Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

If the universe is infinite

Page 4 of 7 [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

22 Jun 2016, 4:55 am

eric76 wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Yes, but surely if something is possible then in an infinite universe does that not mean it is infinitely probable and in fact there will be infinite occurrences of that thing no matter how "improbable" we deem it to be?


It is possible that an intelligent being could make a pair of fair dice (i.e. no preference at all to any one side) and roll them a billion times in a row and they come up sixes every time.

While it is possible, I would bet that it would never even happen once.

it is not possible that a pair of unbiased dice would "come up sixes" with perpetual rolling.

the laws of statistics would agree (i am sure) with my assumption that the most common product of the two upfacing dies would be 7.

there is 1/6th of a certainty that any numeral will end face up on a rolled die.
so each number between 1 and 6 has a 16 % chance of occurring on each die, but the overlap of the probabilities of the products determines the outcomes of the 2 dies rolled statistics (in terms of product).

it can not happen any other way lest the universe disintegrate into meaningless cosmic static



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 5:06 am

@Eric,

Unless you negate the cosmological constant it is incorrect to assert that our observable universe is only 13.8 billion years.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 5:10 am

b9 wrote:
eric76 wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Yes, but surely if something is possible then in an infinite universe does that not mean it is infinitely probable and in fact there will be infinite occurrences of that thing no matter how "improbable" we deem it to be?


It is possible that an intelligent being could make a pair of fair dice (i.e. no preference at all to any one side) and roll them a billion times in a row and they come up sixes every time.

While it is possible, I would bet that it would never even happen once.

it is not possible that a pair of unbiased dice would "come up sixes" with perpetual rolling.

the laws of statistics would agree (i am sure) with my assumption that the most common product of the two upfacing dies would be 7.

there is 1/6th of a certainty that any numeral will end face up on a rolled die.
so each number between 1 and 6 has a 16 % chance of occurring on each die, but the overlap of the probabilities of the products determines the outcomes of the 2 dies rolled statistics (in terms of product).

it can not happen any other way lest the universe disintegrate into meaningless cosmic static


The type of of probability that b9 is probing has place in other realms of statistics, but it has literally no stance in cosmology. Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski erroneously uses pure frequentism when defending the FTA, although it artificially inflates fine tuning.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 5:13 am

eric76 wrote:
Have we definitely determined that the universe has positive curvature? Has enough matter been found to close the universe?

If not, I'd be careful about claiming that it is finite.


Irrelevant. Whether the universe is flat or positive in curvature, has no bearing on whether it is infinite or finite. It is a common mistake to make such an assertion.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

22 Jun 2016, 5:19 am

BaalChatzaf wrote:
The best estimate of the size of the cosmos is about 20 gigaparsecs across.


Which would be 64 billion light years across. "Across" means "diameter". So that means its 32 billion light years in radius. That as opposed to the 13.8 billion light years in radius others on the thread quote for the...is it the whole universe? Or just the observable universe?



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

22 Jun 2016, 5:20 am

Deltaville wrote:
@Eric,

Unless you negate the cosmological constant it is incorrect to assert that our observable universe is only 13.8 billion years.

i have trouble believing you are as educated as your profile and signature regalia suggests.

for what reasons exactly do you say what you say in this post?
is it the blue shift of more distant objects indicating acceleration toward oblivion (the reverse of the re-collapse idea of dwindling excurrent velocity) or something like that?

i am not arguing with you, i just think you should be more forthright in your presentation of your knowledge in this area if i assume your stated pedigree is honest.

someone who vainly hints at their mathematical proclivity should surely throw a morsel of ordinary translation to the curious and uninformed crowd who hungers for your stewardship.

you seem to instead talk in nonsensical riddles and misplaced jargon to me.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

22 Jun 2016, 5:27 am

Deltaville wrote:
b9 wrote:
eric76 wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Yes, but surely if something is possible then in an infinite universe does that not mean it is infinitely probable and in fact there will be infinite occurrences of that thing no matter how "improbable" we deem it to be?


It is possible that an intelligent being could make a pair of fair dice (i.e. no preference at all to any one side) and roll them a billion times in a row and they come up sixes every time.

While it is possible, I would bet that it would never even happen once.

it is not possible that a pair of unbiased dice would "come up sixes" with perpetual rolling.

the laws of statistics would agree (i am sure) with my assumption that the most common product of the two upfacing dies would be 7.

there is 1/6th of a certainty that any numeral will end face up on a rolled die.
so each number between 1 and 6 has a 16 % chance of occurring on each die, but the overlap of the probabilities of the products determines the outcomes of the 2 dies rolled statistics (in terms of product).

it can not happen any other way lest the universe disintegrate into meaningless cosmic static


The type of of probability that b9 is probing has place in other realms of statistics, but it has literally no stance in cosmology. Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski erroneously uses pure frequentism when defending the FTA, although it artificially inflates fine tuning.


the fact that there is localization of energy suggests you may be wrong. unbiased energy remains pure white energy with no aberration that cascades it into some manifestation of what we call reality.



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 5:29 am

b9 wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
b9 wrote:
eric76 wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Yes, but surely if something is possible then in an infinite universe does that not mean it is infinitely probable and in fact there will be infinite occurrences of that thing no matter how "improbable" we deem it to be?


It is possible that an intelligent being could make a pair of fair dice (i.e. no preference at all to any one side) and roll them a billion times in a row and they come up sixes every time.

While it is possible, I would bet that it would never even happen once.

it is not possible that a pair of unbiased dice would "come up sixes" with perpetual rolling.

the laws of statistics would agree (i am sure) with my assumption that the most common product of the two upfacing dies would be 7.

there is 1/6th of a certainty that any numeral will end face up on a rolled die.
so each number between 1 and 6 has a 16 % chance of occurring on each die, but the overlap of the probabilities of the products determines the outcomes of the 2 dies rolled statistics (in terms of product).

it can not happen any other way lest the universe disintegrate into meaningless cosmic static


The type of of probability that b9 is probing has place in other realms of statistics, but it has literally no stance in cosmology. Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski erroneously uses pure frequentism when defending the FTA, although it artificially inflates fine tuning.


the fact that there is localization of energy suggests you may be wrong. unbiased energy remains pure white energy with no aberration that cascades it into some manifestation of what we call reality.


Please make some more sense.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 5:40 am

b9 wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
@Eric,

Unless you negate the cosmological constant it is incorrect to assert that our observable universe is only 13.8 billion years.

i have trouble believing you are as educated as your profile and signature regalia suggests.

for what reasons exactly do you say what you say in this post?
is it the blue shift of more distant objects indicating acceleration toward oblivion (the reverse of the re-collapse idea of dwindling excurrent velocity) or something like that?

i am not arguing with you, i just think you should be more forthright in your presentation of your knowledge in this area if i assume your stated pedigree is honest.

someone who vainly hints at their mathematical proclivity should surely throw a morsel of ordinary translation to the curious and uninformed crowd who hungers for your stewardship.

you seem to instead talk in nonsensical riddles and misplaced jargon to me.


Maybe you should amend that claim that I am not as educated as my profile claims.

To point out the flaws in your post:

- The only galaxy that seems to blue-shift towards us is the Andromeda. All other galaxies that are expanding indicate red-shift, therefore we can concluded that they are moving away from us. A fact that is consistent with and expanding and finite universe. This is known as the Doppler effect, a phenomenon in physics and something you clearly have never studied.

- You and Eric are incorrect in the assertion that our observable universe is 13.8 billion years. Both your and Eric's claims would only be correct if our universe operated under a flat and static Minkowski, offshoot of general relativity. The cosmological constant means that galaxies we see that are 13.8 billion light years away, have already 'expanded' away from us! So the claim you are making is utterly incorrect!

I think you should retract your silly arguments.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 5:48 am

naturalplastic wrote:
BaalChatzaf wrote:
The best estimate of the size of the cosmos is about 20 gigaparsecs across.


Which would be 64 billion light years across. "Across" means "diameter". So that means its 32 billion light years in radius. That as opposed to the 13.8 billion light years in radius others on the thread quote for the...is it the whole universe? Or just the observable universe?


Observable universe.

But as I have pointed out earlier in thread, if we assume a universe that is finite and unbounded, it is theoretically possible that our whole universe maybe smaller then our observable universe.

A flat universe shaped as a torus could still have a euclidean geometry, and be finite.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

22 Jun 2016, 6:05 am

Deltaville wrote:
Maybe you should amend that claim that I am not as educated as my profile claims.
it was not a claim. it was a notion.

Deltaville wrote:
To point out the flaws in your post:

- The only galaxy that seems to blue-shift towards us is the Andromeda. All other galaxies that are expanding indicate red-shift, therefore we can concluded that they are moving away from us. A fact that is consistent with and expanding and finite universe. This is known as the Doppler effect, a phenomenon in physics and something you clearly have never studied.
uh oh. you got me. i meant red shift (rarefaction and lower frequency rather than compression etc). i know what the doppler effect is. yes we seem to be caught in an inevitable grasp with andromeda and our galaxies should pass through each other (andromeda is slightly larger than us), but due to the sparsity of matter in both galaxies, few collisions are likely to occur.



Deltaville wrote:
- You and Eric are incorrect in the assertion that our observable universe is 13.8 billion years. Both your and Eric's claims would only be correct if our universe operated under a flat and static Minkowski, offshoot of general relativity. The cosmological constant means that galaxies we see that are 13.8 billion light years away, have already 'expanded' away from us! So the claim you are making is utterly incorrect!

I think you should retract your silly arguments.

i allow that if space itself is expanding, then concrete linear distances can not be determined simply.
but i can not see space as subject to compression or rarefaction no matter how i think of it.
to me, space is the "potential locii that can be occupied", and that is not subject to gravity or energy.

silly arguments, nevertheless, contribute to what would otherwise be a dead thread and inspired you to reply.
always talk with anyone who is interested to talk with you deltaville and forgive them their inferiority to how you perceive yourself. if you are truly the cream of the crop then no one else on earth but those less intelligent than you will you have to talk to anyway.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

22 Jun 2016, 6:17 am

what really is the "occupation of a locus"?
does it remove the locus from existence?
if the locus is now filled with something, it still remains a locus i am sure.
so if it is still a locus then it can be infinitely occupied and always remain a locus that can be occupied over and over with the entire universe if every portion of the universe could be funneled into it.

that is what i think of parallel universes. every point of space that is fundamental has no position, and so it can never be crowded out by occupancy.

god wow. so no matter how much is here and now, there is an infinite amount more here and now than i could ever know.

but formulations into mathematical tunes is secondary in my mind to the inception i have in the first place.



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 6:18 am

Everything that I wrote in this post is marked in bold.

b9 wrote:
Maybe you should amend that claim that I am not as educated as my profile claims. it was not a claim. it was a notion.


No, it is a claim, because you have not even the most minuscule evidence to support such an assertion.

b9 wrote:
To point out the flaws in your post:

- The only galaxy that seems to blue-shift towards us is the Andromeda. All other galaxies that are expanding indicate red-shift, therefore we can concluded that they are moving away from us. A fact that is consistent with and expanding and finite universe. This is known as the Doppler effect, a phenomenon in physics and something you clearly have never studied.
uh oh. you got me. i meant red shift (rarefaction and lower frequency rather than compression etc). i know what the doppler effect is. yes we seem to be caught in an inevitable grasp with andromeda and our galaxies should pass through each other (andromeda is slightly larger than us), but due to the sparsity of matter in both galaxies, few collisions are likely to occur.

Good.

Deltaville wrote:
- You and Eric are incorrect in the assertion that our observable universe is 13.8 billion years. Both your and Eric's claims would only be correct if our universe operated under a flat and static Minkowski, offshoot of general relativity. The cosmological constant means that galaxies we see that are 13.8 billion light years away, have already 'expanded' away from us! So the claim you are making is utterly incorrect!

I think you should retract your silly arguments.

i allow that if space itself is expanding, then concrete linear distances can not be determined simply.
but i can not see space as subject to compression or rarefaction no matter how i think of it.
to me, space is the "potential locii that can be occupied", and that is not subject to gravity or energy.

silly arguments, nevertheless, contribute to what would otherwise be a dead thread and inspired you to reply.
always talk with anyone who is interested to talk with you deltaville and forgive them their inferiority to how you perceive yourself. if you are truly the cream of the crop then no one else on earth but those less intelligent than you will you have to talk to anyway.[/quote]

That final comment you made, I find myself unable to read or understand. Please restate it in a more comprehensible manner.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Last edited by Deltaville on 22 Jun 2016, 6:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 6:21 am

b9 wrote:
what really is the "occupation of a locus"?
does it remove the locus from existence?
if the locus is now filled with something, it still remains a locus i am sure.
so if it is still a locus then it can be infinitely occupied and always remain a locus that can be occupied over and over with the entire universe if every portion of the universe could be funneled into it.

that is what i think of parallel universes. every point of space that is fundamental has no position, and so it can never be crowded out by occupancy.

god wow. so no matter how much is here and now, there is an infinite amount more here and now than i could ever know.

but formulations into mathematical tunes is secondary in my mind to the inception i have in the first place.


Again, you are not making any sense whatsoever. Please spell and correct the syntax of the sentences you are writing! You are now passing off as some disturbed person, to say the least.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

22 Jun 2016, 6:23 am

god you made a mess of that post you wrote and i just think i can not be bothered to pander to your request for refinement



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 6:25 am

b9 wrote:
god you made a mess of that post you wrote and i just think i can not be bothered to pander to your request for refinement



Mess of what? My writing is clear, grammatically correct, and addresses each and one of your points concisely.

If you do not understand Cosmology or physics, than you should not try to debate these matters with me!


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck