'Edge' of the Universe

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kcody</i>
<br />If we were at the edge of the Universe, then would we be under tremendous acceleration towards the rest of the Universe because that's where all the rest of the gravity is coming from?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The answer would depend on which theory was used. But no existing cosmology hypothesizes an edge to the universe. In particular, in the Big Bang cosmology, there is no center and no edge, with every point in the universe equivalent to every other in general terms.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It would be under tremendous acceleration -away- from it, as most of the fast-moving C-Gravitons would be behind us and moving outward.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Just as there is no such place where all air molecules would be moving outward, the C-graviton medium likewise has no such place. The entire C-graviton medium would be finite in extent and held in place by forces from another scale in a universe infinite in scale as well as time and space.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Note, that wouldn't be an edge of the universe per se, just an edge of the space that is useful to forms of matter such as ourselves and the planetary/stellar/galactic systems we're familiar with.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True. But that entire assembly is just part of some larger structure that includes C-gravitons and elysium (LCM). And the whole thing is just a drop in the bucket at still larger scales.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In an infinitely old universe, there would be no edge of the C-Graviton medium; but that seems to violate causality.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you were a fish in the deep ocean, you would surely argue that the water universe was infinite, even if the number of fish was not. But all forms are finite, including the C-graviton medium. And there will be other mediums and other forms in all directions. -|Tom|-

Thanks for the clear-up Tom; I'd missed the 'edge' misnomer.

I still hold on the idea of 'useful' universe, but that is clearly separate from the fact that it does indeed go on beyond there.

Compulsive intellectualizing:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
But no existing cosmology hypothesizes an edge to the universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Understood, but this one does imply intrinsic limits to where we can physically go, however enormous. Since our personal existences depend on relatively stable local elysium, we probably shouldn't be going too near to quasars or any other suspected elysium boundary either.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In particular, in the Big Bang cosmology, there is no center and no edge, with every point in the universe equivalent to every other in general terms.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A theory that starts with an explosion from a single point and then ends up with no geometric center and no edge...

*brrrr*

Big Bang theory should have died right there on the basis that it contradicts existing observations... but I'm not looking to not argue the point here unless someone else really feels the need.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The entire C-graviton medium would be finite in extent and held in place by forces from another scale in a universe infinite in scale as well as time and space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So, there'd be a border there, with something exerting force on it from the outside to balance the tendency to expand. We know the same laws of physics apply. Either there'd be a bunch of even finer particles moving at even higher speeds, penetrating partway into the CG medium and producing a soft transition; or there'd be a cohesive medium like a liquid or solid, producing a sharp boundary.

In other words, either akin to an atmosphere held by gravity; or an air bubble underwater; or an air pocket trapped in a rock. Each would imply different theories of evolution.

Elsewhere in that "supermedium", other C-Graviton regions are being held together the same way.

Come to think of it, wouldn't you run into an edge of elysium first? Seems like it should have surface tension, and at our scale I can't think of a liquid that can exist in a hard or soft vacuum.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And there will be other mediums and other forms in all directions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A universe that's infinite in dimension, time, and scale I can swallow with no trouble at all. That one can keep looking up or down the scale and find both substance and structure, is what I'm having a hard time with... why doesn't it stop somewhere, why shouldn't there be less structure at earlier epochs? Shouldn't the system close at some point, feeding energy through a circle of scales?

-Kevin

[kcody] " ...why doesn't it stop somewhere ..."

That's an interesting question. (Maybe it does, but all the experience we have so far says 'If you look farther you will see more'.)

===

Here is another interesting question - "Why should it stop somewhere?"

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
Here is another interesting question - "Why should it stop somewhere?"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Causality demands that every bit of substance has a history; in everyday terms, it had to have gotten there somehow. Also, every bit of structure has to be the result of some process; some expenditure of energy to establish order.

A universe whose contents are truly infinite requires that substance and structure exist without having "gotten there somehow".

It seems illogical on the surface that the universe itself should have an edge, but just as illogical that it its contents are infinite.

As Dr. Tom van Flandern postulates in his book, it seems like the fundamental laws of physics should apply equally throughout. I take that to mean the laws of causality and thermodynamics as well as the laws of motion.

From another perspective, I question the logical validity of trying to "cancel" one infinity with another. Just because someone gave the idea of undefinedness a cutesey little symbol doesn't mean that the value suddenly behaves like an algebraic variable. I can buy that there's no intrinsic limit to scale, but to say that every volume-larger scale is supported by the action of another size-smaller scale sounds like trying to do just that.

That leads to an hypothesis: Any equation describing physics that contains an infinity is automatically suspect.

Tying it together, if it cannot be infinite, it must be finite, and therefore must stop somewhere. I don't suggest that CG's are that limit, or any other presently postulated layer. I'm just saying that at some point it should either stop or loop back to itself.

Note to interested parties: This is the first time I've given deliberate rebuttal to any part of the Meta Model. I'm only challenging this one point. The rest of the theory looks as sound as they come so far. As always, I can be sold that I'm wrong.

Before starting a holy war over it though, I submit that we should put further study into what layers are necessary for our view of reality, and then what those layers themselves require to be what they are. Only with those understandings can we come up with an informed, testable hypothesis of whether the universe is a closed system or a natural infinity. Until then it's probably all conjecture anyway.

- Kevin

[kcody] "Causality demands that every bit of substance has a history; in everyday terms, it had to have gotten there somehow."

[Paraphrasing TVF, from his book]

===
The finite cannot become infinite. Any *real* thing (a quark, an atom, a person, a planet, a galactic super cluster) must have a beginning and an end. And edges.

But *conceptual* things (numbers, equations, the three spatial dimensions, the time dimension, the scale dimension) are different.

Individual real things are finite. Individual conceptual things (including the concept of 'the sum total of all real and conceptual things', AKA the universe) can be infinite.
===

LB

[kcody] "A universe whose contents are truly infinite requires that substance and structure exist without having 'gotten there somehow'."

This is a ... so so? .. description of TVF's concept of a 'matter ingredient', but not of anything that is a real physical entity.

===

NOTE - Few people have trouble understanding infinite distance and infinite time. But groking infinite scale seems to be hard for just about everyone. I have no idea why I was different, but for some reason I have not had that problem. It just clicked with me the first time I read about it.

LB