@kilroy70 saidWhen I was at that previous thread someone asked "What if you can see the other side of the [infinitely long] bridge but lack the proper tools to measure it's length?"
This was the previous thread. Thread 193157
If I could see the other side, the bridge would not be infinitely long. Light travels at a fixed speed, so I wouldn't be able to see anything on the other side of an infinitely long bridge. 🙂🙃
@Soothfast
"A universe is a cylinder one parsec in radius and infinitely long. This is an "infinitely large" universe insofar as it has infinite volume."
"Now...start increasing the radius...2 parsecs...3...4...and so on... The "infinitely large" universe is expanding."
If the infinitely large universe is expanding then why does the volume remain the same? Adding any finite value (in this case a radius) to an infinite volume will not increase the volume.
Infinity is not a number. Blending finite values in with the idea of infinity is clever, but not very practical.
@kilroy70 saidThere's nothing about the topic of this thread that is particular practical.
@Soothfast
clever, but not very practical.
I've given an example of how a universe already possessing infinite volume can further expand, thereby directly addressing an issue in the OP.
@Soothfast
Couldn't the universe be considered more or less just a flow of information so floating blobs of other flows of information with its own sub universe of its own information and so it goes into infinity. Is that even possible in theory?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
@sonhouse saidNo. We do not live in a simulation.
@Soothfast
Couldn't the universe be considered more or less just a flow of information
@sonhouse saidYes in the terms of enttopy. But that does not mean we live in a simulation. The question of whether we live in a simulation is a theological not a physics question. To prove a simulation would require knowledge of the something outsode our universe, not possible.
@Soothfast
Couldn't the universe be considered more or less just a flow of information
@sonhouse saidhttps://www.astronomy.com/magazine/2018/07/decoding-the-cosmic-microwave-background
@EndLame
I wonder if the idea of multiple universes has any evidence? Like if our universe is expanding exponentially, it sounds like it is expanding into a space of higher dimensions which would lead to the question if there are other universes, like bubbles of foam where each bubble is a separate universe with its expansions and such going on, will there be or is there already evidence we have 'bumped' into another universe?
... some scientists agree with your floating blob ideas...they "see" certain areas of the WMAP that might show another Universe (blob) bumping into ours..
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
@kilroy70 saidI feels to me like you and your neighbour are conflating two concepts by limiting or using erroneous definitions.
This morning a neighbor and I had an interesting conversation about mass and space. We both agreed an infinite amount of mass could not occupy a finite amount of space. But we disagree whether a finite amount of mass could (or would) occupy an infinite area of space.
My position is the amount of mass and distance between objects (stars, planets, galaxies, etc) is what det ...[text shortened]... erse is able to hold any amount of finite mass.
Both of our ideas have merit and seem to be true.
The universe is not infinitely large but possibly infinitely expanding. Also “mass” is not correlated with size; black holes are small compared to their relative mass, whereas red giants are the opposite.
@divegeester
I guess small is a relative term, there is one black hole where they recently worked out the mass and size of the event horizon, which turns out to be over 1000 AU, big enough for six of our solar systems. Sounds pretty big to me!
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/ultramassive-black-hole-33-billion-suns/#:~:text=The%20heaviest%20black%20hole%20known,the%20mass%20of%20our%20sun.
One question scientists would like to know is what happens to that mass inside? Some theories say it turns into a 'white hole' and squirts that mass into another universe that would be viewed as a big bang in another universe.
And of course we understand that is just theory with very little in the way of actual evidence.
Do you have a theory as to what happens to that mass in that BH?
@divegeester said"The universe is not infinitely large"
I feels to me like you and your neighbour are conflating two concepts by limiting or using erroneous definitions.
The universe is not infinitely large but possibly infinitely expanding. Also “mass” is not correlated with size; black holes are small compared to their relative mass, whereas red giants are the opposite.
You don't know that. You accept the whole universe cannot be seen because you claimed it was expanding faster than the speed of light. You contradicted yourself.
You cannot see how large it is. Now you are claiming you know how large it is. Which is it?
@sonhouse saidSome black holes spin fast and that may be why they shoot gamma ray jets from their poles. There also seems to be a correlation between jet output and accretion disk output. But not all black holes have jets.
@divegeester
I guess small is a relative term, there is one black hole where they recently worked out the mass and size of the event horizon, which turns out to be over 1000 AU, big enough for six of our solar systems. Sounds pretty big to me!
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/ultramassive-black-hole-33-billion-suns/#:~:text=The%20heaviest%20black%20hole%20known,the%20mas ...[text shortened]... le in the way of actual evidence.
Do you have a theory as to what happens to that mass in that BH?
Kind of hard to know what is happening when you cannot see past the event horizon.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
@sonhouse saidWhich is why I used the word “relative”.
@divegeester
I guess small is a relative term,
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
@metal-brain saidI’m not claiming anything, I’m just reflecting the theories being put forward atm.
"The universe is not infinitely large"
You don't know that. You accept the whole universe cannot be seen because you claimed it was expanding faster than the speed of light. You contradicted yourself.
You cannot see how large it is. Now you are claiming you know how large it is. Which is it?
The universe is not “infinitely large”, the theory is that it may be infinitely expanding. I’m didn’t claim that I know how large it is.
- Joined
- 20 May 16
- Moves
- 36241
@divegeester saidKirk junior drop down and answer my ufo comment. Your daddy has had to have taught you something.😁
Which is why I used the word “relative”.