Re: Olber again (was: Re: Big Bang is Bunk)
From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Tue Jul 31 2001 - 01:33:17 MDT
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:36:40 -0400
> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> extropians@extropy.org Re: Olber again (was: Re: Big Bang is Bunk)Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>1.5DD23F50@datamann.com> <20010730193428.A2235@akira.nada.kth.se>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Anders Sandberg wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>> >
>> > If the universe is already infinite, how could it be expanding? If it is
>> > expanding, how could it be called a 'steady state'?
>>
>> You can have an expanding steady state. Just imagine an infinite plane
>> which is growing so that two points separated by one unit of length at time
>> t will be separated by two units of length at time t+1, for example:
>>
>> x(t)=x(0)*2^t y(t)=y(0)*2^t
>>
>> This is a simple toy universe with infinite past, future and spatial
>> extent.
>
>Ah, but Anders, doesn't this run into the mass limitations in the 'how
>big is hell' essay I copied here recently???
>
It not only runs into the "why is the sky dark at night if the universe is infinite?" Olbear's Paradox, but also into the "since gravity is a function of the total mass in the universe, if the universe is infinite, why isn't every body a singularity?" of Mach's Principle.
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:19 MST