Big Bang Vs. Infinite Universe

Some examples:
A video and an article, titled “What Happens at the Edge of the Universe?” and “What Lies Beyond the Edge of the Observable Universe?”
First the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwwIFcdUFrE
The title of the video is “What Happens at the Edge of the Universe?” not “can we reach the edge of the universe in a spaceship”. But he goes on to say we can’t reach the edge of the universe because we would have to travel through expanding space, and the closer we get to our destination the more space would have expanded, so we never reach the edge of the universe.
> “… (Assume we break the cosmic speed limit) to chase the particle horizon. What do we find? Almost certainly, just more universe (4:32)”
> “…Is sapcetime really is perfectly flat (…) we get that the universe is infinite (…) what happens if you cross the particle horizon, the unigerse just goes on and on and on and on and on… (…) there are many types of infinity including some that involve infinite repeating versions of this bit of the universe…” (5:27)

Then the article: https://futurism.com/what-lies-beyond-the-edge-of-the-observable-universe/
> “…Astronomers think space outside of the observable universe might be an infinite expanse of what we see in the cosmos around us, distributed pretty much the same as it is in the observable universe. …”
> “… So, in some ways, infinity makes sense. But “infinity” means that, beyond the observable universe, you won’t just find more planets and stars and other forms of material…you will eventually find every possible thing. Every. Possible. Thing. …”
> “… That means that, if this holds true and we follow it to its logical conclusion, somewhere out there, there is another person who is identical to you in every possible way…”

how do cosmologists have jobs?

I prefer the explanation that there is one infinite unbounded "universe" and our big bang was a vacuum flucuation inside this and our universe is expanding into the superior universe. There is no bound on our universe but the expansion is such that it is unreachable to leave.
I guess though having an infinite unbounded container universe that has no unexplainable beginning and no way to detect it is a bit faithful though so it's useless to research it further than that.

>>8996795
>our universe is expanding into the superior universe.

I get that, but I insist the mass of our universe must be finite and must be contained within a certain radius from the point of the Big Bang...

>>8996965
I insist the mass of our universe must be finite and must be contained within a certain radius from the point of the Big Bang... but everywhere I find that space with galaxies and stars and planets and dust goes on and on and on forever:

If sapcetime really is perfectly flat (…) we get that the universe is infinite (…) what happens if you cross the particle horizon, the universe just goes on and on and on and on and on… (…) there are many types of infinity including some that involve infinite repeating versions of this bit of the universe…” >>8996679


>But “infinity” means that, beyond the observable universe, you won’t just find more planets and stars and other forms of material…you will eventually find every possible thing. Every. Possible. Thing. …” >>8996682

File: image.jpg (96KB, 633x628px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 633x628px

>>8996678
>2) There must be a circumference around the point where the Big Bang happened.
Nope

Daily reminder that if you travel (instantaneously) 90 Gly (in a "straight line") in ANY direction you will arrive back at Earth.
>pic unrelated

>>8997026

Thanks for answering: I do not have the knowledge to agree or disagree in your statement, but I do not agree that statement qualifies as an answer to my OP.

If you say "if you travel (instantaneously) 90 Gly (in a "straight line") in ANY direction you will arrive back at Earth.", then a diameter of "90 Gly" around the point of the Big Bang will contain all the mass of our universe, and my assertion that "there is not infinite mass within this circumference." is true.

But you do NOT REALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION, and simply rant on something else, like the shape or geometry of the universe.

>>8997026

I even stated in the second post >>8996679 that I do not care if we can “can we reach the edge of the universe in a spaceship”, or in your case that I would return to the same point after travelling 90 Gly (in a "straight line") in ANY direction; I insist: the mass of our universe must be finite and must be contained within a certain radius from the point of the Big Bang... True or False?

I am not satisfied with answers that state that galaxies and stars and planets and dust go on and on and on forever, while those stars and planets originated in the same Big Bang, because it would mean there is infinite scattered mass within space, and this is what I do not think is possible, since that infinitely scattered mass would have had to travel infinite distances to reach its current position in a finite amount of time since the Big Bang.

File: 1417823089999.jpg (239KB, 1920x1076px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1920x1076px

>1) All matter that originated from that Big Bang must be contained within the area that the expanding universe has had time to expand: there can be no matter outside that area
i.e. all the matter in the universe is contained in the universe. That's a pretty vacuous statement but clearly true.
>2) There must be a circumference around the point where the Big Bang happened.
Wrong. The universe (to the best of our knowledge) is not a sphere with an edge and therefore it doesn't have a circumference. There is also no "center" to our universe. The big bang was not space "exploding" out of some single point the way a typical explosion happens (what space would it be "exploding" into? Space that is outside the universe?) it was the space between matter expanding.
>3) Within this circumference all the mass that was ejected from the big bang must be contained.
Again, there's no "circumference", but if we read your statement like "all the mass created in the big bang exists in the universe" then we have another vacuous truth.
>4) If all the mass is contained within this circumference, there is not infinite mass within this circumference.
You are (probably) correct that there is not infinite mass in the universe.

The fact that you insist in >>8997131 that the "shape or geometry of our universe" doesn't address your question shows how poor your understanding is.
The most widely accepted view on the geometry of the universe is that it is finite and/but unbounded, meaning it's not infinite but it has no edge. The same can be said of the surface of a sphere - obviously it's not infinite, yet for someone existing on the surface (as on the surface of the Earth), there isn't an edge. It is also obvious that there must be a finite amount of matter on the surface of the sphere, given that the surface area is finite. So it shouldn't be hard to see why there can't be infinite matter in the universe - after all, there's only so much space.
cont...

File: 1487404970862.jpg (1MB, 7227x3847px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 7227x3847px

>>8997313
If you apply the sphere analogy to the big bang, it would be like starting out with a very small sphere and rapidly expanding it. Although the surface area increases, there isn't any point (on the surface) that forms the "center" of the expansion - because the actual "center" is in a higher dimension (the third dimension, while the surface only exists in two dimension). If you want to arrive at a model of the big bang and the expanding universe, just take that expanding sphere idea and add another dimension. Our 3-dimensional universe is the "surface" of the true 4-dimensional universe, and like beings living on the surface of a sphere (which we happen to be), we will never be able to find an "edge" or "center" of our universe because those would contradict the very geometry of the universe.
If you want to know what the real "center" of our universe is, think of the sphere example - to find the center of the sphere you need to move into the third-dimension by digging down. So if you want to find the center of our universe, you need to move into the fourth-dimension by going through time.
The "center" of the universe is the moment that it was created.

>>8997313
>>8997314

I think I understand your answer: we have 3-dimensional observations in a 4 dimensional universe and you make an analogy of the shape of the universe as if it was an ever expanding sphere (as the Tesseract is to the cube), and that is why >>8997026 says one would eventually arrive back at Earth if you travel (instantaneously) 90 Gly (in a "straight line") in ANY direction.

I can understand and agree that "The big bang was not space "exploding" out of some single point the way a typical explosion happens (what space would it be "exploding" into? Space that is outside the universe?) it was the space between matter expanding." as stated in >>8997313

Then I agree that "It is also obvious that there must be a finite amount of matter on the surface of the sphere, given that the surface area is finite."

(cont.)

>>8997313
>>8997314
>>8997333

Because I agree to those satements, i disagree with these statements:

1) in the video: "...what happens if you cross the particle horizon, the universe just goes on and on and on and on and on… (…) there are many types of infinity including some that involve infinite repeating versions of this bit of the universe…” >>8996679

2) and the article: "...That means that, if this holds true and we follow it to its logical conclusion, somewhere out there, there is another person who is identical to you in every possible way…” >>8996682

That is, with a finite amount of matter (and space) in the universe created from the Big Bang, why does the author of the video and the author of the article state that there are infinite planets with infinite versions of me?

>>8996678
>the point where the Big Bang happened
isn't this a misconception?
Big Bang isn't a point, it's the expansion of the early universe.
The early universe had small spatial scale (it's compact) but still infinite, not pointlike.
When it expands it ends up with larger spatial scale and is still infinite.
So there can be matter outside 'the' area the universe has had time to expand to because there is no unique area like that, all areas are like that.
What's the problem with infinite mass?

>>8996678
>all the mass that was ejected from the big bang

There was zero mass or matter ejected during the big bang

>>8997605
false
infinite mass was ejected during the big bang

File: image.jpg (27KB, 236x314px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 236x314px

>>8996678
>like infinite versions of oneself or a universe that goes on forever (it would imply infinite mass).
No...
Think of it this way.
For Universe of radius "r" (though it isn't really a radius):
All points on the "surface" of the expanding Universal Sphere (the edge which IS NOT an edge) are the same point (which is why there is no edge)

Try that...
>pic unrelated

>>8997026
>will arrive back at Earth.
lol no
even if the universe would be closed, the 90 bn ly is way too short