GENIUS FORUMS

Will someone explain to me why science considers the universe to be finite and expanding? And as a corrollary how they can think that the universe has "edges"? I have tried to read articles about it but am too stupid to grasp their reasoning.

Lost Prophet wrote:Will someone explain to me why science considers the universe to be finite and expanding? And as a corrollary how they can think that the universe has "edges"? I have tried to read articles about it but am too stupid to grasp their reasoning.

What made you so dumb?

Learning to think clearly.

Lost Prophet wrote:Learning to think clearly.

WOah. that's like, opposite to what I would think you might say, considering clear-thinking generally leads to perspicacity, not confusion and befuddlement. I see the irony, or is it just plain humour?

Lost Prophet wrote:

Will someone explain to me why science considers the universe to be finite and expanding?

In a nutshell, because the alternative is an infinite static universe, which idea logically contradicts phenomena behind Newton‘s law (gravity). And, the notion of a contracting universe is contrary to cosmological observations -- that is, things appear to be moving away from, not towards, us.

And as a corrollary how they can think that the universe has "edges"?

You might have to provide a reference for this idea "edges" that details why the need for quotation marks.

.

Lost Prophet wrote:Will someone explain to me why science considers the universe to be finite and expanding? And as a corrollary how they can think that the universe has "edges"? I have tried to read articles about it but am too stupid to grasp their reasoning.

It is finite when relative to itself. It is infinite when WE try to view its outer edges of expansion. We need to understand that this expression of "infinity" is subjective. It is entirely based on who/what we are.

Everything that we could hope to be is expressed at the outer edges. Nothing more is possible except for that which is imagined. You are left with the expression of the self. It has been repeated throughout the ages many different times by many different people in many different forms, but always the same outcome. You create reality.

Tharan wrote:You create reality.

Since we (read psyche) are thought, we aren't creating much. Thought however... well I can't think of any one thing that isn't. :)

Leyla Shen wrote:Lost Prophet wrote:

Will someone explain to me why science considers the universe to be finite and expanding?

In a nutshell, because the alternative is an infinite static universe, which idea logically contradicts phenomena behind Newton‘s law (gravity). And, the notion of a contracting universe is contrary to cosmological observations -- that is, things appear to be moving away from, not towards, us.

Big Bang cosmology if the prevailing perspective of our times, but there are others which do not demand a finite, expanding Universe - the ever evolving Steady Sate theory and Plasma Cosmology for example. The modern paradigm of the Big bang theory is something for which we can thank (if gratitude is actually what you feel) Edwin Hubble.

One of the arguments against an infinite static universe (Olbers) is that there would, in fact, be no night time because of the existence of infinite, unchanging light sources (stars). If one has to assume that stars appear as stars due to absorption of infinite light by intervening matter, in such a universe that intervening matter would eventually heat up and glow as brightly as the stars themselves, too; so there would never be the appearance of stars in a night sky in an infinite unchanging universe: it would always be as bright as day. If, however, one considers that the stars have not been shining forever (infinite), only then can one logically conclude that intervening matter has not yet heated up, which immediately returns us to the question of what turns stars on.

Steady State Theory might not demand a finite universe but the conception of an infinite universe is entirely abstract. I would go so far as to say there can be no empirical evidence in support of it. This, obviously, takes such a “universe” clearly outside of the field of science and is another way of expressing why science must assume a finite universe.

Can you honestly imagine science successfully dealing with “things” that have no beginning--that is, basically, things which inherently exist--things without causes?

[General edit]
.