Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum What is the latest consensus

dehammer wrote:
"im just saying that scientist, even want to be scientist should not totally block out the unusual ideas and views simply because they are different."

We aren't. What we are telling you is that you either intentionally or unintentionally don't read what is written. Either when we write it or we post links to it. I don't mean to insult you but it is so common it makes me wonder if you have a learning disability. And I am being serious. Your ability to misinterpret is world-class.

dehammer wrote:
"It is a theory, it is a well accepted theory. it fits all the known data, but there is a lot of data we dont have yet. Why close the idea out just because it does not fit what you expect it to be."

We don't. I personally hope to live long enough to see Einstein put in the place where Newton is today. I take great pleasure in watching theories replaced. But one can not put the present reality on hold waiting for the perfect dataum.

dehammer wrote:
"heres an idea, perhaps a little out there. they say the universe is made up mostly of dark matter, yet this dark matter does not clusters of matter like galazies"

Except that it is and we have proof that it is. The simple fact is that the only reason we even know it exists is because it is.

There is a time and place for "what if" and this isn't it.

you have proof that there are dark matter galaxies? the last i have heard of is that they have proven that dark matter exist because of the effect it was having on two galxies that were colliding. Last i had heard there was no proof that it was clustering together, because there was no way of finding it.

this is a forum for debate. If this is not the place for "what if" then where does that place exist.

The thing is you act as if the expansion theory is a proven law of nature. You dont state "according to the accepted theory", you proclaim "it is (my emphasis) this way (period), no debate allowed".

the original discussion was about if there were limits on the universe.

If the space is expanding, then the universe is finite. the boundaries may be expanding, but there is nothing else there, merely more nothingness between the galaxies. Its all the same.

If the universe is moving into new space, wheither from pressure within or from momentum, then the universe is infinite.

we will not know until we find the boundaries.

dehammer wrote:
"you have proof that there are dark matter galaxies?"

No. I have proof that our galaxy contains dark matter. That the Andromeda galaxy contains dark matter. In fact that most galaxies contain dark matter.

dehammer wrote:
"If this is not the place for "what if" then where does that place exist."

This is certainly a place for speculation. But if you speculate something clearly proven to not be true ... expect someone to point it out: I did!

dehammer wrote:
"If the space is expanding, then the universe is finite."

No ... No ... and No. One does not follow from the other.

dehammer wrote:
"If the universe is moving into new space,"

I keep telling you this and you keep repeating it incorrectly. Is it intentional or do you truly have a learning disability. There is no new space and the universe is not moving into anything.

Please try to repeat this accurately. Please! If you don't understand it ask questions or use google but don't keep repeating it back incorrectly again and again and again.

If the universe was as simplistic as the mold you try to force it into we wouldn't need the likes of Einstein and Heisenberg to help us understand it.

Once and for all ... THERE ARE NO BOUNDARIES. No. There aren't. Get over it.

how do you know there are no boundaries, have you been there? until someone can prove it, it will not be known for a fact. Untill then its simple one of several possible theories. Show me a link that proves that dark matter is in the galaxies. I know there is a theory that there is some in the middle of Andromeda, but its also a theory that there is a black hole or even two black holes there.

Im wondering if you have a learning disability myself. IT IS NOT A PROVEN FACT. Therefore its impossible to say that there is no space there for the galaxies to be moving into. IT IS ONLY A THEORY that space is expanding. Therefore its impossible to say that its not happening.

As far as Einstein and Heisenberg, we need people like them to understand things no matter how simple it is. Even if they are wrong, (not saying that they are even close to being wrong) they would still be needed to prove things that are what they appear to be, to make things understandable that cant be understood. There is a very good probablity that one or both of them will have all of their theories proven to be partially wrong at some point. would it matter if at some point they were proven to be completely wrong. With the data they had that was the best that anyone could hope to do, but that does not mean they are totally right. IF they are wrong it gives the next ones to come along something to work on to make the next level of understanding.

Please explain how the universe could not be finite phsyically, if the boundaries are alway the same. If space is expanding behind the galaxies, but they are not moveing, neither is the boundaries. Either there is no limits or there is a boundary. Call it what you want, use math to describe it, what every. either there is no limit or there is. the limit would be the boundary.

dehammer asks:
"how do you know there are no boundaries"

Because any boundary conceived so far by the human mind has been shown to not exist by observation.

Speculate about the unknown ... not the known. You can speculate that you were really born on the fourth planet orbiting Canopus if you wish. But that will never make it so.

dehammer wrote:
"IT IS ONLY A THEORY that space is expanding."

If you are ready to stand up and say that Hubble was wrong. Einstein was wrong. And every other notable physicist and astrophysicist is wrong you are welcome to do so ... but you will be labelled a crackpot and I will join the chorus.

dehammer wrote:
"Please explain how the universe could not be finite phsyically, if the boundaries are alway the same."

As Ronald Reagan used to say ... "There you go again."

Look at your sentence. Do you see where you wrote "if the boundaries are"? I was just a paragraph earlier I asked you if you had a learning disability? Is repeating your mistake yet again your answer to my inquiry? Because if that is the case you are incapable of understanding the answer to your question. And I think that the case as I have explained this very same point to you numerous times already and you keep asking the same question again and again.

every hear of the theory of relativity. Ive never heard of the law of relativity, have you? How can I say Einstien was wrong when all he did was create theories. the theories may possibly be wrong, but that does not make him wrong. Show me where they have proven any of these to be more than a theory. Your great at telling others to give links (not that you pay any heed when they are given) yet you rarely give them yourself. I think Rose is the only one that has been able to make you give any.

Now as to the boundaries, as you will note (if you would ever be bothered to read), i gave two different scenerios. one was an infinate universe, where there is nothing to prevent galaxies from moving beyound where they are, and one with boundaries that is the limit of where galaxies can go. IF there is a limit, then the only way galaxies can be seperating is for the space bewteen to be expanding. If there is no limit (as you pointed out, we cant find that limit) then there is still space to be filled by the galaxies.

your defence that we cant discover the boundaries by observation is rather amusing. we are constantly trying to see beyound what we can see now, and there are still more galaxies in all directions. That means there is no way we could observe the boundaries if they are there. Tell me, can you see an electron? does the fact that we can observe them mean they dont exist? Can you see observe a quark? does that lack of viewability mean its not there? can you see a black hole? does the fact that you cant observe it directly mean that its not there?

as to repeating something, its an old trick to make someone see something that is important. You keep ingoring it and coming up with things that dont mean much. so I keep repeating it, when you stop acting like the theory is a law, then ill stop repeating that its only a theory. When you admit that there is a possibility that the theory of expansion may possibly be wrong and there is a possibility that the galaxies are moving (note that has been proven in regard to galaxy clusters) then ill stop demanding that you accept it as a possibility. Once you admit that there is things science does not have the full data on, ill stop shoving that down your throat. im not talking about merely stating these facts, im saying accept them. It is only theory, that is why Einstien name his works, "theory of relativity"

Are you aware that your answer is an exact paraphrase of the Bible Myth of Genesis?

Your sebconscious is screaming at you that understanding our oorigins is crucial to our existence. Those who do not understand the past are doomed to repeat it.

Understanding the basic nature of our Universe is a million ti,es more crucial than understanding anything else.

If you do not understand the root of something: you will never understand the symptoms.

Do you have any understanding of how superficial your post is?

I'm glad you agree that all finite boundaries have an edge. But the Universe does not have an edge. Ergo: it is not finite. By definition.

Please do not ever refer to me as an adolescent. I am much older than you are.

As to your inane pompous attitude: I am not interested.

The fact that there are indeed a DUAL infinite set of fractals in Mandelbrot's equation: proves that this Universe is indeed INFINITE.

If this Universe were not infinite: it could not contain any set of infinite fractals.

If this Universe were finite. Then there would BY DEFINITION necessarily be only FINITE sets of fractals in it. Not infinite. Can you get this through your head?

You already proved what I said by agreeing that anything that is finite must have an edge to it.

Well: MAndelbrot's fractals do NOT have a finite edge to them. They go on INFINITELY; WITHOUT END.

Or are you so dense that you do not understand this?

Mandelbrot's fractals go on infinitely without end becuase this universe also goes on infinitely without end.

Try to grasp this simple fact.

do you have any understanding of how little this made sense?

you should add, "..that we know of", to your statement. personally i believe its infinite, but there is no proof either way.

As to complexity, why go to fractals?
It is axiomatic that there are an infinite number of
points on a line. One dimension, no waiting.
As to Dehammers "edges", well this one is more
for D.A.,
At this point I have to ask some possibly foolish
questions.
Long ago I had the oportunity to ask a question regarding
the Big Bang, and was told it was thought to have
origionated as "a fluctuation in the quantum field".
There were other questioners, and I did not get to ask the
next question:
If there is a field, it must be defined in a "SPACE",
(not neccessarily similar to what we call space), and
for a fluctuation to occur requires "TIME", (not
neccessarily.......etc.).
If the field & fluctuation are described, don't the
descriptions entail minmum conditions for a frame,
(at least so many dimensions, etc.), for the
"SPACE" / "TIME" in which they are presumed to have
existed?
Would the universe continue to be definable within
that frame?
Would it have a shape within that frame, and boundaries?

Thank you, Pragmatist, you said in scientific terms what ive been trying to say in nonscientific terms.

Pragmatist wrote:
"If there is a field, it must be defined in a "SPACE", (not neccessarily similar to what we call space), and for a fluctuation to occur requires "TIME", (not neccessarily.......etc.). If the field & fluctuation are described, don't the
descriptions entail minmum conditions for a frame,
(at least so many dimensions, etc.), for the
"SPACE" / "TIME" in which they are presumed to have existed? Would the universe continue to be definable within that frame? Would it have a shape within that frame, and boundaries?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Would the universe continue to be definable within that frame?" I just can tell what you intend by the question.

But frames of reference are human inventions and thus we might define the boundaries of our frame of reference as being those of us on the planet earth ... as we observe other objects moving at different speeds with different acceleration in the presence of different gravitational fields.

So the boundary condition is what we define ... it is not a physical boundary. HTH.

If there is no physical boundaries what prevents the galaxies we cant even see yet, from moving past that point from the inertia that they got from the big bang? If there is nothing there that prevents them, then maybe the theory that they are not moving is not quite accurate. Any boundaries that exist are beyound our ability to find.

Is there in any theory or reasonable conjecture a basis to conclude the universe has an edge after which there is somethung not of this universe. This, to me, appears to be a subject designed to avoid the fact that we do not as yet even understand the Solar System, right here.

Mike Kremer in another post replied that the Universe was infinite and I thinks he is right.
jjw

dehammer wrote:
"If there is no physical boundaries what prevents the galaxies we cant even see yet, from moving past that point from the inertia that they got from the big bang?"

What inertia. You've got to embrace science as it is. You can not kludge it into some "car traveling down the highway at 60mpg" paradigm.

jjw wrote:
"Is there in any theory or reasonable conjecture a basis to conclude the universe has an edge after which there is somethung not of this universe."

No. The closest to this is the multiverse. But that is a theory based on zero experimental information.

You are correct that the universe it seems in infinite. But then it seems it is fractal. And fractal equates with infinite variety in finite space. So the jury is still out on this one. There may, in fact, be no difference, at all.

inertia is a proven scientific fact. Show me where they have proven that the galaxies dont have inertia. Or is that an opinion?

Out of curiosity - has anyone in this thread (besides me) actually *read* Mandelbrot's book on fractals?