If space is infinite, and the number of stars is infinite, then working backward, if we were to rewind the tape, hence collapsing all the matter back into the single "blob of mass" that initially exploded...the mass would be infinite. Right? If we take an infinitie amount of mass, add it up, it would be infinite.
Since there couldn't have been a mass of infinite size, is it logical to conclude that space is finite?
2007-10-22 02:10:35 · 7 answers · asked by Richard F 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Thanks so far. For clarification, I have concluded nothing. I'm exploring, looking for like minds. In the counsel of many, there is wisdom.
2007-10-22 03:10:00 · update #1
Your premise may be flawed. Are we certain that space is infinite and that there are an infinite number of stars? Can we assume infinite mass of the primordial point of explosion? But why cannot there be infinite mass? It would appear that you have jumped to the conclusion that space is finite. If indeed the Universe is constantly expanding, then if space is infinite, does this imply that infinity is expanding? It would appear that, yes, infinity is by definition constantly expanding. Thus it is possible that space is infinite and constantly expanding.
Looking at the primordial mass as being infinite, it can be assumed then that this mass is constantly expanding. But how can that be possible? Isn't it a fundamental law of physics that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? Then shall we conclude that the primordial mass was not infinite?
I want to thank the author of the question. Hopefully some of the additional questions posed will be helpful. This was a good mental exercise.
2007-10-22 02:58:13 · answer #1 · answered by Iconoclast 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To begin with, stars are NOT infinite in number. There is some finite, but very large number of stars.
Is space infinite? We don't know. The problem is, to measure space, you have to have two points. We have only one.
If you collapse all the matter and energy back into what is called the mono-block, you still wouldn't have enough to make the block big enough to explode into the universe. This is the origin of postulated "dark matter". It is there, we just can't see it.?????
This is why there are no infinites in the universe. It's like traveling the circumfernce of a circle, you never get to the end, only back to where you started.
2007-10-22 02:27:13 · answer #2 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Space is not infinite--there is actually a map of the universe, a map as complete as our knowlege allows, that shows its boundaries. It is not round as we would expect. It expands in different areas at different rates. This alone proves it is not infinite. What is infinite-maybe--is how far it can go. Some scientists say at some point the universe must quit expanding and begin contracting.
The stars are also not infinite. What is infinite--maybe--is that new ones may be created, but many have also died out.
The "blob of mass" was not infinite. Some scientists have calculated its mass.
2007-10-22 02:45:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the beginning there was a point in the position of the sub constituent of space and time. That point was infinite in it's criminality. Or symmetrically infinite. Or unknown or erroneous using current science.
Buddy, infinity is a scientific concept error. I'm sure if the current science progresses, infinity will be found to be a matematical slur.
Moving on to a more symmetric relation, the state of math is not in velvet. Or, math is not complete. So many uneven edges have been unearthed that I am surprised that a new math has not been discovered.
Calculus was invented by Issac Newton to explain the physics. The new math must be influnced by modern science, and made to explain the tired series of scientific anomalies.
2007-10-22 05:07:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Remember that the "big bang" happened within a space that was far more infinite than the material used to cause the big bang.
The "Big Bang" was a finite act in an infinite space.
2007-10-22 02:52:47 · answer #5 · answered by JORGE N 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're confusing mass with the space it resides in. Think of mass as a rock and space as the ocean.
Therefore, your conclusion is illogical and wrong.
2007-10-22 02:21:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All good things must come to an end...it is an interesting question.
Well, if our sun supports life on our planet, and there are many more suns out there, what are the chances that one of them are supporting life on a planet like ours? We will never know until technology is developed to prove to us otherwise...
2007-10-22 02:17:37 · answer #7 · answered by Jaimee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋