If the universe is infinite, how is it expanding?

[Gothicshark]

You are a crackpot because you dismiss multiple experimental verifications and confirmations on two continents.

santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf

It is evident that you are a fanatic who opposes Santilli because he has broadened Einstein's theories and you are solely interested in maintaining the status quo.

Mankind would still be in the caves if all humans were like you.

I ask serious visitors to inspect Santilli's curriculum.

world-lecture-series.org/santilli-cv

Compare the qualifications of Prof. Santilli with the rotten shill in this thread.

You knock down Santilli because these experiments disproves the validity of Einstein's theories within physical media. All the while you hail brothers, such as Steven Weinberg and his accomplices, who like you have encouraged the wasting of tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to pursue God's particles, the extremely far fetched big bang, etc.

Because of this and other schemes against mankind, the scientific infamy is sealed in history for you, your brothers, and your group.

It is so evident that you have no sense of dignity, no morals, and no human values other than for yourself and your people.

Show independent verification of theories otherwise it's just hot air.

[semaphore]

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 >

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...

[Trassk]

This is semi explained by the "infinite hotel" principal. This details a hotel which has an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests occupying those rooms. If you want to accommodate more people you simply move everyone up 1 room as their is infinite room. Trying to tie this in to what you are asking. Since the universe is constantly expanding in order to accommodate more stuff it expands even more. Sort of like adding 1 more room.

but doesn't science also say that matter can not be destroyed, it is simply broken down and made into something else over time. Therefore what exists in the universe is already there and nothing new is being made.

[Revik]

I think the best way to think of it is like this.

How many decimal places are there between 0 and 1? .1, .01, .001, .0001, and so on. This is infinite but clearly these are bound within 0 and 1. If you understand this concept than you can understand how you can have infinity within a finite set.

[Deleted]

As a few ppl stated about the ever expanding, we will also each a point where no more galaxy's are being formed and then it will slowly die out, awile ago i saw i think it was two scientist that found out that most of the galaxy's is being pulled towards 1 side of the universe instead of a even spread like something is pulling them towards a fixed area. So techicanlly in serval billion years 1 area might be just empty of galaxy's and 1 with a ton of them.

[Kagdar]

If the universe was not expanding, it wouldn't be infinite... just saying... As you approch the "end" of the universe time start to slow down, so it takes even more time to reach the "end". It's like counting down from 1.0 to 0 while incliding every decimal possible (0.xxxxxxxxxx infinite)

[warlocked]

Space is infinite, with no end

the Universe however is a small collection of matter that is presently expanding

[semaphore]

If the universe was not expanding, it wouldn't be infinite... just saying... As you approch the "end" of the universe time start to slow down, so it takes even more time to reach the "end". It's like counting down from 1.0 to 0 while incliding every decimal possible (0.xxxxxxxxxx infinite)

I think you're thinking about approaching the speed of light.

---------- Post added 2013-01-03 at 05:00 AM ----------

but doesn't science also say that matter can not be destroyed, it is simply broken down and made into something else over time. Therefore what exists in the universe is already there and nothing new is being made.

Conservation laws are only valid on a local scale. Under general relativity there doesn't need to be global conservation.

[Nilinor]

Space is infinite, with no end

the Universe however is a small collection of matter that is presently expanding

This is what it is.

The thing your misunderstanding when you hear universe is expanding and infinite in the same sense is that the universe is 2 different meanings. You have the visible universe, and the true universe.

The true universe (my wording for it) is infinite, the visible universe is all the stuff in an area, that is expanding to fill the other areas in an infinite area.

An analogy, I got from Lord of the rings kinda, is butter on to much bread. You have an infinite slice of bread, with only a little bit of butter, at first all the butter is in one spot, but overtime it spreads out. There never is anymore butter, but it tries to spread to all spots of the bread, which means its expanding.

[Pandamists]

It's constantly expanding... to translate: infinite.

[Rakeer]

well, we can look at two things. First, assume the universe is infinite, then when we say its expanding, we mean the distance between everything (on the grand scale, galaxies and such) is increasing. the second possibility is when we say 'infinite' we just mean so damn big we don't need to consider limits, in which case the question is kind of null.

just to note, in physics we occasionally use the term infinite to describe very skewed proportions, like an 'infinitely long wire' is a wire that is far longer then its radius, like 3km compared to 1cm. it just makes the math parts easier and doesnt actually change much of anything in the real sense as long as you dont need to consider the limits, which is exactly where we are at when we think of the universe, its just not really worth thinking of limits right now.

[semaphore]

well, we can look at two things. First, assume the universe is infinite, then when we say its expanding, we mean the distance between everything (on the grand scale, galaxies and such) is increasing. the second possibility is when we say 'infinite' we just mean so damn big we don't need to consider limits, in which case the question is kind of null.

Or we just don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite... The universe can be assumed to be infinite for the reasons you gave, but whether it actually is so is still really is a standing question in physics.

[Drahm]

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

[semaphore]

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

Space is a part of the universe...

[Osmeric]

It's constantly expanding... to translate: infinite.

This is a non sequitur.

[Frozen Death Knight]

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.

[superstarz]

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.

[Dezerte]

There's an edge to the observable universe.

[Frozen Death Knight]

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.

[auBerg]

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/

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 correct link is santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmation-212.pdf

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.

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.