Is the universe "finite" or "infinite"

I agree....When I got his/her reply I started thinking bout parallel lines. If one is standing between two RXR tracks that travel on a flat plane as far as one can see, the tracks seem to be traveling a mutual intersecting course to a vanishing point somewhere out of one's sight. Our knowledge tells us that the tracks will never intersect but our vision shows us something opposite.

 

Objectively, the tracks remain parallel. And if we could see far enough, the lines would never meet. They only appear to meet because of the limitations of the recording device (your eyes in this case).

 

Question why would this be in the religion section?


Second I would like to believe that the universe is endless but I have no way of knowing.

 

Well since we've only been observing our little part of the universe for such a short peroid of time theres no reason to but any of my eggs in the big bang basket.

i voted infinite.

im more partial to a expanding and contracting universe, where as the universe contracts, activity rises causeing it to expands, and as activity dies down, it contracts.

(i call it the Krunkskimo Theory)

 

And I gues this is the one magic point in an infinite nothingness where that Krunkskimo stuff happens...

 

This may sound like a paradox but is obeyed by physical measurements because of their finite accuracy.

In the geometric excercise we begin with a triangle which by definition guarantees the 3 lines to cross each other. Grabbing one end of the triangle and starting to pull it stretch to infinity will keep reducing the angle there without changing the coordinates of the 2 other intersection points. At infinity then we achieve that the angle at the pulled end is zero. The only Euclidian pair of lines that has a zero angle relation between them is the parallel. The triangle does not get destroyed in the process because there is nothing that breaks the pulled intersection point.

 

The fact that the measuring device itself might be too limited to see far enough does not mean they actually intersect.

There are no parallel lines in a triangle.

By definition it would never actually reach zero since it would keep going forever.

Also, the 3rd side with the stationary points is greater than zero, so the angle of the point opposite could never reach zero. Therefore, the other two sides would never be parallel.

The only way your model works is if you round down to zero at some point. And even then, the lines simply converge...they are still never parallel.

 

This little argument over infinity is quite old. The accepted practice is to say that the sum of 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 ... APPROACHES infinity. This is because saying that the sum of the sequence = infinity violates the rules upon which the sequence is based.

The same would be true of a triangle stretched to infinity.

 

it works everywhere until you reach liquid space

 

Can infinity be demonstrated by 2 mirrors facing each other?

 

No.

Because what is actually passing between the mirrors are photons. Given enough time, Photons will decay via pair production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production), even assuming the mirrors are perfect and the light is never deflected from them.

But the matter in the mirrors will probably break down long before that. Without a surface to bounce from, the light will continue on in the same direction until it decays too.

 

Yes. You can't really demonstrate infinity that way. It can be used to illustrate the idea of infinity, but that's a very different thing.

 

I liked that idea at one time, but the evidence is mounting against a cyclical or repeating universe. My preferred guess right now is closer to Lee Smolin's Fecund Universes concept.

 

OK...Yes that is what I meant not actually physically creating some kind of infinity device. Guess I should have been clearer however, isn't infinity just a concept?

 

That's the question. If you ask me, there are real infinities. Others will disagree. The one thing you can be sure of is that neither side knows.

 

Infinity has to exist under any model. Even a theistic one.

Anything that has boundaries has something outside those boundaries, even if it is just a void. If it doesn't have boundaries, then it is infinite itself. Either way you are dealing with infinity on some level.

Thats probably the only absolute I could ever really accept as absolute...that no matter how far you can see, there will always be something beyond that.

 

well said

 

So trying to describe the universe as infinite is futile because the word 'universe' has an intrinsic definition of a place. Yes? No?

 

The fact that it is a place does not necessarily mean it cannot also be infinite. Who says a place has to be finite?

 

I was just thinking about the limitation of language in trying to understand the concept or discussing the subject of infinity. To me, a place infers boundaries or a certain area and an infinite universe would have no time, place or boundaries.

I think that we, in fact, ARE the universe which includes the past, present and future and 'places' are nothing more than our thoughts.

 

The word "place" does not necessarily imply hard boundaries.

 

In an age where science arrogantly thinks it has the answers to the origin of life and the origin of the universe it has no reasonable answer to your question and never will.

 

Theists are not being arrogant by proclaiming there is absolutely a God despite the fact that we cannot detect one?

 

What is outside of these loops?

 

Ridiculous.