On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 3:59:28 AM UTC-7, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 20:28, Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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. >
*What I am claiming is that the universe beyond what is observable is NOT infinite in spatial extent. It's finite because it starts out small and has been expanding for finite time. AG * > -- > 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/d4f71df3-7fa3-42b9-9f4a-a606bafae865%40googlegroups.com.
