does the univerce have an end, a limit?

^what are you talking about? no one knows if the universe is finite or infinite. people can make some guestimates. some people lean on one side or another. in my original post, i stated there may be several possibilities and yet you are arguing over them. i never said they were a fact. you are not making any sense.

first you argue that i think the universe is finite, then you rail that you need hard evidence and it's arrogant to assume it's finite because of our 'perceptions' which you still don't comprehend what i meant by that. then you state the universe is infinite which is an assumption. your thinking is twisted as a pretzel.

you also have no evidence to emphatically state that if there is other universes, it is probably exactly or very similar to this. you are contradicting your own views as you said our senses are limited (which most everyone will agree) so that is self-centered and arrogant to assume what we can't understand or percieve probably doesn't exist. you are jumping all over the place so that you can pretend that you are making a point.

i know how to separate imagination from reality. i never stated that a universe with 100 dimensions exist but imagination and conceptual thought is also important to possibilities, even in science. without it, one is never thinking but just reacting. even einstein recognized how imagination was important for discovery as it gives you some reason to consider and even explore possiblities.

are you that dense you don't get that??

even this is unrealistic. how the heck do you even realize or confirm scientific evidence without senses? it doesn't mean you can detect everything but what is detected by your senses is a start. if senses can't be trusted, then you have equally no grounds to state the universe is infinite.

do you think the intellect or brain is separate from your senses? lol

if you want to admit that humans have limited ability to percieve which is what i was trying to say then you wouldn't be such a moron.

what makes you think your senses can detect it all? we can only detect most easily the four dimensions. i am defining the universe as being enclosed by four walls. it doesn't mean there is no reality outside of it.

can an ant know what a solar system is? does this mean that there aren't other realities? no. you just seem to have the problem with the idea that the universe may not be infinite which is extremely arrogant and rather stupid in my opinion. not because it can't be but because you have a hangup about it. there are differences right here on this planet, even major ones such as aquatic life and land life. it shouldn't be difficult to entertain another reality separate from our own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Birch, I must apologize. It finally dawns on me why we are misunderstanding each other. It appears you are under the impression that the topic is a philosophical question.

It isn't. It is a question that can be answered to a reasonable degree of certainty right now.

2000 years ago, we knew next to nothing about our universe. We imagined a myriad of possibilities as to the form and structure of the universe. Some speculations became quite popular among the masses. Like God, for example.

But we were certain of one thing. We would never be able to actually determine anything about the universe. At least, while we were alive.

That held true for many centuries. Even as recently as 100 years ago, Man believed ... even the smartest men on earth ... that there were questions that could never be answered.

Man was wrong. The reality is ... we have sufficient evidence to make a rational, reasonable determination regarding the 'size' of the universe.

So let's be clear here. By universe I mean everything. Not just our particular area ( the local, visible, finite universe ) in which we exist ... but everything.

The on-going goal birch, is come up with the best working model of the universe. We do not require some guarantee that it is absolutely correct. Just the best determination we can make to date ... based on the evidence.

Certainly my theoretical working model ( which includes infinite space ) remains subject to change as new information comes in. But birch ... we are waaay past sitting around speculating. It is no longer "my opinion is no more or less valid than your opinion."

We have a lot of information now. Information our ancestors could not have begun to imagine in their wildest fantasies. Because you appear to lack even rudimentary knowledge of the actual universe, you are still a 100 years behind the curve ... assuming in your ignorance that I can't possibly know more about the real universe than you do.

Well, I do. I have studied it ... the real one ... for over 50 years. I don't sit around and dream up possibilities. I examine the actual evidence we have amassed. Using that evidence, I come to rational, reasonable "working" determinations regarding how our universe works.

Just like I have my whole life.

When I was six, I was already sick, and disgusted with the arrogant views of christianity. They insisted that we were the only life in the universe. They insisted there were no other planets outside our solar system, because God didn't say there were any. And they made a lot of other bullshit claims. Bullshit, because even at six, I understood they had absolutely no proof that this god of theirs existed, or had ever existed,

I was beaten ( by my own family, and other christians ) untold numbers of times for stating my views ... questioning the bible, and by extension ... God. These jackoffs got it in their heads that Satan had taken my soul. I was a bonafide heretic. And they were deadly serious about it.

So, stupidly ... instead of capitulating, I decided to prove these morons ( all christians ) wrong. The fact that there were 600 million or so christians in the world didn't faze me one bit.

I knew the first thing we would need were other planets around other stars. Can't very well have other life ( intelligent or otherwise ) if there are no other planets in the universe, right? If I could somehow prove this, then maybe the christians might re-think their beliefs. ( of course, I now understand that christians simply deny reality ... like still believing the earth is 9000 years old ... but then, I was still a naive six year old )

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but science insisted ( 50 years ago ) that we would never be able to prove the existence of other planets. They said it was analogous to trying to see a firefly next to a searchlight. The glare of the searchlight would make it impossible to detect the firefly.

This position was unacceptable to me. I knew there must be a way to prove the existence of other planets ...

I determined that if our solar system was disc shaped, then out of all those other stars, there must be other disc shaped planetary systems. Wow! What was I thinking? But to assume ours was the only one that functioned this way was to believe that God had created it ... in place ... just for our benefit.

Ludicrous. Totally ignorant, egotistical arrogance.

So based on the smallest of examples ... our own solar system ... I worked out a sure-fire way to find other planets. And I did it using a flashlight and my brain.

Starting with my 'other discs' hypothesis, I determined that out of so many stars ( quadrillions ) there must be discs like ours on edge to us.

I quickly realised that if a planet was orbiting the star, then all we had to do was keep a single telescope trained on a few thousand stars simultaneously.

I knew this, because of the flashlight. I made the cognitive leap that if a planet was in orbit, then as the planet passed between us, and it's parent star, then the light ( number of photons emitted ) would temporarily decrease. Just like when I moved my balled-up fist across the beam of the flashlight, and partially blocked it's light. Then ... after a few hours ( based on the speed of the planets around our own sun ) when the planet was no longer between us and it's parent star, the number of photons would rise again to their previous level. And eventually, the process would be repeated ... with absolute regularity.

I was six when I worked this out. 51 years ago. I did it independant of any knowledge of mathematics, or physics. Or for that matter, any other scientist.

When I was ten, I wrote to NASA explaining carefully how to do this, as they clearly were not figuring this out on their own.

Struve ( a scientist ) figured out the same thing in 1952. The year I was born. He was essentially ignored. Other scientists also figured this out over the years. Also ignored by mainstream science. Why? You tell me ...

I'm thinking ... fear. Fear of challenging religious beliefs, and fear of losing funding for heretical theories.

NASA finally announced their 'new' method of extrasolar planet detection around 10 years ago. They call it the 'transit method'. And it could have been done 57 years ago.

So, in short, I am not one to believe that because the most brilliant minds on earth say something can't be done ... it is not at all a certainty that it can't be done. It also means even a six year old child can have greater insight, and conceptual abilities than the 'most brilliant minds' in existence.

So was I arrogant? Perhaps. But I was also correct. And all those scientists ... and all those christians ... were wrong.

And I am right about the universe, too ... even if you, or the smartest humans on earth don't get it.

If you want to whine about my rambling, or rants, go ahead. I really don't care if you believe me or not.

But one thing is for sure. You don't know a whole lot about the universe. And what's worse ... is you don't think you need to know any more than you do. You are just as certain these big questions are impossible to answer as your ancestors were 2000 years ago. So you are not going to waste your time doing any research. Studying. Examining. Learning.

You have your 'feelings' and 'opinions' ... confident that they are just as valid as anyone else's.

Incredibly ... even after what I've been through ... I care a great deal for humanity. But as a whole, we are not terribly bright. Or observant. And it gets very tiresome.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am arguing with someone oblivious to the state of our scientific knowledge. So 'no one knows if the universe is finite or infinite', huh?

Hmm. Well, I know. I'm someone.

Yes. I know what you are thinking. You arrogant bastard. What makes you think you know more than the scientists ... or anyone else, for that matter?

Like I said before, I don't care what ignorant people think. And scientists have a remarkable propensity for being clueless.

Know anything about the 'steady state' universe? Know how many brilliant minds were convinced of that 'truth'?

You make the silliest assertions birch.

Your whole post above is so out to lunch. Babbling on about 'senses'. Ants, and blind people. How in the world does the variety of life on earth have the slightest bearing on whether or not the universe is infinite? This isn't logic. This is nonsense.

I don't 'have a problem' with the idea that the universe may not be infinite. Scientifically birch ... there is ZERO evidence that it is finite. Lots of evidence that it is infinite. Therefore, the better working model ... the rational working model ... is to presume infinite over finite. It is not a 50/50 guess. But being unaware of the science behind this, you will just continue to state your opinion that it is finite ... without any evidence at all to support that opinion. It's just your feeling.

Why birch? Why do you have this 'feeling'?

Sure birch. There are an endless number of 'possibilities'. But they do not all carry equal weight. Some possibilities have science to back them up. Most have nothing but imagination to back them up. I think ... if you don't object ... I will go with the possibilities that have hard science to support them.

You may imagine anything you wish.

It's so funny. You just can't see that we have a whole freakin finite universe stuffed with 300 plus billion galaxies to extrapolate from. That is NO evidence in your mind? OMG. You just can't grasp the fact that if the universe that arose from the BB exists, then others must surely have formed in exactly the same way.

If not, then this universe is the only one of it's kind. It's unique. That is no more possible than our star being the only one in the visible universe ( the local one from the BB ) with planets.

So which is the arrogant view? That our local finite ( Hubble volume ) universe is unique in all of space? The only one of it's kind to ever exist?

Or the assumption that the existence of our universe is simply a normal function of the properties, and laws of space, and it is repeated endlessly, and eternally throughout infinite space?

birch ... we know our universe can exist. We don't know that any other kind of universe can exist. Is it possible that other universes could exist ... with entirely different properties, laws, and fuctions? Sure. Is it likely, or probable?

No more so than witches, elves, ghosts, and goblins.

There is a very high probability that the real, actual universe ( meaning space itself ) is infinite birch. Not an opinion. Not a baseless assumption. It's based on hard science of which you are totally unaware.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

^there is no way you can know if the universe is infinite as in 'everything' because you can't conceive of anything unrelated to yourself and your senses. we understand the concept of differences by observing our immediate environment and can speculate but that's all. then we can surmise there may be differences beyond our comprehension or even unrelated to our existence. of course it's easy to just make a sweeping gesture and say "everything" that exists everywhere is the universe without even knowing what it is. i never was arguing that this universe is the only one anyways or that we are in some bubble and there is nothing else.

you mention elves, witches, ghosts, etc. these are not totally unrelated as even our own imaginary concepts have been derived from bits and pieces of our own experience or reality and reformulated in creative ways.

i'm confused as to what you've been arguing over and what your point is, honestly. no one is denying that that this universe exists or that there may also be universes similar. as for endlessly and eternally, i don't know.

i just merely said that there may be other universes unrelated to us as in even properties or laws and you've been going on and on as if that bothers you.

what's interesting is there is no danger in even having that idea which seems to bother you a lot.

yes, i think you are very arrogant not because of possibilities or not but because you want to censor the idea that there are other possibilities that are unfamiliar to us.


this is why i'm not as dimwitted as you. you have a totally self-centered point of view but pretend you don't, that it's just all based on 'evidence'. this is like certain indigenous people on an island with certain weather, certain soil conditions, certain fauna, certain animal life, unable to leave with a horizon that seems to go on forever insisting that everywhere is probably just like or similar to them. of course that is the only reasonable conclusion. lol

maybe you are unable to but i can consider that there may be out there something totally unrelated to us. i have no problem with that. i don't have the assumption that because the laws of nature are a certain way here, it is the same everywhere. i can only know what is here but i in no way will say that it must mean it is endlessly repeating and there is nothing else.

why? we cannot even get out of our solar system so that's a very stupid thing to say that it must be just like us. it's not being safe and it's not intellectually honest. it's just self-centered.

you are equating this similar to claims of a religious deity but it's not the same. the problem with religion is the claim that god is real as in fact. of course they have no proof. most would not have a problem with people who want to believe that it might be true or could be true but realize they have no proof whatsoever and admit it just as there is no proof that there is another universe like ours that is repeating endlessly and infinitely and even moreso that there are other universes unrelated to us and our laws of nature.

 

I think the more important question is why you believe that is relevant.

No idea, but without someone making that claim, I have to question its relevance.

It doesn't. GR also has limitations. It predicts the center of black holes have infinite mass. Its just a limitation in the model and math.

The CMB shows the universe inflated from a smaller structure. Redshift shows the universe is still inflating. When something inflates from a smaller size to a larger size, it means growth. Growth is only possible when there are bounds to distinguish between "smaller" and "larger". An infinite structure on the other hand cannot grow or shrink. The logical implication of course is that because our universe experiences growth, it has bounds.

You should know better. Nothing in science is provable unless all variables are known. What we can do is provide evidence. The best supportive evidence is what I listed above, which combines observation with known behavior.

Mise-use of "proof" aside, why would I attempt to support a position which I dont hold? That's kind of silly. It makes me wonder if what I am writing is even behind comprehended. I am fairly certain I made it very clear several times that there is no evidence that the entity *nothing* (i.e. the absence of everything and anything) is real.

Ok, GR predicts that space-time is uniform. Why is that relevant?

I am not sure what evidence you are referring to that demonstrates that space is infinite. I did provide evidence to suggest the contrary.

One suspicion I have is that we may not be defining space the same way. I am explicitly referring to space as construct of our universe... length, width, height, and time. This is what GR and SR refer to as space-time.

 

I disagree, and so does FermiLab:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0509/0509137v2.pdf

I'll also provide a conceptual example. M-theory outright predicts the existence of tiny energy black holes. The LHC can smash particles together with enough energy to cause those black holes to appear (in theory of course). If they do appear then a very specific particle spray will be detectable when they collapse. If we detect the particle spray then it supports M-theory.

And why would I want to make assumptions that are supported by peoples comments?

That's good! I was starting to wonder if that wasn't the case.

I can't imagine why you would want to give me that kind of control over your actions.

I don't think it's irrational. I simply know its incorrect. It's actually very rational to believe in "God" due to the nature of how we evolved.

There's a big difference between untestable and hard to test. I have no issues of pushing the boundaries if it can help us achieve the discovery of truth.

It was more contradictory than anything. Any subjective/emotional parts of it are not of any concern to me.

Ok.

I agree. M-Thoery may be very incorrect. I simply like it but would in no way declare it true or even supported at this point. I am however rooting for its accuracy pending full-powered LHC data.

Ok, that demonstrates how logic can be mis-applied; however, it didn't address my question about which specific logic you think I was mis-applying.

That's a very old cop-out that I have only seen used by the most die-hard of crackpots

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

CLAIMER: I claim this is true.
AUDIENCE: Show us the evidence.
CLAIMER: Go research it, its all there.

Yes we do.

 

Then I'll point out that "obvious" is subjective.

Fortunately science is self-correcting.

Bias too (that's the biggest one). It results in BOTH incorrect assertions of possibility and impossibility.

The "problem" in question is that humans can be incorrect?

Then by all means do point it out.

One hard rule of quantum mechanics is that whatever is not forbidden (by reality) will happen. What you deem as "irrational thinking" is something that reality does not forbid; therefore, it will happen.

 

Ok.

First, I have no desire to censor anything. Imagination is a wonderful thing ... no denying it.

Second, I have no problem with other possibilities. The problem I have is humans, in their ignorance of the factual reality, applying equal, if not greater, weight ( probability ) to completely imaginary concepts.

Third, we are not some indigenous population cut off from the rest of the universe by our human senses. We have the capability to look back almost to the beginning of our expanding bubble.

Fourth, the argument that 'things could be very different beyond our field of view' has been the mantra of Man since time began. But our knowledge of the behaviors of photons, and our technical ability to detect them has changed this ... even if you don't get it. Whether you know it or not, the 'natural laws' that govern matter and energy right here on earth, are the same laws that apply across the visible universe.

100 years ago, we imagined that 'things might be very different' beyond the Milky Way galaxy. Beyond the mysterious nebulas we detected, which were still thought to be just a part of our 'island universe'.

Shortly thereafter, we realised that the nebulas were their own 'island universes'. And clearly essentially the same as our own ... due to the fact that we could see them. If the laws of physics were any different, then so too would the behavior of photons be different. But they were not.

So now we know that the laws of physics apply equally across the visible universe. Nothing different about the 'natural laws' anywhere.

Perhaps there are other dimensions beyond our ability to detect them. But one thing is for certain. They do not and never will interact with the four dimensions we exist in. Clearly, they haven't in almost 14 billion years.

But even though I may consider it a total waste of energy to pursue the 'discovery' of alternate dimensions, magic, etc ... I have no problem if that is how someone wishes to spend their life. Go for it.

In my view, there is far too much to learn about the four-dimensional universe, in the limited amount of time we are allotted, to bother with such matters, but again ... whatever floats your boat.

Regarding irrational thought processes :

What is the difference between a man in a mental istitution claiming to be Napolean, and one billion christians claiming the earth is no more than 9000 years old?

Esesentially, nothing. To one degree or another, they are all insane. But since so many share the insanity ... in the case of christianity, and other religions ... the madness is accepted, nurtured, and passed down through time as if it is a 'rational' state of being.

Religion is not the only madness humanity nurtures, and passes down through the ages. All beliefs are a form of insanity. Whether it's alien abductions, ghosts, spirits, witches, and even the concept of human 'souls' ... Man continues to perpetuate, 'authenticate', and rationalize the irrational.

birch, you seem to be a perfect example of this. You weave, as do the vast majority of humans, elaborate 'justifications' for your irrational thought processes.

I have fought against this for over 50 years, and truly, it is a losing battle. All I have ever tried to do is to get other humans to take some of their precious time to consider 'actual' realities, rather than imaginary ones.

My apology for wasting your time.

 

Yes Crunchy, our visible universe is expanding. Yes, GR breaks down at the 'singularity'. But you do not understand the relevance of 'uniformity', and I concede my inability to assist you in grasping it's relevance.

You have provided evidence that our local universe is finite, which of course I fully agree with. What you have not done is provide evidence that space itself only exists within the confines of this visible finite universe, and therefore is also finite.

Many theories in Man's history ... eventually proven to be incorrect ... have made accurate predictions. The fact that mini-black holes may be produced would not in any way prove M-theory. There is a vast difference between 'supporting' a theory, and proving it. And Brian Greene pointedly makes that distinction in the interview I referred to.

As far as GR, and SR goes ... clearly they have limitations. Many scientists now accept that singularities are not infinitely small, or dense. Einstein made several major errors in his lifetime. One being the very existence of black holes. Another being the 'steady state' universe.

However, uniformity of space does not appear to be one of them. I would ask ( sigh ) one more time that you review the definition of uniformity. We know that space has it's own properties, seperate from the matter/energy universe we are familiar with. We know that it has a very low energy density seperate from CMBR, and other forms of radiation.

The evidence I keep referring to is the accuracy of these observations, and the general accuracy of GR/SR when it comes to the very large ... and certainly space itself is part of the 'very large'. So when you suggest that space and our universe are inexorably intertwined based on GR/SR, I would just say that you, and most others are not fully realising the consequences of uniformity.

If space itself was not provably uniform, I would absolutely agree we have no evidence that space itself is infinite. But I think I am making no headway on this issue with you.

So I will just close with this ( repetitive ) thought. Einstein was wrong. Very wrong on major issues. He did not 'like' the idea of infinite space any more than he liked the idea of black holes. He therefore made space 'finite' ... curved ... and ignored the reality of 'uniformity' and how that uniformity related to space beyond our visible universe.

And by the way ... thank you for equating my lack of time, and energy with 'crack-pot cop-out'. I don't think that is an accurate assessment of my cognitive abilities, or of the time I have already spent on this, but you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

 

Yes, I agree with this, too. But therein lies the problem. The laws of space, and of the matter/energy universe put hard limits on what can happen.

It's that 'reality' that so many do not understand.

Oh, one more thing. A belief in God ... or any other belief is not 'rational'. No matter how that belief evolved, or how it may have been useful regarding Man's survival. Beliefs, by definition, are not supported by observational reality. Therefore they have always been, and remain nothing more than figments of Man's imagination. To base your very existence, and by extension, your words, thoughts, deeds, throughout your life on a figment of your ( and others ) imagination is irrational.

The number of people who share such irrationality is irrelevant.

 

PPS Crunchy:

From your Fermi Link ... excerpt :

The highlighted above clearly shows you have chosen to ignore rather critical words and phrases in your rebuttal of my Brian Greene comment.

So let's clear this up.

M-theory makes some specific predictions. These predictions might be observed experimentally using the LHC.

Ok, so far. No disagreement with this.

If the predicted features are observed this could be interpreted as direct evidence of M-theory.

I'm seeing some problems ....

It doesn't say 'will prove M-theory'. It doesn't even say 'will be direct evidence of M-theory'.

It says 'could be interpreted'. Yes. I suppose it could. Other scientists ... those not infatuated with M-theory ... could interpret the 'possible' results of LHC experiments quite differently.

So ... I stand by my assertion. Brian Greene stated that such experimental results could at least provide some supporting evidence of M-theory.

But would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be the 'smoking gun'.

The positive results ( if any ) would not be proof of any dimensions other than the four we currently detect.

I agree however, that such positive results would warrant further study. In fact, as I have stated many times, I have no problem with multiple dimensions being studied at all, regardless of any LHC experiments.

The only problem I have is that there are other, perhaps more simple solutions/theories that deserve more attention ... and funding. From what I have read, around 80% of all grant money goes into multiple dimension research.

And furthermore, even though there is now ( finally ) a smattering of communication between those studying the very large and those studying the very small, science has a long way to go in improving this communication.

Science can only benefit from such an improvement.

 

exactly, the visible universe. again, i don't know why you are arguing.

i'm just more open-minded than you are. there was a time when no one believed that there were lifeforms that could survive extreme temperatures until it was discovered.

again, my initial post was just a comment that no one knows right now if the universe is infinite as in what we know of the laws of nature. i meant finite as in what is measurable or detectable.

for some reason you got upset about it and went on to say the universe is infinite. see, you say the universe is infinite BUT according to our laws of nature and what we can detect and you reject as frivolous any idea that there may be other universes unrelated to our laws of nature. fine.

i think it's hilarious for someone to understand the concept of four dimensions and have a problem with not understanding that is finite and limited. why only four dimensions? and if we were really rational according to your logic, we would just stay here on this planet where we are obviously most well-suited and dismantle nasa. what is the point of space exploration? because the sun will die one day? of course, that means we are meant to die as well obviously. lol

but that's basically what i was originally saying except that the universe is finite as in measurable or detectable. anything that is detectable is finite (i'm amazed i have to repeat this again). the only difference is i just added that there may be something else besides what we are aware of or what we know. that's it and you've been going on and on and have a great problem with it.

so yes, i don't think it has anything to do with your concern over real or imaginary because it was just mentioned that it may be a possibility. again, i find your arrogance laughable when we can't even leave this planet except to reach the moon.

as for the big bang, you and no one else knows what caused the big bang and can only observe the consequences. to pretend that just because you can timeline from the big bang that the universe is infinite is very stupid to me.

WRONG. you are accusing me of what you are guilty of. i said the universe we know of is probably finite, there is just as much evidence of this to support it as your assertion that the universe is infinite. it's not irrational to wonder if there is a universe separate from us if we can perceive we exist in one ourselves. it is irrational to say it is a fact, however which i never asserted. there is nothing irrational about wondering, questioning or even having conjectures or ideas. even scientists come up with different methods to test thier ideas, to see if it might work. your idea that somehow it's irrational to wonder about anything that may be different from us is actually irrational. again, you are no einstein and even einstein understood the importance of the aid of imagination and conceptual ideas. the thinking process is complicated and uses various methods which you seem to be restricted or self-restricting. i'm sorry that it offends you that i naturally do wonder if there may be something that is beyond our understanding. if you have a problem with it, maybe you need to ask this universe why that is and not me. lol

you are even guiltier than me. go ahead and prove that the universe is infinite. PLEASE GO AHEAD.

 

.

Yes birch. The visible ( to us ) universe is finite. Space is not.

Hmmm. You mean extreme for earth, I guess. I also assume you mean most, but not all people.

Again, our visible universe is clearly finite. The actual universe, meaning all space and all things existing in space ( including our finite Hubble volume ) is in all probability infinite. As with most people, you do not understand the significance/consequences of uniformity.

Incorrect again. I don't reject that concept. I just give it the low probability it deserves. You don't seem to grasp this little detail. Once more : We know our kind of universe can exist, because it already does. We don't know if any other kind can exist because there is zero evidence that such universes exist other than in our imagination.

I'm glad I have amused you. Having limits/physical laws determining the structure, properties, and behaviors of matter/energy imposed by our 4 dimensions has nothing whatever to do with whether or not space is infinite.

You are being silly. I have suggested no such things. I am quite hopeful that we can overcome the very serious ( and deadly ) issue of high-energy particles so that Man can make the journey to Mars, and beyond one day. I have no desire to dismantle NASA.

Certainly, as individuals, we will die. I have little doubt that humanity will last a very long time.

I will repeat myself too. I have a problem with ignorance. Repeating the same mantra endlessly ( there may be something beyond our ability to detect ) gets very old. Don't you ever get tired of it? I sure do. What's the point of making such a statement? Does humanity somehow gain a better understanding of the universe by repeating this several 10s of billions of times? No.

On the other hand, if you would like to add something new to the discussion, and provide at least some kind of evidence to support your idea, that would be wonderful.

Our bodies can't leave, but our senses can. I'm interested in correlating known scientific fact ... experiments, and observations. Can't do that if I am completely unaware of those facts, can I? All I am suggesting is that you take some time to find out where we are ... as in ... the current state of our knowledge.

I am not into pretending anything ... unless it's a brief fantasy of Shakira, or winning the lottery. I really do not understand what you are talking about. I don't infer an infinite universe because I understand what likely caused the BB. The uniformity of space infers infinity, and my understanding ( theory ) of the cause of the BB fits elegantly into infinite space. But my cosmological theory also works if the universe is finite.

Again, are you confused? Space is very likely infinite. Einstein's GR is evidence of this. There is no evidence that space is either finite, or dependant upon the structure of our local/visible/finite Hubble volume for it's existence. Time may have begun for our local universe at the BB, but there is no evidence that time did not/does not exist elsewhere in space.

Maybe you perceive we exist in one. I don't. Reality is, whether or not I have the capacity to perceive it.

The laws of space seem rather 'set in concrete'. It's properties, and behaviors are the same going back almost 14 billion years. The way matter/energy interact with space are exactly the same across the visible universe.

To assume ( as a working model ) that we exist because of those laws, properties, and behaviors seems to be a rational starting point. By extrapolation, it does not seem to be irrational that our local/visible/hubble volume universe is just how space operates, and therefore, the same process has occurred more than once.

True, unless those conjectures have been repeated a few billion times, and there has never been any evidence to support them. Like christians conjecture ( belief ) that earth is 9000 years old. That is irrational. Like those who believe aliens have visited earth. That is irrational. Like those who believe magic exists. That is irrational.

Other dimensions? Well, let's give that one another 100 years of intense research. Even though there has never been any evidence to date ....

Yes they do.

Maybe if you knew a little more about the actual universe, you would not spend so much time wondering. Again, there may be different kinds of life out there. There may be different dimensions. There may be all kinds of different things. But there is no evidence ... so far ... and lots of evidence that things are pretty much the same everywhere going back almost 14 billion years. It's ignoring what we do know that is irrational.

My name is not Einstein, so you are right there. Why you keep harping on things I do not disagree with is beyond me. Of course imagination is important. How do you think Hawking came up with 'evaporating black holes'? He conceptualized it. He certainly was not doing equations in his head ...

We will see if he was right about this eventually.

Don't think you are getting my points. I'm not trying to restrict anyone. Just suggesting you stop repeating the same nonsense ( that others have repeated several billion times ) over and over. Come up with something new.

Again, this is silly. Of course there are many, many things currently beyond our understanding. And many, many things we have yet to think of, let alone try to understand them.

Oh, I think there are more than enough humans asking the universe, and god, etc. already. I don't think they will ever gain any understanding from this method.

It was proved by Einstein a long time ago, and our observations, and experiments have born this out. If you won't take the time to research this ... or if the evidence makes no sense to you, then nothing I can say will change your 'beliefs'.


I understand you believe the visible universe to be finite. I don't have beliefs. I understand the reality of our visible universe ... and it most certainly is finite.

If you understand what it meant when Einstein ( GR ) said space is uniform, then you will understand why space must be infinite. It is possible that GR is wrong on this ... but all the evidence says it is right.

 

.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=100441

here, that's a related topic, than may answer some questions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks Shadow. I agree that our local universe is finite ... as far as the matter/energy released from a specific point/time and expanding. I agree that it will end in some fashion.

What I do not agree with, is that this encompasses the 'actual' universe. That there is nothing beyond our expanding Hubble volume ... that there have been no previous phenomena similar to the universe we currently exist in ... and that there are not an infinite number of such universes as ours scattered widely throughout infinite space ... all going through identical processes of birth, existence, and death.

For the life of me, I can't seem to get people to realize that our universe ... the matter/energy that exist ... fits hand in glove with the known properties of space, and therefore most certainly is the one 'sure' mechanism for existing at all. Why would anyone think that our universe is the sole 'physical reality' in existence? Could there be other universes totally unlike ours? Sure. But then space itself would have to have different localized properties to accomodate whatever physics is in play. I don't think 'uniformity of space' allows for such occurences/phenomena. I think the properties of space are identical anywhere. So matter/energy can only exist within the confines/rules/laws, and properties of space.

Am I the only one who finds this ( our universe is all there is ) ludicrous, and arrogant? To think that we are the only universe like this ... just because we are technologically incapable of seeing outside our 'bubble' ... is just an ingrained egotistical belief system. That all this was created just for us to exist.

I really don't think we are special in that sense. Of course, in another sense, we are extremely special. Certainly there are not a plethura of other technologically advanced species within the arena of our ability to detect them.

 

.

you read my mind, if there are other univerces, IF, it would have our same physic rules, inless our univerce need to fit in to make a the existence susntable, and in that case, a univerce cant handle more than one physic laws, like, giving a contry two kinds of laws, to different laws, like, kill, and don't kill, if he didnt kill he will go to prison, if he kill he goes to prison, and things will be in mess, so, i'm nto sure of other univerces either,

but what i dont agree, is oyur saying that there's no other intelligent life form, actually, there is, first, by logic, second, i'm more convinced with it, in my relegio, we say, god create what we don't know, also, other evidences, we beleive in previous intelligent lfie before us, http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=99567 you'll understand it here, i don't know if you beleive it, anyway, it's not logical, to think, that, in the hall univerce, billions of planets and stars, and none is alive, there should be others, at least other one, we beleive in other life forms, and also, otehr intelligent lfie forms, but we cant contact them, there's like a barrier, cause we're very very very different, from different, like you say, mature form, or kind, etc... and i think it's reseneball, everything is possible you know, we don't know almost nothing about space, and this what i said could be true, wich i beleive it is,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, Shadow, I don't have a religion, or belief systems. I make my assessments based on what we know for sure, vs what may be possible.

Earth has had ... by some estimates ... over 7 billion species since life began here. Millions of species had up to 100s of millions of years to achieve technology equal to, or greater than ours. Furthermore, most of these species existed in incredibly benign, and favorable conditions.

Our particular species, homesapiens, did it in 200,000 years, under very adverse conditions.

What I am trying to point out is ... our particular form has shown itself to be optimal for achieving radio capability. 7 billion extremely diverse forms never got to 1st base.

We know for certain our form can do it. We don't know any other form can. Of course it's possible, but our own existence proves that although there may be vastly diverse forms of life throughout the HV, the likelihood of anything but our particular evolved form accomplishing technology comparable, or superior to ours is at best ... slim.

 

Shadow;Think of it like this. If there is a Creator or a God maybe the Universe come into existence by pure thought of the Creator. When the creator thinks it exists.It is not much different in our world, if we can think of it sooner or later it can exist.Maybe the Creator is always striving for perfection. The more room you have the more space there is to create worlds and systems in.The more you make the better you get, the better you are the more you can make.

 

Simple answer: No.
The universe is completely scalar.