May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Two States (as in conditions) | Main | Things That Make Me Happy »


Troy the Tech

"All science deals with observable portion of the universe"
"So, string theory by your definition is not science but religion. No body has ever observed strings et al."

They're almost getting it!

Science 'is' Religion, they are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.
You can tell me about things that have happened and their signifigance, tell me about what will happen, and I will choose whether or not to believe you.
Now which one am I talking about?


Yes, but an infinite set is quite different from THE infinite set. That's the whole point of the question, if the universe is THE infinite set then ...
Posted by: splint chesthair]

And if it isn't THE infinite set, your subsequent musings are irrelevant.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to prove the universe is THE infinite set.

Bam bam baadam
Bam bam badum

splint chesthair

"But any point BEFORE infniity is larger than a point before that one.

Although as you go forward, you never get any further away than the infinitely old past nor any closer to the infinitely far end of time, you ARE further away from last year than you were yesterday."

Yes, but an infinite set is quite different from THE infinite set. That's the whole point of the question, if the universe is THE infinite set then it can't be expanding into anything as it is THE infinite set of all things, both finite and not. If it is THE infinite set, then things are just getting farther apart and the universe is not expanding.

I can't remember if I have amnesia

I think of it this way: the galaxies are seperating, but the universe is not expanding. Let's say the universe is one big swimming pool. The galaxies seperating are ripples in the water. The water is stirring, but the pool is getting no bigger. Just something for the mind to chew on.


Imagine the universe as the film on a soap bubble. As a sphere it appears to be infinite but also as a sphere it is finite. While we only view that which is moving away from us, what we cannot see is what is coming up behind us. God created it this way so as to keep our thoughts on Him and not to worry ourselves about His Creation. It is His Universe, after all.


Newton's Law, man. You're pushing yourself AND the universe away.


If the universe is finite, which most scientists believe it is, it occupies a certain volume of space. The fact that this volume is ALL space doesn't change that. So, if the universe, at ten billion years old was about 4x10^30 cubic light years in size, it might be eight times that large at twenty billion years (which, by most estimates, hasn't happened yet). The point is, "all space" can continue to grow. You don't have to limit it to the visible universe for this to be true.


To contemplate sch questions, you must realize one simple fact: Scientists (especially evolutionists - referring to one rude in-duh-vidual previously) do not know anything.

They value their constants and formulas, yet as history shows us, scientists or more often wrong than right or even remotely close. The entre world of physics and science rests upon the acceptance of constants in the universe, like the speed of light for example.

There is increasing evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. Which means that the prized scientific constant is NOT constant. The entire world of science is largely unscientific by their own definition. They can only produce their best guesses at things on a macrocosmis scale. Like Neuwtonian physics, their methods and findings only work at small levels, like testing a new anti-biotic (which is not even close to evolution according to the actual definition of evolution. In fact, there are no examples of this if you stick rigidly to the definition), or measuring the speed of a car, etc.

For any other naysaying scientist out there, study your own quantum mechanics findings, before spouting off garbage.


For the benefit of Caulk Blaulk, any mathematician will confirm that:

∞ + 1 = ∞

You and others will no doubt protest as this appears to break the rules of normal arithmetic; but like the man said, infinity ain't no normal number and I can assure you it's true. In fact,

∞ + ∞ = ∞


I knew it! I'm pushing the universe away! That explains why I sob and mumble 'leave me alone' when I'm doing pushups. Does that make me Emo?


Pushing yourself. Can't be pushing universe're PART of the universe.


If the universe is infinite that means that there is a planet somewhere exactly like this, it means theres a planet that is run by purple chickens with no heads. I believe our view of infinite is quite undefined and the truth is closer to just bigger then we can ever comprehend.

And as for the push up question... of course ur pushing up yourself- wouldn't the world just absorb any minute force? It's not perfectly rigid and solid im sure.

I would make a Chuck Norris joke, but I guess I'm already like about 200 people too late.

Btw, I Ctrl-F'ed "Chuck" as soon as I read this too. :)


[An infinite something is infinite, it doesn't "get longer" or "get bigger" when you add to it. Infinite time means it has always existed and will forever, it doesn't "get older".

Posted by: Splint Chesthair]

But any point BEFORE infniity is larger than a point before that one.

Although as you go forward, you never get any further away than the infinitely old past nor any closer to the infinitely far end of time, you ARE further away from last year than you were yesterday.

Infinity isn't actually a number. All the numbers there are never get there, but THOSE are still numbers. And different from each other.

Caulk Blaulk

Splint Chesthair(Feb. 8, 2008, 7:38a) wrote: "Infinite time means it has always existed and will forever, it doesn't "get older". That's what infinite means. It's everything, you can't add to it."

My point is: What about infinity plus one(∞ + 1)?

Check & Mate!

Dave Oblad

Back again.. read many comments here.. have an answer for Will..

But first...

What is matter?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the space come from?
When did Time start or did Time have a start?
Is the universe infinite in size or age?
What started it all?
What came before the start of it all?

As a kid, I imagined an atom. I thought it strange that, say hydrogen atoms, are all the same size.
Why can't I have a big and a small hydrogen atom? That's when I realized there must be an under-
lying structure to the universe that determines size. I've given this structure a name.. lattice.
Matter is patterns within the lattice. Some matter is stable and some isn't. Exotic matter is not
stable and breaks down into simple normal matter. There must be rules to this lattice that allows
some patterns to be stable and some patterns to fall apart.

So who made up these dang rules?

Then I realized that the Rules must define the universe and what is possible to exist.
The universe behaves by purely mathematical rules.
Then I realized if the rules were different, it wouldn't be the same universe.
So, the multi-universe concept started making sense to me.

Next came the quantum leap that explains everything:

I realized that an equation that makes sense must have a solution, no matter how complex
the equation or the answer to it. As I watched a solution to an equation unfold on my computer
it crossed my mind.. what if the solution has enough complexity to sustain intelligent beings.

If the equation was complex enough, the intelligent life forms may exist in surroundings much
the same as mine, all within the solution of the equation. They live, they think, they breed, they die.

Now the Big Ta-Da.. Do I have to execute this equation for them to exist?

It's obvious they exist within the solution whether I run the program or not.
The computer simply allows me to observe what has always been there.

The equation may look like: For a 3D lattice of such and such size, and given a set of rules by
which patterns within the lattice may propagate and given an intitial starting seeding of the
lattice via a psudo-random number generator.. what would be the results?

Wow! A solution always exists if the question is clear!!!!!!!

Well.. first I observed time as a function of pattern cycles. I see that time started on the first
iteration of the equation. So their universe had a finite start. I see their whole universe has no
temporal connection to any other variation of the equation or seeding. The whole solution
would exist as a single zero time interval to all other universes. Example: The value of Pi has
a starting number of 3 and is followed by more digits.. thus.. A starting point and sequence.
Sequence would be time. So when did the 1st digit of Pi, first become a 3? The beginning of time?
It's obvious it's always been 3 with no reference to our concept of time here.
I realized time is a concept localized to any given universe and is an instant to all others that
have no connection.

So.. For all possible universes that can exist.. they do exist! (regardless of complexity)
We are simply one of many possible universes, most of which are junk, but some are not.

Lastly, the question must have a finite definition for a solution to exist. It makes no sense to ask
the question with infinities embedded. That makes the question ambiguous and thus no answer
can exist for it.

Thus; the universe can't be infinite in starting size but can grow to infinity.
And as for age.. time may extend to Infinity but has a finite starting point per universe.
Both these statements depend on the question. It's possible to ask for the solution
to extend to a finite point. For that specific universe.. it stops there! (scary

With this view, Our universe doesn't need a push to start, nor a time before the beginning and
yet can still have a beginning. It doesn't require a Creator. In fact, it would be hard for a creator
to create a universe that doesn't already exist somewhere in some form.

Anyway, If you understand these concepts then you can now answer those naggy questions like:

If the universe started as a singularity, where did that come from and how long was it here and
what triggered it to explode. How could it hold all matter and in what form and what held it together
to begin with and how did it get so big so quickly without matter traveling faster than light and was
it surrounded by empty space and what size was the space that surrounded it and how old is
the space that the singularity occupied?
How far back does time go? How could it just start? How can it exist without a Creator?
How big is the universe and if it has a boundry, what's beyond that boundry?

You should be able to see now.. how it could start full sized and needed nothing to start it.
(other than the question that defines it)
That it would exist without occupying any space. It's all mathematical.. how much space
does Pi use up? How much space does a question use up? How much time?

Is there a limit to the complexity of all questions? A limit to the complexity of all solutions?


As to the exact size or exact age or exact shape of our universe, that remains to be found out,
if even possible. Someday we may understand the rules of the lattice (String Theory?) and
find ways to cheat certain current restrictions. Who knows?

Here's a much harder question for anyone to tackle... Can a Mobias universe exist?

It's like asking if a future engineer traveled back in time and gave technology to an ancestor that
then put the technology into place for that same engineer to learn in the future. So where did the
original "design" come from? I'm not talking about a cyclic universe that had a first iteration.
I'm talking about a fully formed universe that has no demarcation that defines a beginning.

It's a paradox. But not necessarily ambiguous. That's tricky but conceivable.

Hope this helps you Will...

Best to you Scott (and everyone else) from Dave :^)


The thing is, it's all the MATTER in the universe that is expanding, not the space. If I understand correctly, every star gets progressively further away from it's neighbors, and this has been demonstrated by the doppler effect on the light from various stars. And the trouble is, our monkey brains use a model of space that only works over small distances, i.e. the three dimensional straight line model. That works for swinging from tree to tree, and even for stuff as complex as flight trajectories, but it falls over for understanding the cosmos because space is curved. And I liked the rather more abstract doughnut model you described in a blog way back (which can now be found in 'Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain', available in all good bookstores); but even that is just another model, and the truth - if we ever find it - will turn out to be even more complex and fantastic. And the chances of our monkey brains understanding it are probably near zero.
I might add for the guy who said 'how can the universe expand - it's already infinite'; infinity ain't a fixed number, it's a concept that basically means 'goes on for ever without end' (Another concept for our monkey brains to rebel against!). THAT'S what the matter is expanding into.
MY big question is, why is there anything at all? Why is there a universe at all? That REALLY hurts my head. God concepts don't help any.
By the way, I stand by my spelling of doughnut - this is the English language we're using; trust me, I'm English, which makes me an expert :^)


BTW, Dennis H and Splint Chesthair, I knew about the equivalence between countable infinite sets before I wrote my initial comment, so I guess that makes me even stupider.... Oh well.


Dennis H wrote:"Consider the common example of two infinite sets: the set of all whole numbers and the set of all even numbers. Which set is larger? Intuitively, most people say that the set of all numbers is larger, but in fact they are the same size--exactly. For any element in the set of even numbers, there is a corresponding number in the set of all numbers."

Yup, that's the diagonalization proof. You got me - my analogy was stupid and wrong.

(On the other hand, the set of real numbers is larger than the naturals; the reals are "uncountably infinite" while the naturals are "countably infinite". Obviously this concept does not really apply to the expanding universe question.)

Anyway, I think this whole argument is really a question of semantics. If we assume the universe is infinitely large, then "expanding" means that the distance between all points is getting larger.

Okay, so that's pretty much what Splint Chesthair said in his original comment. My bad.

Here's a take on this question from an astronomer at Cornell:

He prefers to think of it as "stretching", not "expanding".

Dave Oblad

Well Scott, you know I can't pass this one By definition the universe
is expanding only in the sense that the average distance between all galaxies
is constantly increasing. The universe is most probably a finite size. The easiest
model goes like this:

In the first moment of universe time, it became itself. It doesn't occupy any real
space. No more physical space is required than the value 4 as in 2 plus 2 equals.

It is likely to be a sphere but could be a cube or almost any shape. Inside this
sphere is a solid lattice of currently unknown geometry. Supported in the lattice
are patterns of geometrical cause and effect. See John Conway's Life Program for a
simple 2D variation of this phenomenon. In the first instant of time the lattice was
full sized (the big splash as opposed to the big bang) and populated with a huge
variety of patterns. The unstable ones obliterated into energy and perhaps simpler
stable patterns such as hydrogen atoms and misc particles such as photons. A photon
can't exist unless it's moving full speed. Rules of the lattice for a photon geometry.

This energy of the collapse of the original exotic matter is the background noise
we saw as supporting the big bang idea. Anyway, imbalance of particle placement gave
rise to gravity centers that collected more loose matter, mostly hydrogen and then
eventually burst into stars clustered as galaxies due to attraction of large masses
of gas etc. prior to star formations.

At this point two explanations exist for the universe expansion illusion:

A; The outer shell limit has collected so much condensation from roaming matter that
it has become (nearly) as dense as a black hole. Thus attracting all matter inside to
the outside gravity shell with the greatest attraction being on the galaxies closest
to the edge. This would give the illusion of expansion and acceleration on visible
galaxies. A straight head-on collision would be very different than being sucked into
a black hole. A black hole requires matter to occupy smaller space as it approaches a
black hole and results in matter collisions expending larges amounts of energy away from
the area before reaching the event horizon. Let's just say a black hole must be very
noisy. A black wall, however, is most likely very quiet by comparison. Most of the
condensation being trapped inside it's event horizon.

B; Gravity isn't a force of pull but rather of push. Imagine the universe wants to crush
you, but you being barely one step above vapor, the pressure is evenly distributed.
Now, add a small pressure barrier, such as the planet earth. The universe is pushing
from all sides but is slightly blocked by the planet, so you are pushed onto it's surface.
Model? Ok.. Imagine the universe as a big ball of foamy water. The water is the solid
(vacuum/lattice) and atoms are bubbles. The pressure difference from the center and edge
would cause the bubbles to rise to the edge. Without the resistance of water moving to
make way for the bubbles, the bubbles would accelerate as they approached the edge. The
travel of each bubble is into an ever larger sphere of space. Thus all bubbles would
appear to be moving away from each other, the fastest nearest the edge. This pressure
has other names in modern cosmology used to explain expansion and more importantly, the
acceleration of expansion.

And nobody better ask what's on the outside of the shell. Nothing exists outside the shell.
Math defines it's own space.

As for push ups.. "Ibid" answered it best.

Fun one Scott.. I'm out of time but will come back and read all the other comments.
Best wishes from Dave :^)


Vlad Ionescu wrote:

"Another general accepted theory is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (nothing: no matter, no waves, no information, nothing). Therefore at any point in time after the Big Bang the Universe cannot be bigger than a sphere whose radius is given by the distance light had time to travel in that amount of time."

The generally accepted theory holds that this is not true. Nothing WITHIN the universe can travel faster than the speed of light. But the whole of the early universe itself is thought to have "inflated" at a much faster rate, which makes the "edge" of the universe much larger than the "sphere whose radius is given by the distance light had time to travel in that amount of time."

[The universe doesn't really have an edge since it's analogous to a spherical surface, but in four dimensions; so let's call it the "outer limit"--although that is not much better since all points within the universe are at its center; that is, any given object "out there" is no closer to the "edge" of the universe than we are.]

The exact nature of a four-dimensional universe is not capable of being fully understood with our simple three-dimensional minds. So forget about trying to grasp the nature of a universe with ten or eleven dimensions. Even advanced scientists who understand the mathematics admit that they really do not comprehend how it plays itself out in the "real" world.

This is the problem here, I think: reality is not REALLY what we consensually believe it to be, even at the scientific level.


@Kurt: "All science deals with observable portion of the universe"

So, string theory by your definition is not science but religion. No body has ever observed strings et al.


Tecnically, you're not shoving the Universe away, just the earth. The only reson we don't know we're moving the earth when doing push ups, is that the small earth movement is not "visible"

Krzysztof Wiszniewski

Technicaly, when you do a push-up you do both. Newton's Third Law.


Why couldn't the universe expand if it was by definition all space? Imagine that there's a universe of finite size and that there's nothing outside of it. And inside of it is space. Then it gets bigger. This person is also obviously unaware of the multiverse theory.

The comments to this entry are closed.