Gold Barz wrote:well infinite number of universes like ours sounds better than universes inside protons, neutrons? it sounds more believable
I agree. It is pretty hard to fathom. It is much easier to think of an infinite number of universes like ours spread out at great distances from each other instead of there being an endless void of nothingness out there.
You are not alone. I would venture to guess that more people are able to accept an infinite Universe with other pockets of space time just like ours over the possibility of there being pockets of space time just like ours inside every atom. That goes back to my point of trying to break down the possibilities into Option A and Option B.
If you don't believe in a void of nothingness then you believe in an infinite number of galaxies of similar size, shape, and stellar density to ours. An infinite number of galaxies with the same number of stars in them as our Milky Way or an infinite number of galaxies that have a sun the same size as ours with a planet the same size as ours in orbits of the same diameter. An infinite number of planets that are habitable. ** None of the three statements above imply that ALL planets, galaxies, or stars are like ours, just that there are an infinite number of each and in an infinite number there must be an infinite number with the properties above **
We can comprehend this because we believe that the X,Y, and Z coordinates of our Cartesian space extend for an infinite distance in all directions. I agree that it sounds better than a void of nothingness. And I agree it sounds better at first then POST's inside of atoms.
But lets think for a moment about the unknown outside our known universe. Well first thing that jumps out at me is the "unknown" part of it being unknown. We have no idea what is there if there is anything at all. Every theory is just pure speculation. We can speculate about a void, speculate about other POST's and speculate about how far these POST's are from each other but we may never know if they exist or anything else about them (or we mightÂ…)
As we speculate about their possible existence I suppose we would want to include those observations we do have available to make logical conclusions. We know about the inverse square law of gravitational attraction and we have a pretty good estimate to the very very approximate mass of our POST so we can actually come up with a very very rough number as to the distance that our center of mass could exert a gravitational attraction upon another mass. What we don't know is the relative mass of the next closest equally dense POST and the next closest more massively dense POST.
So not knowing the "unknown" we are at a disadvantage and could in theory be stationary, moving in a straight line, or most likely moving in an orbit around a much more denser POST and there could very likely be other POSTS of similar mass to ours also revolving around this larger more dense pocket of space time.
Again we need to think in infinite terms, XYZ in an infinite number of directions. If we submit to accepting the likely hood of an infinite number of pockets of space time like ours then we must think how they would interact. It does not make sense for them to all be stationary. And although some of them may be traveling in a straight line it makes more sense to me to think that most of them would in orbit around something denser. And that whole much more dense center itself is in motion and in orbit.
It's OK to say HEY I think the Universe IS Infinite. And it is OK because the other choices of bounded space or a void of nothingness just don't seem to fit into the jigsaw puzzle. So if it is infinite and there are an infinite number of other POST's then they most likely exist as less dense POST's orbiting more dense POST's. That to me makes the most logical sense.
Now again, remember we are saying HEY the Universe IS Infinite. So size can be infinitesimally small or infinitesimally large. Since we are contemplating there not being infinitesimal pockets of space time inside atoms caused by normal atomic flux and collisions of atoms inside all matter then we should only think for a moment about the infinite chain of less dense collections of mass orbiting more dense collections of mass. What would the significant portion of this infinite chain of orbiting collections of mass look like on a scale of lets say a googleplex number of light years across to something that is a googleplex to the 33rd power number of light years across. That would put something monumentally larger than our entire universe at a similar ratio to Plank's length. I wonder what that would look like. I wonder what sort of properties it would have.
See there are some main constants in Physics. The speed of light. Plank's mass or Plank's length, and the gravitational constant. (the gravitational constant is actually not a constant. We perceive it as constant but only because of the frame of reference we are viewing it's affects inside of. Well I see another constant. I see a constant that repeats along this infinite chain of orbiting mass densities. I see a ratio where for some reason that I am still not sure of yet but it has something to do with Plank's Mass that less dense masses stop orbiting more dense masses. I think it has something to do with the size or density of a photon compared to the size or density of an atom at scale but that's a story for a different day. But this constant that I theorize exists causes a scale of matter or a scale of mass in this infinite chain I propose to stop orbiting and start bouncing.
The reason is that all masses equal out or at least equal out within some negligible amount of deviation. That means that instead of less dense orbiting more dense, everything approximates to the same density. At this point we would see matter or mass bouncing off each other instead of orbiting each other. Point particles would be some close approximation to a term we use now to try to grasp the equaling out contained matter. And order would rise from what would otherwise appear to be chaos. Then density takes the back seat and electromagnetics hops into the drivers seat. Funny how much this seems to solve the disparity between quantum mechanics and relativity. Because (A): there is a constant ratio between point particles inside our atoms and the point particle that somewhere in our infinite chain of orbiting densities we are part of. (B): our gravitational constant is not a true constant, and (C): there is something called Aetheric Density that ties relativity and quantum mechanics together to unify all four of the fundamental forces. They are all products of electromagnetic attraction.
But I think I stepped out of the baselines a little, I had too much momentum to round third. What I was getting at is that if you feel the Universe is infinite and you feel it makes sense for matter to exist far away from the 160 billion light years we have been able to approximate then there must exist some properties for this matter to behave and interact that follow what we have observed in our physical universe. I claim MUST and not SHOULD because of my convictions, my house of cards, and little ancillary details elsewhere on my house of cards that in tandem with each other lead credence towards a paradigm that seems to prove itself.
