On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 20:28, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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]> 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* > The visible universe started small and got bigger, but no-one claims the visible universe is infinite. But maybe the universe continues forever beyond the visible universe. This is not inconsistent with the universe having a beginning and expanding. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/CAH%3D2ypVbpTG0ztw8T3ENRPuMFxDQ5JYUW0P39r%2BjxtHvUKq0ew%40mail.gmail.com.
