Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Seriously? Scientists do not use dictionary definitions for technical terms. It's a ridiculous idea. Dictionaries are effective at defining colloquial usage, etymology and pronunciation. They are not of value in defining meaning for technical terms.
I didn't imply such. Again, your inference. I don't know how I can make it any more clear.
I have yet to see any creation, by neither anyone, nor anything, which compares to the creation of matter.
Now please, run along, and go read a dictionary, while we adults attempt to have an intelligent conversation.
Here's the problem........If there is no space outside to expand into; how could it expand? Think about it for just one moment. It's pretty basic stuff.
For any unit of measure; one can measure in any direction. If you can measure from a point inward from the surface of a sphere; you can measure from a point outward from the surface of a sphere. The fact that nothing tangible exists outside that sphere will not negate the relationship between what is measurable of the sphere. Therefore, those measurable relationships can be applied to what surrounds those measurable relationships, even if it is empty space.
Again:
The mass of an atom is determined by the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The lightest element in existence is hydrogen, which has only one proton. The combined number of protons and neutrons possessed by an element is knows as its atomic mass. The average atomic mass of the elements on Earth can be found displayed in the periodic table. Unlike a proton, a neutron has no charge, but its mass is about the same as that of a proton. The mass of the proton or neutron is 1836 times bigger than that of the electron.
The size of the atoms is about 1~2 Å. Compared to the overall size of the atom, the nucleus is about the size of a raindrop in a playground. A nucleus’ volume is only 10^14 that of the atom. Empty space takes up most of the space occupied by an atom.
I claimed in the original post of this thread, that the Universe is finite. I claimed that space is infinite.
Do not the laws of physics apply to the physical universe?
On the normal human scale of experience sure, but that isn't all there is to the universe.Time is a relationship between moving objects. Time = distance/speed.
The relationship exists within a windup clock, between the gears. The clock as a whole doesn't have to be moving, nor expanding, for the time relationship between the gears to exist.
Because the laws of physics are not some scaled up version of Newtonian mechanics. Space and time already go strange around the comparatively small mass of a star or black hole. We don't know how they behave on a larger scale and assuming nothing happens is inconstant with the weirdness of remnants like the cosmic microwave background.Do not the laws of physics apply to the physical universe?
Why do you suppose that gravitational compression wouldn't apply to an early universe?
Why?If space can be created (I doubt it. It's like saying infinity + 1, when + 1 was already next in line of the sequence) ; then that only further supports that space is infinite.
Semantics aren't evidence.
'Axiom one' isn't really an axiom because it isn't self-evidently true - and you've provided an argument to establish it. But, be that as it may, it's mistaken.Let's start with a couple of axioms.
1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
Space may well be infinite, and is often taken to be so for cosmological purposes, but it may not be. If the curvature of spacetime isn't completely flat on a large scale (it seems to be pretty close), the universe may be spatially finite.2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.
You're correct that the universe appears to be heading towards heat-death, but the temperature will never become zero; quantum fluctuations will continue to generate a minimum level of activity.In other words, no energy; no work. No work, no motion. No motion; no molecules.
The universe as we know it started at the big bang; we don't know what, if anything preceded that. Talk of singularities is just an indication that our physical models break down, few cosmologists think they really exist, and I've not heard any suggest an eternal singularity - do you have a citation?The tangible universe as we perceive it could not, nor cannot, have existed, nor continue to exist, eternally.
Some would argue that the Singularity preexisted the current universe eternally, before the Big Bang.
If it was very hot; would it not have emitted EMR? Would it not have dissipated unrecoverable heat?
Our current Physics models don't allow for the dissipation of very high concentrations of heat? If a law does not apply 100% of the time; is it law; or is it nothing more than a really, really, really, really, good guess, at best?
What mechanism would capture unrecoverable heat in a collapsing universe?
If the known universe came from a larger universe, wouldn't visible light also have come from the same source?
Wait, so Firstly, you're using a Dictionary (laypeople's everyday usage of words) rather than the very specific scientific definition while speaking about the science - which would indicate you're not up to speed on this for a start, then Secondly, this definition you quote still defines everything inclusive "in space" as PART OF the universe, not external to it.
I thought you were talking about the universe. The universe is not a sphere.
Ok.
So in other words, as far as you are concerned, saying that the universe was created at some point, leaves the door wide open as to what kind of event that creation was?
As in: it need not be some personal/intelligent entity and might just as well have been some natural "universe creation" process.
In that case, I agree.
The universe as we know it today likely "originated" at some point and how that happened, is unknown at this point.
Sorry for insisting on that point, but in my experience, on this site it is best to not leave such stones unturned.
The observable universe is only that part of the universe we can see. What we can see is limited by the time light takes to travel to us. The universe proper, i.e. the whole universe, of which the observable universe is only the part we can observe directly, is much larger, possibly infinitely large. Estimates suggest it's at least 250 times larger than the observable universe. Here's a recent article on the size and shape of the universe.Shape of the observable universe
Main article: Observable universe
See also: Distance measures (cosmology)
As stated in the introduction, there are two aspects to consider:
The observable universe can be thought of as a sphere that extends outwards from any observation point for 46.5 billion light years,
- its local geometry, which predominantly concerns the curvature of the universe, particularly the observable universe, and
- its global geometry, which concerns the topology of the universe as a whole.
Shape of the universe - Wikipedia
The observable universe is only that part of the universe we can see. What we can see is limited by the time light takes to travel to us. The universe proper, i.e. the whole universe, of which the observable universe is only the part we can observe directly, is much larger, possibly infinitely large. Estimates suggest it's at least 250 times larger than the observable universe. Here's a recent article on the size and shape of the universe.
We don't know; but it seems reasonable to look for some explanation consistent with the body of knowledge and the observations that led us to discover the big bang in the first place, using the scientific method.So in other words, as far as you are concerned, saying that the universe was created at some point, leaves the door wide open as to what kind of event that creation was?
As in: it need not be some natural "universe creation" process and might just as well have been some personal/intelligent entity.
Selective reading for the win. How about this, from that article?This article claims it to be a sphere too. It goes on to say that this sphere is larger than what we have observed.
The word "observable" is key; the sphere limits what scientists can see but not what is there.
What they say is that if it is finite, it may be closed like a sphere; but remember, a sphere is a 2 dimensional surface closed in 3 dimensions. The universe we experience is a 3D volume, so it will be closed in 4 dimensions.This article claims it to be a sphere too. It goes on to say that this sphere is larger than what we have observed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?