe was in a bubble or something and then exploded outwards, I can't believe that if you went outside that bubble there would a lack of complete existance. I'm not a scientist, but still. Even if it's something we haven't discovered yet, I just don't believe that our "something" expanded into "nothing."


To answer the question we would first need to redefine the terms and meanings used.

No arguments there.