Infinite Universe, Olber's Paradox and MM

Jeremy
Topic Author
Offline
Elite Member

22 years 1 week ago #3837 by Jeremy

Reply from was created by Jeremy

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"Dark" cannot be seen because the only things that can be seen are products of light and therefore if "dark" were seen then it would no longer be "dark", it would be "light".<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Well I hope we have all advanced to this level of common sense on the board! And bigness cannot be smallness otherwise it would not be big :-)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Infinite and finite are one-in-the-same as well, they are opposites of each other and they both justify only one thing: FINITE. Infinity can never exist, it is imaginary, it is a unicorn. Therefore, in my humbled opinion, the universe is not infinite. I believe you can have an infinite amount inside of the universe but that the universe itself is not infinite.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Beg to differ. Infinite and finite are NOT opposites. Finiteness can only be determined in reference to something that is larger or infinite. You will never find a mathematician that would say that the three axes of the Euclidean coordinate system are finite. You just said that you can have an INFINITE amount inside of the universe. How can the universe then be FINITE if it must have an extent greater than the infinite thing you are containing? An infinite universe can never be proven, all one can do is travel or observe farther than whatever the current "finite" distance is supposed to be and show it to be false. I don't know what the problem is for people on this issue, why can't matter extend indefinitely?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

22 years 1 week ago #3838 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]: How does the MM resolve Olber's Paradox?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The energy of light waves is lost through friction with the graviton medium. That compensates for the graviton energy lost when gravitons are absorbed by matter. Both processes are part of the "meta cycle" that assures the universe neither heats up nor runs down -- important characteristics for an infinitely old universe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What is the reason in using the infinite property in the MM, from both a philosophical and mathematical view point? Couldn't the MM stand without the infinite property?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The infinite property (for space, time, and scale) is required to resolve Zeno's paradoxes. See chapter 1 of Dark Matter, ... for a full exposition of this argument. I see no way that conclusion can be logically avoided. Also note that:

-- An end to the universe in time would require the possibility that things could pass out of existence, as distinct from decomposing or exploding into much smaller bits with every bit of the original still existing and capable of re-assembling. Something becoming nothing requires just as much of a miracle as the reverse.

-- A limit to the universe in space would imply a boundary beyond which nothing existed. This would challenge the meaning of "existence" as well as induce the substance of the universe to dissipate almost instantly into this void.

-- A "largest possible entity" in the universe would imply that nothing more could collide with or be absorbed into this entity.

In short, finiteness in any dimension would create an unresolvable paradox -- also called a "logical contradiction". -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

22 years 1 week ago #3840 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I do not see where Zeno's paradox fits in. That's a matter or irrelevant parameterization that was solved using non-standard analysis and later model theory.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Dozens of papers and books have claimed to solve Zeno's eight paradoxes, just as for Olbers paradox and the twin's paradox. There is no near-unanimous agreement that any of these proposals have been successful. My book mentions a ninth Zeno-like paradox for scale or matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Maybe you want to look at the formal language proof of the Russina logician Malcev relating to compactness theorem and Henkin's work.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Can you sketch the ideas and provide a reference? That's about the only way to judge whether this work contains something really new and worth spending time on.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I suspect the infinite property of space can be avoided without problems using the same theory that resovled Zeno's paradox.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Okay, but be careful here. This sounds like the description of a pre-judgment or a bias. Don't try to tell nature how she must be. Let her tell us how she is.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You may be able to have finite space but infinite time and scale.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No, that would leave Zeno's motion paradox unresolved.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Mass can be finite but empty space infinite if we equate emptyness with nothingness. Is it nessecary to define the Universe as containing all empty space beyond its limits?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The "universe" means "everything that exists". So yes, the only thing possible beyond any hypothetical limits to the universe is void (nothingness). In MM, void is equated with non-existence, and "empty" space is actually filled everywhere at some scale or it would not exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>A logical contradiction never arises in deduction.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

There are counter-examples. Start with a false premise or two and some amazing conclusions follow.

The assumption of finiteness in space but not time, or vice versa, leads Zeno's paradox for motion to have no resolution. An unresolvable paradox is called a contradiction.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Unless you can prove by Archimedean exhustion than there can be no possible ways that a finite dimension universe can exist in infinite time then there is no issue of invalidating a factual premise that can lead to a contradiction in a deduction already performed.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

A single unit of substance in a void would constitute such a universe. So finite universes in infinite time clearly can exist "logically". But when we invoke physical principles, such a case as just mentioned obviously requires a miracle. (Where did the single unit of substance come from?) If one exists, why not two or more?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>As a matter of fact, a deduction would only be possible if the premises, facts and laws, where confirmed. Therefore, contradictions are legitimate and lead to proper deductive models.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Agreed. But doesn't that contradict your statement that "A logical contradiction never arises in deduction"? <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.421 seconds