On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 1:33:01 AM UTC-7, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 13:48, Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:30 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> *> If we're convinced it's finite in age, then it can't be infinite in >>>> spatial extent. AG * >>> >>> >>> We don't know for sure our universe is infinite in size and we'll never >>> know for sure because we'll never be able to measure precisely zero >>> curvature with no error at all, but we do know it's pretty damn flat, if >>> it's curved it's so slight that a light beam would have to go at least 500 >>> times as far as our telescopes can see for it to return where it started. >>> So if you respect the empirical evidence for the Big Bang but the idea of a >>> beginning of a infinitely sized universe makes you unhappy then the >>> Multiverse idea offers you an obvious solution, you get an infinitely large >>> infinitely old Multiverse but with the observable universe having a >>> beginning and being only finitely large. However I understand the >>> Multiverse makes you unhappy too. I fear you may be destined to be unhappy. >>> >>> By the way ... does the inverse also make you unhappy, something >>> infinitely old but finite in spatial extent? >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >> >> *All the models pictorially represented, have the Universe beginning very >> small, and inflation is claimed to increase its size from, say, much >> smaller than a proton, to about the size of the Earth or Solar System in a >> few Planck intervals. If it begins small, or if you run the clock backward >> it becomes progressively smaller, how could it have started with infinite >> spatial extent? Don't you see something wrong with the model? AG* >> > > The model says that a subset of the universe starts small and gets bigger. > This is not inconsistent with the whole universe starting and remaining > infinite in spatial extent. > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou >
*I thought I made that clear; what I am calling "the universe" is precisely the SUBSET you refer to, which starts small and gets bigger. It is THAT SUBSET which cosmologists claim has infinite spatial extent, based on measurements. What you're calling "the whole universe" includes the underlying entity on which the BB started, and on which measurements CANNOT be made. It could be infinite in spatial extent, or is possibly an entity for which the concept of spatial extent might not exist. AG* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c9a07678-7721-4d68-ba7a-ea0b3455c4d7%40googlegroups.com.
