the universe and infinity...

Surely everything tangible is finite. It is just easier for us to say it is infinite because there is such a large number of objects (e.g. grains of sand), or the number of objects is increasing at a large or unpredictable rate, or we are unable (or just can’t be bothered) to locate and count them.

I’m not against infinity at all. It is a very important concept in mathematics, but I feel it is very much overused with topics such as space where, lets face it, we don’t know much for certain, and so “infinity” is perhaps a quick and easy get out clause.

I am fully expecting someone to find a counter-example for the above!

Oh… and you have counted them?.

Give me a ballpark figure.

No of course I haven’t.

It’s people like you asking people like me how many of something exists that causes words like “infinite” to be thrown about.

I stand a much better chance of giving you a ballpark figure than you do bringing me an infinite number of anything.

Sorry, not to you. To the doctor from India. She totally dismissed his view, so I want her to prove it.

But since you went there, I wouldn’t have asked to count it, if I didn’t know that there are two meanings to the word infinite. Infinite meaning boundless/endless and also greater than any pre assigned finite value however large. Have we ever counted the stars?. Nooooo why?, because someone kinda stopped when it reached 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999…

just a thought.

You can do so yourself. Learn a little astronomy and physics and you can estimate the number of galaxies and star systems in our universe.

Counting them directly is not necessary (and not possible either). Very often what we think we’re seeing is not necessarily true. Just think of a magic show and you’ll understand what I’m talking about.

Objective evidence is the key. Thats what science uses. You measure the effects of a phenomena and verify it.

How do you think scientists discovered the BB ? And about black holes ? By directly observing them ? You must be joking …

• Sivakami.

I don’t believe in the big bang. for one, it defies conservation of energy, but you could just argue that the laws of physics were different back then.

But still, if the universe isn’t infinite in time both ways, what was here before the big bang?

the one theory is that the universe has existed infinitely in time, but every thousand trillion years or so, all the matter in the universe contracts to a single point, then explodes, thus causing another “big bang” and the rebeginning of the universe. the theory states that this has been going on forever and will be going on forever. this is the most plausible, in my opinion, theory of the origion of the universe.

Well dear,the LITTLE I do know about science is that it is not so objective as you claim it to be.
You are using other people’s views to create your own and even now, knowing that you know a more about astronomy and physics have not given a figure to how many stars are in the sky. How do you know that the sources that you use are accurate in estimating the number of galaxies and star systems? (a ‘hypallage’ or something…using the term loosely)
you even said it yourself…(Very often what we think we’re seeing is not necessarily true. )

Certain things have to be directly observed in order to obtain a near accurate estimation. I’m sure there is not a pattern to how many stars are in one place… and discovery of black holes is a totally different argument… and since u mentioned that , just a correction. you cannot discover something that you are already directly observing.

[/quote]

It is not a question of belief, it is a question of evidence [:)]
And important as your beliefs may be to you, they are no indication of the validity of a theory.

No space or time. The BB resulted due to random fluctuations of zero mass-energy into positive and negative mass-energy. So the total mass-energy in the universe is zero.
That you cannot imagine it doesn’t really matter. Our brains evolved to survive and reproduce in the African plains and rainforests. It is not surprising that they are ill-equipped to deal with things like the origin of the universe. So we cannot rely on imagination and instinct for this one … we have to rely only on evidence

• Sivakami.

Because I know that it is based on objective evidence. And has been independently verified before and can be again. You and I could, with a little scientific knowledge verify/disprove these theories. It doesn’t require any faith or belief

Nope, direct observation is not always necessary and not always possible either. Science works like this …
You have a hypothesis H. If H were true, using logic, scientists deduce that they should be able to observe a,b and c. Then they go out and observe. If they observe a, b and c (many times, independently) then the hypothesis is valid. But if they dont observe even one of those, it is invalid. Tomorrow if some other scientist comes along and fails to observe c under a certain circumstance or finda nother phenomenon d that should be observed if H were true, but isn’t, then again H is disproved.

• Sivakami.

no sivakami, science still isn’t very objective. Scientist use paradigms to achieve answers…this is in no way an objective pursuit of knowledge so therefore it doesn’t aim to falsify but confirm theories etc…

For example, u just said :“You have a hypothesis H. If H were true, using logic, scientists deduce that they should be able to observe a,b and c. …” you see, there is a standard procedure for retrieving information in your view; it guides how that evidence it collected and how it should be analyzed and explained.

Can it then be seen as objective??..

Natty

Every scientific theory has an explicit falsifiable clause. Else it isn’t a valid theory at all . Its religion that states unfalsifiable theories - convenient for belief without evidence

What standard procedure ? The only procedures science follows is logic, objective evidence and skeptical scrutiny. Its only in science that scientists actively try and disprove their own theories and invite other scientists to disprove theirs. Only after theories have been subjected to intense peer review are they accepted. Even then anyone who reveals evidence to the contrary can disprove it anytime.

• Sivakami.

Come on sivakami, we both know that science doesn’t only follow ‘logic’ and further more logic means conformity to laws. Subjectivity.

And scientists aren’t all that eager to falsify claims because they might ruin their reputation/credibility because of fear of being wrong. I’m sure not every scientist is as passionate as you are. Some are just in it for the money. and you know that’s the truth.

No, I dont know that science doesn’t follow logic. It also uses some basic assumotions and continuously validates hypothesis with evidence, yes. But it certainly uses logic. Without logic we could not form hypotheses.
Conformity to laws is subjectivity ? How ?
Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And we’ve all eaten and enjoyed the pudding as far as science is concerned. We do it everyday, almost continuously.

Scientists are but human, but the very process of science ensures that subjective biases dont hold for long. Their very jealousy ensures that each new hypothesis is out under the most intense skeptical scrutiny and comes out only after it has passed it. Sure, scientists are human. But they accept their wrongs and correct themselves far more easily than those of any other discipline. Science thrives on skeptical scrutiny and self correction. The method has the process built-in.

• Sivakami.

I have loved astronomy since I was a kid and have had the pleasure of learning much about it in University despite my major being Philosophy.

So, I think I can help with some actual evidence. What has so far been proved is the following: we understand how the universe formed from 10 (power= -4) second. Which means we know what happened 10000th of a second after the big bang explosion. This time period is described as the Planck era.

Slartibartfast stated:
"I don’t believe in the big bang. for one, it defies conservation of energy, but you could just argue that the laws of physics were different back then.

But still, if the universe isn’t infinite in time both ways, what was here before the big bang?

the one theory is that the universe has existed infinitely in time, but every thousand trillion years or so, all the matter in the universe contracts to a single point, then explodes, thus causing another “big bang” and the rebeginning of the universe. the theory states that this has been going on forever and will be going on forever. this is the most plausible, in my opinion, theory of the origion of the universe."

But you contradict yourself, you say at the end that this is the most plausible theory, but at the beginning you state you don’t believe in the big bang. Exactly how does the big bang defy conservation of energy? By the way, we can’t know if the universe is infinite, we use to think the stars we saw in the sky were infinite. But now we know that even a planet or a star has an age, or I should say a birth and a death.

There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy. The exact number cannot be known since, the amount of work needed to find, classify, and name billions of stars takes a few millenia. Moreover, there are some stars that we can’t even see from earth because they are being blocked, by either other stars or interstellar gas clouds. The center of our galaxy is near the constellation Sagittarius and is about 8 kpc away from our sun.

One thing I would like to mention is that there is something in space, the theoretical vaccum. The reason I say this is because traditionally astro-physicists and astronomy students in general have been taught that there is a void in space, there is simply ‘nothing’. This is not so, and it has been proven. There is what is called the Cosmic Microwave Background for which Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize in 1978. It is this very thing that proved to the world that the big bang really did occur. Reason being that theoreticians made theories as to the temperature of space at the beginning and if the big bang really did happen exactly how the temperature and energy would be distributed around the universe. These theories gave some theoretical temperature which the Cosmic Microwave Bachground confirmed.

My take is that I was half right , If what you’re saying is factual.

I apologize for forgetting to close my bold after Cosmic Microwave Background.

But haven’t recent studies indicated that the universe may be contracting, not expanding, as previously assumed?

Don’t think so, though I could well be wrong.

Is there some web-page you can point me to (i.e. on the NASA website or summat) that says this?

No. The universe is expanding.
Whether or not this expansion will stop depends on the amount of mass-energy in the universe, and we’ve still not found enough to check the expansion and begin the contraction. Physicists recently discovered dark matter, but even that doesn;t seem enough. We’re still looking for more, as yet undiscovered, bits of matter.
As of now, it seems as though the universe will expans to a cold death (it will take billions and billions of years, of course!).
However, we never know ehen new evidence may turn up.

• Sivakami

Quite true Sivakami,
the theories I have read about match what you have said, but also go a little bit further. The new theories propose that the bits of matter that are missing from theoreticians calculations could be neutrinoes that we have been trying to detect since the late 1950’s, but till this day we can only detect about one neutrino a day with the best technology tens of metres underground where the absorbtion rate is suppose to be the highest. The problem with detecting neutrinos is ofcourse the simple fact that they are made up of almost no matter.

What’s your take?