Infinite Universe?
Started by: Doomdooer | Replies: 51 | Views: 3,978
Jan 21, 2008 6:13 PM #78865
In my opinion, time never starts and never ends, it exists constantly and has always existed even before us humans invented the concept of time. I believe that the universe could be infinite, but I haven't thought about it enough to really make an opinion about that. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.
Jan 21, 2008 6:13 PM #78866
Quote from Ash
@DoD: You're forgetting that the curvature of spacetime, nuclear fission, and loads of other factors create energy as well.
Not sure about the curvature, but fission would dissolve matter, would it not?
There is only a finite amount of matter in the universe, so the energy would still run out.
You cannot convert unusable energy back into usable energy without expending more energy than you would gain from the conversion.
Entropy.
Jan 21, 2008 6:18 PM #78867
Quote from DoomdooerNot sure about the curvature, but fission would dissolve matter, would it not?
There is only a finite amount of matter in the universe, so the energy would still run out.
You cannot convert unusable energy back into usable energy without expending more energy than you would gain from the conversion.
Entropy.
Other factors, like Hawking Radiation, dark matter, etc. all create energy.
And the matter that is dissolved by a nuclear reaction changes matter to energy.
Don't forget about the strength of kinetic energy. Near singularities, speeds of matter increase drastically, as long as that matter doesn't enter the event horizon.
Jan 21, 2008 6:23 PM #78868
Quote from AshOther factors, like Hawking Radiation, dark matter, etc. all create energy.
Out of what? See, thats the problem. You cannot create energy.
If these things give off energy, fine. But they still have, in themselves, a limited supply.
And the matter that is dissolved by a nuclear reaction changes matter to energy.
Thus decreasing the overall matter in the universe yes.
Pretend you're talking to someone who knows how Nuclear reactions work.
In fact, Don't pretend.
Ok, so a nuclear conversion happens, matter is converted into energy. YAY! More energy!... but there is less matter in the universe.
Now, during this conversion process, you use up some energy from other sources and turn that energy into useless forms of energy. That takes a toll, but also, even if you somehow converted all the matter in the universe into energy, it would all eventually convert into useless forms of energy, so you're still stuck.
Don't forget about the strength of kinetic energy. Near singularities, speeds of matter increase drastically, as long as that matter doesn't enter the event horizon.
Speeds of matter? So what?
We are talking about energy here, not the speed of matter.
Jan 21, 2008 6:31 PM #78870
Speed = kinetic energy = other energies on impact.
And energy isn't directly created, but other factors must be considered, such as the metaverse and it's ability to get energy from one universe and move it into another through things like singularities. I reccomend you read Parralel Worlds by Michio Kaku for more on the introduction of foriegn energy and matter.
And energy isn't directly created, but other factors must be considered, such as the metaverse and it's ability to get energy from one universe and move it into another through things like singularities. I reccomend you read Parralel Worlds by Michio Kaku for more on the introduction of foriegn energy and matter.
Jan 21, 2008 6:33 PM #78872
= less usable energy after the collision than before.
Jan 21, 2008 6:36 PM #78873
Actually, energy is neither destroyed nor created by itself. When an atom splits, it is converted into exactly how many electrons, protons, and neutrons it has. None are lost.
Similarity is found in all of physics. No energy is lost.
The curvature of spacetime (or gravity) leads to potential energy being transformed into the kinetic energy. That is a way of allowing energy and matter to become usable.
Similarity is found in all of physics. No energy is lost.
The curvature of spacetime (or gravity) leads to potential energy being transformed into the kinetic energy. That is a way of allowing energy and matter to become usable.
Jan 21, 2008 6:40 PM #78875
Quote from AshActually, energy is neither destroyed nor created by itself. When an atom splits, it is converted into exactly how many electrons, protons, and neutrons it has. None are lost.
Quote from Doomdooer= less useable energy after the collision than before.
Quote from Doomdooer= less useable energy after the collision than before.
Quote from Doomdooer= less usable energy after the collision than before.
Quote from Doomdooerless useable energy after the collision than befor
Quote from Doomdooeruseable energy after the collisio
Quote from Doomdooeruseable energy
Quote from Doomdooeruseable
Lawlz .
EDIT: in every energy conversion, more and more energy is converted into unusable energy such as small amounts of heat.
Jan 21, 2008 6:46 PM #78877
Quote from AshDo you mean that you don't think an infinite universe would require an infinite amount of stars? Well, why would the stars just suddenly stop being produced after a certain distance from a prescribed point? That would require some set limitation to the otherwise infinite scope of the universe, but there is no physical precedent for limitations simply due to the preferences of observers.
No, that's not what I mean.
What you mean (I think), is that there have to be stars everywhere because there's an infinite amount. But I guess that's wrong since the universe is infinite, so it doesn't matter how much distance is in between the stars.
Jan 22, 2008 7:17 AM #79058
Quote from the JawzThis is a good topic for debate, but do you really think a bunch of 13 year olds on a stick figure animating forum are going to get anywhere with this?
i'm 12, i'm here, and i read at least five books on black holes.(which generally have a bunch of universal theories in them) and i think the universe has a beginning, when it ends, it will end in another big bang which will start another universe. yay theories! :D
Edit: this is the theory called "the big crunch theory" which is that there has always been a universe, and evry so often it collapses, explodes, and starts a new universe.
Edit2:i'm sorry, it's actually the "big bounce theory" the big crunch is where it never re-explodes O_o
Jan 22, 2008 1:19 PM #79065
Quote from Digorrybioi'm 12, i'm here, and i read at least five books on black holes.(which generally have a bunch of universal theories in them) and i think the universe has a beginning, when it ends, it will end in another big bang which will start another universe. yay theories! :D
Edit: this is the theory called "the big crunch theory" which is that there has always been a universe, and evry so often it collapses, explodes, and starts a new universe.
Edit2:i'm sorry, it's actually the "big bounce theory" the big crunch is where it never re-explodes O_o
Big Bounce theory is also called "Oscillating Universe Theory".
If you read back a little, I already refuted that it.
Quote from "The Uber 1337 Dooer of Doom"So, like... the Oscillating Universe Theory?
The Universe expands, then recontracts, then expands again, and so on and so forth?
The problem with Oscillating Universe theory is that, like when you throw a bouncy ball, after each bounce, the ball looses some energy until it finally has no energy whatsoever when it stops bouncing.
The same would be true of the universe after each bang, and expansion, it would lose a little of it's usable energy until it had no usable energy left.
Also another problem is that if this were true, we would see the universe expanding slower and slower as it neared the apex of it's expansion.
However, this isn't the case.
The universe is actually expanding faster and faster.
So yeah.
:Undercover:
Jan 22, 2008 11:12 PM #79156
I don't understand why the universe having no beginning equals the universe being static.
Jan 22, 2008 11:30 PM #79158
I never really believed the oscillating universe theory, because of the red shift showing that everything is moving further, I never found a reason for it to retract again.
Jan 23, 2008 10:39 PM #79359
The Universe is like a balloon, It's expanding and expanding and expanding until it can't Then it slowly deflates, and soon there will be a big crunch, In billions of years. When that happens, well, Try and picture the big bang. Now play it backwards.
Mm.
But, I doesn't add up. All the mass throughout the universe, doesn't fit in with the big bang or the big crunch. Thats where dark matter comes in. A nothing with an extreme force of gravity, even though it's all just a theory.
Bested by a 12 year old.
Mm.
But, I doesn't add up. All the mass throughout the universe, doesn't fit in with the big bang or the big crunch. Thats where dark matter comes in. A nothing with an extreme force of gravity, even though it's all just a theory.
Bested by a 12 year old.
Jan 23, 2008 11:51 PM #79373
I don't see why the universe would have limited space. =/