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

I see you have POINTEDLY avoided answering my rebuttal to your inane idea that the Universe is finite...

Again... you have covered your face with egg, and are DESPERATELY tring to make sure that nobody realizes that you have screwed up: BIG TIME!...

You have stated that anything that is finte has an edge. By definition anything that does NOT have an edge must be INFINITE in nature... because it goes on and on without end, and no finite edge to mark its finite ending

all of you are arguing to no purpose. The Universe is obviously infinite, and most scientific journals will say that IN PRINT

If you want a REFERRED journal that states that: simply go to the NASA web page: and look up the Universe...

And do not EVER try your sneering condescension with me. I do not tolerate people who disrespect other people's honest truthful statements.

What I DO disrespect: are liars and con artists posing as scientific fakes... like you for instance.

Fractals are mathematical abstractions, not real things. They might be analogous to physical things, but they are not physical things themselves. Their existence or lack of existence doesn't prove anything about the physical universe.


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

The argument is invalid, because the conclusion is not an implication of the premise.

Turak wrote:
"I see you have POINTEDLY avoided answering my rebuttal to your inane idea that the Universe is finite..."

I didn't see a rebuttal. It seems no one else did either. If you get to college I'd recommend you take a class: statistics.

Turok,
Can you find us an edge on the surface of a klein bottle? - Or an end to a mobius strip?

D.A.,
I realize that our frame of reference is interior
to our observable universe.
It is possible that the "a fluctuation in the quantum field",
answer I recieved was the astrophysical equivalent of
"go way kid, you bother me".
My question was meant to explore what we may infer from the theory about a possible 'overspace`,
exterior to our own, and unreachable by any
means now, or likely to become, available.
My thought was that if a field is defined, then
we know something about the space in which it existed:
minimum number of dimensions, their shapes, etc.
It seems that this information would have to be
inherent in the definition of the field.

As our time is bound up with C, the 'Time` required for the fluctuation to occur would probably also be different, but I dispair of there being much information there.
Is this the case?
I appologize for the lack of clarity in this post,
this is the best I can do in english and
I simply don't have the math.
Pragmatist.

Pragmatist wrote:
" I realize that our frame of reference is interior
to our observable universe."

I'll quibble about the word "interior" but I do get your point.

Pragmatist wrote:
"is possible that the "a fluctuation in the quantum field", answer I recieved was the astrophysical equivalent of "go way kid, you bother me"."

Not at all. It was a serious answer founded on serious mathematics and references the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Pragmatist wrote:
" My question was meant to explore what we may infer from the theory about a possible 'overspace`, exterior to our own, and unreachable by any means now, or likely to become, available."

By your definition ... it does not exist and you are engaging in a game of semantics as I do with my invisible purple rhinoceros. Obviously invisible and purple are a contradiction.

In your case it is claiming something exists and in the same breath stating it will never by reachable or available.

Pragmatist wrote:
" My thought was that if a field is defined, then
we know something about the space in which it existed: minimum number of dimensions, their shapes, etc. It seems that this information would have to be inherent in the definition of the field."

As we know of nothing other than our four dimensional space-time we are incapable, so far, of knowing anything about what other dimensions may exist and how they may or may not impact anything. I think we need to be humble and plead ignorance of the facts here. But again I get your point. We just aren't quite there yet. The information is unquestionably inherent in the field. But we still don't understand any field completely ... not even the electromagnetic ... though we do know a lot about it.

Pragmatist wrote:
"I simply don't have the math."

No one does ... yet. And if they did they'd be standing on Einstein's and Newton's shoulders and getting a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of the "known" universe (note the quotes around known) is dark matter and dark energy of which our sole point of knowledge is that they APPEAR to exist. Hardly a point of view that should lead anyone to self-congratulations.

Personally I expect it will all come down to zeros and ones (binary math), a fractal formula, and a recursive engine of some type. But perhaps that is just the fact that history has time-and-time again shown us that somehow there is an element of elegance and beauty in it all.

It is not that it is too complex for us to understand ... rather it is too simple.