Originally posted by Astner
Are you illiterate? According to the model of general relativity, time is a direction and it is in that direction that the universe is expanding in.
Originally posted by Robtard
I can understand thinking you have everything figured out and then someone comes along; asks a question that burst your bubble and your own universe is sent spiraling. But you need to calm down though, it's a friendly discussion.
Originally posted by Astner
What are you talking about? Is it something in my explanation that you didn't understand? Did you find the answer inadequate? If so, specify why.
We're talking about the universe. I understand your 'expanding into the future' scenario. I do find it somewhat inadequate. Because you're not certain if the universe is finite or infinite to begin with.
Originally posted by Robtard
We're talking about the universe. I understand your 'expanding into the future' scenario. I do find it somewhat inadequate. Because you're not certain if the universe is finite or infinite to begin with.
The only problem with assigning Ω ≤ 1 is that the sphere anecdote would lose relevance, it wouldn't say anything regarding the direction of the expansion.
Furthermore Ascendancy asked the question in regards to the model of a finite space, hence the use of the sphere anecdote.
Indeed. It's just strange to think that traveling on a linear path, let's assume this time at faster than light speeds, you would still wind up at the same point. It doesn't fit with any "standard" model of thinking about our relation to the things around us. I've only taken Physics I though, so I have yet to delve into anything highly theoretical other than what I have seen on Mechanical Universe, Big Thinkers, Nova, etc, etc, ad nauseum, quid pro quo semper fi.
Originally posted by AscendancyWell now you're just acting transcendent.
Indeed. It's just strange to think that traveling on a linear path, let's assume this time at faster than light speeds, you would still wind up at the same point. It doesn't fit with any "standard" model of thinking about our relation to the things around us. I've only taken Physics I though, so I have yet to delve into anything highly theoretical other than what I have seen on Mechanical Universe, Big Thinkers, Nova, etc, etc, ad nauseum, quid pro quo semper fi.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A fun (though certainly impossible) way of producing an infinite space, it's basically Xeno's paradox enforced through silly physics.
Anyway, no, you can't use Xeno's paradox does not generate infinite space. Xeno's paradox divides a finite distance into infinitely many sections that when added together still converges to the same finite distance. Unless you decide to attribute our universe with characteristics that it doesn't have such as: location based time, it's not going to come together.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to have taken it quite seriously.
Originally posted by Astner
Anyway, no, you can't use Xeno's paradox does not generate infinite space. Xeno's paradox divides a finite distance into infinitely many sections that when added together still converges to the same finite distance. Unless you decide to attribute our universe with characteristics that it doesn't have such as: location based time, it's not going to come together.
You mean something based on imaginary physics is going to require some imaginary physics in order to work? Shocking.
You were already proposing spatial dimensions that there is no evidence for.
Originally posted by Astner
No offense, but I don't find stupidity funny.
Wow, you really are taking this too serious.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Astner is obviously really on edge and I don't particularly care about arguing for the sake of arguing so I'm out.
What I suspect happened was that you looked it up, realized that you were wrong, and then backed out to spare your ego. Rather than doing the sensible thing and concede that you were wrong.
Originally posted by AstnerI'm not sure if you're just incapable of understanding glibness, or if you're chronically dependent on always being right to the point of being obstinate--either way, don't read too far in to other people's haphazard musings lest you be seen as desperate. You've been doing that a lot in this thread.
Are you still mad over that I pointed out your pseudoscience? Burry the hatchet already, you'll only make things harder on yourself.