Infinite Space and Time...How?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: "But dimensions aren't real, physical objects. They are mathematical concepts that we use to measure the universe."

[Magoo]: So how can you justify using the imaginary (non-real) to validate the physically real?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is never done. That would be illogical.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: "with everything [physical] being infinitely divisible and infinitely assembleable"

[Magoo]: Doesn't this violate the rule that the finite cannot become infinite?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, it doesn't. You know the old rule -- no matter how big a number you name, it is still finite. Moreover, it is still infinitely far away from becoming infinite. So even though the fact that everything is infinitely assembleable means there is no limit to how large structures can be, they are still finite, and infinitely far away from becoming infinite.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Also, You chastised Mark and said how he needs to go and learn about units but here it seems as though you try to validate physical(real) units with non-physical(non-real) measurment units. It seems that you are trying to claim, at least by the MM, that space, time, and scale are non-physical dimensions and therefore can be infinite. But, as you said above: "everything that exists must be finite in all five dimensions", so the question is: In your(Dr. VanFlandern) opinion is space physical or non-physical?(this question cannot go unanswered)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It is true we sometimes use these terms loosely. Doing so avoids needing to invent new terms to make simple distinctions. In this case, "space" was used in two different senses that hopefully were clear in context, even if they are not so clear when taken out of context (as here).

The dimension of "space" is non-physical, infinite, and used only for measurement. By contrast, physical "space" is really the set of objects that fill space. In the MM, we reason that there is no such thing as truly empty "physical space" because such a thing would coincide with the MM's definition of non-existence. So space exists because it is occupied, and conversely -- whatever is occupied is perceived as space. "Empty space" is simply occupied by entities too small to detect.

So at every scale, we perceive lots of empty space and a little filling with matter. But if we went to a much smaller scale, we would perceive some of what appeared empty on a larger scale as filled, and vice versa. The universe looks essentially the same at every scale, even though all the details will be different.

So it remains true that no physical entity at any scale can be infinite. In fact, all physical entities at all scales are made mostly of what appears to be "empty space" (as defined above).

Similar remarks apply to time. Everything real is finite in time, then dissolves back into constituents and reassembles into something else later. Yet the dimension of time is infinite because this process can never cease, and nothing that exists can ever go out of existence (or come into it).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It seems as though you might want to think about your answer because this could be your paradox. If you say space is non-physical then you would be saying that the physical exists within non-physical space. If you say space is physical then you would contradict yourself by saying space is infinite.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Point taken. I've made a more careful distinction between the dimension of space and "physical space". The concepts are clear (at least in my mind), even if the words used to express them were not.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: "To greatly oversimplify, if space has a boundary, what would be beyond? If time (change) could come to an end, where would everything go? Where would the motions of things (their momentum) go?"

[Magoo]: Why does something need to be "beyond"? What is beyond the center of the earth?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The other side of the Earth is beyond its center. I don't understand your puzzlement. Can you imagine an end to space with nothing beyond? Without playing word games, of course. -|Tom|-

I don't now if it's a mistake of mine coming to this topic, it probably is, because I see a lot of inconcistency in some statements

example

"The dimension of "space" is non-physical, infinite, and used only for measurement. By contrast, physical "space" is really the set of objects that fill space. In the MM, we reason that there is no such thing as truly empty "physical space" because such a thing would coincide with the MM's definition of non-existence. So space exists because it is occupied, and conversely -- whatever is occupied is perceived as space. "Empty space" is simply occupied by entities too small to detect.

So at every scale, we perceive lots of empty space and a little filling with matter. But if we went to a much smaller scale, we would perceive some of what appeared empty on a larger scale as filled, and vice versa. The universe looks essentially the same at every scale, even though all the details will be different.

So it remains true that no physical entity at any scale can be infinite."


Then, if the universe is infinite and there is a lot of infinite space occupied by entities small to detect, then the population of those entities is infinite. If we are talking about gravitons being those entities and running at incredible high speeds their total mass is infinite and getting to that speed would require infinite energy given somehow to them (to their sum) at some point, unless some are stationary and getting their energy by collisions and so on...

This is a very puzzling concept and those saying it's clear in their mind may say so at their own prerocative.

If the universe if infinite then unless there is a law that limits the size of physical objects, some infinite objects could also exist and collapse into black holes due to their own gravity. Then, those infinite objects would really suck everything else inside before you blink your eyes and there you have a solid space...unless as I said one proves that a limit in sizes applies.

Time to get some cars fixed

Hum, Is the universe, "Space", infinite or finite. We'll probably be discussing this two hundred years from now (Along with that nasty 'What is Gravity" question ) and still not have an answer for either. I would surmise that the universe appear infinte in size, specially if you tried to walk it, it would for all intents be infinite. The other question is if the universe is finite then what's after it.

When I was 12 (Quite some time ago) I use to think that after you traveled un-told billions of LY, that you would come to a red brick wall with a sign that read; "Beyond here there be nothing". Very simplistic but at the time it solved the infinite universe problem.

One question I always had is if the universe is finite, whats behind the wall, IE whats outside the universe. Guess there are issues with both a infinite and finite universe. This has been one of the questions I keep asking myself since I was 12. But then I'm just an idiot.

It may be that space is curved, but if it is, it's a very shallow curve, or a curve that we can not currently perceive. Some questions to ask is what are the ramifications of a finite universe compared to an infinite universe, and then see which fits observations over time.

I guess that one definition would be an infinite null with a finite sprinkling of star stuff inside it. Ok got to go contemplate my navel.

Just my rather mundane two cents.
Now if I can only devise a method to interact with and polarize gravitons. Guess thats another topic.

Ben
Just an engineer.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mechanic]: Then, if the universe is infinite and there is a lot of infinite space occupied by entities small to detect, then the population of those entities is infinite.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, that does not follow. To a single-cell animal deep in the Pacific Ocean, the universe seems to consist of an infinite number of water drops. But it doesn't. In a like way, every specific form is of finite extent in time and space and scale.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If we are talking about gravitons being those entities and running at incredible high speeds their total mass is infinite and getting to that speed would require infinite energy given somehow to them (to their sum) at some point, unless some are stationary and getting their energy by collisions and so on...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Gravitons act like air molecules. There are a vast number of them, they move with incredibly high speeds, yet they are nothing in the bigger picture. I often compare all the gravitons in the universe as far as we can see and a million times beyond that to Earth's atmosphere, and call all the gravitons the atmosphere of a "mega-planet" too huge for us to even imagine. But beyond that mega-planets atmosphere, there may be no more gravitons in the whole infinite universe. Or there might be some more elsewhere. But the total number of any specific form such as gravitons or stars is finite, even though the universe is infinite. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mechanic]: Then, if the universe is infinite and there is a lot of infinite space occupied by entities small to detect, then the population of those entities is infinite.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, that does not follow. To a single-cell animal deep in the Pacific Ocean, the universe seems to consist of an infinite number of water drops. But it doesn't. In a like way, every specific form is of finite extent in time and space and scale.

If we are talking about gravitons being those entities and running at incredible high speeds their total mass is infinite and getting to that speed would require infinite energy given somehow to them (to their sum) at some point, unless some are stationary and getting their energy by collisions and so on...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Gravitons act like air molecules. There are a vast number of them, they move with incredibly high speeds, yet they are nothing in the bigger picture. I often compare all the gravitons in the universe as far as we can see and a million times beyond that to Earth's atmosphere, and call all the gravitons the atmosphere of a "mega-planet" too huge for us to even imagine. But beyond that mega-planets atmosphere, there may be no more gravitons in the whole infinite universe. Or there might be some more elsewhere. But the total number of any specific form such as gravitons or stars is finite, even though the universe is infinite.

I will give you this much though. The dimensions are infinite. That means the extent of space (but not any real form in it), the extent of time (but not the duration of any form) and the renge of scale (but not the range of any form) are all infinite. But the parameter that measures the range of scale is mass. So the total mass of the universe, like the other fundamental units or dimensions of length and time (size and lifetime of the universe), are also infinite. Of course, there is no gravity or any other force except where there are force carriers such as gravitons. So no force is infinite. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Magoo]: I beleive you agree that space is real and physical<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You missed the distinction I made in the second message above between the dimension of space (infinite) and any physical form in space (finite). So I do not agree unless you specify which meaning of "space" you intend.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I would have to ask if you believe that there are infinite constituents since the only way you could infinitely reassemble them would be to have an infinite number of them.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

All assemblages are finite, so they can have a finite number of constituents by any count.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Your statement appears to me that there is a fixed(finite) amount of constituents that could be "infinitely" divided but I can only see them being reassembled back to the original quantity unless the quantity is infinite.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We are getting very close to discussing Zeno's paradoxes. Many books have been written on that subject. I'm not anxious to type chapter one of my book into these messages. Is it fair to refer questions about the infinite composition of finite bodies (the subject of Zeno's paradoxes for space, time, and matter) to chapter one of my book? I'll be glad to take questions on that, but it is too much material to repeat in messages, and needs illustrations.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Also, do you agree that you were comparing non-physical(UNITS) to physical(UNITS) when you chastized Mark? (I though your comment was a little cruel.)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't agree with the first sentence. But I accept your criticism in the second sentence. I did apologize to Mark. It is easy to misunderstand people when only electronic body language is available. Maybe we need to use more smilies.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The point was that, physically, there is nothing past the center. Once you have reached the center the only place you can go is back to where you came from, it's the end of the road. In this case you would simply be heading <u>back</u> to a different part of the Earth.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I still don't get it. Suppose you are somewhere near the center of the Earth. You wander around, but the exact center is not marked, so you just keep going until you emerge on the other side. No boundary there.

Or conversely, suppose you come to a sign that says "center". Suppose it isn't the real center. Either way, it's no barrier either.

I cannot imagine a boundary with nothing on the other side. I sumbit that you can't either. There may not be any objects on the other side, but there is always space. Try to imagine a boundary with no space beyond. I can't. If there were one, wouldn't everything moving in that direction (light, gravity, stars, etc.) flood out and fill the non-existing whatever? -|Tom|-