0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/12/2018 12:26:57"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradoxYes fpr sure the dark sky is an argument against an infinite universe. Ranzan's explanation of redshift leads to the solution. Old light is gradually redshifted out of existence, or at least into lower energy.
"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.
Then you have to define "nothingness", so some suggest nothing is no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy. If that definition is acceptable to describe nothingness, then you can posit a finite universe beyond which is nothingness.
I suggest you just make it a "given" from your personal perspective of the universe, and go ahead and describe the mechanics that are taking place out there that support your premise. For example, you are probably familiar with the concept of entropy on a universal scale. It is the cosmologists enemy, lol. How does an infinite universe defeat entropy?
Beliefs have no place in science.
Nor do non-falsifiable propositions like yours.
The theory is claiming the universe is both finite and infinite at the same time. This amounts to, 1=∞
How does an infinite universe defeat entropy?
No
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 28/12/2018 12:35:55How does an infinite universe defeat entropy?This is one I can answer.
It doesn't defeat it.
The universe is following all the laws of physics exactly as we understand them.
We will eventually fade out of existence, probably gobbled up by black holes, and then poof, gone. It will be a lonely slow death, with all the galaxies eventually moving out of our physical range of view. If we haven't gone and killed ourselves prematurely, or been hit by a killer asteroid.
We are losing energy at a constant rate, probably somewhere at a value of C, or -C. We are moving 3-dimensionally inward towards 0.
Creation is an ongoing process somewhere off in the distant reaches of the universe. Matter rains inward from 1, and trickles down towards 0. Our universe is spherical.
It's more like a scaling process. We are simply zooming out of existence.
Space goes outward at C, matter trickles inward at -C.
The direction of the universe is 1-dimensional, in and out. We move 3-dimensionally.
No dark energy, no expansion, and no acceleration.
Although, a lot of this a matter of perspective.
The constants are variables, or virtual constants, because we are physically bound to C.
Our universe is completely infinite in every manner.
There are no static values, not even 0 or 1. Virtually, there are plenty, but the underlying reality is quite different.
We are analog, not digital.
This is actually a good topic for debate. I could argue both sides, but I’ll let it go.
That's a matter of opinion, in which I completely disagree.
I'm right, and you know it.
Okay then, tell me what experiment could be performed to falsify your idea. I underlined experiment because a logical argument alone does not suffice. Plenty of logical arguments in the past seemed pretty solid until scientific experiments demonstrated them to be in error.
I have a few ideas that might work.
Or, we could just accept that the universe is infinite as we proved mathematically. Priceless.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 28/12/2018 12:43:54Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/12/2018 12:26:57"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradoxYes fpr sure the dark sky is an argument against an infinite universe. Ranzan's explanation of redshift leads to the solution. Old light is gradually redshifted out of existence, or at least into lower energy.Well, it would explain it, but ( like other related ideas) it doesn't work.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light