QUOTE:
Originally Posted by Keko™
Expansion of metrics, means what? Does that mean that if the universe is expanding, then it must have a finite size? Cos you can't really expand infinite, infinite is just infinite. So that would mean that the universe is finite, but infinitely expanding, theoretically...
I'm confusing myself, cos this is doing my head in... >_<
|
You can add 1 or 2 to infinite. It's a perfectly possible operation (or subtraction, in this case we're assuming the space is expanding every moment like scientists say).
Get what I mean?
An infinite space that
expands still remains infinite, BUT, it expands.
While you may think this is contradicting the Big Bang theory, it's just a matter of perspective if you look into it.
The Big Bang theory said it all possibly started an an expansion of an initial region as small as a ridiculous small part of the size of a proton.
You can however say, in the embedding theory of inflation, this is just one 'region', no boundaries assumed, the surrounding space is still infinite space.
So inflation defends a small region of space that expands on infinite metrics, regarding how large and fast it is to expand, it'll always be finite in size.
QUOTE:
Originally Posted by KloudMunky
I'd say that this is a paradox, because in my mind it doesn't add up. The theory you've provied is very intelligent and makes sense, but then you say that you can complete infinity, yet:
infinity (n) - to continue for enternity; never ending
However, infinity is a synonym for eternity, and it is stated in the Bible that eternity is beyond human comprehension.
This seems like one of the things that only God knows the answer to. Let's ask him when we die and go to heaven.
|
It's not about complete infinity, ok I'll try to explain forgetting all the river thing, it was a bad example.
Take for instance the infinite number set. You can add to it an infinite amount of numbers, without problem. Also you can subtract from it an infinite amount of numbers, while it still maintains being infinite.
Besides, assuming infinite is 'without boundaries' is a wrong view in my perspective.
A finite circular cause-and-effect chain has nor start or end, but this means that everything happened already an infinite number of times.
If there's something I skipped in your post tell me I guess this was it?
QUOTE:
Originally Posted by DryBowser
It's indeed too early to say that a certain model is *the* model. Who knows what discoveries scientists will make conceirning science we don't even know the existence of.
I find Hawkings theory about the flat universe fascinating. He says that the universe is flat but that it's also warped around mass. That also applies for our earth. But it's soo weak that we can say we live in a flat 'zone'.
For example, the Pythagorean theorem only applies in 'flat triangles'. It doesn't apply if the triangle is on a round object. So there are parts in space where the theorem doesn't apply. But it does apply on earth because earth is nearly flat, as I said before. So that's what I mean that our theories or models don't necessairly also apply to space.
Fascinating isn't it (and I can't explain what I really want to say because I can't explain it in English..)
|
I just said it's a theory didn't say I agreed with it. In fact I believe there's currently no right scheme, the only I agree the most right now is the 3D sphere curved onto itself as a 4D hypersphere, although the problem that time must have a beginning still is there.
And yea, all rightness about the Pythagorean theorem, it's one of those things that only work under certain conditions. Unfortunately we haven't found a universal law like good ol' Einstein slaved himself to but couldn't =P.