Sure, an infinite amount. Now I’ll ask, if all the infinite water started at any single point in the infinite pool, and then was dropped all at once, is there or is there not an expanding edge for the ever increasing area of water? For the universe to have no “edge”, that means all of the energy and matter (at least) would have had to traverse an infinite distance. With a flat universe, I don’t see how that reconciles with the fact we know the universe expanded from a singularity at a finite speed.
It can work with the Universe being infinite at any point in time, and it being infinitely compressed at point 0 ; then, you have an (infinite / infinite) size, which is an undetermined (it could be 0, infinite, or 13.7 cm).
For example, imagine that the SpaceEngine is set to generate galaxies endlessly, for whatever direction you go. Now, imagine that it is tweaked to show the Universe’s evolution, and that you rewind time. You see galaxies closing to each-other, [some steps may have been omitted here] then merge into a big soup of gas and energy which becomes opaque, and the energy density continue to rise. As you close to the point 0, you see that the energy density grows in such a way that it will reach infinite at 0, and when you get to 0 the SpaceEngine crashes because it can’t deal with infinite and divide by 0 and such.
But at any point before that, you can go in any direction and the SpaceEngine will continue to generate (boring, uniform) land(less)scape endlessly.
If the Universe is infinite, it’s pretty much the same thing.
Also, is it proven that there really was a singularity at the beginning? Couldn’t the Universe somehow begin right after that? AFAICT, singularities tend to be avoided in nature, and may even not be present at the centre of a black hole.
Just asking…
Is that those observations that are supposed to have detected micro-disturbances amplified in the cosmological background? I’d heard that they actually hadn’t taken into account the galaxy correctly, and as such were invalid. Can’t find the link back, though…
Also, the fact that the Universe is freakishly flat doesn’t mean that it is infinite. It means that the Universe is very, very stupid vast at least. It may be bigger than that, and even infinite. But I’m not sure it can actually be proved it is infinite, only that it is bigger (and/or smaller, if it is) than X.
To still be on-topic this video may be interesting :
1 Like
You’re assuming that the entire universe started from a point. That’s not what big bang cosmology says. According to current models, the universe was infinite in extent at the time of the big bang, just as it is today. It’s just that the currently observable universe once was contained within a region smaller than a proton.
The observable universe doesn’t contain an infinite amount of energy, and all of the universe’s energy didn’t start out from one place.
If it did, the universe would have a centre!
in a closed universe, that makes sense to me. in a flat universe, it doesn’t. if we were able to observe this galaxy and go back in time, what would it look like? Eventually our galaxy is going to revert back to less condensed state. I suspect the CMB would get hotter and hotter, and distant galaxies would appear closer. And then everything would become more condensed. At one point, if we could survive it, we could see the universe as only being the width of a bedroom. If we could keep our form intact in that state, we would be able to identify the center…
This game looks more like infinity
You would be able to identify the centre of the observable universe. But the thing is, we can already identify the centre of the observable universe. We’re sitting in it.
We’re all at the centres of our observable universes.
A flat universe is, by definition, boundless. It is infinite in extent. If we could run the universe backwards and survive to see it, yes, everything we can see today would, at some point, fit inside the current dimensions of your bedroom. But what about the stuff that’s located beyond? There is stuff that exists beyond our current cosmic horizon. In a boundless, infinite universe, there’s an infinite amount of space beyond our current cosmic horizon.
Imagine the universe, as observed from Earth today, as a large sphere of radius R centred on us. 1 R away from us, sitting our our cosmic horizon, we can imagine beings on another world, looking out into space. Much like us, they will see the universe as a large sphere of radius R, only this time centred on them. Off on the opposite edge of our cosmic horizon, maybe there’s yet another planet with astronomers, who also see the universe as a sphere of radius R, with them at the centre.
Now rewind the clock, and imagine what people from each of our planets see.
I agree with pretty much everything you just said. But I think the thing I am unclear on is whether you believe the universe is actually infinite or just practically infinite in volume. Because to me, everything I know about cosmology indicated that inflation happened faster than the speed of light but still at a finite speed. There is no finite speed that could ever traverse an infinite distance in a finite time period (13.8 billion years). I agree that it is currently practically infinite because we cannot travel faster than the speed of light, and by the time we get to what the Earth sees as the furthest observable galaxy, the ship will get there and the universe will have expanded even more accordingly, as you said, aliens looking further than we are ect ect. But I don’t think it is even theoretically possible for a finite expansion speed to produce a universe infinite in volume with a finite time constraint.
As I understand it the universe was always infinite, even at the Big Bag it was infinite.
As said in the video. With infinity you can expand even if you are allready infinitly big because you never run out of anything needed to expand.
Henry Reich repeated everything I was (trying) to say. Where did he say, at the big bang, it was infinite? Except I disagree with his assessment that the “whole” universe has a temporal edge but no spatial one. That is simply impossible unless it’s a closed universe. Again, the idea of a finite speed of expansion needing to reach infinite volume within a finite timeframe- impossible. And in which case, there is an identifiable center.
I think there are currently only two conceivable options: either the universe is closed despite observational data, or the actual universe not just the observable portion from here, does have an edge that is in the process of expanding, but nonetheless finite.
You know what is sort of unnerving? The understanding of the topology of the universe (and everything else in science) is based on present observation. And currently, we can only see the light that is just reaching us. If in reality, beyond the observable horizon, topology really is closed with the observable universe only being a flat local topology, and the edge moving at light speed has already begun to collapse back in on itself in a crunch, there is a wave of annihilation snuffing out entire galaxies moving towards us and we would never know because we couldn’t see it, even if it just annihilated Mars. One moment we would just cease to exist because the entire solar system was annihilated in the truest sense of the word possible.
Yep, I think I better play some Star Citizen to stop thinking about that… expertly back on topic.
In fact this is an enlightening conversation. Does a mod want to move the past several posts to the science thread?
By definition, under our current theoretical framework, both flat and open universe are physically infinite in scope. Only a closed universe has a finite amount of space.
There is no need for the universe to have expanded at an infinite speed, because at the time of the big bang the entire of the infinity of the universe was not contained in a single point. That’s pop-science bullshit. The whole of the currently observable universe was contained within a region the size of a subatomic particle. The currently observable universe is today a finite volume of space, just as it was at the time of the big bang. But there are an infinite number these volumes of space which was can imagine bordering one another which were, at the time of the big bang, also finite, and also still bordering one another.
The universe started out as infinite, and it continues as infinite. You’re thinking of the big bang like an explosion. Like that pool from up thread was once finite in size, but then expanded to be infinite. That was never so. It was infinite at the beginning, and it is infinite today. It’s just that the level of water has dropped.
The video doesn’t have to say it. It’s a result up in General Relativity.
Impossible based on what? This is an empty assertion you’ve been repeating.
No, and no. Again, the universe started out as infinite, and full of stuff everywhere. The universe expanded, and the distance between that stuff increased. This requires neither an infinite rate of expansion, nor does it require a centre.
In fact, it only requires a centre if you assume all of the matter and energy in the universe originated from a single point. The pool started out as infinite in expanse, and it started out with 12 feet of water in it. The pool expanded, and now there is 6 inches of water in it. At no point did the water need to flow at an infinite speed.
What, exactly, does the edge of the universe look like? What does that mean? What happens when you fly toward it? What’s beyond that edge?
The big bang model is built on general relativity, and GR is built on mainfolds. One of the properties of manifolds is that they’re smooth (on some scale, they’re effectively flat), and that they have no edges. This means that, if the universe is flat or open, it is spatially infinite. By definition.
… No. In the big crunch model, there’s no invisible wall of death sweeping through the universe, destroying stuff. The expansion of space reverses, and the space between galaxies starts to shrink. This is something we’d see. We’d be able to measure this by comparing the local red/blue shifts of galaxies to those seen in galaxies far, far away. The same technique that has shown us that the expansion of the universe is accelerating would show is that the expansion has slowed, stopped, or reversed. In fact, if it had already reversed, we’d even be able to measure how long ago that happened. If the universe were currently shrinking toward a big crunch, nearby galaxies would have blue shifts, and those blue shifts would be progressively smaller for galaxies that are farther and farther away. At some distance, we’d see galaxies that had no blue shift at all. Beyond those, we’d see galaxies with red shifts.
1 Like
Well there’s your problem. You’re dealing with the size of the universe as if it’s something the human brain is able to understand. It’s not. The size of the universe is something that you can pretend to understand, maybe write up some equations for, but whether or not it’s infinite it’s big enough that our brains can’t physically contain the scale of it.
If any of you guys are Human-Patriots and want to take part of Operation Pitchfork, feel free to join us. SCG over and out.
Wait, Operation Pitchfork is a go already? Or is this just a recruiting opportunity?
Recruiting from what I can tell.
Way to necro dude…
1 Like
1 Like
I have a question I always ask myself when hearing about Star Citizen.
Why is the hype so big?
Every time someone talks about SC and tells how great it will be I always get a very big urge to just … meh.
I’ve seen the ships, the prototypes, the modules … the prices … and screen shots, videos. But it looks like Crysis in space. Loads of details, overblown effects, big booms … totally Crysis in space. … Hmm that game also had a lot of hype thinking about it.
Sure it comes down to personal preference. But with SC my feeling tells me everyone is misinformed … and then I ask myself if it is just me … and so I ask here.
Have I missed anything substantial about SC that would justify all that hype? Every time Scot Manley does a video about SC, it sounds like there are legions of supporters for it.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t scorn it because it’s successfull, and also don’t want to necro all the discussions. I just can’t comprehend why I can’t just accept the hype.
If you know me then you know that I often only realize things while talking, typing them … so these things came to mind:
- It’s filled with features some people always demanded: Walking in Stations and Ships, immerseiv Animations, Cliche “Good” Graphics and Graphic Style, multi Crewed Ships, Cockpits, FPS and more
My feeling and I think also my experience tells me that those features alone don’t make a good, fun or enjoyable game … those features probably have very little effect on the actual gameplay and are all additional goodies, somewhat distanced from the core gameplay … I think I just notice that I’ve not being sold by this game, which is strange because every other bigger project has fascinated me at least a little.
Oh yeah and I’ve “been there” when they first showed their first trailer in the first live stream. 
2 Likes
It’s not just you.
I don’t know. It just seems like the hype is… unjustified. I mean, if you’re dream game involves spending obscene loads of cash on internet spaceships, then this is a dream come true, I guess. But, as you said, it seems like the main point of it is to have the highest poly count possible on weird ship designs.
1 Like
Corrected for emphasis
2 Likes
I got really excited for the countdown and announcement, as I was a really big Freelancer fan, and was hoping for a proper spiritual successor. I was underwhelmed by the reveal, but I figured I’d wait and see.
Then the promotional emails started coming. Pledge this much, get this ship! New ship available! Buy this ship now! Never any real talk about release or launch, but they were already selling ships.
I don’t remember the last time my interest in something died so quickly.
I hope people enjoy it, and that those who have already tossed a bunch of coin at it get their money’s worth, but I checked out many, many months ago.
2 Likes