0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
I just wanted to share that thinking with you.
Maybe I was the one getting too philosophical...I do not agree with the Big Bang. I've always had a problem with the concept. When you collapse the universe down to a singularity, many things lose meaning. For one, you lose motion, so c=0, which results in e=0, because e=c^2. There's also no clear definition of what energy really is, physically. As near as I can tell, energy is not a physical thing, it's derived from motion. Another problem I have is collapsing space down and/or inflating it. I don't consider that a logical possibility. Space is space. Matter can collapse. I can't even say what condensed means in this state. In our universe, we use matter to gauge density, and dimension. If the entire universe is represented by a condensed point of energy, it is massless, so how is it condensed? Size is also meaningless, because nothing exists to compare it to. It is by definition, the entire universe, so it is as infinitely big as it is small. Pick a size. There's also no gravity, and gravity is usually the thing doing any condensing. If you start removing physics, it makes no sense. We kind of base the entire universe as we understand it on physics. The whole thing gets a bit farfetched in my mind. Never happened.Invert it, get rid of the bang, and set efficiency to 100%. Space doesn't expand, matter contracts. I look at the universe more like this.Science tends to look at it like thisI'll get into all that tomorrow maybe.
I do not agree with the Big Bang. I've always had a problem with the concept.
Why are you on a science web site, proclaiming that you have a problem with evidence?
Do you really have nothing better to do with your life?
I'm not proclaiming anything of the sort. ...
No, at the moment, I have nothing better to do than point out the logical flaws in your posts.All the evidence supports the Big Bang idea, yet you oppose it.
Full of overpaid prima donnas following rules set in 1863.
The "a number greater than any countable number" definition applies to infinity- which is a number.But the universe isn't a number."Infinite" is not the same word as "infinity".
Pi is not infinite.It is not a number greater than any countable number because 4 is a countable number and pi is not greater than 4.
Infinity is not what we thought it was.
infinite=constancy of change
It's not a who, it's a what.
Seeing as applying 0 to null static state, which defines finite, would lack both space and time, it would stand to reason that its finite companion value would need to be 1, less time.
Nobody else thinks the definition of infinity needs to change.
What sort of arrogance does it take to claim that everyone else is wrong, and you are right?
If you say " static state, which defines finite" as part of your "proof" then you have a circular argument.
without time applied to the universe
fits both definitions, closely enough
without time applied to the universe That doesn't actually mean anything.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/01/2019 20:20:49 without time applied to the universe That doesn't actually mean anything.Sure it does. The universe without the temporal 4th dimension of time, is finite. No time, no change. Like I said, readers are smart. They can figure it out, or at least I'm reasonably confident most can.
We know that it's finite in time- so that's hardly relevant.You say it's finite in extent, but put forward no evidence.Yet you use that as the basis to say that everyone else before you hass been wrong.You do know this is a science page, don't you?
We are living in a virtual reality
You might be.
I did not mean that in the sense of a simulation, like a video game.
What I meant is that all observations of finite states in our reality are time dependent.
That's meaningless.When does 1 +1 stop being 2?It's finite, so, according to you, it changes.