nothing does not exist so all that exists must be something so no matter where you go or what you do you will always see something and thus energy and space.
therefore the space and energy in the universe must be infinite. (jss rm)
this is a logical conclusion that predicts the infinite nature of space, by necessity. however how can something be finite and infinite at the same time is beyond me.
does not infinite mean infinite +1? how can something be infinite and not be ever increasing?
so i came to a solution. perhaps the universe is like a circle, if you travel enough to the east then you will end up in the west.
“Increasing” has nothing to do with it.
It is already there and always has been.
“Infinite” merely means “has no end”.
Since the number Pi has an infinite number of decimals involved, how can a circle ever be formed?
The “infinite number of decimals” are already there.
They are not assembled one after another.
The same is true for the expanse of the universe.
It is already there.
It is not being assembled.
beyong the water there is land which is something, and down enough there is the floor which is something. it is still something regardless of what it is.
If you have a volume of 10 cbm and put 10 joules into it, you have an average of 1 joule per cbm.
If you have a volume of 1000 cbm and put 1000 joules into it, you have an average of 1 joule per cbm.
If you have a volume of infinite cbm and put infinite joules into it, you have an average of 1 joule per cbm.
But now is there anything to say that each volume of 1 cbm has 1 joule,
or rather that merely the total average is 1 joule per cbm?
Again, in absolute Euclidean space, energy does not create the space. In Relativity spacetime the energy creates space but only relative to the observer (a much more confusing paradigm).
The person in the low energy density space would see the high density region of space as small. The person in the high energy density space would see the low energy space as large (I think I got that right… ). The Euclidean absolutist would see them as the same size, merely more or less dense (along with those within them).
No, you don’t understand the expansion then. It is a separation of galaxies from each other in terms of distance. The totality of the dimension of space is not necessarily getting larger, but the known universe and known matter is spreading out further and further at an exponential yet consistent rate.
I said a curved universe that is not infinite. Though you are also incorrect about what you say here which WWW 3 is explaining. But your response here makes no sense in relation to my post.
I’d like to hear someone’s rational description of a “curved universe”.
And by “rational”, I mean “step-by-step”, “piece-by-piece” logical progression as opposed to the mere “well, it’s all bent up and twisted like them scintusts say”.
Did you ever see the matrix revolutions? When Neo is in the train station and he goes one way and comes out the other and ends up in the same spot he left at?
That theory basically says if we travel in a “straight line” long enough (say in a spaceship) we will eventually come back to the same point where we started at. Which means, space/time is “curved” in a manner that will result in that condition.
). The Euclidean absolutist would see them as the same size, merely more or less dense (along with those within them).