Why is the Universe Incapable of Being Static?
In static, I mean not expanding. I understand the observable evidence we have, but I've read that for some reason involving relativity the universe has to either expand or contract - why is this?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
I don't know, but it's apparent that the universe will dissipate. Thus, there must be an infinite number of them to explain its origin.
Animore · 26-30, M
Why, though? Couldn't it just be that this is the only universe?
SW-User
@Animore: No. We need an explanation for how it came to be, and the most plausible is a multiverse housing an infinite number of universes.
Animore · 26-30, M
@Peekaboo: Or that it came from a point of extreme/infinite density in which there is not a current explanation on its origins, which then expanded into our universe.
SW-User
@Animore: Nature never has just one of anything- except when it's the sum of all things; this exception to the rule.
And what you're saying just addresses the specifics of origin- not general causation.
And what you're saying just addresses the specifics of origin- not general causation.
Animore · 26-30, M
@Peekaboo: Unless when those 'things' aren't around yet. As of the source of these things, as in energy and matter, we aren't sure when that came around. Perhaps it came from vacuum fluctuations, perhaps it was always there.
SW-User
@Animore: The idea of a single universe is logically flawed on many levels- including having a solitary epicenter for all creation.
Animore · 26-30, M
@Peekaboo: Actually, technically, the idea of a multiverse is flawed; the idea of multiple everythings.
The universe is defined as a cosmos. A cosmos is defined as everything, including the biotic and abiotic factors. The universe is made up of superclusters, places which hold packets of galaxies called 'groups'. We are in the local group. Groups hold galaxies. Galaxies hold billions and billions of solar systems. So the idea of there being a varied collection of infinite everythings is flawed, unless speaking of alternate versions of said everything.
The universe is defined as a cosmos. A cosmos is defined as everything, including the biotic and abiotic factors. The universe is made up of superclusters, places which hold packets of galaxies called 'groups'. We are in the local group. Groups hold galaxies. Galaxies hold billions and billions of solar systems. So the idea of there being a varied collection of infinite everythings is flawed, unless speaking of alternate versions of said everything.
SW-User
@Animore: Are you a believer? Believers will invent irrational arguments to convince themselves they remain at the center of creation; the focus of God's attention.
Animore · 26-30, M
@Peekaboo: Nope, anything but.
How would it be considered endorsing the idea that we are the center of creation by saying there is not a multitude of everythings? You're confusing "universe" with "galaxies."
How would it be considered endorsing the idea that we are the center of creation by saying there is not a multitude of everythings? You're confusing "universe" with "galaxies."
SW-User
@Animore: No, I'm not. From my perspective you're confusing the universe with the cosmos.
I'm glad you're not a believer.
I'm glad you're not a believer.
Animore · 26-30, M
@Peekaboo: This sounds a lot like a subjectivist fallacy.
While there are minor differences in the terms, in astronomical usages, there aren't. The universe is the embodiment of everything, and so is the universe. It's just that a cosmos is a harmonious system, while a universe is the collection of everything physically real.
While there are minor differences in the terms, in astronomical usages, there aren't. The universe is the embodiment of everything, and so is the universe. It's just that a cosmos is a harmonious system, while a universe is the collection of everything physically real.