Finite yet unbounded space?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2013, 08:46 PM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
: edit
Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 08:50 PM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(19-12-2013 08:46 PM)Mike Wrote:  So, if space is indeed a physical thing and it is finite yet unbounded, I still wondering what is outside of this closed geometry of space. Matter? Space? Then if it is space outside the closed topology of space then space is eternal.

Outside the universe there is no space, because if there were
space outside the universe, it would already have been part of the
universe by definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 08:55 PM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
So, if space is indeed a physical thing and it is finite yet unbounded, I still wondering what is outside of this closed geometry of space. Matter? Space? Then if it is space outside the closed topology of space then space is eternal. How does one bend space when space is nothing? Space has no boundaries or edges to grab onto and bend, for if it did, then what is outside its edge? More space? If space was an entity on which the Earth rolls on (i.e. Relativity’s gravity well), then we would have been squashed by it a long time ago since we live on the surface of the Earth. Clearly, to allege that space is an entity that warps so the Earth can roll on it, like a ball rolls on a warped mattress is self-refuting.

And, time is the relative measure of motion between a minimum of 2 objects and a counting device with memory. If the Universe was comprised of only a single lonely object, there would be no time. In fact, there would be no mass or energy, so E=mc^2 would fail as well. Time does not exist because time is conceptual, i.e. a human-established relation between 3 objects (Sun, Earth, and a counting device with memory).
Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 08:00 AM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(19-12-2013 08:55 PM)Mike Wrote:  So, if space is indeed a physical thing and it is finite yet unbounded, I still wondering what is outside of this closed geometry of space. Matter? Space? Then if it is space outside the closed topology of space then space is eternal. How does one bend space when space is nothing? Space has no boundaries or edges to grab onto and bend, for if it did, then what is outside its edge? More space? If space was an entity on which the Earth rolls on (i.e. Relativity’s gravity well), then we would have been squashed by it a long time ago since we live on the surface of the Earth. Clearly, to allege that space is an entity that warps so the Earth can roll on it, like a ball rolls on a warped mattress is self-refuting.

And, time is the relative measure of motion between a minimum of 2 objects and a counting device with memory. If the Universe was comprised of only a single lonely object, there would be no time. In fact, there would be no mass or energy, so E=mc^2 would fail as well. Time does not exist because time is conceptual, i.e. a human-established relation between 3 objects (Sun, Earth, and a counting device with memory).

You are still confused about the nature of space. Space is not nothing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 08:11 PM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
Space is finite yet unbounded, for it would take an infinite amount of energy to travel to the end of space, and since the universe is not infinite itself, it is impossible to have an infinite amount of energy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 09:40 PM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(19-12-2013 08:55 PM)Mike Wrote:  So, if space is indeed a physical thing and it is finite yet unbounded, I still wondering what is outside of this closed geometry of space. Matter? Space? Then if it is space outside the closed topology of space then space is eternal. How does one bend space when space is nothing? Space has no boundaries or edges to grab onto and bend, for if it did, then what is outside its edge? More space? If space was an entity on which the Earth rolls on (i.e. Relativity’s gravity well), then we would have been squashed by it a long time ago since we live on the surface of the Earth. Clearly, to allege that space is an entity that warps so the Earth can roll on it, like a ball rolls on a warped mattress is self-refuting.

We know that the actual universe is many times bigger than the observable universe - The furthest we can see based on the speed of light. We don't know if the universe is open or closed. We know that it is pretty flat over all, which could mean either that it is infinite or that it is closed but many many many times greater than what is observable. We can infer things a little way out beyond what we can see but we aren't yet able to infer the overall shape and size of the universe, nor can we reliably determine what if anything is "beyond" the universe. There may be a beyond, or may not be. We don't know with any certainty.

(19-12-2013 08:55 PM)Mike Wrote:  And, time is the relative measure of motion between a minimum of 2 objects and a counting device with memory. If the Universe was comprised of only a single lonely object, there would be no time. In fact, there would be no mass or energy, so E=mc^2 would fail as well. Time does not exist because time is conceptual, i.e. a human-established relation between 3 objects (Sun, Earth, and a counting device with memory).

No, time is a dimension in which things move. We have directions "forwards" and backwards" in time just as we have directions "up", "down", "left", "right", "forwards" and "backwards" in space. Time is not a spatial dimension. It's special somehow, but it twists and distorts along with space. From the outside our universe might be a kind of "four dimensional crystal". That's more or less the relativistic model. Various string and membrane models put the number of dimensions higher, often 11 or 13 dimensions. But from the outside the universe would appear static - not changing through time but with a dimension that is a time dimension. Things within that crystal at different "times" in the "time" dimension would be related to each other, and we can describe the relationships between objects along the time dimension.

What we do know however, is time is not separate from the other dimensions. It is different, but it is a dimension in its own right. Our view of the universe is incomplete until we understand how that dimension can stretch and flex along with the dimensions of space.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2013, 10:05 PM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(20-12-2013 08:11 PM)UndercoverAtheist Wrote:  Space is finite yet unbounded, for it would take an infinite amount of energy to travel to the end of space, and since the universe is not infinite itself, it is impossible to have an infinite amount of energy.

If space is finite yet unbounded, what is outside of this space/universe? More space, perhaps?
Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2013, 10:12 PM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(20-12-2013 09:40 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(19-12-2013 08:55 PM)Mike Wrote:  So, if space is indeed a physical thing and it is finite yet unbounded, I still wondering what is outside of this closed geometry of space. Matter? Space? Then if it is space outside the closed topology of space then space is eternal. How does one bend space when space is nothing? Space has no boundaries or edges to grab onto and bend, for if it did, then what is outside its edge? More space? If space was an entity on which the Earth rolls on (i.e. Relativity’s gravity well), then we would have been squashed by it a long time ago since we live on the surface of the Earth. Clearly, to allege that space is an entity that warps so the Earth can roll on it, like a ball rolls on a warped mattress is self-refuting.

We know that the actual universe is many times bigger than the observable universe - The furthest we can see based on the speed of light. We don't know if the universe is open or closed. We know that it is pretty flat over all, which could mean either that it is infinite or that it is closed but many many many times greater than what is observable. We can infer things a little way out beyond what we can see but we aren't yet able to infer the overall shape and size of the universe, nor can we reliably determine what if anything is "beyond" the universe. There may be a beyond, or may not be. We don't know with any certainty.

(19-12-2013 08:55 PM)Mike Wrote:  And, time is the relative measure of motion between a minimum of 2 objects and a counting device with memory. If the Universe was comprised of only a single lonely object, there would be no time. In fact, there would be no mass or energy, so E=mc^2 would fail as well. Time does not exist because time is conceptual, i.e. a human-established relation between 3 objects (Sun, Earth, and a counting device with memory).

No, time is a dimension in which things move. We have directions "forwards" and backwards" in time just as we have directions "up", "down", "left", "right", "forwards" and "backwards" in space. Time is not a spatial dimension. It's special somehow, but it twists and distorts along with space. From the outside our universe might be a kind of "four dimensional crystal". That's more or less the relativistic model. Various string and membrane models put the number of dimensions higher, often 11 or 13 dimensions. But from the outside the universe would appear static - not changing through time but with a dimension that is a time dimension. Things within that crystal at different "times" in the "time" dimension would be related to each other, and we can describe the relationships between objects along the time dimension.

What we do know however, is time is not separate from the other dimensions. It is different, but it is a dimension in its own right. Our view of the universe is incomplete until we understand how that dimension can stretch and flex along with the dimensions of space.

Okay, how do we respond to a question like this, "This is very easy to demonstrate. There is no evidence, observations or authority necessary to reach a decision in this particular case. Space is nothing. Space is causeless and acausal. Space has no border. Space is unbounded, non-finite, non-infinite (because finite and infinite imply size, which is only object with shape have), limitless, borderless, shapeless, structureless, non-temporal, non-entropic, and everywhere. Space can't have a cause because it is unable to impart causes. Therefore, it is impossible for space to have a moment of creation, for if it did, it would have a border, an edge. And the question arises: What is outside the border? Since space has no border, then obviously space is eternal. It is impossible for space to be created.

And since the action of creation requires at least one pre-existing object to perform (mediate) this action, then matter is necessarily eternal."
Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 04:47 AM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(22-12-2013 10:05 PM)Mike Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 08:11 PM)UndercoverAtheist Wrote:  Space is finite yet unbounded, for it would take an infinite amount of energy to travel to the end of space, and since the universe is not infinite itself, it is impossible to have an infinite amount of energy.

If space is finite yet unbounded, what is outside of this space/universe? More space, perhaps?

There might not be an outside. There is certainly no outside that is accessible.

Or there might be other universes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-12-2013, 05:32 AM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
On the nature of relativistic space-time:



Note that this is not mere speculation. GPS satellites would not work if the hundred-year-old predictions of general relativity do not hold. The warping of space-time predicted by general relativity is observed indirectly though things like the orbit of mercury and directly through observations of things like gravitational lensing. Playlist here[1].

I don't know the shape of space-time beyond the observable universe, 46-47 billion light years away in space and 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years in time[2]. Like I said, we know the size of the universe is greater than the size of the observable universe - but we can't really say whether it is finite or infinite, open or closed. I also don't know what if anything predates the big bang. There may be nothing before. Time may either extend infinitely backwards or could have a definite edge. It's not really known, and whichever case is accurate will make our normal concepts of causality will break down. There is no "obvious" to be had here. We can only go on what we observe and what we calculate, and both have their limits - at least for the moment.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HQAQYQ0E...BAC693237E
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: