/sci/ - Science & Math

Bump, actually curious

>>9810165
If the energy/matter contained within the universe is a certain, finite quantity, then there exists a quantity of space, S, such that increasing S would have no effect on the energy of that universe. For example, if S were doubled, the universe would have behaved the same at every level as the universe with just S.
Since space exists to allow the free movement of that which is within space, it is only necessary that space should have the quantity S, for if it were smaller, space would limit change, while any space larger than S would be arbitrary and unneeded.

There is an edge to space, but it necessarily exists so far away that no energy, such as a human spaceship, will ever be limited by that boundary.

>>9810165
What does "supposed to be" even mean here?

>>9810165
The universe is infinite and flat

>>9810165
Current evidence supports Big Bang Cosmology indicating that the universe began in a singularity, and space itself expanded from there. Thus, in the finite amount of time that has passed since (~14.6 billion years) the universe still has a finite size.

>>9810165
You're probably confusing it for QLP, which states that space is quantified. Space itself is infinite or large enough to be considered so, with our current understanding of the universe the answer is that we'll never know.

>>9810523
/thread

Salty Wildfag BTFO

But if the universe occupy certain space (assuming that it's finite) then wouldn't that space occupy a "higher" space and so on making the universe infinite non the less?

>>9810718
You’re assuming space must exist. Empty space is still something. The universe actually rests in nothingness, which is devoid of space, time, and law.

>>9810736
so it MUST be infinite regardless right?

>>9810743
Well, nothingness is non-finite but you can’t really say that our universe is within it spatially. It’s not like a bubble in the ocean, although we like to imagine it that way. Even if other universes exist somehow, we would have no way of communicating with them. It’s as if every universe exists by itself, surrounded by absolutely nothing.

>>9810523
isn't the current consensus that it's finite

>>9810759
This is what bothers me the most, I have been told countless times that the universe is most probably finite but I just don't get it.
Suppose that it is finite, and if you travel in a straight line through space you'll eventually get back to your starting point, Haven't we proved already that the universe is expanding? if it is expanding where is it expanding to? if it is expanding somewhere then the notion of the universe being finite is just nonsensical right? because even when the space outside the concept of universe is nothing it is still something! something filled with emptiness but with potential to be filled and because of it then it exist as a physical region and because of this the universe cannot be finite at all!
Is this a valid line of thought or am I just brain farting here?

>>9811388
Space and absolute nothing are two very different things. Space is distinguished with itself by different locations whereas nothingness is the same with itself and infinite. And though it is infinite that does not imply a spatial infinitude, it merely means it has no definite qualities. Outside the space of our universe is absolutely nothing; our space doesn’t expand into nothingness because nothingness is... nothing. This way it is perfectly conceivable that the universe is finite.

I like to believe that we can't travel outside "the barrier", because the energy moves in a spiral motion; a circular spiral.