The Biggest Bang (amendment to the Big Bang)

[RWFinFW]

My hypothesis is:

　Physics attempts to define the universe in terms of the finite, but the true nature of the universe is infinite. In figure A, the length of line segment
AB is the finite # C, but the length of line AB is by definition infinite ( or ¥ L - where ¥ = infinite - as I am unable to locate the infinite symbol on this forum) as the line continues on infinitely in both directions. The length of line segment AB could also be expressed as a function of infinity (¥ - ( ¥ - C )). The length of ray AB is also ¥ by definition. As it begins at point A, travels threw point B, then continues infinitely. However, the length of line AB ( ¥ L ) & ray AB ( ¥ r ) are not =, since line AB passes threw the negative points to the left of point A infinitely & ray AB dose not, then it is twice the length of ray AB or ( ¥ L = 2 x ¥ r ) thus even if 2 objects both have a measure of ¥ they are not necessarily =. The same could be seen with line AB & a plane passing threw A & B. the area of the plane would be L x W = ¥ , where L = ¥ L & the width would be a perpendicular line within the same plane ( line AD where D is a point in the same plane but not on line AB, thus that line would have a length of ¥ d ) the plane would have an area of ( A = ¥ L x ¥ d ) so both the line & plane are ¥ but plane ABD is ¥ d times greater than line AD.

In an infinite/open universe, the amount of volume in the universe is ¥ u, the amount of empty/unoccupied space in the universe is ¥ e & the amount of occupied volume is ¥ m so ( ¥ u = ¥ e + ¥ m ), all ¥ but not =.

　For a universe to start at a single point then expand outward it would have to be a finite universe, as no finite # can be added or multiplied with another infinite # to produce ¥ ( (A(B+C))=D where A, B & C are all finite, then D can never be ¥ ) such a universe would be finite & there would have to be something else beyond its limits. For a universe to be infinite it must begin that way. Such a universe would decelerate after the initial "explosion" unless acted upon by an unknown force outside the known laws of physics.

　For an infinite universe to be created the volume must begin as infinite. Instead of being created from a single point & expanding outward due to an unknown "explosion", the universe would be created by an infinite event, occurring at all points simultaneously, creating an infinite universe.

　Such a universe would create an infinite amount of mass simultaneously threw out its volume, but the infinite mass would not = the infinite volume thus the universe would have ( ¥ u = ¥ e + ¥ m ). This universe would then condense threw gravity & form pockets of mass separated by areas of empty space. The universe would then begin to expand in all directions threw out due to the gravitational pull of the mass around it ( F=M1M2/D2 ).

　If we had 2 identical astronomical bodies (stars, planets etc…)( M1 & M2 in Fig B) located in an empty area of space orbiting each other in a stable binary system around a central axis, then place 2 much smaller but identical masses (such as meteorites or comets)( P1 & P2) on each side of & an equal distance from the central axis with a velocity of 0, the 2 small bodies would each fall toward the mass on its side of the axis. F(P1)=(( M1P1 / {D3}2)-(( M2P1 / { D1+ D2+ D4 }2)+ [ P2P1 / { D1+ D2 }2]) & F(P2)=(( M2P2 / {D4}2)-(( M1P2 / { D1+ D2+ D3 }2)+ [ P2P1 / { D1+ D2 }2] )

　If we replace P1 & P2 with any 2 points in the infinite universe then M1 becomes all the mass of the universe opposite P2 from P1 & M2 becomes all the mass of the universe opposite P1 from P2, which is infinite. D3 & D4 become the average distance of the masses which is near ¥ , but slightly less as some (by comparison) is relatively closer. The formula would then be:
F(P1)=(( ¥ (P1) / {<¥ }2)-(( (¥ )P1 / { D1+ D2+ {<¥ } }2)+ [ (P2)P1 / { D1+ D2 }2])

& F(P2)=(( ¥ (P2) / {<¥ }2)-(( (¥ )P2 / { D1+ D2+ {<¥ } }2)+ [ (P2)P1 / { D1+ D2 }2])

　Which means the force of gravity on P1 from M1 is slightly greater than from M2 & the force of gravity on P2 from M2 is slightly greater than from M1. Though this would only be by an infinitesimally small (almost immeasurable) amount, it would still effect the points, pulling them apart causing them to accelerate in opposite directions. Such a universe would appear to expand as any 2 points without a stronger gravitational force between them would "fall" away from each other. Without any friction or other outside force acting on them, the points would continue to "fall" away at an ever increasing acceleration & a theoretical terminal velocity of c-(1/¥ ). However, areas of strong gravity (such as within the strong gravitational influence of a Galaxy) this effect would be negated by the stronger gravitational fields nearer the points. So the effect would appear as an accelerating expansion between Galaxies but would have little to no effect within the Galaxies themselves.

I've herd that is that infinite is "everything" & cannot be "more infinite" than others - but it can - like the line - it is infinite by definition - it goes on forever on both directions - so includes an infinite number of points - but only includes those points on that line - it dose not include points not on that line - if all items that are infinite include "everything" then no line, ray, or plane would have any shape since they would all include "all" points. so by definition you must be able to have an infinite without including "everything" or it's a meaningless blob of everything. you can have an infinite amount of 1 type of thing without including every other thing not that type (or even other things of the same type but not included in the group).

Like in fig A: line AB is infinite (goes on forever in both directions), so is line AD - but only point A is included in both lines - point D is not included in line AB & point B is not included in line AD.

so the volume of the universe which includes the Earth is the volume inhabited by matter - it would not be included in a list of points not inhabited by matter. so if you made a list of empty points in the universe the list would be infinite but would not include any point occupied by the earth (unless there's some fluke pocket of vacuum between 2 rocks somewhere - which would be included in the list of unoccupied points - lol) - the reverse would also be true - a list of all points in the universe that contain matter would also be infinite & include all points in the Earth (except fluke pockets of vacuum) but would not include most points between Galaxies (except a few fluke points with stray atoms drifting around in them).

Conclusion:

An example of the current theory is an explosion causing a balloon to inflate. which would mean that this universe & everything in it is finite.

I believe that it is (& always has been) infinite. With all points in the universe participating in the big bang at the same time.


the "Expansion" isn't like a balloon blowing up, but rather if:
You had a large hard table, bowed up slightly in the middle.
you took a large, flat piece of balloon rubber, painted dots all over it, then placed it flat in the middle of the table, centered over the apex of the bowing.
then took lots of small fishing weights & hooked them evenly all around the edges of the rubber.
the rubber would begin stretching down over the edges of the table & all the spots would stretch apart evenly.
if it were in a dark room with the spots glow-in-the-dark, then from the point of view of any one spot on the rubber it would see all of the other spots falling away from it & accelerating continually (with the pull of gravity).

which is the view we have in the night sky. there is no "dark energy" its merely gravity itself causing the continued "acceleration" of the universe.

thus the universe is infinite & open.

[PetersCreek]

Welcome to the BAUT forums, RWFinFW. If you haven't already done so, please read our rules, linked in my signature line below. Since you've posted in the Against The Mainstream forum, it would also be a good idea for you to look over Alternate Theory Advice, also linked below.

Again, welcome.

[HenrikOlsen]

Physics attempts to define the universe in terms of the finite, but the true nature of the universe is infinite.

What makes you think this?

[Strange]

My hypothesis is:

Well at least you don't call it a theory

　Physics attempts to define the universe in terms of the finite

Does it? What do you base that on?

but the true nature of the universe is infinite.

How do you know that?

In figure A...

I can't make much sense of this. What do the lines on your diagrams represent?

　For a universe to start at a single point then expand outward

Except it didn't (probably)

it would have to be a finite universe

If the universe started as finite then it is still finite.
If the universe started as infinite then it is still infinite.

As far as I know, we have no way of knowing whether it is finite or not. You have just asserted it is with no evidence.

Such a universe would decelerate after the initial "explosion" unless acted upon by an unknown force outside the known laws of physics.

Except the big bang was not an "explosion".

F(P1)=(( ¥ (P1) / {<¥ }2)-(( (¥ )P1 / { D1+ D2+ {<¥ } }2)+ [ (P2)P1 / { D1+ D2 }2])

& F(P2)=(( ¥ (P2) / {<¥ }2)-(( (¥ )P2 / { D1+ D2+ {<¥ } }2)+ [ (P2)P1 / { D1+ D2 }2])

I have no idea what that means: you need to define your terms and use some standard notation (or define your notation).

　Which means the force of gravity on P1 from M1 is slightly greater than from M2 & the force of gravity on P2 from M2 is slightly greater than from M1. Though this would only be by an infinitesimally small (almost immeasurable) amount, it would still effect the points, pulling them apart causing them to accelerate in opposite directions. Such a universe would appear to expand as any 2 points without a stronger gravitational force between them would "fall" away from each other. Without any friction or other outside force acting on them, the points would continue to "fall" away at an ever increasing acceleration & a theoretical terminal velocity of c-(1/¥ ). However, areas of strong gravity (such as within the strong gravitational influence of a Galaxy) this effect would be negated by the stronger gravitational fields nearer the points. So the effect would appear as an accelerating expansion between Galaxies but would have little to no effect within the Galaxies themselves.

I have no idea what that means. If you are suggesting that all the (infinite) mass around the universe would pull it apart then this is just wrong. As demonstrated by Newton.

I've herd that is that infinite is "everything" & cannot be "more infinite" than others

Then you heard wrong. There are different types of infinity (an infinite number). Although your attempt to explain this is pretty incomprehensible (to me. anyway).

An example of the current theory is an explosion causing a balloon to inflate. which would mean that this universe & everything in it is finite.

The big bang theory is nothing like an inflating balloon. You may be confused by the common "balloon analogy" which attempts to explain that the surface of the balloon is finite but has no boundaries, and that surface can expand. That may or may not be an accurate model of the universe. But it is only an analogy anyway.

I believe that it is (& always has been) infinite. With all points in the universe participating in the big bang at the same time.

That may well be true. On the other hand, maybe it isn't. You can believe it if you want. But you have provided no reason for anyone else to believe it because you started out with that as your assumption so, inevitably, it is also your conclusion.

the "Expansion" isn't like a balloon blowing up

True.

, but rather if:
You had a large hard table, bowed up slightly in the middle.
you took a large, flat piece of balloon rubber, painted dots all over it, then placed it flat in the middle of the table, centered over the apex of the bowing.
then took lots of small fishing weights & hooked them evenly all around the edges of the rubber.
the rubber would begin stretching down over the edges of the table & all the spots would stretch apart evenly.
if it were in a dark room with the spots glow-in-the-dark, then from the point of view of any one spot on the rubber it would see all of the other spots falling away from it & accelerating continually (with the pull of gravity).

That may be a better analogy although it seems unnecessarily complicated and implies an "edge" to the universe. So it is potentially even more confusing. And it is even more obviously finite than the balloon surface analogy. So doesn't really help your case.

which is the view we have in the night sky. there is no "dark energy" its merely gravity itself causing the continued "acceleration" of the universe.

That is just wrong.

thus the universe is infinite & open.

You can't use "thus" as you start out with an assumption it is infinite and then proceed to "prove" it is infinite. Circular logic proves nothing.

[Garrison]

I've herd that is that infinite is "everything" & cannot be "more infinite" than others - but it can - like the line - it is infinite by definition - it goes on forever on both directions - so includes an infinite number of points -

To emphasize what others have noted where did you get this notion from? There are an infinite series of odd numbers, an infinite series of even numbers, and an infinite series of all whole numbers. There's a whole branch of maths that incorporates such ideas called set theory(thank you Google)

[Strange]

There are an infinite series of odd numbers, an infinite series of even numbers, and an infinite series of all whole numbers.

Although, those infinities are the same size. The infinite series of real numbers, however, is (infinitely) larger.

[RWFinFW]

for the universe to be finite then there must be something beyond it - this may be the case but then we have to ask ourselves what the nature of the omniverse is ? it may well be an infinite "field" of finite universes but for a universe to be finite then there would be a center. an infinite universe makes much more sense. that's not to say that there may not be finite universes tucked into an infinite universe (similar to a finite line segment being tucked into an infinite line). in any case, if the universe is infinite & science continues to try to define it as finite then they are doomed to continual failure. both possibilities need to be fully explored.

[RWFinFW]

Although, those infinities are the same size. The infinite series of real numbers, however, is (infinitely) larger.

exactly, all are "infinite" but 1 is more than the others - as I stipulated with my example of ray AB vs line AB.

[RWFinFW]

I can't make much sense of this. What do the lines on your diagrams represent?

they represent lines, rays & line segments - to show the nature of infinite vs finite

I have no idea what that means: you need to define your terms and use some standard notation (or define your notation).

they are defined in the text

I have no idea what that means. If you are suggesting that all the (infinite) mass around the universe would pull it apart then this is just wrong. As demonstrated by Newton.

I'm stating that the universe isn't being blown outward from an unknown internal force but being stretched outward, in all directions, by gravity

Then you heard wrong. There are different types of infinity (an infinite number).

pretty strait forward explanation, I have been asked that several times & included the example to head off that question, but I like the whole # example & forward it to the others who asked, as another example.

That may be a better analogy although it seems unnecessarily complicated and implies an "edge" to the universe. So it is potentially even more confusing. And it is even more obviously finite than the balloon surface analogy. So doesn't really help your case.

no, the analogy has an edge (as you mentioned in you last line, its just an analogy) that doesn't imply that the universe itself has one

[caveman1917]

for the universe to be finite then there must be something beyond it

That's incorrect. Suppose you are a 0-dimensional point on a circle, the circle is your 'universe'. It is finite, yet there doesn't need to be anything beyond it, you just end back where you started once you go around.

[caveman1917]

exactly, all are "infinite" but 1 is more than the others - as I stipulated with my example of ray AB vs line AB.

Actually those two are the same in terms of cardinality.

[RWFinFW]

That's incorrect. Suppose you are a 0-dimensional point on a circle, the circle is your 'universe'. It is finite, yet there doesn't need to be anything beyond it, you just end back where you started once you go around.

no, that would be wrong - for your "perceived" universe that would happen - but WE KNOW that there is the rest for this universe beyond that circle - if it were a circle on a piece of paper then you still have the rest of the paper, the rest of the desk, the rest of the planet etc...the point would just not be able to detect them...but that doesn't mean their not there.

[Geo Kaplan]

if it were a circle on a piece of paper then you still have the rest of the paper, the rest of the desk, the rest of the planet etc...the point would just not be able to detect them...but that doesn't mean their not there.

But it's not a circle on a piece of paper. There is no paper. There is no spoon.

[RWFinFW]

But it's not a circle on a piece of paper. There is no paper. There is no spoon.

It's an analogy for an analogy. obviously the universe isn't setting on a giant piece of paper duh. for this universe to be finite there MUST be something beyond it - the omniverse (by its very nature) MUST be infinite, & there is no reason what so ever for the omniverse to be limited to only 10 or 11 dimensions either (that argument was just dumb) if there are 2 dimensions then there are an infinite # of dimensions - there's no reason for there not to be. whether some dimensions effect one force (string, perception or other) or not is irrelevant there is no more limit on the # of dimensions or the volume of each of those dimensions than there is a limit on the number of line segments in a given line, or the # of directions you can turn to in a circle from the center point of that circle (90deg, 72deg, 358.97238154...deg, etc.) !

[moog]

for this universe to be finite there MUST be something beyond it

Why?
Saying it must be so does not make it so, nor does writing it all in caps.

[Strange]

for this universe to be finite there MUST be something beyond it

Not at all. The surface of a sphere is finite but there is nothing "beyond" it.

[Geo Kaplan]

It's an analogy for an analogy. obviously the universe isn't setting on a giant piece of paper duh. for this universe to be finite there MUST be something beyond it

Of course it's an analogy, and until you grasp what the analogy is saying, you have no hope of understanding the scenario for which the analogy holds.

Again, the circle is an example of something that is finite, but for which there is no beyond. In that analogy, the circle is the universe. Again, there is no paper in this analogy. The circle is all that there is. That example is but one of an infinite class of finite objects for which there is no "beyond." That's what the analogy is trying to teach you. You reject this lesson because you have an erroneous belief that is not in accord with it. But the way forward is to set aside your prejudices, recognize that they are in fact prejudices with no logical foundation, and then learn from the examples that have been presented to you.

[RWFinFW]

Of course it's an analogy, and until you grasp what the analogy is saying, you have no hope of understanding the scenario for which the analogy holds.

Again, the circle is an example of something that is finite, but for which there is no beyond. In that analogy, the circle is the universe. Again, there is no paper in this analogy. The circle is all that there is. That example is but one of an infinite class of finite objects for which there is no "beyond." That's what the analogy is trying to teach you. You reject this lesson because you have an erroneous belief that is not in accord with it. But the way forward is to set aside your prejudices, recognize that they are in fact prejudices with no logical foundation, and then learn from the examples that have been presented to you.

Actually they are founded in logic - just because yours are prejudices don't mean mine are - even in your analogy there is something beyond the circle or sphere - just because the points contained in the circle are unable to perceive what's beyond them doesn't mean there's nothing there. for any finite universe you can ask "what's beyond" - there's (in this analogy) the air around the balloon or ball (or what ever) not part of the object but still exists, even though its not part of its dimension. as a stated before - it is "possible" that this universe is finite, but there would be something else beyond that. - I came here to find facts, but all I have found is close minded conjecture so far.

[Van Rijn]

[...] it is "possible" that this universe is finite, but there would be something else beyond that. - I came here to find facts, but all I have found is close minded conjecture so far.

Er . . . but you are the one insisting that if the universe is finite that there must be something beyond it. How is it closed minded to point out that your "must" does not follow? A finite universe does not require that there be anything beyond it. There might be, but there doesn't need to be.

[Tensor]

- I came here to find facts, but all I have found is close minded conjecture so far.

Actually, what you have done here is try to take terms that have specific meanings and redefine them into meanings that are comfortable to you. That doesn't make the people here close minded, it just means you reject the definitions as they are currently defined. Those definitions have been worked out within the mathematical systems that use them. It may very well be that the definitions can change in another system (hyperbolic and elliptical vs plane geometry come to mind), but you will have to show us how the new system uses the redefinition of those systems.

The example with the circle is an excellent example. If you are talking about a zero dimensional points ON the circle, all you can talk about is the circle itself. That is inherent in the system as the equations for a circle only include the circle. So far all you have done is claim that the definitions should be able to be changed into something that includes the area outside or inside the circle.

On top of that, argument by analogy is less than useless. Analogies can sometimes be useful for understanding concepts, as long as all concerned are aware of the limitations of the analogy. But, when it comes to debating and comparing differing systems, math is the only useful tool we have.

[caveman1917]

I came here to find facts, but all I have found is close minded conjecture so far.

It is a fact that your conjecture amounts to claiming that the number of dimensions of our universe is infinite.

You're given the example of a circle, and you state there must be some 2d "beyond".
Then you have the example of a 2-sphere (balloon), so you state there must be some 3rd dimensional "beyond".
After that we arrive at what is meant by a finite universe, a 3-sphere, but still there must by your conjecture be a "beyond".
So we move up yet another dimension, 4-sphere, 5-sphere,..., ad infinitum.

So why exactly do you think that it is impossible for our universe to have a finite number of dimensions?

[Geo Kaplan]

Actually they are founded in logic - just because yours are prejudices don't mean mine are - even in your analogy there is something beyond the circle or sphere - just because the points contained in the circle are unable to perceive what's beyond them doesn't mean there's nothing there.

Your logic is so muddled that it's difficult to know where to start. First, when discussing the analogy, one must be careful to understand what the analogy actually says. That's what I have pointed out; it's not a matter of prejudice, it's a matter of definition. Just because you happen not to like it does not break the analogy.

Again, in the analogy, there is nothing beyond the circle, thus there is nothing beyond it by postulate. You are conflating the analogy with some other model you have in your mind. I am talking solely about the analogy. And in that analogy, there is no "beyond." It has nothing to do with prejudice; it has everything to do with clear definitions, and clear thinking.

So let's review: You brought up the analogy of a circle to argue that there must be a beyond. But it does not follow logically from your argument that a beyond must exist. You have simply asserted that it must be so. The absence of a logical connection is what we have pointed out. There may very well be a "beyond," but your line of reasoning does not come close to showing that necessity.