Tim Attwood <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> if the universe has a finite mass, then the density of the
> universe is very low, and the Schwarzchild radius is very
> very large. Since by definition if a mass traveling outward is included
> into the barycenter mass, the density of the universe could be
> decreasing, and the Schwarzschild radius would be increasing...

  Schwarzchild radius is not dependent on density, only on the amount of
mass.

> >  I don't find any kind of logic in that. Why would there be a "similar",
> > "parallel" version of anything if you travel far enough? It doesn't make
> > any logical sense.

> If the universe is infinite, with infinite mass, then at some distance
> the same patterns of atoms would be there. There are only a fixed
> number of atom types, all the same laws of physics apply, and even
> if the number of atom arrangements on a planet is very huge, it's not
> infinite, so it must be repeated at some point in an infinite universe.

  I call this the shakespeare-monkey fallacy.

  Just because there's an infinite amount of data doesn't mean that every
possible finite pattern appears, nor that a given finite pattern appears
an infinite number of times.

  Even if the universe had an infinite amount of mass (the current
consensus is that this is not so), only a finite amount of it may be
forming atoms. The rest can be eg. singularities, dark energy, dark
matter, etc. (And even if there's an infinite amount of atoms, it doesn't
necessarily mean that that certain patterns must repeat.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message