Given that the universe is infinite in size and time, does that mean that anything that can happen is happening right now and has happened, also happens in the future?
>>969162
how exactly could it be infinite in space when according to the big bang theory it came from a small, finite size?
>>969162
The universe isn't infinate. We know that it's expanding.
We could say that it's "conceptually infinate" becaues it's far too large for us to comprehend, and that it's infinate in the sense that it contains everything that exists.
But it's not literally infine, or the weird stuff you mentioned would be happening
Just because anything can happen does not mean anything will
Also the universe isn't infinite or eternal
>>969171
It expands at the speed of light, so it's impossible to reach its borders
>>969162
>look, and infinite line composed entirely of ducks!
>since it is infinite, there has to be an elephant among the ducks somewhere, r-right?
>>969304
cannot reach the edge because it's not possible to move fast enough =/= infinite
>>971376
>composed entirely of ducks!
how would you know the complete composition of an infinite line?
>>969304
>It expands at the speed of light, so it's impossible to reach its borders
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm no physicist) but isn't the universe expanding quicker than the speed of light? Or was that only during the period right after the Big Bang?
>>969255
well it might be, nothing is set in stone in science, especially as for theory on the origin of the universe
>>971410
It doesn't matter: the fact that it is infinite doesn't implies it has every animal in it.
>there are infinite decimals between 1 and 2
>so there must be a π between 1 and 2, r- right?
>>969162
>The universe
>Infinite
But that's not true.
>>969300
That last bit is debatable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum
>>972441
you cant possibly know that
>>972591
If the universe was infinite then either it is infinitely old, or simply entered existence ex nihilo already infinite.
If it was infinitely old and also infinitely big then logically the night sky would be white because of the infinite stars with infinite time for light to travel to Earth. Obviously neither of these things are the case.
>>972604
>If it was infinitely old and also infinitely big then logically the night sky would be white because of the infinite stars with infinite time for light to travel to Earth
you cant possibly know that
>>969162
Based on current theory no, taking the hubble constant as the expansion parameter you can linearly regress the universe breaking the notion that the universe is isotropic in time and giving a defined notion that at some point time started. This holds up with boson recombination, spontaneous symmetry breaking and other observed standard model parameters (with the notable current exception of the strong weak force.) Some of the measurements from these models are the most accurate in all of physics, (though some of the second and third order effects are some of the least accurate predictions in all physics)
It can be observed in the relation between the redshift of an object and it's distance from the observer, which occurs in all directions indicating a universal rate of expansion that is a function of distance. I.E. all points in the universe are constantly accelerating away from all other points.
Once you have a defined start point the universe is no longer eternal, the universal acceleration rate gives an upper bound before the universe is too sparse for most events to occur (for example star formation), this bound is roughly set between 100 billion and several trillion years with some large error bars on that figure.
As a result the dynamics you see today are a product of the local conditions of the universe which will change with time and result in a lack of repeatability.
>>969304
Expansion is linearly related to length, it expands faster than the speed of light at some lengthscales and slower than the speed of light at others
>>972591
Yes we can, see above
