rainbow walking

I believe the universe is infinite,

rw: Why?

but that your points are weak.

rw: Indeed.

The curved topology of spacetime causing expansion in a flat void and the application of internal pressure to a hollow elastic sphere causing stretching are obviously very different things. What use is your analogy? A balloon is not an accurate universe model, and the use of balloon allegory in popular literature is meant to be simply illustrative of the expansion itself.

rw: As I’ve already stated, I used this example only as a tool to support my claim of infinity, not to make a claim that it was an accurate depiction. In fact, each of my points go towards eliminating this example as viable. Perhaps I used poor judgment in choosing this model or failed to adequately qualify my intent.

No, relativity requires that any curved spacetime will indefinitely expand given a surrounding flat spacetime.

rw: And this curvature is an effect created by the presence of gravitational forces that are attributes of matter.

Matter is not "expanding" (and heat is not really expanded matter, it just means the individual particles of matter will take up more positions, thus giving the macroscopic illusion of the substance as a whole getting bigger), spacetime is.

rw: I think you have inverted the phenomenon. I would postulate that space/time is not expanding but already remains as an infinite substance, (for lack of a better term). Your description of expansion is correct and is the effect of particles changing proximity to one another. Temperature variation, (especially those variations prevalent around nebulae and galaxies), have a definite cause/effect relationship to the material they effect.

There is no elastic material boundary around the universe.

rw: I agree and made these points to demonstrate just this point.

Black holes do not make matter vanish (meaning they would be getting less dense and massive, instead of more), they are simply supermassive, superdense objects with high gravitational fields.


rw: Black holes are “events”. Most have been observed at the center of galaxies. I am postulating these “events” as vents where, depending on their dimensional stage, they either vent matter/energy/space/time from space into hyper-space (upper dimensional space) or from hyper-space back into four dimensional space creating nebulous clusters that form galaxies. I would say their particular function is one of gaining momentum until erupting from singularities into nebulous galaxy clusters and then starting the process all over again. Since they are not, themselves comprised of matter, but act only as vents that process matter/energy between dimensions their relative size, mass and density will fluctuate depending on the stage of development they are in and which event they are actively engaged in. Thus a black hole in the midst of a galaxy should be condensing in upon itself even as it is taking on more and more elements of this dimension as they fall into its gravitational field.

They are no more mystical than mundane stars. You might be thinking of the speculative "worm holes", for which no good case has been made.

rw: No, I’m quite clear in my thinking.

Pressure applies to matter, not to spacetime.

rw: Pressure causes effects on space/time like the wave effect where hills and valleys in space/time are postulated. Gravitational effects of matter create pressure much like the moon causes tidal effects in our oceans.

Liquidrage

I have. I've showed you where you make conclusions without any supporting evidence. I've done this twice now.

I've also pointed out where you've attempted to derive properties of the universe from the known properties of a balloon. Regardless of why you believe you are doing this, it is what you have done.

I personally believe the universe is infinite. Athought whether it is infinite in quantity or in geometry I do not know.

For example,
rw: Do you know anything about black holes? Nothing escapes its flux. Not even light. If this phenomenon merely acted as a magnet it would eventually accumulate enough material to re-ignite as a dwarf star. This hasn’t been observed. If, however, it is a port or vent that causes the process or cycle of matter/energy transfer it would explain the law of Conservation and go towards demonstrating the fluctuations in time and energy that have been observed in the study of universal expansion.

Actually I've read quit a bit on black holes.
You start off wrong by stating the nothing escapes black holes. When if fact we know that black holes radiate and given enough time evapotate. This is called Hawking radiation.

Then you wrongfully posit (again without any evidence) that if given enough matter they would reignite.
As if black holes are burnt out stars?
Black holes can form from stars that collapse upon themselves but they are not burnt out stars.
And no matter how much energy you added to them they would never reingite.
They are black because their density is sufficient to bend spacetime in such a way as to create a circular path in which light never escapes. In other words, in a black hole all directions bend back onto themselves.

You would need to elaborate on you last point. As it stands it is meaningless gibberish.

Maybe you do have a great concept in your head that proves what you say. I doubt it but regardless, you have not backed up your points in any meaningfull way. All you have done is made extraordinary claims without supplying any evidence apart from "you say so".

rainbow walking

In other words, RW, there is NO necessity to posit a "hyperspace" into which our 4D spacetime universe is expanding.

rw: Frankly, I don’t think you understand the complexities of what we’re dealing with here. There are a host of inexplicable phenomenon that remain unanswerable both on the cosmological level and the particle level. Just tossing around a “space/time continuum” doesn’t respond to these problems. There absolutely is a necessity to define the underlying “substance” of space/time to account for such forces as gravity, velocity, energy, strong and weak nuclear forces and space itself. None of these phenomena have a satisfactory explanation to achieve a Unified Theory.

Spacetime simply stretches, that is all.

rw: No, it isn’t that simple. Things that stretch create stresses and produce reactions. You simply cannot stretch space/time infinitely without relieving the stress and accounting for the energy required to perform the stretching. At the current level of understanding those materials and properties we define as the universe are being propelled away from one another thus expanding their periphery of influence. Everything is not expanding in the same direction and there’s even questions as to whether it’s expanding at a synchronous rate in all directions. The space/time continuum doesn’t address these anomalies in any conclusive manner.

The balloon analogy is valid if you consider that unlike a balloon, there is no "inside" or "outside" to the universe.

rw: The balloon analogy fails to account for the expansion and just attempts to demonstrate the effect. Because it was used by someone to declare the universe to be finite I used it to demonstrate how this cannot be the case. To say there is no inside or outside of the universe is also inaccurate. If expansion is a genuine phenomenon then there must be a point beyond which nothing has yet reached. Without a clear understanding of the underlying “substance” within which the materials and forces of the universe are drifting, expansion is sure to collide with the concrete walls of inertia as the energetic forces that cause acceleration begin to decay. The curved space/time continuum and the balloon analogy makes it appear that all physical attributes of the universe are riding along on the surface of a line but that totally ignores the various levels of complexity ranging from anti-matter to sub-atomic particles to atomics, molecular, common, and macroscopic strata.

The surface of the balloon/universe is simply all that there is.

rw: Nope, that is totally impossible.

I do not even understand the relevance of the question, "is the universe infinite?" What are you trying to prove?
rw: That the universe is a self-contained entity that maintains an equilibrium and is growing towards a phenomenon of division.


The fact is, the best scientific evidence we have suggests that the universe could plausibly be infinite or finite, but either way, spacetime is expanding, but not "into" any hyperspace.

rw: Sorry Dave but that’s only a temporary bandage.

Also, the fact that the universe is bounded by an apparent singularity at the big bang does not imply that matter and energy had to be created at that boundary.

rw: Never said it did. Matter and energy are not created but pass through an endless process of transition.

By the way, your understanding of black holes is completely off-base. They could never "reignite as dwarf stars," whatever that means.

rw: Listen Dave, the fact that the largest black holes are located in the center of galaxies ought to be a clue that they are the likeliest candidate as the causative phenomenon of those galaxies. Whenever astronomers get around to dating those stars nearest the holes and those further away from it they will discover that the ones further away are older and that the red shift of the black hole itself will provide the data to demonstrate that it is older than the farthest star. If my theory is correct black holes will eventually prove to be the source of the matter/energy creating the nebulae from which stars are formed, like dormant volcanoes waiting to erupt. When they re-ignite they will produce a lot more than a dwarf star and be a lot more powerful than a supernovae.

All matter and energy sucked into the hole is lost to us beyond the event horizon. The matter and energy terminates at a singularity, though we do not yet have a comprehensive theory to indicate what that implies.

rw: If this were true the theory of conservation would be false. These holes are circulation ports/vents that regulate the continuity of conservation with fluctuations that account for the wave effect of time.

Hawking showed, however, that all black holes will eventually radiate away, in spite of the event horizon barrier. This is too complicated to explain and you ought to do some research into this.

rw: Hawking’s figures remain controversial and no black hole has ever been seen to dissolve. A gravitational force of that magnitude will not do so even if no matter energy ever passed within its reach. What it will do is heat up creating tremendous pressures that will eventually erupt into a nebulous producing geyser.

davidm

RW, I admire you for your brilliant and seamless dismantling of David Mathews. On this subject, however, you are flat out full of shit (to the best of current understanding). Will some trained physicist weigh in, please? How about Victor Stenger?

Having said that, RW, I am not simply ignoring or writing off your points, I just don't have the time to respond to all of them at the moment. I will do so tomorrow. But any response I can deliver is simply a layman's understanding. What is needed here is a reputable and experienced physicist or cosmologist. Also, I notice you did not respond to the quote I cited from the NASA astronomer Sten Odewnald, who refutes your analysis. As to your ideas about black holes, they are at odds with all current science. If you are right, make your reservations for your Nobel Prize acceptance ceremony. In the meantime, please support, with mathematical and empirical evidence, these assertions of yours.

hinduwoman

However if the universe is truly infinite, then data would be never ending. Any model would be incomplete.

Theli

Liquidrage...
please do.

rainbow walking

That's not the case either. A model need not contain data that assigns a finiteness to data to be complete. There is infinite repition to a great deal of the data anyway.

Theli

Liquidrage...


PLEASE DO!

Liquidrage

Theli,

I sent you a private message in an attempt to avoid a pissing contest in a thread that doesn't need one but you've ignored it.

I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish by your last two posts here. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Theli

Judging from what you wrote, it seems that you were the one who challenged me to a pissingcontest.

From mail...
Doesn't this sound like a challenge?

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>