Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat if instead of saying borders or edges we call them boundaries? I can guess what your answer might be, but I'd still like to hear it from you.
The surface of the earth is finite, but has no border. You can travel West forever.
[b]So are you saying the universe has no border, but continues on into infinity? If you're talking about a universe that folds back onto itself, that just proves the universe is finite... it folds back onto itself because there is literally no where else to go.
I d ...[text shortened]... vel within the borders of a finite universe?[/b]
Hence my claim that no such borders exist.[/b]
Originally posted by lemon limeMake up your mind. Either there is space or there isn't. If there isn't space, you cannot talk of location. You cannot say there is 'nothing beyond here' if there is no 'beyond'. If there is a 'beyond', then there is distance.
Infinite nothingness? Are you aware of what nothingness is? There is nothing in nonthingness that can be called finite or infinite. No mass, no space, no distance, no time... there is literally nothing to be found in nothingness.
Originally posted by lemon limeCall them what you like, I still say that space either wraps around on itself or is infinite. I could of course be wrong, but even if there are boundaries, there would be no distance 'beyond' them and thus the question, 'what is beyond them' would be meaningless.
What if instead of saying borders or edges we call them boundaries? I can guess what your answer might be, but I'd still like to hear it from you.
Originally posted by RJHindsLet me get this straight. You figure Earth is the ONLY planet in the known universe that has life?
There are many holes that will work for the puddle. There is only one universe, one galaxy, that contains the one planet with the one sun and moon placed in the right space to support biological life. That one and only planet that will work for us is Earth. 😏
The Instructor
Originally posted by twhiteheadI never said there was space in nothingness. And I wasn't talking about location, unless you mean the nothingness being located outside the so called the non existent edges of the universe. In nothingness nothing exists... nothing exists in nothingness. So if you talk about anything existing in our universe, such as location or distance or space, I will tell you it does not exist in nothingness. By definition, space can only exist if you have two or more things which are or can be separated by space. There is nothing in nothingness that is or can be separated by space.... hence, no space can exist in nothingness. No thing exists there... there isn't even a "there" to say where nothing "is".
Make up your mind. Either there is space or there isn't. If there isn't space, you cannot talk of location. You cannot say there is 'nothing beyond here' if there is no 'beyond'. If there is a 'beyond', then there is distance.
I went back to where this thread started, and it seems some people have a problem believing light could have appeared before there were galaxies. Since photons are energy, I don't see why photons couldn't have shown up before there was enough mass to form galaxies. The fact that stars give off light doesn't mean there couldn't have been light before there were stars. Galaxies are made up of atoms, and there is nothing to suggest atoms didn't exist before there were stars and galaxies. So why would energy in the form of photons be an exception to any natural foundational formation of our universe?
By the way, the question that started this thread was why do galaxies in the young universe appear mature. I assumed it was joke, because how do we know we are looking at a galaxy formed in the young universe if we didn't see it being formed? And if the universe is as old as scientists say, then in spite of how long it would take light from any galaxy to reach us it would still get here in far less time than billions of years.
However, if light cannot travel beyond the *cough* non existent edges of the universe, it would also mean light from a young universe probably didn't travel in a straight line to earth. For light to travel from a young universe in a more or less straight line to earth would mean earth somehow sits outside of (instead of being a part of) the known universe. Light always travels at the same constant speed regardless of where an observer is, or in what direction the observer is moving relative to other observers. This means it's nearly impossible to reverse engineer any particular photons pathway across the universe, and say for certain how long it took for that photon to get here, or where exactly it came from. So whether we like it or not, or believe it or not, clearly gravitational lensing is not the only force that factors into our seeing 'optical illusions'.
Why do galaxies in the young universe appear so mature?
Here's the short answer:
Galaxies that formed early on (when the universe was young) look mature because they are mature. They've been here longer than the galaxies which formed later on... after the universe began to mature.
This all happened long before I was formed and matured, so I can't say for sure this is correct... I haven't been here long enough to see a signficant change in this universe, or any nearby universe for that matter. Oops, I referred to another thread again, in a nearby forum.
Originally posted by lemon limeYet you seem to be able to talk about where it is, even without there being a 'there'. I however say that it is not coherent to talk of 'beyond' the edges if such edges exist, just as it is incoherent to talk of 'farther South of the South Pole'.
There is nothing in nothingness that is or can be separated by space.... hence, no space can exist in nothingness. No thing exists there... there isn't even a "there" to say where nothing "is".
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, that is not the problem. The problem is when you say that the light we see today, that appears to come from stars, was created prior to the stars. I don't even have a problem with that, so long as you concede that the implication is that the stars we see with such light, are fake ie never existed.
I went back to where this thread started, and it seems some people have a problem believing light could have appeared before there were galaxies.
Young Earth creationists are faced with the problem that astronomy clearly shows the universe to be more than 6000 light years across. This means that either the whole science of astronomy is totally wrong in a major way, or the young earth creationists are wrong, or God created a fake history of the universe.
If we are using the bible god does not give an exact time the universe was created in or exactly how the creation of the universe would appear to man and how long it would seem to us. He also makes it quite clear that the cosmos were created before man. Sure, he says it took six days and on the seventh he rested but later in the bible he says one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day. Now in math we know this is impossible so the only logical conclusion is that god is saying time is not a measurable boundary for him, thus we can conclude that in the bible he is only showing the progression of the universe which, in fact, does not directly contradict the theories of man regarding the time table from the beginning of the universe to the forming of earth as he clearly gives us no time table.
To be even more clear god says he is an orderly god, now the order exhibited in the cosmos is the reason man is able to support his theories and thus based on the bible man should be on the right track.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt wouldnt be rediculous to think that space exhibits the characteristics of a sphere. I mean if you travel in a "straight line" accross the surface of the earth you will be able to travel forever or as long as the earth exists. What does it mean to say the universe is infinite or finite? From zero to one is finite but the amount of numbers that exist between zero and one is infinite and if you are a number trying to travel from zero to one making a stop at every number along the way you would never complete your travel. As far as we know there is no smallest or largest size that a mass can be and we have no way of knowing whether or not the mass and energy in the universe is increasing in correlation to the expansion of the universe or even if the universe is expanding is it not possible that the mass in the universe is shrinking at a uniform rate which would also cause the ilussion that the space between masses that are distant enough from eachother is increasing? Its like if you were to all of a sudden be twice the mass of the earth at your current density would it not appear to you that everything got smaller and of course the inverse is true.. all we could say is that the ratio between your size changed compared to everything else so maybe the ratio of non dense space to dense space is just increasing and nothing is expanding or contracting.
Call them what you like, I still say that space either wraps around on itself or is infinite. I could of course be wrong, but even if there are boundaries, there would be no distance 'beyond' them and thus the question, 'what is beyond them' would be meaningless.
Basically the universe is as large as the mass or enrgy that exists in it so to travel outside the universe, being a mass in the universe, is like asking a particle that makes up an apple to travel outside the apple. Even if you cut the apple in half the particles in that apple are a particle of that apple and as far as they know they are still in the apple.