1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    21 Mar '16 11:05
    Like in one direction as a whole? If it was could we see evidence?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Mar '16 11:14
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Like in one direction as a whole? If it was could we see evidence?
    That is an illogical question. For the universe to be moving, it has to move relative to something else. But the universe is everything by definition.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    21 Mar '16 12:1613 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    That is an illogical question. For the universe to be moving, it has to move relative to something else. But the universe is everything by definition.
    If our universe is not the only one then perhaps our universe could be moving in some higher dimensional direction relative to some other universe ?

    Or perhaps our universe could be spinning around some arbitrary axis of rotation within itself as define in terms of a centrifugal force causing outward acceleration? (really not sure if there is something conceptually wrong with that )

    But here is an illogical question:
    why can't all of something be moving leftwards only relative to itself?😛
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Mar '16 14:00
    Originally posted by humy
    If our universe is not the only one then perhaps our universe could be moving in some higher dimensional direction relative to some other universe ?
    Setting aside the question of the exact definition of 'universe', movement involves time so these other dimensions must in some way interact with the time dimension of our universe. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    Or perhaps our universe could be spinning around some arbitrary axis of rotation within itself as define in terms of a centrifugal force causing outward acceleration? (really not sure if there is something conceptually wrong with that )
    That is certainly interesting. But when you say 'spinning' you might still encounter the question of 'in relation to what?'.

    I must also note that there is no evidence yet as to whether the universe is finite or infinite.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    21 Mar '16 18:24
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Setting aside the question of the exact definition of 'universe', movement involves time so these other dimensions must in some way interact with the time dimension of our universe. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    [b]Or perhaps our universe could be spinning around some arbitrary axis of rotation within itself as define in terms of a centrif ...[text shortened]... I must also note that there is no evidence yet as to whether the universe is finite or infinite.
    Yet it is estimated to have a certain 'size', several times bigger than what we see with scopes and such.

    What if universes were like bubbles of foam and somehow jostling for position with each other, bumping into and out of some kind of surface tension layer that keeps other universes from just becoming part of ours.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    21 Mar '16 19:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    .. movement involves time so these other dimensions must in some way interact with the time dimension of our universe. ....
    -unless the higher dimensions include a time dimension of their own. -OK, that's a stretch.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    21 Mar '16 19:40
    Originally posted by humy
    -unless the higher dimensions include a time dimension of their own. -OK, that's a stretch.
    Why would that be a stretch? If there are multiple universes it would seem each one would have it's own internal clock that started at each BB where our universe could be 10 billion years later than another universe in terms of its overall evolution. And just as easily 10 billion years behind the clock that started in yet another universe, ad infinitum.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    21 Mar '16 19:421 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But when you say 'spinning' you might still encounter the question of 'in relation to what?'.
    .
    If I spin, I would feel the effects of spinning (outward force ) even if everything was spinning around with me on the same axis of rotation so that nothing is not spinning in relation to me. I see no problem in saying something can spin in relation to some arbitrary axis of rotation within itself so that spin is not 'in relation' to anything else outside that something in particular.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Mar '16 20:52
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Yet it is estimated to have a certain 'size', several times bigger than what we see with scopes and such.
    'It is estimated' by whom? Based on what? I bet you can't actually find a reference for that that includes anything more than wild guesswork not based on actual evidence.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    21 Mar '16 22:011 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    If there are multiple universes it would seem each one would have it's own internal clock...
    I meant there being a time dimension being between the universes in higher dimensions thus independent on the time dimension of each universe; I think that would be a stretch.
  11. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    22 Mar '16 02:47
    Originally posted by twhitehead

    I must also note that there is no evidence yet as to whether the universe is finite or infinite.
    Doesn't the fact that the universe is expanding mean the universe isn't infinite? Something of infinite size can't get continue to expand, can it?
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    22 Mar '16 07:05
    Originally posted by vivify
    Doesn't the fact that the universe is expanding mean the universe isn't infinite?
    It is not the total volume of the universe that is known to be expanding but rather the space within the universe is known to be stretching.

    Something of infinite size can't get continue to expand, can it?
    Well that does depend on how you define expansion. Multiply all numbers by two and the number-line appears to expand locally. Its total length does not increase because its total length is not defined.
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    22 Mar '16 09:192 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It is not the total volume of the universe that is known to be expanding but rather the space within the universe is known to be stretching.

    [b]Something of infinite size can't get continue to expand, can it?

    Well that does depend on how you define expansion. Multiply all numbers by two and the number-line appears to expand locally. Its total length does not increase because its total length is not defined.[/b]
    infinity often confuses people;
    if you multiply infinity by any finite number, you just get infinity; exactly the same infinity. Of course, this is not something we can actually visualize and this is the main causal factor in the common layperson confusion over infinity.
    There is the highly implicit layperson erroneous assumption of "if I cannot visualize it, it must necessarily be nonsense".
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    22 Mar '16 10:47
    Originally posted by humy
    infinity often confuses people;
    if you multiply infinity by any finite number, you just get infinity;
    Except that by standard definitions you cannot multiply infinity by a number because infinity is not a number. There are definitions to extend standard definitions to deal with infinity, but it must always be recognised that they are extensions and have subtly different properties.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    22 Mar '16 10:50
    Originally posted by humy
    There is the highly implicit layperson erroneous assumption of "if I cannot visualize it, it must necessarily be nonsense".
    The problem of visualization is hardly unique to lay people. Many famous scientists / mathematicians have got things wrong and or refused to accept something because they could not visualize it.
Back to Top