From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 15:56:42 MST
On 25 Jan 2002 at 19:58, Nicholas Johns wrote:
>
> [Blunderov]
> This is very bad news. I cannot grasp that the universe might be finite. I
> have tried to think of it as:the Universe is a set, U, with itself, u, as
> the sole member. This was not a big help. I cannot withstand the idea that
> there <em>must<em> be something on the other side of that boundary. In my
> experience of the world that's what boundaries do - they have one other
> side.
>
> By the data you have cited, the conclusion that "outside" the universe there
> is "nothing" seems unavoidable, but the fact we <i>know<i> that there
> <em>is<em> something,(existence, whatever it's actual nature)seems to
> preclude the possibility of there being "nothing".
>
Yadon't get it; not only is nothing there, but there is no THERE there,
and it is impossible to either point to or get to that nonexistent there.
You could travel forever in a single direction and because of spacetime
curvature, you would never reach an edge, but just keep passing by the
same places time and time again.
>
> [Nic]
> How's about imagining that the universe is the (3 dimensional) space
> covering the surface of a 4D sphere (not counting time)?
>
> That way it doesn't have an edge - in our observable space - and yet can
> still expand as fast or as slow as it likes. As an added bonus, you get to
> make up a 4th spacial dimension, and decide whether or not the sphere even
> needs to be defined on more that just its surface.
>
> I love that shape.
>
> Probably not true though as I just made it up.
>
The universe has no ABSOLUTE size, as there is no frame of reference
outside the Universe itself by which to set such a comparison size.
However, be assured that the universe, as a whole, is finite and a
definite (although expanding) size in comparison to even a tiny part -
say, the volume of a photon.
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT