| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sanny" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2007 05:41:21 AM |
| Object: |
What is size of Universe. |
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
They say there are 10^11 stars in a Galaxy and their are 10^11 Galaxy
in universe. Taking average size of Galaxy they figure a sphere with
10^11 Galaxy.
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
If everything is vaccume outside the Universe then also that is a
space and we have to count that vaccum space as part of universe. But
how big is that Vaccume Is that Vaccume never ending or it again is
surrounded by a big Balloon.
And here again the same Question what is outside that Balloon. The
size is never ending it seems still Scientists have found the size of
Universe.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 06:51:19 AM |
|
|
"Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
They say there are 10^11 stars in a Galaxy and their are 10^11 Galaxy
in universe. Taking average size of Galaxy they figure a sphere with
10^11 Galaxy.
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
As I understand it, most scientists accept a finite and boundless
universe. I.E., there are no edges but there is a limited size. For this
to be possible of course, the universe must warp around itself in some
dimension that we don't have access to.
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe because we
can't get to it.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
The light can't escape the "ball".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
11 Mar 2007 05:55:09 PM |
|
|
"Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
I suspect what you mean is "some magazine article claims that scientists
have found the size of the universe". Magazine articles about physics are
shockingly inaccurate. Don't believe anything they say. Seriously. The truth
is that no one has any idea how big the universe is.
Daniel T. wrote:
As I understand it, most scientists accept a finite and boundless
universe. I.E., there are no edges but there is a limited size.
No, currently the evidence points to a zero or slightly negative spatial
curvature, which means there's no reason to think that space "curves around
on itself". It might anyway, but it'll be pretty hard to tell one way or the
other.
For this
to be possible of course, the universe must warp around itself in some
dimension that we don't have access to.
Only if you believe that "real" space must be flat, and therefore anything
not flat must be embedded in a higher flat space. There's no rational reason
to believe this.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 08:02:13 AM |
|
|
In article <daniel_t-848C32.07521409032007@news.west.earthlink.net>,
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe because we
can't get to it.
More to the point, there is no "where" to get to and thus no "outside".
It's sort of like the orignal poster is asking, "what number is outside
the set of all numbers?"
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
The light can't escape the "ball".
Given that (1) there is nowhere to escape and (2) light is a component of
the material universe, so we wouldn't expect that it could somehow exist
apart from it.
To make this a little more on topic, no god could exist "outside" the
universe either, since the universe is defined as "everything that ever
was, is or will be". Therefore god couldn't create the universe,
because, if he existed, he had to exist in the context of some universe.
Consequently, if god is eternal, so is the universe. However, since we
have evidence that the universe exists, it's easier and simpler to merely
postulate that the universe existed for all time without need for some ad
hoc "creator" to explain that which didn't need to be created.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 05:01:45 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe because we
can't get to it.
More to the point, there is no "where" to get to and thus no "outside".
It's sort of like the orignal poster is asking, "what number is outside
the set of all numbers?"
Not quite, because the set of all numbers is an infinite series, where
the universe is not an infinite space. As such, it is legitimate to ask
what is outside the finite.
It's more like imagining a "flatland" world that is actually a sphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland The flatlanders cannot perceive
the third dimension but they know one must exist simply because their
universe is finite.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
The light can't escape the "ball".
Given that (1) there is nowhere to escape and (2) light is a component of
the material universe, so we wouldn't expect that it could somehow exist
apart from it.
To make this a little more on topic, no god could exist "outside" the
universe either, since the universe is defined as "everything that ever
was, is or will be". Therefore god couldn't create the universe,
because, if he existed, he had to exist in the context of some universe.
Consequently, if god is eternal, so is the universe. However, since we
have evidence that the universe exists, it's easier and simpler to merely
postulate that the universe existed for all time without need for some ad
hoc "creator" to explain that which didn't need to be created.
The entire argument above hinges on the definition given for
"universe"...
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 10:26:16 PM |
|
|
In article <daniel_t-CD46AF.18024309032007@news.west.earthlink.net>,
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe because we
can't get to it.
More to the point, there is no "where" to get to and thus no "outside".
It's sort of like the orignal poster is asking, "what number is outside
the set of all numbers?"
Not quite, because the set of all numbers is an infinite series, where
the universe is not an infinite space.
Well, conceptually, we could divide a finite interval into an infinite
set of points as well. In any event, a better question would be to ask
*if* there is anything outside the finite, rather than what.
As such, it is legitimate to ask
what is outside the finite.
It's more like imagining a "flatland" world that is actually a sphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland The flatlanders cannot perceive
the third dimension but they know one must exist simply because their
universe is finite.
You mean that it is limited in some fashion, such as being two-
dimensional? Just about everything would be limited in some fashion. But
we don't know, given a limitation on some particular set that something
exists outside of it to overcome the limitation. The limited set may
still be all there is.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
The light can't escape the "ball".
Given that (1) there is nowhere to escape and (2) light is a component of
the material universe, so we wouldn't expect that it could somehow exist
apart from it.
To make this a little more on topic, no god could exist "outside" the
universe either, since the universe is defined as "everything that ever
was, is or will be". Therefore god couldn't create the universe,
because, if he existed, he had to exist in the context of some universe.
Consequently, if god is eternal, so is the universe. However, since we
have evidence that the universe exists, it's easier and simpler to merely
postulate that the universe existed for all time without need for some ad
hoc "creator" to explain that which didn't need to be created.
The entire argument above hinges on the definition given for
"universe"...
My definition is quite standard. What do you propose in its place? If
god exists then he exists somewhere and that location should be part of
some "universe", though perhaps it is another "dimension". Definitions
matter in all arguments, including those arguments where we try to define
higher dimensional spaces into existence.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
10 Mar 2007 07:25:28 AM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe because we
can't get to it.
More to the point, there is no "where" to get to and thus no "outside".
It's sort of like the orignal poster is asking, "what number is outside
the set of all numbers?"
Not quite, because the set of all numbers is an infinite series, where
the universe is not an infinite space.
Well, conceptually, we could divide a finite interval into an infinite
set of points as well. In any event, a better question would be to ask
*if* there is anything outside the finite, rather than what.
In order for a 1D finite-unbounded space to exist, it must curve through
a second dimension. In order for a 2D finite-unbounded space to exist,
it must curve through a third dimension. In order for a 3D
finite-unbounded space to exist, it must curve through a fourth
dimension. To refuse to accept that last sentence, is special pleading.
As such, it is legitimate to ask
what is outside the finite.
It's more like imagining a "flatland" world that is actually a sphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland The flatlanders cannot perceive
the third dimension but they know one must exist simply because their
universe is finite.
You mean that it is limited in some fashion, such as being two-
dimensional? Just about everything would be limited in some fashion. But
we don't know, given a limitation on some particular set that something
exists outside of it to overcome the limitation. The limited set may
still be all there is.
Well, we know the thing itself exists within the "outside", so we can't
rule out existence there. To assert that nothing other than the universe
can "overcome the limitation" is special pleading.
Given that (1) there is nowhere to escape and (2) light is a component of
the material universe, so we wouldn't expect that it could somehow exist
apart from it.
To make this a little more on topic, no god could exist "outside" the
universe either, since the universe is defined as "everything that ever
was, is or will be". Therefore god couldn't create the universe,
because, if he existed, he had to exist in the context of some universe.
Consequently, if god is eternal, so is the universe. However, since we
have evidence that the universe exists, it's easier and simpler to merely
postulate that the universe existed for all time without need for some ad
hoc "creator" to explain that which didn't need to be created.
The entire argument above hinges on the definition given for
"universe"...
My definition is quite standard. What do you propose in its place?
I agree with your sentiment, I just wanted to point out its Achilles'
heel. People who accept any of a number of multiple universe theories
would find your argument unsound, irrespective of their belief (or lack)
in God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanny" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
11 Mar 2007 12:14:10 AM |
|
|
In order for a 1D finite-unbounded space to exist, it must curve through
a second dimension. In order for a 2D finite-unbounded space to exist,
it must curve through a third dimension. In order for a 3D
finite-unbounded space to exist, it must curve through a fourth
dimension. To refuse to accept that last sentence, is special pleading.
and The Fourth Dimension is the Time. (According to theory of
Relativity.)
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
11 Mar 2007 09:19:57 AM |
|
|
"Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote:
In order for a 1D finite-unbounded space to exist, it must curve through
a second dimension. In order for a 2D finite-unbounded space to exist,
it must curve through a third dimension. In order for a 3D
finite-unbounded space to exist, it must curve through a fourth
dimension. To refuse to accept that last sentence, is special pleading.
and The Fourth Dimension is the Time. (According to theory of
Relativity.)
In all the above examples, 'time' is an implied extra dimension.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
10 Mar 2007 01:42:11 PM |
|
|
In article <daniel_t-CF4000.08262810032007@news.west.earthlink.net>,
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe because we
can't get to it.
More to the point, there is no "where" to get to and thus no "outside".
It's sort of like the orignal poster is asking, "what number is outside
the set of all numbers?"
Not quite, because the set of all numbers is an infinite series, where
the universe is not an infinite space.
Well, conceptually, we could divide a finite interval into an infinite
set of points as well. In any event, a better question would be to ask
*if* there is anything outside the finite, rather than what.
In order for a 1D finite-unbounded space to exist, it must curve through
a second dimension.
I'm not disputing that. Even if we propose an infinite number of
hyperdimensional spaces, but that doesn't guarantee that there is
actually anything in them, and that's all I'm saying. We don't know that
that it's even possible for things to exist in them, despite the fact
that it might naively seem that things should be able to exist in them.
So when somebody says "what's outside of this finite set" it seems like a
reasonable counter-response to say, "why do you presume that it's even
possible for things to exist outside of it?" I mean, sometimes there are
very good answers to that question. Other times, as in the case of being
"outside the universe", it's not clear that such a proposal is even
logically possible.
You mean that it is limited in some fashion, such as being two-
dimensional? Just about everything would be limited in some fashion. But
we don't know, given a limitation on some particular set that something
exists outside of it to overcome the limitation. The limited set may
still be all there is.
Well, we know the thing itself exists within the "outside", so we can't
rule out existence there.
Sure, and I'm not ruling it out. I'm just asking the person proposing it
whether there is any good reason to think there is something. Merely
saying that it's possible isn't a very good reason either. The approach
that I'm taking here is the same strategy used against any intractible or
"deep" skepticism. In response to any question we can always play the
game of asking, "why?" or "how do you know that?". But if the
interrogator first has to supply some justification for each new proposed
investigation, then there is some mechanism for putting the brakes on
those who would demand endless explanation.
To assert that nothing other than the universe
can "overcome the limitation" is special pleading.
I'm don't think that's what I'm suggesting. We're clearly talking about
different things.
Given that (1) there is nowhere to escape and (2) light is a component of
the material universe, so we wouldn't expect that it could somehow exist
apart from it.
To make this a little more on topic, no god could exist "outside" the
universe either, since the universe is defined as "everything that ever
was, is or will be". Therefore god couldn't create the universe,
because, if he existed, he had to exist in the context of some universe.
Consequently, if god is eternal, so is the universe. However, since we
have evidence that the universe exists, it's easier and simpler to merely
postulate that the universe existed for all time without need for some ad
hoc "creator" to explain that which didn't need to be created.
The entire argument above hinges on the definition given for
"universe"...
My definition is quite standard. What do you propose in its place?
I agree with your sentiment, I just wanted to point out its Achilles'
heel. People who accept any of a number of multiple universe theories
would find your argument unsound, irrespective of their belief (or lack)
in God.
Even in a multiverse scheme, where god was in a different universe, one
would still have to account for how that universe came to be. The result
is the same. If god existed then he existed in some sort of place, time,
context, etc and that context could not have been created by him, for
otherwise he would have needed to exist in some other place before that,
merely pushing the argument back a step.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
10 Mar 2007 06:13:31 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
daniel_t@earthlink.net says...
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe
because we can't get to it.
More to the point, there is no "where" to get to and thus no
"outside". It's sort of like the orignal poster is asking,
"what number is outside the set of all numbers?"
Not quite, because the set of all numbers is an infinite
series, where the universe is not an infinite space.
Well, conceptually, we could divide a finite interval into an
infinite set of points as well. In any event, a better question
would be to ask *if* there is anything outside the finite,
rather than what.
In order for a 1D finite-unbounded space to exist, it must curve
through a second dimension.
I'm not disputing that. Even if we propose an infinite number of
hyperdimensional spaces, but that doesn't guarantee that there is
actually anything in them, and that's all I'm saying. We don't know
that that it's even possible for things to exist in them, despite
the fact that it might naively seem that things should be able to
exist in them.
This is obviously false. Our three dimensional universe exists therefore
it is known that at least one thing exists in the 4D space.
You mean that it is limited in some fashion, such as being two-
dimensional? Just about everything would be limited in some
fashion. But we don't know, given a limitation on some
particular set that something exists outside of it to overcome
the limitation. The limited set may still be all there is.
Well, we know the thing itself exists within the "outside", so we
can't rule out existence there.
Sure, and I'm not ruling it out. I'm just asking the person
proposing it whether there is any good reason to think there is
something.
Again, we already know there is "something", our universe is something.
The question is, might there be anything else?
To assert that nothing other than the universe can "overcome the
limitation" is special pleading.
I'm don't think that's what I'm suggesting. We're clearly talking
about different things.
I'm not so sure... "What exists outside my room?" Well, if there is an
"outside my room" then obviously my room exists there. Knowing that my
room exists there, it is reasonable to accept that other things might
exist there as well. Now substitute "universe" for "room" in the above...
Now the "if" in the paragraph above may seem like a weak spot in the
argument, however keep in mind that assuming our universe is finite and
unbounded, there must be an outside. The only other options are to
assume that our universe is either infinite, or bounded.
Given that (1) there is nowhere to escape and (2) light is a
component of the material universe, so we wouldn't expect
that it could somehow exist apart from it.
To make this a little more on topic, no god could exist
"outside" the universe either, since the universe is defined
as "everything that ever was, is or will be". Therefore god
couldn't create the universe, because, if he existed, he had
to exist in the context of some universe. Consequently, if
god is eternal, so is the universe. However, since we have
evidence that the universe exists, it's easier and simpler
to merely postulate that the universe existed for all time
without need for some ad hoc "creator" to explain that which
didn't need to be created.
The entire argument above hinges on the definition given for
"universe"...
My definition is quite standard. What do you propose in its
place?
I agree with your sentiment, I just wanted to point out its
Achilles' heel. People who accept any of a number of multiple
universe theories would find your argument unsound, irrespective
of their belief (or lack) in God.
Even in a multiverse scheme, where god was in a different universe,
one would still have to account for how that universe came to be.
Putting god in a different universe makes him less than our universe. I
think most believers consider god a peer to the universe. He exists
literally outside of all universes... Ockham may render god irrelevent,
but no amount of logic can prove his non-existence. It may very well be
infinite gods all the way down. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 09:50:50 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net>
bloodied us up with this:
More to the point, there is no "where" to get to and thus no
"outside". It's sort of like the orignal poster is asking, "what
number is outside the set of all numbers?"
Not quite, because the set of all numbers is an infinite series, where
the universe is not an infinite space.
How do you know this?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
10 Mar 2007 07:13:40 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns98EEC9E86FDA2vicman@66.250.146.128>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net>
bloodied us up with this:
More to the point, there is no "where" to get to and thus no
"outside". It's sort of like the orignal poster is asking, "what
number is outside the set of all numbers?"
Not quite, because the set of all numbers is an infinite series, where
the universe is not an infinite space.
How do you know this?
I don't. As I understand it, those who know consider this the most
likely answer.
If the universe is not finite, then it is infinite. If it is infinite
then there is no "outside".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawson English" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
18 Mar 2007 02:02:53 AM |
|
|
Daniel T. wrote:
In article <Xns98EEC9E86FDA2vicman@66.250.146.128>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net>
bloodied us up with this:
More to the point, there is no "where" to get to and thus no
"outside". It's sort of like the orignal poster is asking, "what
number is outside the set of all numbers?"
Not quite, because the set of all numbers is an infinite series, where
the universe is not an infinite space.
How do you know this?
I don't. As I understand it, those who know consider this the most
likely answer.
If the universe is not finite, then it is infinite. If it is infinite
then there is no "outside".
If the universe is finite, then there are no black holes--even if
something looks like one from the outside.
Very odd.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 07:05:15 AM |
|
|
On 9 Mar, 13:51, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
They say there are 10^11 stars in a Galaxy and their are 10^11 Galaxy
in universe. Taking average size of Galaxy they figure a sphere with
10^11 Galaxy.
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
As I understand it, most scientists accept a finite and boundless
universe. I.E., there are no edges but there is a limited size. For this
to be possible of course, the universe must warp around itself in some
dimension that we don't have access to.
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe because we
can't get to it.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
The light can't escape the "ball".
Well i do not think that universe is either curved or infinite, i
think the guys behind the orginal Asteroids got the shape pretty much
right, except it is a 2D matrix transformed into a 3D matrix.
Whereever you decide to go your still in the matrix the Asteroid
matrix has boundaries that translate over the x, y field and of course
our universe has boundaries that translate over the x,y,z field.
JT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 05:03:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 9 Mar, 13:51, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
They say there are 10^11 stars in a Galaxy and their are 10^11 Galaxy
in universe. Taking average size of Galaxy they figure a sphere with
10^11 Galaxy.
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
As I understand it, most scientists accept a finite and boundless
universe. I.E., there are no edges but there is a limited size. For this
to be possible of course, the universe must warp around itself in some
dimension that we don't have access to.
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe because we
can't get to it.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
The light can't escape the "ball".
Well i do not think that universe is either curved or infinite, i
think the guys behind the orginal Asteroids got the shape pretty much
right, except it is a 2D matrix transformed into a 3D matrix.
Whereever you decide to go your still in the matrix the Asteroid
matrix has boundaries that translate over the x, y field and of course
our universe has boundaries that translate over the x,y,z field.
Can the pilot of the ship detect the boundaries? As I remember the game,
the answer is no. So the Asteroids "universe" is finite and boundless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "NC" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 05:18:03 PM |
|
|
"Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:
jt64@tele2.se wrote:
Well i do not think that universe is either curved or infinite, i
think the guys behind the orginal Asteroids got the shape pretty much
right, except it is a 2D matrix transformed into a 3D matrix.
Whereever you decide to go your still in the matrix the Asteroid
matrix has boundaries that translate over the x, y field and of
course our universe has boundaries that translate over the x,y,z
field.
Can the pilot of the ship detect the boundaries? As I remember the
game, the answer is no. So the Asteroids "universe" is finite and
boundless.
Right. Geometrically, the Asteroids field is the surface of a torus. A
donut. Mmmm, donut...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 06:45:21 PM |
|
|
NC <nc@noxozoxo.tk> wrote:
"Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote:
jt64@tele2.se wrote:
Well i do not think that universe is either curved or infinite,
i think the guys behind the orginal Asteroids got the shape
pretty much right, except it is a 2D matrix transformed into a
3D matrix.
Whereever you decide to go your still in the matrix the Asteroid
matrix has boundaries that translate over the x, y field and of
course our universe has boundaries that translate over the x,y,z
field.
Can the pilot of the ship detect the boundaries? As I remember the
game, the answer is no. So the Asteroids "universe" is finite and
boundless.
Right. Geometrically, the Asteroids field is the surface of a torus.
A donut. Mmmm, donut...
And a 3d doughnut must exist in a 4d vector space...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
10 Mar 2007 12:41:05 AM |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2007 05:05:15 -0800, in alt.atheism , in
<1173445515.463337.177680@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 9 Mar, 13:51, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
They say there are 10^11 stars in a Galaxy and their are 10^11 Galaxy
in universe. Taking average size of Galaxy they figure a sphere with
10^11 Galaxy.
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
As I understand it, most scientists accept a finite and boundless
universe. I.E., there are no edges but there is a limited size. For this
to be possible of course, the universe must warp around itself in some
dimension that we don't have access to.
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe because we
can't get to it.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
The light can't escape the "ball".
Well i do not think that universe is either curved or infinite, i
think the guys behind the orginal Asteroids got the shape pretty much
right, except it is a 2D matrix transformed into a 3D matrix.
Whereever you decide to go your still in the matrix the Asteroid
matrix has boundaries that translate over the x, y field and of course
our universe has boundaries that translate over the x,y,z field.
And we call that curved. So you do think it is curved, you just did
not know what it meant.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
11 Mar 2007 05:36:26 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 05:05:15 -0800, in alt.atheism , in
<1173445515.463337.177680@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Whereever you decide to go your still in the matrix the Asteroid
matrix has boundaries that translate over the x, y field and of course
our universe has boundaries that translate over the x,y,z field.
And we call that curved. So you do think it is curved, you just did
not know what it meant.
The Asteroids space (square with opposite edges identified) is not curved.
It has a nontrivial topology, but that's not the same thing.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
10 Mar 2007 12:13:44 AM |
|
|
On Mar 9, 5:51 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
They say there are 10^11 stars in a Galaxy and their are 10^11 Galaxy
in universe. Taking average size of Galaxy they figure a sphere with
10^11 Galaxy.
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
As I understand it, most scientists accept a finite and boundless
universe. I.E., there are no edges but there is a limited size. For this
to be possible of course, the universe must warp around itself in some
dimension that we don't have access to.
So, the part "outside the ball" isn't part of the universe because we
can't get to it.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
The light can't escape the "ball".
Is it absorbed at the edge, or does it bounce off it like a mirror?
W : )
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Professor Primo" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 06:17:19 AM |
|
|
"Sanny" wrote
If everything is vaccume outside the Universe then also that is a
space and we have to count that vaccum space as part of universe. But
how big is that Vaccume Is that Vaccume never ending or it again is
surrounded by a big Balloon.
There is no vacuum outside because there is no outside.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The radius of the known Universe is 45 Giga_Light_Years. |
09 Mar 2007 07:29:35 AM |
|
|
Hi Sanny, The radius of the known Universe is 45 Giga_Light_Years.
The Universe has no birth nor death,
just a soft limit to what can be observed.
Like ever-active yeast in a loaf of bread,
the cosmos expands everywhere, all the time.
It has no center of gravity, i.e. it's flat, Minkowskian.
When you tune-in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation
on your radio ( it's in the static ) you're picking up photons
who's source is, at this precise moment in cosmological time,
45 Giga_Light_Years away.
See " The Cosmic Symphony ", Scientific American, February 2004,
at " news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Dec_17_7_@Cotse.NET "
I say " at this precise moment " because this souce is coming from
an ever-expanding sphere that has us, the observers, at its center;
so the actual source is never the same from one " moment " to another.
Also... 13.7 Giga_Years ago that sphere was ( notionally ) a point,
and was Planck dense, Planck hot, with unimaginably huge gravitational energy.
General Relativity tells us Gravity is the flip-side of Pressure/Density:
" 4D_Field = 8 * pi * G * T_αβ / c^4 ".
In 2-D, I visualise cosmological " time " as the Y axis and
( ever-flat, ever-static 4-D ) Minkowskian spacetime as the X axis.
But the Y axis is " Cosmic_Energy ", not time. " d Cosmic_Energy " is
a slice of cosmic spacetime in " cosmological time ".
Adding up the slices forms something like a " static 5-D hyperbola ".
w( z ) always equals -1, I posit, and Omega_Lambda is always .74,
i.e. Rho_Lambda ( and inflation ) was higher when Rho_Crit was higher
because a higher density dissipates ( i.e. " ticks " ) faster.
So, " Pressure_Cosmos = - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Matter * c^2 "
See: " www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/W.PNG "
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 07:19:21 AM |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2007 03:41:21 -0800, "Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote:
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
It's like asking what's beyond the edge of the surface of the earth?
Nothing, there's no edge to the earth. Now, think 3D instead of 2D.
Except that we can cheat in the case of the earth and travel up/down
over it if we wish to, adding one more dimension to the surface, but
with the universe as 3D, we exhaust the spatial dimensions, so all you
see is all you get.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 05:17:48 PM |
|
|
On 9 Mar, 14:19, AlanS <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 03:41:21 -0800, "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
It's like asking what's beyond the edge of the surface of the earth?
Nothing, there's no edge to the earth. Now, think 3D instead of 2D.
Except that we can cheat in the case of the earth and travel up/down
over it if we wish to, adding one more dimension to the surface, but
with the universe as 3D, we exhaust the spatial dimensions, so all you
see is all you get.
The interest question is how to cheat 3D because spherical surfaces
only cheat 2D, and i hope everyone realize this.
I can not think out of a way to cheat 3D, that isn't a matrice with
translations.
But maybe there is more clever people then i.
But then again i have no possibility to project a 3D surface within my
mind, and maybe that is the bottleneck of the problem. However i have
no problem whatsoever with translating cordinates of either 2D or 3D
matrices.
Best regards Jonas Thornvall
JT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanny" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
11 Mar 2007 12:17:50 AM |
|
|
But then again i have no possibility to project a 3D surface within my
mind, and maybe that is the bottleneck of the problem. However i have
no problem whatsoever with translating cordinates of either 2D or 3D
matrices.
The Fouth Dimension is Time.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 05:19:44 PM |
|
|
On 10 Mar, 00:17, wrote:
On 9 Mar, 14:19, AlanS <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 03:41:21 -0800, "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
It's like asking what's beyond the edge of the surface of the earth?
Nothing, there's no edge to the earth. Now, think 3D instead of 2D.
Except that we can cheat in the case of the earth and travel up/down
over it if we wish to, adding one more dimension to the surface, but
with the universe as 3D, we exhaust the spatial dimensions, so all you
see is all you get.
The interest question is how to cheat 3D because spherical surfaces
only cheat 2D, and i hope everyone realize this.
Ooops that would be 4D would it not....
I can not think out of a way to cheat 444444444444D, that isn't a matrice with
translations.
But maybe there is more clever people then i.
But then again i have no possibility to project a 3D surface within my
mind, and maybe that is the bottleneck of the problem. However i have
no problem whatsoever with translating cordinates of either 2D or 3D
matrices.
Best regards Jonas Thornvall
JT
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
10 Mar 2007 12:39:54 AM |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2007 03:41:21 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Sanny"
<softtanks@hotmail.com> in
<1173440481.859097.260720@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
They say there are 10^11 stars in a Galaxy and their are 10^11 Galaxy
in universe. Taking average size of Galaxy they figure a sphere with
10^11 Galaxy.
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
The question has no meaning. The Universe is defined to include both
Time and Space, it has no outside. The "ball" imagery leads you
astray. All space is filled with the Universe, there is no outside, no
edge.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SleepyHead" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 08:10:37 AM |
|
|
On 9 Mar, 11:41, "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
They say there are 10^11 stars in a Galaxy and their are 10^11 Galaxy
in universe. Taking average size of Galaxy they figure a sphere with
10^11 Galaxy.
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
If everything is vaccume outside the Universe then also that is a
space and we have to count that vaccum space as part of universe. But
how big is that Vaccume Is that Vaccume never ending or it again is
surrounded by a big Balloon.
And here again the same Question what is outside that Balloon. The
size is never ending it seems still Scientists have found the size of
Universe.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Personally I think the universe consists entirely of Leerdammer cheese
- we are currently trapped in a bubble which restricts our view of the
entireity of the universe and we await the arrival of the cosmic mouse
who will free us from our bondage of by nibbling at the edges of the
universe until we can force our heads through the crack and gaze
'beyond'.
But then maybe that's just me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 09:06:44 AM |
|
|
On 9 mrt, 12:41, "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
They say there are 10^11 stars in a Galaxy and their are 10^11 Galaxy
in universe. Taking average size of Galaxy they figure a sphere with
10^11 Galaxy.
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
If everything is vaccume outside the Universe then also that is a
space and we have to count that vaccum space as part of universe. But
how big is that Vaccume Is that Vaccume never ending or it again is
surrounded by a big Balloon.
And here again the same Question what is outside that Balloon. The
size is never ending it seems still Scientists have found the size of
Universe.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Despite some of the phony information you are gettig, there might very
well be something outside the observable universe, Alas we cannot
observe it and for all practicle purposes it might just as well not be
there.
If one were able to travel half-way thru towards the appearant
boundary in any direction (a little hard to do as even a light-beam
would need some 10 billion years to do that) you would observe another
universe, for two reasons.
1. The appearant ball - would have another apprearant center
2. In the billions of years it took you to get there, the most distant
stars would have
moved away the same distance you had just travelled.
Thus - if the expansion were the same - the universe would have an
appearant radius 1,5 times as big as before. But indications are that
the expansion is accellerating and the universe might therefore look
exactly as big, but much of it - mostly in the direction you came from
- would have moved out of sight! That is it would be travelling away
from you beyond the speed of light which would make it unobservable
and for all practicle purposes non-existend.
So let no-one fool you that it is somehow bend back on itself. There
is no sign of that.
And let no-one fool you that nothing outside it can exist. It can, but
it is not in our universe (that is the universe you can observe from
where the earth is)
Intelligent beings living half-way up the universe may - at this time
- be expercienceing quite another universe (whith us being half-way up
in the opposit direction)
There too would be an appearant sphere but it would have a different
content with more galaxies towards where they live and less galaxies
in the other direction.
if either we or they would sent the data towards the other,
we might even experience there experience and vice versa, but by the
time it would reach the other party the data would no lovnger be valid
at the place where it came from.
Got the picture?
Peter van Velzen
March 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanny" |
|
| Title: Re: What is size of Universe. |
09 Mar 2007 10:56:40 AM |
|
|
On Mar 9, 8:06 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 9 mrt, 12:41, "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some scientists claim they have found the size of Universe.
They say there are 10^11 stars in a Galaxy and their are 10^11 Galaxy
in universe. Taking average size of Galaxy they figure a sphere with
10^11 Galaxy.
But what is at the end of Universe. Lets consider Universe as a big
Ball. Then what is outside that Ball. Why we do not consider things
outside that ball to be part of Universe.
Does light stop going outside that Ball. If no then what is the Medium
wherethe light will be travelling outside the Ball.
If everything is vaccume outside the Universe then also that is a
space and we have to count that vaccum space as part of universe. But
how big is that Vaccume Is that Vaccume never ending or it again is
surrounded by a big Balloon.
And here again the same Question what is outside that Balloon. The
size is never ending it seems still Scientists have found the size of
Universe.
Bye
Sanny
PlayChessat:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Despite some of the phony information you are gettig, there might very
well be something outside the observable universe, Alas we cannot
observe it and for all practicle purposes it might just as well not be
there.
If one were able to travel half-way thru towards the appearant
boundary in any direction (a little hard to do as even a light-beam
would need some 10 billion years to do that) you would observe another
universe, for two reasons.
1. The appearant ball - would have another apprearant center
2. In the billions of years it took you to get there, the most distant
stars would have
moved away the same distance you had just travelled.
Thus - if the expansion were the same - the universe would have an
appearant radius 1,5 times as big as before. But indications are that
the expansion is accellerating and the universe might therefore look
exactly as big, but much of it - mostly in the direction you came from
- would have moved out of sight! That is it would be travelling away
from you beyond the speed of light which would make it unobservable
and for all practicle purposes non-existend.
So let no-one fool you that it is somehow bend back on itself. There
is no sign of that.
And let no-one fool you that nothing outside it can exist. It can, but
it is not in our universe (that is the universe you can observe from
where the earth is)
Intelligent beings living half-way up the universe may - at this time
- be expercienceing quite another universe (whith us being half-way up
in the opposit direction)
There too would be an appearant sphere but it would have a different
content with more galaxies towards where they live and less galaxies
in the other direction.
if either we or they would sent the data towards the other,
we might even experience there experience and vice versa, but by the
time it would reach the other party the data would no lovnger be valid
at the place where it came from.
Got the picture?
Peter van Velzen
March 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Your idea is quite acceptable. Just like when we are driving on a
road. What ever we see is the earth for us. When we move ahead Earth
keeps on Changing. And we find ourself in a new town after every hour
passed.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
