Do you think that the universe is infinite?

@AgapeLove Sorry to disappoint you but I am married to a very smart and accomplished woman that I love deeply. She has everything to offer that the target of my scorn on SW lacks.

@hippyjoe1955 Said by one who agrees with those who define science by doing it and about someone who tries but, never can, to redefine Science from mere philosophic "rationality" (as the Scholastic philosophers) and from the pseudo scientific babbling of the ones who never in history gave ONE contribution to Science, like St Agustine and bishop Berkeley in the past and the Dyscovery Institute today.

@AgapeLove 😂

@UndeadPrivateer I thought that it had something to do with the distribution of matter. Matter seems to be uniform throughout the universe...but I see what you mean.

@infiniterealism It looks uniform if you average it out, at least. Though there are definitely gargantuan clusters and voids.

@UndeadPrivateer Agree.

@canusernamebemyusername I see what you are saying but I never heard that idea before.

@infiniterealism It took me a few minutes so it didn't come out garbled. Lol

@UndeadPrivateer ok I see what you mean. I guess it's one possibility. I am not sure I agree with that either.

@Sicarium One point at a time.

- "Based on what we currently know, it has to be finite" and you ar right "I never said they were. I said the exact opposite."
Sorry, my fault, I read you badly and, in fact, the opposite.

- "The universe is the canvas. Mass and spacetime are the painting on that canvas"
There is no thing as a physical "canvas" autonomous from Mass and Spacetime.
Not a one described by Physics, specially not by Relativity.
In your words "There's nothing in known science to support that claim" (about a "something" that is not matter and spacetime, the "canvas". Sonds a bit a Metaphysical "entity".

- "Jumping from "gravitational waves are confirmed" to "matter is built out of gravitational waves" is a non-sequiterut"
Of course, no confirmed observation of the partial behaviour of a System is an enough description of such system.
But is, or not, consistent with a wider description, theoretical frame.
Gravitational waves are not "in space" as gravitational curvature of space is not "in space" (perturbed by something independent, as mass) is space itself behaving like fields do.
BTW, the theoretical frame is Relativity.

- My references to Quantum Physics was about your assertion: "...and quantum mechanics tells us that."
As quantum can´t give (at the present) an account of gravitation, it cant´t give answers (or, at least, not till today) for the nature and structure of the macroscopic universe at it´s cosmic scale.
And my comment on the various formulations was because their different approaches of the concept of field (not the gravitational one), wich is a core one.
Finally:

Mine: "Quantum (whatever formulation) giving an account of Gravitational Field is still not reached. If ever will, which I personal doubt"

Yours: "That's irrelevant"

Yes, agree, your reference to Quantum, when debating this, is irrelevant. And THAT was what I´ve said, for said reason.

@CharlieZ
Fair enough.


That's not true. Conceptually, there'd be no need for a term like spacetime if there wasn't a base something separate from spacetime. And, again, we can point to quantum, vacuum energy, and the creation and destruction of universe for evidence.


I've given you examples from physics as evidence. Everything I'm talking about is from physics. You keep saying there's nothing in physics, but I'm literally giving you things from physics.


That's not the issue. Observing gravitational waves does not say anything about matter being built from gravitational waves. Beyond that, it's a rather silly idea once you get into particle and high energy physics.


Never said they were. Gravity, and spacetime, are distortion caused by mass. "Space" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Fill a bath tub with water. Let the water sit until it's completely still. Drop an empty shampoo bottle into one end of the tub. That empty shampoo bottle is a planet. The ripples it creates are spacetime and gravity. Now drop a rubber duck into the other end of the tub. That rubber duck is a star. It's ripples are spacetime and gravity. "Space" is literally the space between the rubber duck and the shampoo bottle. Without either, there is no "space". Which is why many are abandoning the term. It had no real use at this level.


Which one? Specific relatively doesn't work. General relativity is incomplete.


That's another non-sequiter. You're placing too much importance on gravity. Gravity is only one of the four prime forces. Just because we don't fully understand what gravity is does not mean we do not understand the other three. Nor does it invalidate everything coming of a quantum physics.


So? I'm not addressing that. I'm simply pointing that quantum describes the universe below what you're calling "space", and that universe is what's expanding. Gravity is irrelevant to that.


False. See above.

And all of this is before I even get into the possible implications of the Higgs field, which may very well turn out to be the base universe itself.

@Sicarium LOL!
My laugh is not at all about your assertions, my friend. They have my full respect if not my agreement.

My smile comes from something historical.
No matter the upgrades, it´s still the same debate since the conference of Solvay.
Nothing of what me or you have posted is really significative new about.

I do not stand for the "build up" of the macroscopic properties of the Universe from the Quantum scale ones.
Of course, Relativity is incomplete.
And if true, wich is, Quantum Physics is also incomplete and even more.
Not, as I see it, a candidate for being the fundation of Unification.
But, there is a lot to research ahead.

Is not that I give to Gravity too much importance. Much more, I say (what may be wrong and refuted, but not by what what you already said, that the Universe is, in itself made of Gravity, the field, at least at the macroscopic scale.

With, again, my respects, a hug.

@newjaninev2 It IS!
Dear Albert never deceives!

@CharlieZ and also, of course: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe”
Albert Einstein

@newjaninev2 His concept of an "infinite" Universe was not at all the clasic pre Relativity one.
What this debate lacks is a concept of Physics: what is a Field.
Our Universe is a gravitational dense field.

Is interesting how a previous born debate (the wave particle duality) leaded to the assumptions of the "failed" Michelson & Morley experiment.
And how it´s results, the vanished conjecture of the "gyroscopic" Aether leaded to the formulation of Special Relativity.
And to the Einstenian concept of Space as a Field.

@infiniterealism
She is married.

@infiniterealism
She did like your kiss lol

@SW-User Why do you say that?

@DownTheStreet Dimensions or size.

That’s kind of linear @infiniterealism