The Infinity Experience: Can we truly comprehend infinity?

Kirk Gaulden · May 5, 2003

If you take into account that space is indeed a time bubble seperate
as a multiplexed manifold as transformation points for the four fundamental forces of nature to be an infinite parodoxia and that light is indeed a hyper graviton in the field. Then relativity demands a relative position for moduli-space-time, therefore,
space can be relative entity in 2 dimensional space. Seeing that
the graviton is a superparticle like Ds is, gravitons can only be
in high quark plasma density states projected by lensing from other
time bubbles from distant stars at different rates faster or slower than the space around it in photon plasma promotes laser lensing that produces super densities at the electromagnetic level. I presented this as a base for our technology.This information is processed by
matter/anti-matter movement created in hyperspace at the center of
the universe.

RuroumiKenshin · May 5, 2003

Originally posted by Mentat
Not just a medium. Relativity states that it is an entity, which changes and warps due to the presence (and change) of matter/energy.

An ENTITY, Mentat?

Kirk Gaulden · May 6, 2003

Correct! See the stars, galaxies and even planets that have atmospheres to some point are all connected to hyperspace. They have the plasma required to manifold through densities of matter and energy. Energy states that are relative to superpatner ineractions
depend on the balancing of motions and other energies through lensing
to keep the universe from collapsing. If one area is without the weak force that is an area based for transition of energies would take place, through space-time mechanics and fermion-bosonic dynamics
balance is maintained through manifolding the fundamental forces of nature.

drag · May 6, 2003

Wow that's amazing Kirk Gaulden !
You know what I think, PF's too boring
and useless and people can't appreciate
real ideas. Why don't we try a more
serious forum like ScienceForums for
example and you could really discuss
your ideas there.

Peace and long life.

RuroumiKenshin · May 7, 2003

Drag, you're on ScienceForums, too?

Kirk: Very interesting, excellent way of describing the universe. I am prone to thinking that "entity" refers to a living thing.

drag · May 7, 2003

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Drag, you're on ScienceForums, too?

Nope.

But, I'm sorry I forgot you are, any other
appropriate forums out there ?

RuroumiKenshin · May 8, 2003

Yes! I just joined the mkaku.org community.
They have amazing discussions. I guess it is appropriate to say "far out" discussions. But nonetheless, physicsforums is much cooler.

Mentat · May 8, 2003

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
An ENTITY, Mentat?

Yep.

Mentat · May 8, 2003

Majin, I don't think that drag was seriously suggesting that ScienceForums.com was better than the PFs. He said something, rather similar to his comment to Kirk Gaulden, on the old PFs, and I still just don't see much humor in it - but I think that's what it's intended for.

drag · May 10, 2003

Originally posted by Mentat
Majin, I don't think that drag was seriously
suggesting that ScienceForums.com was better
than the PFs.

You think...

Originally posted by Mentat
He said something, rather similar to his
comment to Kirk Gaulden, on the old PFs,

I think I "tried" the same with someone
else on PF2.

Originally posted by Mentat
and I still just don't see much humor
in it -

In that case, you're suffering from one of
the following: a severe case of lack of
sense of humor/a severe case of lack of
knowledge in physics/a severe case of lack
of knowledge of the the English language.

Originally posted by Mentat
but I think that's what it's intended for.

Hard call, isn't it...

Live long and prosper.

Mentat · May 10, 2003

Originally posted by drag
In that case, you're suffering from one of
the following: a severe case of lack of
sense of humor/a severe case of lack of
knowledge in physics/a severe case of lack
of knowledge of the the English language.

Actually, what is lacking is an appropriate medium for humor. I can't hear the tone of your voice, I can see your facial expressions, I can't read your mind, and I can't feel your need for sarcasm.

Aside from this, I take people's posts seriously, to lessen the risk of insulting someone.

drag · May 10, 2003

Originally posted by Mentat
Aside from this, I take people's posts seriously,
to lessen the risk of insulting someone.

Feel free to insult me anytime...
The worst that can happen is that it'll
either be justified or you'll be banned...

Mentat · May 12, 2003

Originally posted by drag
Feel free to insult me anytime...
The worst that can happen is that it'll
either be justified or you'll be banned...

Actually, both of those things can happen at the same time. Besides, I have no use for insults.

drag · May 12, 2003

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, both of those things can happen
at the same time. Besides, I have no use
for insults.

Lighten up Mentat !

RuroumiKenshin · May 13, 2003

In that case, you're suffering from one of
the following: a severe case of lack of
sense of humor/a severe case of lack of
knowledge in physics/a severe case of lack
of knowledge of the the English language.

That actually sounds like me. I'm not good with jokes...seriously, what's so funny about "I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith." the punch line: "What's the name of the other leg?" I don't see the humor.

Anyway, I was reading an article in a recent Scientific American magazine about parallel universes. According to the theory, there are several multiuniverses. We're in one multiverse. If our universe is infinite, how can there be other universes outside of this infinite one? Consequently, I have arrived at the conclusion that these multiuniverses are all(including our universe) in a bigger universe that contains all of them. What do you think?

LogicalAtheist · May 13, 2003

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
What is infinity? How can something infinite expand? Once and for all, how can we conclude that the universe is infinite? The fact that the universe is infinite may contradict brane theory. Consequently, could it be tenable to suggest that this brane is a subuniverse?
Of course, the idea of an infinite universe could just be based on the infinite boundary theory proposed by Stephen Hawking.

Who ever said infinite could expand?

WHo ever said the universe is infinite?

I've never heard anyone intelligent argue these two statements. Perhaps you heard this from an idiot?

RuroumiKenshin · May 13, 2003

A magazine. There are multiple theories on how the universe is infinite. And the ones that say the universe is not infinite don't quite make sense with the geometry of space. Where did you hear that the universe was finite?

LogicalAtheist · May 13, 2003

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
A magazine. There are multiple theories on how the universe is infinite. And the ones that say the universe is not infinite don't quite make sense with the geometry of space. Where did you hear that the universe was finite?

Universe can't be both expanding and infinite. Simple as that.

I'm not stating it's either finite or infinite.

Is not light traveling outward such that the light is always reaching new distances from it's origin?

Thus is not the universe expanding?

Thus how could an expanding universe be infinite?

That is my logic.

HazZy · May 13, 2003

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Universe can't be both expanding and infinite. Simple as that.

I'm not stating it's either finite or infinite.

Is not light traveling outward such that the light is always reaching new distances from it's origin?

Thus is not the universe expanding?

Thus how could an expanding universe be infinite?

That is my logic.

mass can be expanding into infinite space just as light can be traveling through infinite space.

drag · May 13, 2003

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Universe can't be both expanding and infinite.

Actually we've been through this on the
previous pages here and some people at least,
including me, had no prpoblem with that.
Things just get further apart in an infinite
expanding Universe.

Live long and prosper.

RuroumiKenshin · May 13, 2003

What about that SCIAM article about parallel universes I described a post or two ago??

Mentat · May 15, 2003

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
That actually sounds like me. I'm not good with jokes...seriously, what's so funny about "I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith." the punch line: "What's the name of the other leg?" I don't see the humor.

While I don't think it's funny, the point is that if his wooden leg is named "Smith", what's the name of his other leg (while originally you would have thought they meant "there's a man, named "Smith", with a wooden leg").

drag · May 17, 2003

Originally posted by Mentat
While I don't think it's funny, the point
is that if his wooden leg is named "Smith",
what's the name of his other leg (while
originally you would have thought they meant
"there's a man, named "Smith", with a wooden leg").

Majin, had he said it to me I'd personally
be deeply offended...

sage · May 20, 2003

greetings , physicists

"This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spatial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spatial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion)".

__________________

spatial dimensions are expanding only in the region of the universe which have began from big bang singularity.this is the only region we know of till date and it is here that our laws of physics hold.
beyond this our concept of spatial dimensions may not hold even!it is only that the expanding entity which we call our universe interacts in some unknown way with whatever that lies outside to create
what we call spatial dimension.same goes for our temporal dimension,physical laws,forces,matter-energy etc.so you see though the universe may be infinite "our universe" is not and so it can certainly
expand.

"and has since expanded. It is also possible that God said "Let there be light." We can never know at, least in this life, because as the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light, at least in the inflationary phase the origin, and Big Bang is outside our light cone, beyond the limit of our sight".

this is something that i have not understood about inflationary theory.if the universe expanded faster than light does that not mean it went back in time?well what does THAT MEAN?
majinvegeta,if you think big bang theory is correct then how could our universe be infinite?i know that some geometries of space time allow an infinite universe.but how can such a model be comatible with the idea that our universe began from a singularity a finite time ago?can someone illuminate me on that point.anyway parallel universes if true only strengthens my point that the universe we speak about is only a part of the whole, of which perhaps we will never know anything.
i like jokes.just let it not drown the main subject.no offence meant of course! NOTE:THE WORDS UNDER THE SIGN " " ARE QUOTES.I HAVE MERELY REPLIED TO THESE.i should have put the quotation marks before.SORRY !

drag · May 20, 2003

Originally posted by sage
If someone speaks of the spatial dimensions
themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow
that just some things could be getting farther
apart, but all things should be getting farther apart.

This objection has been expressed and answered
before in this thread, we meant - ALL things(if the
expansion occurs throughout the infinity discussed).
Anyway, what's your likely argument for this being
impossible for all objects ? (In addition to the more
traditional difficulties with infinity.)

Live long and prosper.

sage · May 21, 2003

DEAR DRAG i have edited my post somewhat.please see it again.sorry for the inconvinience!

drag · May 21, 2003

Originally posted by sage
sorry for the inconvinience!

You got it ! THE ANSWER ! God's last message
to his creation !

Originally posted by sage
spatial dimensions are expanding only in the
region of the universe which have began from
big bang singularity.

Well, some people seem to think, which is
also why such a thread was posted that the
Universe may be infinite (I mean "normal"
space-time). Anyway the issue of this
being correct or incorrect is far above me
so I'll prefer not to comment on this,
not to mention that there is seemingly no
conclusive probabalistic proof on either
side so far.

We're discussing the expansion part here
because it was proposed as one of the
main aspects in this theoretical paradox
of infinity.

Live long and prosper.

Mentat · May 21, 2003

Originally posted by sage
"This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spatial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spatial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion)".

Everyone, listen to my new good buddy, sage!

Sage, I agree entirely with you here. In fact, I have been trying to make the same point for some time now.

spatial dimensions are expanding only in the region of the universe which have began from big bang singularity.this is the only region we know of till date and it is here that our laws of physics hold.
beyond this our concept of spatial dimensions may not hold even!it is only that the expanding entity which we call our universe interacts in some unknown way with whatever that lies outside to create
what we call spatial dimension.same goes for our temporal dimension,physical laws,forces,matter-energy etc.so you see though the universe may be infinite "our universe" is not and so it can certainly
expand.

"and has since expanded. It is also possible that God said "Let there be light." We can never know at, least in this life, because as the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light, at least in the inflationary phase the origin, and Big Bang is outside our light cone, beyond the limit of our sight".

this is something that i have not understood about inflationary theory.if the universe expanded faster than light does that not mean it went back in time?well what does THAT MEAN?

The universe is not "expanding faster than light", so to speak. What is actually happening is the space between all objects is increasing.

There's the ever-famous "balloon analogy" that is often used to describe this, and it goes kind of like this: Let's say that there is a balloon with spots on it. None of the spots can move away from each other at a speed greater than 1cm/second. However, the rule doesn't apply to what happens when the balloon itself expands, because the spots are not really moving at all.

Does that help at all?

RuroumiKenshin · May 22, 2003

But how do you explain the Doppler effect? It's used as evidence to prove the universe is expanding.

On the other hand, studies show that models of an infinite universe make more sense (not logical, apperently) than finite models.

drag · May 22, 2003

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
But how do you explain the Doppler effect?
It's used as evidence to prove the universe is expanding.

That's NOT a doppler effect, Majin. As space-time
expands the EM waves also expand.

Mentat · May 22, 2003

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
But how do you explain the Doppler effect? It's used as evidence to prove the universe is expanding.

I believe that the Universe is expanding. My previous post just refines ones view of what it means to "expand", according to Relativity.

sage · May 23, 2003

clearing misunderstandings

"This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spatial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spatial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion)".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Everyone, listen to my new good buddy, sage!

Sage, I agree entirely with you here. In fact, I have been trying to make the same point for some time now".- MENTAT.
no wonder you agree with me mentat.they were originally posted by you!they are quotes!thanks for calling me buddy,and THANK YOU for explaining to me how the universe could indeed have expanded faster than light during inflationary phase.you are my buddy too you know!

let me state clearly what my views are:
1) mentat asked how could our universe expand as it is infinite
2) drag said a infinite universe can indeed expand.
3) i said the universe we study is NOT infinite.it CANNOT BE as it began at a big bang a finite time ago(10 billion?18 billion?estimates vary)but if an entity began expanding from a point a finite time ago at no later stage can it be infinite.it's common sense.
4) since universe we know is finite it can expand.CASE CLOSED.

majin vegeta you said models of an infinite universe made more sense.can you tell us briefly what these models are?thanks

drag · May 23, 2003

Greetings !

Originally posted by sage
2) drag said an infinite universe can indeed expand.
3) I said the universe we study is NOT infinite.

Correction.
drag said that the point of the Universe
being finite/infinite is irrelevant here as
the thread deals with the possible paradox
of an expanding given infinite Universe.

Originally posted by sage
it CANNOT BE as it began at a big bang a finite
time ago(10 billion?18 billion?estimates vary)but
if an entity began expanding from a point a finite
time ago at no later stage can it be infinite.
it's common sense.

Had I been a sadistic human being I'd ask
you to precisely formalize the connection.
And even if you succeeded in this task I would
then ask you to prove that the type of "common
sense" you used is indeed absolute and
must "make sense".
I guess you should be glad I'm not a sadistic
human being...

Peace and long life.

Mentat · May 23, 2003

Originally posted by drag
Had I been a sadistic human being I'd ask
you to precisely formalize the connection.

What do you mean, sage made it pretty obvious: If something starts out finite, it will never reach infinity. This just has to do with the basic definition of infinity, which means "going on forever".

On the off chance that you still don't understand it, think of how long it would take a finite entity to reach infinity. Answer: forever. Since forever hasn't passed yet (and never will), the universe would never reach infinity.

And even if you succeeded in this task I would
then ask you to prove that the type of "common
sense" you used is indeed absolute and
must "make sense".

I'd say that it's not just "common" sense, it's definitive, and strikes at the very meaning of the words being used ("finite"; "infinite"; "expansion"; etc...).

Mentat · May 23, 2003

Originally posted by sage
"This is what drag, and others, keep saying, but I disagree. If someone speaks of the spatial dimensions themselves as expanding, then it doesn't follow that just some things could be getting farther apart, but all things should be getting farther apart. And if all things are getting farther apart, then this has to be happening throughout the entirety of space. Of course, there is not "entirety of space" in an infinite universe, which is why I don't think that everything can get farther away from everything else, in an infinite universe. Thus, the spatial dimensions cannot expand, in an infinite universe, IMCO (in my current opinion)".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Everyone, listen to my new good buddy, sage!

Sage, I agree entirely with you here. In fact, I have been trying to make the same point for some time now".- MENTAT.
no wonder you agree with me mentat.they were originally posted by you!they are quotes!

It sounded like my style, when I first read them. I just assumed you had come really close.

thanks for calling me buddy,and THANK YOU for explaining to me how the universe could indeed have expanded faster than light during inflationary phase.you are my buddy too you know!

Well, good. And you're welcome.

The Infinity Experience: Can we truly comprehend infinity?

Similar threads

Hot Threads

Recent Insights