# Thread: If the universe is infinite, how is it expanding?

1. The universe is finite, space on the otherhand is not.

2. Originally Posted by Drahm
The universe is finite, space on the otherhand is not.
Space is a part of the universe...

3. Originally Posted by Pandamists
It's constantly expanding... to translate: infinite.
This is a non sequitur.

4. Originally Posted by Dhrizzle
Please show something that actually debunks the idea that everything can be shrinking rather than space expanding, and remind me how you demonstrated that it requires earth to be the centre of the universe because all I see is you typing "crackpot" and "nonsense" every few sentences as if your assertions somehow count as proof.

I'm not sure if you failed to read my posts or just failed to comprehend. The same evidence and formulae used for an expanding universe model can be used to create a diminishing matter model. It is a matter of taking the information and viewing it from a different perspective.
Wouldn't the idea of shrinking matter (an idea that the shrinking even accelerates depending on the distance you observe the matter) imply that energy is no longer constant and that matter (which has a correlation with energy by Einstein's theory) and all the particles that form it, would be varying in size depending on the distance? If so, it would mean that if it was possible that we could see each other from a fixed distance that would make shrinking matter observable, we would both be shrinking, but I would only see you shrink and vice versa. This also makes both of our observations not relatable at all, since now we need to be at the exact same spot to actually get the same results, which makes Earth pretty much the centre of the universe, simply because we happen to live here (the very reason various people have criticized this idea of yours to be an Earth centric universe model).

Another consequence of this would be that we would expand if we were looking at each other face to face, since the distance correlates with the size of matter, which makes all constants used in Physics related to the subject useless, and would therefore vary to such a degree that you could not make any predictable calculations by how we use those equations at this very moment.

Not to mention that the idea also implies that the galaxies are not moving from each other at all (or very, very slowly), despite observations that celestial objects move at very high speeds. Objects that happen to be made of matter that can be found in our galaxy as well as being observed here on Earth (the periodic table showing all the elements we have observed, which is not full of gaping holes of knowledge, mind you).

The Doppler Effect is the effect of this movement and since we can calculate things like frequency and wave length of the light that comes from those galaxies, as well as other valuable information related to determining long distances and time, we can conclude that they are moving away from each other, which in turn is completely contradicting of the shrinking matter idea.

In conclusion, If what you have said is correct, it means that you would need to throw modern Physics into the garbage can, pretty much.

5. Originally Posted by Quaero
You people are misinterpreting, there is no such thing as the edge of the universe.
how do you know there is no edge to the universe??
just because we cant reach it doesnt mean there is no edge.

im not saying there is an edge to the universe but to say there is none because we cant get to it yet is a bit ignorant.

6. There's an edge to the observable universe.

7. Originally Posted by superstarz
how do you know there is no edge to the universe??
just because we cant reach it doesnt mean there is no edge.

im not saying there is an edge to the universe but to say there is none because we cant get to it yet is a bit ignorant.
Except that the type of edge that is thought about when mentioning it is not something that is even viable when looking at the current ideas and such regarding the shape of the universe and its size. Not to mention that the idea of an actual edge of the universe implies there being something outside that said edge, which in turn makes us go back to square one of not being able to determine the size of all of existence, which is one of the reasons why infinity is considered to be the entirety of the universe, in the first place.

Infinity, unlike finity, has no point of reference to measure anything, since measuring the size of infinity is impossible. Infinity is simply not a number, since numbers are used to quantify finite things. However, that does not mean that it can not be used in subjects like mathematics, since it does in fact help solving problems you can find in it (mathematics is first and foremost a problem solving tool, just to be completely clear so that we both are on the same page).

However, there is one type of "edge" that is considered scientific, which is the observable universe, as Dezerte stated earlier. That, however is not what is considered to be infinite as I mentioned in my last paragraph, since matter, energy, and other types of particles are considered to be finite (still large enough to make our heads explode if trying to comprehend the numbers), while space (the void where things like matter, etc., etc. reside) in its entirety is considered infinite.

To put it simple, one has an edge while the other one does not.

8. Originally Posted by Garnier Fructis
So the physics community at large are fanatics? This is the guy who says his papers get rejected because of some global conspiracy.

wasting of tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to pursue God's particles
You mean that thing that they found?
You are a crackpot like the other users because you throw judgement without inspecting the evidence.

For the serious visitors to this thread, everybody can see on Santilli's curriculum the documentation of over 300 papers published in journals of the American, Italian, British, and other physical societies.

You are a certified crackpot that is subservient to the manipulators of science who are dreaming to control knowledge.

Just like the guys over here: blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/12/03/down-in-the-mouth-in-paradise/

Originally Posted by Osmeric
I'm pretty sure you're not actually describing reality here.
You are indeed like the cardinal who refused to look through Galileo's telescope to be a servant of the vatican dogmas. Just study the damn paper on the damn measurements on two continents and then I'll welcome any technical comments.

Originally Posted by semaphore
My brain keeps trying to substitute "Cthulhu" for "Santilli" when reading that god awful post.

You mean these imaginary experiments that don't actually exist, from your 404'd links? Ruggero Santilli knocked himself down by becoming a widely recognised crazy nutjob.

---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 09:36 PM ----------

Hehe, this part made me want to giggle. He attacks legitimate, ground breaking scientific pursuits as "wasting taxpayer money"... even as he lamented that "Mankind would still be in the caves if all humans were like you." Talk about irony.
The dismissal of experiments confirmed by numerous independent scientists is blatant corruption. No technical comments, just an uncontrollable drive to blackball the character of a scientist.

Do you have any sense of dignity or do you just have an account on this forum so that you can dream to control the flow of information on it?

Originally Posted by Dezerte

Sounds like a crackpot to me... and that auBerg person sure didn't hold back on the ad hominem attacks & conspiracy theorizing.
The most important point is I never drew the first blood. However if you think that I will accept dirty attacks against a highly qualified, yet defenseless scientist you need medical examination.

Originally Posted by Sayl
You know what's really funny (or perhaps creepy)? From the language auBerg used in his post, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that's actually Santilli himself. It's a dead ringer for the same crackpot rants he's posted elsewhere. I've seen it happen on another forum too.

< cue spooky Theremin music >
Keep dreaming.

I have attended lectures that Santilli recently gave in Kos, Greece and there were scientists from fourteen different countries there. Santilli is not alone and neither am I.

It was announced at the meeting, that the Santilli Foundation has one million dollars available to currently use to support research beyond Einstein all over the world. I'm so happy you are out. Stay out and leave scientific priorities to others.

Originally Posted by Gothicshark
Show independent verification of theories otherwise it's just hot air.
I have to apologize to you and other serious visitors of this post.

The one I released wasn't working for me either. Both of them are active to propagate to serious scholars - that by definition means scientists willing to learn.

If you need further documentation out of this 10,000 page field of new physics and astrophysics please let me know.

Originally Posted by semaphore
That's... actually seems quite possible o.O

I'm also amused by the way he talks of himself in the third person in that link, while he whined and whined about being oppressed by scientists. The whole page was Santilli this and Santilli that...
This is your third post derailing the attention from Santilli's curriculum. Visitors of that curriculum will understand that you are a crackpot.

Who is paying you for this and what is the hourly rate? If you are not paid, are you doing this because of a fanatic active membership in an organization?

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 03:59 PM ----------

Also, please inspect Santilli's diagram establishing the inconsistency of the conjecture of the expansion of the universe because the relative acceleration between galaxies solely occurs for Earth and does not occur for other observers throughout the universe.

Copy pasta: i.imgur.com/jFXH1.png

In fact, under the Doppler's interpretation z = v/c of the Hubble law z = H d, the galaxies G_2 and G_1 have the cosmological redshifts z_2 = v_2/c and z_1 = v_1/c with v_2 = 2 v_1 since d_2 = 2 d_1, thus implying that the galaxy G_2 accelerates away from G_1 when seen from Earth E. However, when z_2 and z_1 are measured from the galaxy G, we have z_2 = z_1 since the two galaxies are located at the same distance d_2 from G, thus establishing that the galaxy G_2 has no acceleration away from G_1 when seen from G.

Note that the inconsistency persists under the far fetched conjecture of the expansion of space itself or of any far fetched preferred geometry since the latter must verify Hubble's law, thus having Santilli's diagram in the local tangent plane.

9. Originally Posted by auBerg
You are a crackpot like the other users because you throw judgement without inspecting the evidence.
So much irony in this. You haven't supplied any real evidence for your crackpot nonsense.

The dismissal of experiments confirmed by numerous independent scientists is blatant corruption.
If they are so numerous, then why can't you name any? Why are you chanting Santilli and only Santilli's name? Why haven't you been able to cite a single study that's not from Santilli's crackpot website?

I have to apologize to you and other serious visitors of this post.
You should apologise for not understanding what "independent" means. A document from the crackpot Santilli's own website is not acceptable evidence for Santilli's own crackpot ideas.

This is your third post derailing the attention from Santilli's curriculum.
Your fanatical worshipping of Cthulhu Santilli is duly noted.

Come back when you have something published in a respectable journal. Don't worry, no real scientist is holding their breath for Santilli to suddenly become respectable.

10. Originally Posted by auBerg
Copy pasta: i.imgur.com/jFXH1.png

In fact, under the Doppler's interpretation z = v/c of the Hubble law z = H d, the galaxies G_2 and G_1 have the cosmological redshifts z_2 = v_2/c and z_1 = v_1/c with v_2 = 2 v_1 since d_2 = 2 d_1, thus implying that the galaxy G_2 accelerates away from G_1 when seen from Earth E. However, when z_2 and z_1 are measured from the galaxy G, we have z_2 = z_1 since the two galaxies are located at the same distance d_2 from G, thus establishing that the galaxy G_2 has no acceleration away from G_1 when seen from G.

Note that the inconsistency persists under the far fetched conjecture of the expansion of space itself or of any far fetched preferred geometry since the latter must verify Hubble's law, thus having Santilli's diagram in the local tangent plane.
Doesn't that only establish that the acceleration of each galaxy away from G is the same?

11. Originally Posted by Pandamists
It's constantly expanding... to translate: infinite.
No.

If something is expanding, it means it was smaller than it is now and larger in the future.

Inifinity does not get bigger and smaller.

The Universe is either not infinite, or it is not expanding, or as someone else suggested, space is infinite, the Universe isnt.

12. Man, I thought he wouldn't come back.

To auBerg:

I'll get back to you when Santilli's findings have passed peer review. Forgive me for believing in the educated scientists that conduct these peer reviews, over Santilli's conspiracy theories.

Not only was his papers rejected, but Santilli went on and called it a great conspiracy (as I also mentioned in my first post to you); an idea you also seem to have bought into.

13. Originally Posted by semaphore
So much irony in this. You haven't supplied any real evidence for your crackpot nonsense.
A crackpot he may be, but if auBerg was Santilli he would still have more knowledge than us amateurs in this thread, and a discussion far more interesting than all these naive posts that come up again ad again ("The Universe is either not infinite, or it is not expanding, or as someone else suggested, space is infinite, the Universe isnt."). Likely none of us published something in a respectable journal either.

That said...

14. If auBerg is someone with a world-shattering theory, why is he posting on MMO-C? The most parsimonious theory is that he has nothing except delusions.

I'll add that comparisons to Gallileo merit a +40 score on the Baez Crackpot Index, as does claiming a conspiracy of the scientific establishment.

15. Originally Posted by Osmeric
If auBerg is someone with a world-shattering theory, why is he posting on MMO-C? The most parsimonious theory is that he has nothing except delusions.

I'll add that comparisons to Gallileo merit a +40 score on the Baez Crackpot Index, as does claiming a conspiracy of the scientific establishment.
He also gets another +40 on that scale for claiming conspiracy.

16. Originally Posted by superstarz
To all the science and physics fanatics out there i have a question for you.
If the universe is infinite, how is it expanding?
How do you measure infinity? You don't it keeps going... hence expanding.

/End

17. Originally Posted by Hurax
A crackpot he may be, but if auBerg was Santilli he would still have more knowledge than us amateurs in this thread
How do you know everyone here's amateurs?

and a discussion far more interesting than all these naive posts that come up again ad again
I'd rather have Dhrizzle back. At least he tried to argue his crackpot theory with what he thinks are real evidence. auBerg just whines and complains

18. Originally Posted by auBerg
Also, please inspect Santilli's diagram establishing the inconsistency of the conjecture of the expansion of the universe because the relative acceleration between galaxies solely occurs for Earth and does not occur for other observers throughout the universe.

Copy pasta: i.imgur.com/jFXH1.png

In fact, under the Doppler's interpretation z = v/c of the Hubble law z = H d, the galaxies G_2 and G_1 have the cosmological redshifts z_2 = v_2/c and z_1 = v_1/c with v_2 = 2 v_1 since d_2 = 2 d_1, thus implying that the galaxy G_2 accelerates away from G_1 when seen from Earth E. However, when z_2 and z_1 are measured from the galaxy G, we have z_2 = z_1 since the two galaxies are located at the same distance d_2 from G, thus establishing that the galaxy G_2 has no acceleration away from G_1 when seen from G.

Note that the inconsistency persists under the far fetched conjecture of the expansion of space itself or of any far fetched preferred geometry since the latter must verify Hubble's law, thus having Santilli's diagram in the local tangent plane.
I saw that figure while quickly skimming over that pdf. It seems unnessecary cruel, beating a very dead horse, Earth as center of the universe, that no one ever took seriously. The current scientific mainstream, an expanding universe, is dismissed as a "far fetched conjecture" at the end of the paragraph.

The "local tangent plane", I suppose that would be observers on earth, the detector and a local flat metric described by Special Relativity. In that metric, the photon which is already redshifted, gets absorbed by the detector camera etc... but the redshift itself is caused by the expansion. A "local tangent plane" including far-away galaxies seems like a flat earth, a good local approximation but bad if I want to travel from Europe to Australia, since I could never reach the latter on a local tangent plane.

19. The universe is infinite ~ The universe is expanding
You're talking about two different usages of the word here.
One is the totality of all existence - including everything we do not know and cannot observe.
The other is the observable universe. - What we CAN see (or theoretically could make observations ON (but not of - not from Earth)).
The diameter of the observable universe is estimated at 93 billion lightyears (yes, it can expand faster than the speed of light).

To us, it doesn't really make sense to talk about the universe we cannot observe, so while that MAY be infinite (there's no reason to say it is, and no reason to say it isn't), and that is certainly a popular statement, it is utterly pointless and meaningless.

The observable universe is NOT infinite, and IS expanding according to our currently accepted model.

Space is infinite - the universe is not (or the other way around)
I don't think this helps the understaning. Space isn't really "that empty void which all the planets and stars and stuff is located in". That makes it too ... firm... or unalterable. Which it is not. It is space itself that is expanding, NOT the universe that expands into space.
- Galaxies aren't simply drifting further apart... The space between them is actually expanding (not simply increasing either - expanding - swelling, if you will).

tldr;
The known universe is finite and expanding.
Space itself is what is expanding.
Nothing outside of the known universe is relevant.

20. I think you're looking at it backwards, try this way: The universe is ever-expanding, therefore it must be infinite (because it will continue to keep going, and going, and going).

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•