size of universe

<font color="pink"><font face="Comic Sans MS">(I'm tired of speaking in the same "voice" (font, etc.) as <font face="Arial"><font color="white">the rest of you</font id="white"></font id="Arial">. Lord knows we're not exactly on the same page. Hence the new look. Maybe I should go back and edit some of my old posts so you'll recognize who's speaking. [)])

After Googling “ infinite universe ” for an hour, I narrowed the results to three interesting pages, as follows:

Wikipedia’s Steady State is brief but covers most of the angles, and it has several links for further illumination. The discussion page has only three entries.

The Infinite Universe is one very long page of what, at a glance, looks to me like bunk, but I shouldn’t judge until I’ve taken time to read a bit more.

Infinite Universe or Intelligent Design is written by a creationist. He basically argues that the case for an infinite universe is not proven, therefore the universe was created out of nothing.

I for one, like [] the idea of an infinite fractal universe—infinite not only in distance and time, but also in scale. I don’t believe the question of “finite or infinite” can ever be proven one way or the other; it must always remain a matter of philosophy or religion, which is where cosmology has always been classified until recently. That makes the policies of the US Government, re. BB, tantamount to establishment of religion.

The fallacy [V] of <i>BB</i> is that Einstein tacitly assumed all mass is confined within a finite space and based his calculations of the Cosmological Constant on that assumption. If he had assumed an infinite universe with matter more or less evenly distributed (at the largest scales), he could only have concluded that no cosmological constant can be calculated; it can only be called “indeterminate”. [?]

My own Fractal Foam Universe conjecture (see New concept: CG fragments & Yet another TOE ) is not quite ready for prime time. [] At least I now have a computer at home, so I have more than five hours a week to divide among surfing the net, patenting on my big invention (a radically new kind of trigger mechanism for firearms), and refining my cosmological model at the keyboard. [^]

I seem to have stubbed my TOE [] on a question of phase shifts in the form of our ether. I started out postulating that our ether is identical in form to our Cosmic Foam (as revealed in the latest 3D survey of half a million galaxies). The expansion of our cosmos is a consequence of un-popping of bubbles in our ether’s foamy structure—which happens in reverse time because our first sub-universe and our first super-universe, are made of antimatter. If we run the expansion of our Cosmic Foam backward in time, we might expect to reach a time when the bubble size of the cosmos was equal to that of our ether. [xx(] But before we get back to that primordial time, we would reach a time when the bubble size in our cosmic foam was no larger than one of the galaxies that make up the walls of that foam. [}] At some point, it seems likely that a phase shift must have occurred—perhaps one of many phase shifts; it is not at all certain that our cosmos has always had a foamy structure.

Similarly the form of our ether depends on its relation to the ether of the next smaller-scale universe (our first sub-universe). If our own cosmos has undergone phase shifts, then we cannot jump to the conclusion that our ether is presently in the same phase as our cosmos. []

So I’m waiting for another attack of inspiration [:0] to resolve that issue. It might help if someone here would comment on my two above-mentioned threads—if only to ridicule my heresy. A heated argument [!] is more productive than a cold shoulder. [|)] <font face="Comic Sans MS"></font id="Comic Sans MS"><font face="Trebuchet MS"></font id="Trebuchet MS"><font color="orange"></font id="orange"></font id="Comic Sans MS"></font id="pink">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
<br />It might help if someone here would comment on my two above-mentioned threads<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Meta Model (MM) is the cosmolgy developed by Meta Science on which this web site is based. It is necessarily infinite in extent, eternal, and infinitely divisible and constructable in scale.

Your whole development makes unnecessary assumptions, which are generally fatal to any cosmology. For example, why assume the universe is expanding? (BB is wrong, and its interpretations of expansion and a cosmic fireball are two of the main ways in which it is wrong.) You'd be better off scraping any connection with BB and just reasoning logically from first principles, just as MM does. -|Tom|-

<font color="pink"><font face="Comic Sans MS">Tom, the fact that the <i>Church of the Standard Model </i>burns heretics like us at the stake does not make us right. The fact that this is your site doesn’t justify your burning heretics like me at the stake, either. Must we go at it like Christians and Muslims. Can’t we have some religious freedom here?

I found inspiration in <i>MM</i>, and I am seeking ways to advance it to a higher level, just as you took the ideas of Lesage to a higher level. You showed how it is possible, mathematically, to conserve both momentum and energy in a Lesage-type model, and I commend you for that. I commend you also for your efforts toward discovering the true speed and range of gravity. []

I was just trying to show how a Lesage-type model can explain charge-like forces, as well as gravity. I started by postulating that CG’s can split in two, which makes it much easier to explain how both momentum and energy are conserved. (As soon as I figure out how to post my vector diagram on this website, I’ll show you just how simple it is.) No need for a fine mathematician like Slabinski to write a hard-to-follow 6-page proof, and no need for an mechanism (which I, for one, don’t understand) to transfer the energy of the one CG that is absorbed to the 10^20 CG’s that are scattered. I’m convinced his math is correct (even if I couldn’t quite follow it); but my model makes all that unnecessary.

The idea of CG fission naturally led to the postulate of fusing the fragments back into CG’s, which just happened (after several sleepless nights) to provide a Lesage-type explanation of the repulsion of like charges and attraction of opposite charges. I am confident that a very similar scenario can explain the nuclear forces, as well. (You’re all invited to postulate such a scenario; I’ll be delighted if you beat me to it. [])

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><font color="white">Your whole development makes unnecessary assumptions, which are generally fatal to any cosmology.</font id="white"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> As long as I say what my “assumptions” are, and don’t forget I made them, they are just postulates. Einstein forgot he had assumed a finite universe in order to calculate his Cosmological Constant; and yes that was fatal to his cosmology. []

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><font color="white">For example, why assume the universe is expanding?</font id="white"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">“Tired light” is a good <s>assumption</s> postulate—if you can find some shred of evidence to support it. The Doppler effect, on the other hand, is a perfectly known and understood phenomenon of wave propagation, and it perfectly well explains the cosmological red shift if you postulate an expanding universe. The present-epoch expansion of the universe is neither an assumption nor a postulate; it is acceptance of the obvious. []

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><font color="white"><i>BB</i> is wrong, and its interpretations of expansion and a cosmic fireball are two of the main ways in which it is wrong.</font id="white"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ahh! We do agree on this point, at least. Let’s pause for a moment to relish it.... [^]

I believe <i>BB</i> has extrapolated its expanding-universe postulate much too far into the past. The “inflationary” version of <i>BB</i> recognizes that the original version of <i>BB</i> got into trouble by overreaching its limitations. At some far-distant past, there must have been at least one, and probably many phase shifts in the form of the cosmos. The math must change to accommodate each phase. What’s needed is a model that can suggest what some of those earlier phases might have looked like, and what the next phase in our future might be; then the mathematicians can go to work on extrapolating farther into the past and future—but not as far as they have already gone.

I agree that the universe is infinite, exactly as you say it is. (Another pause to relish our agreement. [^]) However, I am honest enough to admit this is a religious belief, not science. Cosmology, until recently, was always regarded as a branch of philosophy or religion, not science; let’s put it back where it belongs. Nothing can ever be scientifically proven about that which is infinitely large or small in space, time or scale. The value of an infinite model is that, true or false, it just might yield some scientifically testable hypotheses which would never be born of a finite model—<i>and vice versa</i>.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> <font color="white">You'd be better off scraping any connection with <i>BB</i>...</font id="white"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I take nothing from <i>BB</i>. The present-epoch expansion of the cosmos is simply too obvious to deny. <i>If</i> I were to extrapolate the present-epoch expansion all the way back to a time of infinite density, as BB does, I still would have an infinitely large universe—not a singularity. At some point in the past, I <i>might</i> reach a time when the mean size of bubbles in the foamy structure cosmos was the same as the mean size of bubbles in the foamy structure of the ether. Extrapolating beyond that time, I <i>might</i> guess that the roles of cosmos and ether are reversed, so I <i>might</i> guess that time has no beginning or end. But, as I explained yesterday, I run into difficulties with phase shifts in the form of both the cosmos and the ether. [xx(]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> <font color="white">...and just reasoning logically from first principles, just as MM does.</font id="white"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My first principles, and those that follow from them, are:

Zero. A good model builds from first principles, which suggest more principles, which suggest mechanisms to explain observed phenomena, which suggest more mechanisms to explain other observed phenomena, which ultimately leave nothing unexplained.

01. The universe is infinite in distance, time and scale. A matter of aesthetic preference; at least I am willing to admit it; can you say the same?
02. The universe is a fractal. Admittedly a guess intended to simplify matters. Just look how simple the Mandelbrot Set is, mathematically, while its manifestations look so complex.
03. Every fractal has a scale factor, at which the very large looks exactly like the very small. That is demonstrated fact in mathematics; if the universe has a mathematical basis, then it must also have such a scale factor.
04. The scale factor for our universe has not yet been found thru direct observation, but it has recently come within reach our imaginations. Admittedly another postulate intended to avoid the pitfalls of the opposite assumption—that we have no hope of ever imagining what the true scale factor is. That would be a defeatist postulate and would yield no testable hypotheses; I’m just being optimistic in the hope of discovering something of value.
05. There is an ether. Wow! I have a 50-50 chance of being right on that one!
06. The cosmos has a foamy structure. Recently demonstrated thru direct observation, coupled with some Hubble Bubble toil and trouble, which may not be entirely accurate, but undeniably has sufficient truth in it to support a qualitative conclusion, if not quantitative.
07. The bubble size in the cosmic foam is random, having a mean, a median and a mode. Apparent from the latest 3D mapping, though not yet completely certain. Bubbles thus far mapped are estimated to range in size from about 10 million light-years to 150 million light-years. Of course, those quantitative estimates are based on the faulty yard stick of the Hubble Constant; but qualitatively, we cannot deny the foamy structure of the cosmos.
08. More distant galaxies are red-shifted more than nearer galaxies. Direct observation.
09. If something is obvious, it’s probably true. Though this one has a way of biting us in the ass if we aren’t very careful.
10. The cosmic foam is expanding, at the moment. Obviously!
11. We seem to be at the center of the expansion. Demonstrated by the relative uniformity of the cosmic microwave background.
12. We are not special and there are no coincidences. A religious belief held by all true scientists.
13. There is no unique center of the expansion. Follows from #11 & #12.
14. Foams are made of bubbles. A truism.
15. When a foam expands, bubbles pop. Demonstrated in millions of lab tests for just about every kind of foam that will fit in a lab.
16. When a bubble in a foam pops, pressure waves are produced. Just listen to the fizz when you pour a glass of good beer.
17. Bubbles in the cosmic foam sometimes rupture, sending pressure waves out thru the remaining great walls of galaxies. A logical deduction, if all the above wild guesses turn out to be true, which would be like winning the lottery—which does sometimes happen.
18. The ether resembles the foamy structure of the cosmos; and that is the scale factor of the fractal universe. Admittedly a wild guess.
19. There is a sub-universe within the walls of the ether foam, exactly like our universe, down to the tiny galaxies, solar systems, planets and beings that inhabit them. Our cosmic foam is the ether of a super-universe on a scale vastly larger than our own. The succession of sub-universes and super-universes continues to infinity. That’s what a fractal is.
20. All of our measures and perceptions of space are inadvertently based upon the mean size of bubbles which make up the ether. A reasonable assumption.
21. All of our measures and perceptions of time are inadvertently based upon the speed of waves moving thru the ether.
22. The expansion of the cosmos implies increasing space separating the galaxies. Another truism.
23. Increasing space implies increasing scale factor between the cosmic foam and the ether foam. Follows from #19 & #20.
24. Increasing scale factor means that the bubble size in the cosmic foam is increasing relative to the bubble size in the ether foam, which is equivalent to saying the bubble size of the ether foam is decreasing relative to the bubble size of the cosmic foam. Another truism.
25. If bubbles in the ether foam were shrinking everywhere relative to the cosmic foam, while keeping their basic form, there would have to be a unique center of the expansion; that unique center would be right here, and distant galaxies would be moving at many times light speed relative to the ether. Obviously!
26. The mean bubble size of the ether foam, relative to the cosmos, is decreasing by the formation of new bubble walls, which divide one bubble in two. In other words, the bubbles in the ether foam are un-popping. It’s the only remaining possibility.
27. Bubbles don’t un-pop in forward time. Those millions of lab observation mention in #15.
28. The ether is running in reverse time. Obviously!
29. Antimatter runs in reverse time. Direct observation in atom smasher experiments.
30. The ether is made of antimatter on a vastly different scale from the antimatter observed in atom smasher experiments. Sounds good to me!
31. From the viewpoint of inhabitants of our first sub-universe, a bubble pops in their cosmic foam causing P-waves to radiate outward. From our point of view, that same event looks like P-waves converging to cause the bubble in our ether foam to un-pop. Whether that convergence of P-waves happens by random chance, or by reversal of cause and effect, is fuel for debate over the issue of predestination vs. free will. I prefer free will.

The list goes on, but it’s past my bedtime—again! [|)] Maybe tomorrow I’ll extend the list to where the afore-mentioned P-waves turn out to be the CG’s and fragments thereof which cause gravity and electrostatic forces. Actually, I started my conjecturing at both ends and they half-unexpectedly dovetailed neatly together in the middle. </font id="Comic Sans MS"></font id="pink">

Can anything be done to end the conflict over weather or not the universe is infinite or not? What difference does it make one way or the other? We will never get much past a 100bly anyway. Zero can't be done either for that matter.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Can anything be done to end the conflict over weather or not the universe is infinite or not? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><font color="pink"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><center><b><font size="3">Infinity is attainable only in our imaginations.</font id="size3"> </b></center>

If the universe has a finite size, there may be some hope of proving the existence of a finite upper bound; i.e., we might some day prove that it can't be larger than X light years. But if, as I believe, the size is infinite, that can never be proven; the best we can hope for is to prove it can't be any smaller than X light years.

The same goes for infinite or finite divisibility of space. Just to get measurements as small as the Plank length, 10^-35 meter, would require an accelerator ring over a thousand light years in diameter (given the way we build accelerators today).

If, as I suspect, the Plank length is the mean size of bubbles in the cosmic foam of a sub-universe, which is as complex as our own universe; and if that universe has it's own equivalent of a Plank length; and if the succession of scales is infinite in both directions.... Well, it's obvious to me this can never be proven; that is one reason I call it a conjecture, not a theory. </font id="Comic Sans MS"></font id="pink">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />What difference does it make one way or the other? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><font color="pink"><font face="Comic Sans MS">For one thing, Einstein's calculation of the Cosmological Constant is based on the assumption that all matter is confined within a finite region of space. His result (with contributions from many <i>BB</i> believers since) is that time began approximately 13.5 billion years ago and space curves back on itself; so when we look at the CMB, we're looking at ourselves that long ago. That, in itself, may not alter the way we live our lives, but if wrong, it might prevent the discovery of some basic truths that could affect our lives.

Fractals are infinite, by definition, and they turn extremely complex problems into something extremely simple. A simple solution to the biggest questions might lead to simple solutions to questions that have real consequences to us.

Einstein once said, "God doesn't throw dice!" That was his religious belief.

I believe God <i>is</i> the dice; he/she/it rolls continuously; the universe is his/her/its crap game. The form of the ether is a random foam; given a large enough volume of random foam, any combination of bubble shapes and sizes you care to describe can be found in it, somewhere. Some variations on that random theme interact with each other by way of the pressure waves that propagate thru the foam when a bubble pops. These interactions produce attractors in the form of quarks, atoms, stars, galaxies, and ultimately a random foam, exactly like the one that started it all---except that it seems to be made of anti-matter; the next one is matter, then anti-matter, and so on.

P.S.: I seem to have neglected to link this discussion to my two previous threads on the subject: Yet another TOE and New Concept: CG Fragments . I have been posting ideas as they come to me, and sometimes retracting them; so the development may be hard to follow. I'm working on a more systematic approach, but it's not yet ready for prime time.

I have many unanswered questions about my own model; perhaps you can think of some answers. For example:
What starts the bubbles popping, in the first place?
What is the fundamental form of matter; is it part of the ether? Does matter move thru the ether and the ether thru it?
Does the passage of matter thru the ether alter the shape of either---like leaving a wake?
Is matter more like a standing wave propagating thru the ether?
I have proposed one possible scenario for a common cause of electrostatic and gravitic forces, namely Fusion-Fusion-Fission in the CG Fragments thread. Can you think of a similar scenario to explain the nuclear forces?
</font id="Comic Sans MS"></font id="pink">

PhilJ, I have no clue about answers to your questions.