Re: Why Extra Terrestrials as the Identity of the (Intelligent) Designer

In news:talk.origins, pnyikos <nyikos2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted on Fri, 25
Feb 2011 15:43:51 -0800 (PST) the following:

My goodness, a topic right down my alley!

On Feb 23, 7:59+AKA-am, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In news:talk.origins, Arkalen <skiz...@xxxxxxxxx> posted on Wed, 23 Feb
2011 11:34:48 +-0000 the following:



On 23/02/11 09:10, Damaeus wrote:
In news:talk.origins, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> posted on Tue, 22 Feb
2011 12:11:47 -0700 the following:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:36:37 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

In news:talk.origins, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> posted on Sun, 20
Feb 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST) the following:

Now, bring back the red shift. There may be ways to explain the red
shift without the Big Bang.

From Earth, don't we see red-shift in every direction?

Yes. Your point?

Then the big bang started here.

The big bang is the expansion of space. It started in every spatial
location.

That's the consensus among cosmologists.

Was that every spatial location within an infinite space? Was it every
spatial location within an infinitesimal space? Or was it something in
between?

That's only if you have the erroneous view that there was no such thing as
an "outside" relative to the infinitesimal point that existed before the
big bang began. +AKA-If there was no such thing as an "outside" relative to
the singularity, then we would not be here. +AKA-There would be nowhere in
existence for the singularity to expand. +AKA-

On the contrary, there is nothing contradictory about a self-contained
universe, having the topology of a 3-sphere (or some other compact 3-
manifold) and expanding in itself, so to speak, its metric size
changing but its topology remaining the same.

I can see an already-infinite space with a sphere of matter and energy
inflating inside of it. That's the simplest form of a self-contained
universe expanding inside itself. Part of it is expanding, part of it is
stationary. The part that is stationary is being filled by the part that
is expanding.

I looked 3-spheres and related topics, and honestly, I don't understand
why four-dimensional concepts are being introduced into a
three-dimensional expansion. Why are four dimensions needed to expand the
universe? I can think of one simpler reason why one might need four
dimensions, but when looking at some images of 3-spheres, they look too
complex and I don't see what that degree complexity has to do with cosmic
inflation. For me, basic inflation is as simple as a regular,
3-dimensional, inflating sphere of space filling an infinite space outside
of it. What are those 3-sphere illustrations trying to show?

The only point I can see in having more than three dimension is to
mathematically demonstrate the effects of the folding of the fabric of
space that happens because all the matter and energy in the universe is
contained within a compacted space. So once the universe becomes infinite
in size, it would be a "non-compact space". There would be no more
folding of the fabric of space, and there would be no need for extra
dimensions beyond the three observable spatial dimensions.

On the other hand, a universe such as you envision below would have to
change its topology from compact to noncompact

Would the yeasted raisin bread analgy be valid here?

in a finite period of time, and that strains the bounds of credulity.

As a topologist since 1970, I know whereof I speak. You can look at my
CV here: http://www.math.sc.edu/+AH4-nyikos/cv09.pdf I keep having to
remind myself to update it--the last time was in 2009.

[snip some things on which you have been adequately corrected already,
IMO]

+AKA-And that's also why the universe is going to expand until it
becomes infinite in size,

Mere expansion will never do that within a finite period of time.
The most you can say (and it may well be TRUE) is that the size of our
universe will increase without bound. And that's almost inevitable as
long as it goes on expanding forever.

Yes, that's the one little area I've been thinking about. Will the
universe accelerate its expansion exponentially forever, or will some
unprecedented event take place that causes the universe to suddenly
"become" infinite in an instant?

I know people in this group seem to hate any kind of quote from any kind
of science documentary, and many have even come to hate Michio Kaku, but I
must quote what he said in one documentary about Einstein:

Everything about the quantum theory revolted Einstein. The
quantum theory makes even bizarre events possible. For example,
walking across the street we expect to wind up on the other
side. However there is a finite calculable probability that you
will dissolve and wind up on Mars, dissolve and wind up on the
Earth again. Of course you will have to wait longer than the
lifetime of the universe but in principle it could happen.

Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/einstein_symphony_trans.shtml

Okay. First, is what he said true? I should caution that just because
someone says, "Well, no, he didn't know what he was talking about" or
"that's not what he really meant", I have to laugh at that. It was a
television program. If he blooped when speaking, he could have said, "Oh,
I made a mistake, and I need to re-record that!" Plus, he's a
college-educated scientist. Aren't we supposed to trust that they
understand English well enough to actually say what they mean and not emit
gibberish? But what he said made it to the airwaves, so I feel I should
take him seriously.

If what Mr. Kaku said is actually possible, why does it have to be merely
dissolving on Earth, appearing on Mars, dissolving on Mars, then appearing
back on Earth? Why couldn't it be something more grand, like the universe
dissolving out of finiteness and winding up in an infinite state? He
ended it by saying we would have to wait longer than the lifetime of the
universe for his example to happen, but what was he thinking the "lifetime
of the universe" was when he said that? 13.7 billion years? 13,700,000,02
years? If quantum theory makes bizarre events possible, and some
scientists really believe what has been stated by Michio, then what's
wrong with an idea that says the entire universe could dissolve out of a
finite state and re-appear in an infinite state? If the expansion becomes
exponential, it seems like the faster it expands, the more likely it would
be that we would reach that special day when that one bizarre, calculable
event happens: the universe becomes infinite in size. If my dissolving
and reappearing at different points in the universe is calculable, the day
of infinity for the universe should be calculable, too.

and that's why it will expand faster and faster until its acceleration
becomes exponential,

Why? even if that were true, the following would be a non sequitur:

and then becomes so fast that the expanding edge of the universe
teleports the rest of the way to infinite size.

If the universe is compact, there need be no edge to the expansion,
and all current theories postulate that there is none.

Are you trying to tell me there was no dividing line between what was
expanding and what was being filled? I can grasp that concept, but it
seems odd to me to think of the universe in that way. It's like saying a
balloon in an infinitesimal space can be inflated. How? If there's no
space available for it the balloon to be inflated, it simply can't
inflate. It would be like trying to use your lungs to air up a lead
vault.

Besides, if space is created as the universe expands, then whether or not
there is an outside relative to the expanding area become a moot point.
Space is created as it's needed to make room for more, so in the end, it
simply doesn't matter. We still get a larger cosmos whether or not an
outside, relative to the expanding area, exists or ever existed.

But if everything that exists is compacted into a finite space, and
everything that exists is actually infinite, then it makes sense that the
universe would appear to have no edge. Everything within the compacted
space can be calculated because it's everything that actually exists, even
though what exists is growing larger every second. And if the contents of
a compacted universe are infinite, then it seems reasonable to me that it
would keep expanding until it is no longer compacted.

At this point, I'd like to bring up the idea of folding space that's been
promoted as one way to exceed the speed of light. The way I see a
compacted universe, you can't fold space in a compacted universe bceause
it's already folded! That's why it takes infinite energy to reach the
speed of light. Space is already folded, the resistance to exceed the
speed of light in this compacted space is infinite. So the speed of light
186,282 miles per second, not only in a vacuum, but within folded space. I
anticipate that within an noncompacted space, where space is no longer
folded, the speed of light will be faster than 186,282 miles per second.

If there is one, it is only because our universe has at least two
parts, one of which is expanding and the other is either stationary or
contracting.

Well, yes. I cast my vote for the stationary version. I don't believe
there's a contracting wave of nothingness closing in on an expanding area
of matter and energy.

While I can mentally handle the idea of a finitely-sized universe without
an outside, imagining a finite, inflating space filling a larger, infinite
space just makes more sense. It fits together better because the infinite
space gives the finite space room to expand. The infinite space that has
not yet been reached by the expanding area of matter and energy is
completely void of everything, even cosmic background radiation. There is
simply and absolutely nothing there but empty space. That is as close to
"nothing" as I like to get. Going into the realm of non-existence becomes
a bit absurd, but I can play that way if people insist on it.

Some have angrily told me that "outside" relative to the expanding space
is meaningless because it doesn't exist. They even try to get me to
understand that it's not even an emptiness. The emphasize that it doesn't
exist, even as a void. Like I said, I can easily wrap my mind around that
and force it to make sense, but it doesn't make sense to natural thinking.
For something to expand, it needs room to expand. That's true for
everything on Earth. Why shouldn't it be true for the whole universe? If
I try to inflate a life raft with the potential to reach 200 cubic feet of
air space, I can't inflate it very much in a closet with only 50 cubic
feet of air space. The life raft would inflate to 50 cubic feet and could
not expand any more. That's why the expanding area *needs* an infinite
space beyond itself+IBQ-so it can actually expand. Therefore, that the
universe is actually expanding is proof that there is at least SOME space
outside the expanding area. I see no reason yet why that exterior space
should not be infinite. And frankly I'm even surprised I should even have
to go to this length to talk about what, to me, is a very elementary point
of logic: If Space A is finite and is going to grow, it needs a larger
Space B to grow into.

+AKA-That could not happen if the suction force was *just* infinite. +AKA-It
has to be greater than infinity or the universe might be doomed to
expand and contract for eternity. +AKA-That would be horrible. +AKA-And we are
designed to live in a fun universe, not a horrible one. +AKA-So throw out
all ideas of gloom and doom. +AKA-The universe will last forever and so
will we.

Only if you postulate continuous creation of matter, a la Hoyle.

I checked on Hoyle. I believe in the continuous creation of matter, but
also in the big bang/expanding universe. I see black holes as the "zip
files" that are "unzipping" their matter, symbolically speaking, as the
universe expands. It's black hole evaporation. That explains why smaller
black holes lose their mass more quickly: there's less gravity holding
them together against the pulling force of the inflating cosmos.

Obviously the force causing the expansion of the universe when everything
was packed into an infinitesimal point was strong enough to pull apart
*that* gravity nightmare. I see no reason why the universe cannot handle
lesser black holes that have remained since the universe began expanding.
Seems like they would be child's play to the force of inflation.

If CERN creates micro-black holes, I have no fear at all of these
artificially-created black holes swallowing up the universe because cosmic
inflation is already evaporating natural black holes that are larger than
the ones CERN would be able to create. Fears of destroying the universe,
then, are not justifiable. As soon as a micro-black hole is created,
cosmic inflation would immediately evaporate it, so they'd better look
quickly!

Damaeus

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Localized Big Bang
    ... our universe is probably infinite in size and by ... Yes, that's right, or you can say space is expanding ... Go back to the conformal diagram down from ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: A Big Bang conundrum
    ... Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. ... The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe ... is because it is space itself that is expanding, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Why Extra Terrestrials as the Identity of the (Intelligent) Designer
    ... the universe is "expanding", a particle can always move into the ... an edge of the universe needed for particles to move. ... infinitesimal to infinite in a single instant. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats this universe that is expanding...
    ... If the universe at this time was actually 10 m in diameter and expanding at c, the energy released in the Big Bang would never reach an edge making the universe functionally infinite. ... At the edge of our visible universe we can see structures from 1.3x10^10 years ago which seems out of kilter for an expanding enclosure of the light cone. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why Extra Terrestrials as the Identity of the (Intelligent) Designer
    ... the universe is "expanding", a particle can always move into the ... an edge of the universe needed for particles to move. ... infinitesimal to infinite in a single instant. ...
    (talk.origins)