We are not alone..

[tillingborn]

The Universe is not expanding , it is infinitely old and infinitely large ,
There was no beginning , there will be no end .

There are two standard objections to the universe being infinite. One is that in a infinite universe of infinite age the night sky should be as light as day, since there is a star (in fact an infinity of stars) in every point of the sky and since the light has had forever to get here, it should have done so by now. The photon decay hypothesis at least answers the question of why we aren't dazzled at all times by arguing that distant starlight is no longer in the visible part of the spectrum by the time it reaches us. There should however be an uninterupted lengthening of wavelength with distance and we should be bathed in radiowaves in a way I'm pretty certain we are not.
Another objection is that a universe that is not expanding should collapse under it's own gravity. Newton tried to counter this by claiming that in an infinite universe there is an equal pull in every direction. That only works in a stationary universe and requires improbable balance. Einstein's answer was the Cosmological constant, a force he made up to counter gravity; he later called it the greatest blunder of his career. (Some people argue it anticipates dark energy, but as that has been invoked to account for the apparent acceleration of the universal expansion it doesn't really.)
We do know that stars fuse hydrogen. In your version, is there a source of hydrogen, or is a period when there are stars burning hydrogen just a phase? But then if the universe is infinitely old, why haven't we passed through that stage infinitely long ago?

Man sees himself as the main event , it's all for us made by god ,

Some people do, not me.

I would consider that masturbation ,

Each to their own.

and they need a beginning , to make it fit the bible , "In the beginning"

This is essentially the same objection Fred Hoyle had to Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who first proposed that the universe started as a tiny point. He called it the Cosmic egg; Hoyle pooh-poohed the idea deriding it as a Big Bang. Hoyle suggested the Steady-State theory in which matter is continuously formed in the empty space between galaxies. I don't know if that is the sort of thing you are proposing, but although it was taken seriously until the 1960's, it is generally accepted that the background radiation found by Penzias and Wilson is strong evidence for a big bang.

So answer me this Mr tillingborn ,,
If there was ever nothing in the universe ,
then where did the something come from,?????????

Beats me, but I think the idea of an infinite universe raises more questions than it answers.

[thedoc]

[There are two standard objections to the universe being infinite. One is that in a infinite universe of infinite age the night sky should be as light as day, since there is a star (in fact an infinity of stars) in every point of the sky and since the light has had forever to get here, it should have done so by now. The photon decay hypothesis at least answers the question of why we aren't dazzled at all times by arguing that distant starlight is no longer in the visible part of the spectrum by the time it reaches us. There should however be an uninterupted lengthening of wavelength with distance and we should be bathed in radiowaves in a way I'm pretty certain we are not.

There is a problem here, and you may have implyed it, but to state it more directly, If Photon decay is used to explain why visible light has decayed into the ultraviolet and beyond and is no linger visible, why hasen't the electromagnetic energy from the infra-red and beyond decayed into the visible spectrum? If so we would still have a sky full of light, and we do not.

[thedoc]

So answer me this Mr tillingborn ,,
If there was ever nothing in the universe ,
then where did the something come from,?????????

Beats me, but I think the idea of an infinite universe raises more questions than it answers.

There is a theory of 'Vacuum Genesis' that does not seem to violate any of the known laws of physics. There is also the possibility of cyclic universes, where one universe collapses and another is created, which would not be 'something from nothing'.

[tillingborn]

There is a problem here, and you may have implyed it, but to state it more directly, If Photon decay is used to explain why visible light has decayed into the ultraviolet and beyond and is no linger visible, why hasen't the electromagnetic energy from the infra-red and beyond decayed into the visible spectrum? If so we would still have a sky full of light, and we do not.

Actually thedoc, I hadn't thought of that and it's a really good point, thank you. (To be picky though, I think the argument is that EM loses energy so that UV decays to visible to IR.)

There is a theory of 'Vacuum Genesis' that does not seem to violate any of the known laws of physics.

I think Godfree might reasonably ask what is the difference between a vacuum and nothing. I'm not sure which specific theory you are referring to, but there are several that are based on the idea of a quantum vacuum where particles and anti-particles are seething into and out of existence, so that plus one and minus one jump out of zero and the overall amount is still nothing. Who knows?

There is also the possibility of cyclic universes, where one universe collapses and another is created, which would not be 'something from nothing'.

This is more or less what Nietzsche hand in mind with his idea of eternal recurrence. More recently it was thought to be a possibility if there was enough mass in the universe to reverse the expansion and create a big crunch. I think it has fallen out of favour since it was discovered that the expansion is accelerating.

[thedoc]

I believe that in 'Vacuum Genesis' the Vacuum referes to Nothingness and not a vacuum in the usual meaning. Nothing as in 'no time, no space, no matter, no energy. It is a bit counter intuitive but then there is no compelling reason to expect the universe to conform to our ideas of what it should be.

As far as the 'accelerating expansion', that is a very recent discovery and I think more observation is necessary before we can say that for sure, after all is has been less that a century that the Milkyway Galaxy was the sum total of the universe, and then Hubble discovered the expansion.

Another 'what if' and I realize it is a very big 'what if', but suppose that the universe that is beyond that which we can observe, is much more dense and the gravational attraction is making the local universe appear to be accelerating. We can only observe a sphere aprox. 14 billions light years in radius, and it is believed that the whole universe is much larger. I know this is only speculation but that is what drives science. One point, if you know, how far out has the evidence of this acceleration been observed, could it be a realtively local thing?

Yes, the entire EM spectrum could be decaying but that would mean that all would, at one point, be in the visible part of the spectrum, but I believe this needs a bit more evidence.

[thedoc]

The Universe is not expanding , it is infinitely old and infinitely large ,
There was no beginning , there will be no end .

If this were true, Drakes Equation would go to an infinite number of intelligent life forms in the Universe, and we would have detected something. That we have detected nothing, indicates that there is a limited number of intelligent races and therefore the Universe in finite.

[Godfree]

But not a constant one ,,??
so whats happening to it , why is it finite ,, ie , not constant ,
what will happen to it , how long will it go before it happens ,
surely we are talking about some sort of process of , decay/
change/erosion/conversion , whatever word you want to put on it ,
if it's not a constant , then it has a limited life ,
what sort of life span , distance it can cover ,
do you imagine a radio wave might have , ???
I would imagine it is less than 14 billion light years ,
because light from that far away is disappearing into radio waves ,
so if it starts out as a radio wave it will soon decay ,
so our message , wouldn't go any further than out telescopes can see ,,!!!!
which some may say is all there is , but in an infinite universe ,
it's just a drop in the ocean or a grain of sand on the beach ,,[/quote]

Try and think it through.
Radio transmissions have been leaving earth around 100 years. Everyday broadcasting since 1920. So 92 years.
That would be less than 100 light years distance. Where you get 14billion light years from is beyond my imagination.

The point being that is any civilisation had reached a stage of development that included radio/TV transmissions or similar at a time ago in years commensurate with their distance from earth we would have detected them. Distance is not a problem as EM energy is able to pass through matter far denser than is commonly found in space for huge lengths of time and distance without loosing its energy. As we have not detected such transmissions it is clear that there are no such civilisations within such distances.[/quote]

In an infinitely old universe one could argue , the signals must be there ,
but thats where the 14 billion years comes in , thats the cut off ,
anything further out than that the signal won't reach us ,
and ours won't reach them .
So anybody within 100 light years may be able to pick up our signal ,
But thats a pretty tiny bubble compared to even the size of the known universe ,
so compared to an infinite universe , our signal is a local event ,,!!

[thedoc]

In an infinitely old universe one could argue , the signals must be there ,
but thats where the 14 billion years comes in , thats the cut off ,
anything further out than that the signal won't reach us ,
and ours won't reach them .
So anybody within 100 light years may be able to pick up our signal ,
But thats a pretty tiny bubble compared to even the size of the known universe ,
so compared to an infinite universe , our signal is a local event ,,!!

NO! the 14 billion year cut off only applies to the universe of the 'Big Bang', which is how long ago the 'Big Bang' is calculated to have happened. 14 billion years does not apply to an infinitely old universe because the light would have had an infinite amount of time to reach us in whatever frequency it is. You have no reason to use the 14 billion year cutoff in an infinite universe, and in an infinite universe anything could happen, even FTL travel. Our observable universe is 14 billion light years because that is how old the universe is, it is not infinitely old.

[chaz wyman]

The Universe is not expanding , it is infinitely old and infinitely large ,
There was no beginning , there will be no end .

If this were true, Drakes Equation would go to an infinite number of intelligent life forms in the Universe, and we would have detected something. That we have detected nothing, indicates that there is a limited number of intelligent races and therefore the Universe in finite.

(i think you mean 'is finite" not 'in finite")

Good point.

And the sky at night would not be dark either.

[chaz wyman]

Try and think it through.
Radio transmissions have been leaving earth around 100 years. Everyday broadcasting since 1920. So 92 years.
That would be less than 100 light years distance. Where you get 14billion light years from is beyond my imagination.

The point being that is any civilisation had reached a stage of development that included radio/TV transmissions or similar at a time ago in years commensurate with their distance from earth we would have detected them. Distance is not a problem as EM energy is able to pass through matter far denser than is commonly found in space for huge lengths of time and distance without loosing its energy. As we have not detected such transmissions it is clear that there are no such civilisations within such distances.

In an infinitely old universe one could argue , the signals must be there ,
but thats where the 14 billion years comes in , thats the cut off ,
anything further out than that the signal won't reach us ,
and ours won't reach them .
So anybody within 100 light years may be able to pick up our signal ,
But thats a pretty tiny bubble compared to even the size of the known universe ,
so compared to an infinite universe , our signal is a local event ,,!!

Obviously- but it also means that there is not radio based civilisation in the last 14 billion years in the range of 14 billion light years.

[thedoc]

(i think you mean 'is finite" not 'in finite")
.

Yep, I never claimed to be good at spelling, or typing.

[chaz wyman]

(i think you mean 'is finite" not 'in finite")
.

Yep, I never claimed to be good at spelling, or typing.

I was not criticising, just helping out.

[Godfree]

[There are two standard objections to the universe being infinite. One is that in a infinite universe of infinite age the night sky should be as light as day, since there is a star (in fact an infinity of stars) in every point of the sky and since the light has had forever to get here, it should have done so by now. The photon decay hypothesis at least answers the question of why we aren't dazzled at all times by arguing that distant starlight is no longer in the visible part of the spectrum by the time it reaches us. There should however be an uninterupted lengthening of wavelength with distance and we should be bathed in radiowaves in a way I'm pretty certain we are not.

There is a problem here, and you may have implyed it, but to state it more directly, If Photon decay is used to explain why visible light has decayed into the ultraviolet and beyond and is no linger visible, why hasen't the electromagnetic energy from the infra-red and beyond decayed into the visible spectrum? If so we would still have a sky full of light, and we do not.

Olbers Paradox ,,,that we should see a blanket of white in the night sky ,
because we don't Olber presumes it's because there isn't more ,
but this is clearly wrong , we see nearly to the point they think
is the center or point of origin for the bb,
but we can't see past that , and we know the stars are there ,
because we are talking about the other side of the bb ,
for those who believe such nonsense ,
explain why we don't see the other side , even if the universe were expanding
Olber thinks we should see them ,,,
There is another reason the big bang is busted ,
The map of stars , to look at a 3d image of the known universe,
if the bb were true , there would be a grouping or tightening of the clusters
the closer you got to the center , and they would be more sparce the further out you go .
But this is not the case , there is a even spread of galaxies throughout the universe , there is no pattern radiating out from a central point ,,,

[Godfree]

so compared to an infinite universe , our signal is a local event ,,!![/quote]

Obviously- but it also means that there is not radio based civilisation in the last 14 billion years in the range of 14 billion light years.[/quote]

I would probably agree with that .
the point I tried to make was 14 billion is as far as we will ever be able to communicate with or see with our radio telescopes it would seem .
Unless we learn how to use nutrino's or something better ,
we are limited to how far light or a radio wave can travel .
So we could fairly confidently assume that there is no radio based civilization ,
that existed 14 billion years ago , and light years away ,
but the universe could be bursting with radio based civilizations right now,
but it will take a few billion years for us to get their signal ,
Question can we prove there would be much older civilizations ,???
Yes we can , the large number of old galaxies that exist at the far reaches of our view , proves that the universe is older than 13.7 billion years ,
10 billion years ago , there were thousands of old galaxies in the known universe , some old , "red and dead" you will find is a term given to
galaxies that have completed their life cycle , we see these ,
in 10 billion year old images of our universe ,, the bb is busted ,,!!!

[Godfree]

In an infinitely old universe one could argue , the signals must be there ,
but thats where the 14 billion years comes in , thats the cut off ,
anything further out than that the signal won't reach us ,
and ours won't reach them .
So anybody within 100 light years may be able to pick up our signal ,
But thats a pretty tiny bubble compared to even the size of the known universe ,
so compared to an infinite universe , our signal is a local event ,,!!

NO! the 14 billion year cut off only applies to the universe of the 'Big Bang', which is how long ago the 'Big Bang' is calculated to have happened. 14 billion years does not apply to an infinitely old universe because the light would have had an infinite amount of time to reach us in whatever frequency it is. You have no reason to use the 14 billion year cutoff in an infinite universe, and in an infinite universe anything could happen, even FTL travel. Our observable universe is 14 billion light years because that is how old the universe is, it is not infinitely old.

NO,,!!! ,,,The "observable" universe is 14 billion years old ,
because that is as far back as we can see ,
just use your brain for a minute here , we can see 14 billion light years in all directions , but we are not in the center of the universe ,
explain please , why can't we see what we know is there ,
the rest of the known universe , the other side , why can't we see it ,,???