r. foreman

AmyCaton@GoFree.indigo.ie (Absolute Zero) Spat the Words

Hi Amy.

OK, and our computers can only represent a finite number of those
integers which end in four. This supports my previous claim that
we can imagine things which we cannot physically duplicate or
don't appear in the physical universe.

I previously talked about billions of stars in our galaxy and
billions of galaxies in the universe, but you can't prove to
me there are an infinite number of stars in the universe. You
only state there are a 'mind numbingly large number of them'.

I don't see a way to prove infinity exists.

amycaton

Not to be too pedantic, but we can make the representation with a
pencil and paper using the appropriate symbols. Come to think of it,
FPU's can represent infinity, or at least complain about it. I don't
personally know if the future advent of a semi-practical quantum
computer has any implications in this regard.


~200,000,000,000 stars per galaxy
~200,000,000,000 galaxies in our big bang

Well, the last time I checked anyway.

Numbers not so far removed from the US deficit :-)

There probably isn't an absolute proof, no. However, it's a bit like
the search extraterrestrial life, estimates vary hugely from life here
is unique to life is almost everywhere. This is why they're so keen to
nail Mars one way or the other, because if it can be shown that life
formed on our next-door neighbour then the likelihood is that the
universe is teeming. Personally I go for somewhere near the middle. I
think life is quite widespread but that advanced life is pretty
rare... because it seems to require an obscure alignment of factors,
just the right balance of near cataclysmic events for instance
(Jupiter is very important as a cosmic vacuum cleaner), a stabilising
moon etc, etc.

Anyway, that's by the by. My point is this, if it can be shown that
the big bang isn't the entire universe, that stars, galaxies, galactic
clusters etc exist beyond the expanding big-bang shell (~14 billion
light years radius) then it's going to become very difficult to place
limits on the scale of the thing... merely to suit our mind's
inability to deal with the concept. I suggest that there's no real
evidence to indicate that the big bang *is* the universe, cosmologists
are just blindly followed their inbuilt mental prejudices without
seriously considering the alternative. So, if you're interested, I
suggest you look up the HST Deep Field experiment. I'll give you a
brief précis...

The Hubble Space Telescope was aimed to capture a region of space
roughly equivalent to a grain of sand held at arms length. A region of
space that was known not to contain any major intervening gas fields
to spoil the view. The emptiest dollop of space they knew. They left
the photon detectors on max for their longest exposure ever, can't
remember how long, maybe 10+ days. The idea was this, capture the
faintest light and you're looking at galaxies at the greatest
distances, i.e. the furthest back in time. They expected to be seeing
galaxies as they were 10+ billion years ago, i.e. to be observing
galaxies in the earlier stages of development. This was the plan
anyway. To their surprise they got back images showing galaxies in ALL
stages of development. Galaxies that are older than the supposed age
of the universe. Well that just won't do, will it, where's the sand?
So it doesn't receive much attention beyond moves to recalibrate the
age of the universe to accommodate the inconvenient. I remember a few
years ago an astronomical object was observed that *appeared* to be
older than the then supposed age of the universe. Guess what? The
universe aged a couple of billion years, pronto. Hehe. These are the
symptoms of a model under stress; maybe in my lifetime I'll get to see
the straw that breaks the camels back.

To me at least, the idea of an infinite universe makes more sense than
that which we have now. A universe that arbitrarily came into
existence from nowhere for no apparent reason, when all logic would
suggest that you shouldn't be able to conjure a something where there
really ought to be a dimensionless nothingness nothing. Which is why I
get so annoyed with Hawking and co trying to square their
philosophical dilemma by unconvincingly asserting that there was no
beginning because time didn't exist at the non-existent beginning (the
singularity) therefore there was no beginning. The padded cell is over
there, Stephen.

I do have a totally unprofessional model for my infinite universe that
life cycles around ultra-massive black holes over improbable aeons -
again at odds with Hawk-wind. That can wait for another day, if you
haven't fallen asleep already. -A

r. foreman

AmyCaton@GoFree.indigo.ie (Absolute Zero) Spat the Words

Sounds like you have a strong opinion about the subject, though
I'm not sure how useful it all is since we can't even travel
outside our own solar system no less approach the 'edge of
the universe.' So we can't see very small things, and our
perception on a very large scale is limited also. This
suggests a finiteness, either in our current sensory
perception, or in the universe itself.

Perhaps we need to grow a new sensory organ... a little
bit of evolution, about 10million years, and we're there.

double-a

I remember reading years ago that scientists thought that hydrogen
atoms were "condensing" in certain regions of space, perhaps it was at
the edge of galaxies. I don't know if anyone still holds to this
theory, but it has been considered.

Double-A

mithril

Bullssshhhhhit!
wally