[andreasva (OP)]

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 this



I'll get into all that tomorrow maybe. 

[Bogie_smiles]

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 this



I'll get into all that tomorrow maybe. 

We are a ways apart. I must have been mistaken about your views on the Big Bang.

Never-the-less, if you view the big bang in the context of a traditional Singularity, which some interpret as an infinitely dense, zero volume point/space, then the generally accepted view has moved on from there, according to many in the scientific community.

You are spinning your wheels if you are arguing against an infinitely dense Singularity these days, as far as I can tell. Maybe some well informed members can set us straight? For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Notice how in the Wiki link, they talk about it: TheBig Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe[1][2][3] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[4][5][6]The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state. They no longer refer to infinitely dense, zero volume.

The preconditions to our observable Hubble view that I lobby for, in regard to our local big bang event, consist of simply a super massive big crunch composed of a finite amount of matter and energy, that collapsed/banged into expansion somewhere in the landscape of the greater universe, where multiple big bang events have and are occurring across the infinite space and time.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[andreasva (OP)]

Why are you on a science web site, proclaiming that you have a problem with evidence?

I'm not proclaiming anything of the sort. 

Why are you on a forum trying to intimidate and harass people?  Do you really have nothing better to do with your life?

[Bored chemist]

Do you really have nothing better to do with your life?

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.

[Bogie_smiles]

I'm not proclaiming anything of the sort. 

...

Note that I edited my reply #301 to add a Wiki link and a comment.

[andreasva (OP)]

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.

You're just a chemist.  So what?  You apparently do more posting than you do chemistry.  The only thing you accomplish here is running off visitors and contributors from this website.  You are the exact stereotype for why someone would hate scientists.  Fortunately, I'm not one to fall into the stereotype trap, as I know you are a unique individual in the process, and someone we all have to deal with on occasion.  I really believe you think you're a "Forum God" at this point.

That you should say something like this about football players...

Full of overpaid prima donnas following rules set in 1863.

Proves my point.  Very ironic actually. 

And the truth is, you've lost this debate thus far, because you say things like this. 

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".

After defining it exactly as you say it isn't..

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.

And even the definition contradicts you

in·fin·i·ty
/inˈfinədē/
noun
noun: infinity

    1.
    the state or quality of being infinite.

Same word, same meaning. Ones a noun, and ones an adjective.  The only difference.

No, I do not believe in the Big Bang.  I have a theory that contradicts it.  And not even the "Forum God" can disprove it. 

1. Olber Paradox
I've already explained, my theory does not follow the paradoxes assumptions about an infinite universe.  In fact, my theory contradicts every single point made in the paradox, and uses the conclusion to support my own.  That wasn't even intentional.  Mine just happened to not be anywhere near the same infinite universe described in the paradox.

2. Expansion
Contraction of matter and expansion of space are inverted views.  Who's knows for sure what is real and what isn't?  I've suggested that we move within all 3-dimensions of space, including inward.  You wouldn't notice, because you're bound to that state, and everything you used to observe would also be bound to that state.  You cannot determine which is true by the redshift.  They are mirrored images. 

3. CMB
Supports either theory here to.  The CMB takes the universe to extremely hot, not necessarily to a big bang.  It doesn't conclude anything.  Considering the idea of Olber, I direct all that energy outward, while cooler energy moves inward.  There's a natural gradient separation between hot and cold, which makes the entire universe a fully active thermodynamic state, recirculating energy at exactly 100% efficiency. 

4. Dark energy
Contradicts the laws of physics, and the big bang.  It is the equivalent to my warm cup of coffee boiling over the longer it sits on my desk.  Its efficiency exceeds 100% over time.

And yes, I understand I may also be violating thermodynamic efficiency by setting the universe to 100%, but then again, energy cannot be created or destroyed, so who's to say that the total universe might be the highest order in a thermodynamic process, and the cause of thermodynamics as we understand it.  We are the way we are because we are derivative state of the greater process.  We can never achieve 100% efficiency, because we are inherently less than the greater universal process.  We're a copy.     

As I've repeatedly explained, I cannot prove or disprove this myself, and it's not your job to tell people what to think and suppress ideas.   

And if you don't like what you're reading, walk away.  It's your choice.  I think people are smart enough to decide for themselves what's right or wrong.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  I'm okay with it.  But as I've said, I don't know how to disprove this myself either.  It's a puzzle.       

You seem to assume the entire readership is a bunch of idiots that can't think for themselves, so you have to think for them. 

You are nothing more than a distraction on this thread.  You don't engage, you impose your opinion.  Your entire argument is based on a Google cut & paste, and a wiki link.  And that's it.     

I've laid out a solid argument thus far.
   
Defining infinity as, a number greater than any countable number, is the logical equivalent of stating finite is, a number more equal than any countable number.  It makes no sense.  Finite and Infinite are potential states of the universe, not numbers.  They are opposing states.  One is dynamic, and the other static.  I do not consider a static state of the universe to be a logical conclusion.   Our perception of finite is virtual, not physical, because we are viewing the universe through segments of time.  Time is not finite, and segments of time are merely virtually finite.  A truly finite value for any state is 0, when it ends.  Time moves negatively for matter, so it moves backwards from 1 to 0, which are truly finite values.  Space-time always moves forward from 0 to 1.  Space-time is the present, and we drift backwards in time until we cease to exist on a finite value of 0.  Light moves at C, so it remains entirely in the present, keeping pace with the universes constancy of change through time. 

finite = absence of change
infinite = constancy of change

The less change, the more finite, the less time, the less constant
The more change, the more infinite, the more time, the more constant

Pretty simple concept, and it seems to apply to everything I can imagine. 

If all you have to offer is a 400 year old definition of infinity, which states, a number greater than any countable number, then you've got nothing in this debate.

Infinity is not what we thought it was.  It is limited by the finite states from which it is derived.  It's not finite, but it's not boundless either, dimensionally speaking. The temporal dimension of time is the only truly boundless state, with no definable beginning or end.     

If you honestly believe I don't understand the challenges I face in my own theory, than you're more arrogant than I could have possibly imagined.  I know I'm swimming upstream in heavy currents.  Duh. 

[Bored chemist]

You have missed the linguistic distinction between "infinite" and "infinity".

Infinity is not what we thought it was.

Says who?

[andreasva (OP)]

Says who?

It's not a who, it's a what.  Mathematical logic.  x=x.  If the universe was finite, that's all it could ever be.  The finite numeric baseline for a static universe is 0, which we are not.  A comparison finite value is a requirement for mathematics, and seeing as the universe is defined mathematically, the universe needs a minimum of 1, because all mathematics can be accomplished within the space of 0 to 1.  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.  Time is the common element between the numerically assigned values of 0 and 1, as applied to a finite state of the universe.  The finite universe can either be nothing, or something, less time.  Time is change, so when time is removed, no change is possible.  That is the way the universe understand finite values.  We can most certainly apply finite to a number of things if we wish, like segments of time, but it doesn't make them finite, it makes them virtually finite. 

Einstein as we know, wove 3-D space into the 4th dimension of time, into what we all know as the fabric of space-time.  That is what infinity physically represents, space-time, because it is not a finite value in x=x.  Through deductive reasoning, it's all that remains. 

infinite=constancy of change
finite=absence of change

As I said, our universe cannot be fully understood mathematically, only logically.  I cannot prove this to be correct one way or another.  It is a personal choice to accept and understand the logic.  You can either agree, or disagree.  The choice is yours to make.

Personally, I trust math, the logic I present, and Einstein.  I don't believe it, I simply accept the logic to be true. 

Einstein was right, once again.

The universe is infinite, not finite.

In my personal opinion of course.     

[Kryptid]

infinite=constancy of change

Do you think that the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter is constantly changing? Take careful note how that question asks nothing about our ability or inability to calculate that ratio.

[Bored chemist]

It's not a who, it's a what.

Nope, it's a "who", and it's only you.
Nobody else thinks the definition of infinity needs to change.

You said you think I'm arrogant because I said you were wrong.
What sort of arrogance does it take to claim that everyone else is wrong, and you are right?

You say things like

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. 

But it's word salad, but, as far as it says anything, it's begging the question.
If you say " static state, which defines finite" as part of your "proof" then you have a circular argument.

[andreasva (OP)]

Nobody else thinks the definition of infinity needs to change.

Possible I suppose, but unlikely.   And that most certainly isn't proof that it doesn't need changing.

What sort of arrogance does it take to claim that everyone else is wrong, and you are right?

I don't know.  Maybe you should post that question on an atheist forum.  They might be able to shed some light on your inquiry. 

But you know as well as I do the number of people that believe something is no basis for an argument.

I'm just giving readers my reasoning.  People are free to choose what they'd like to accept.  I've said all along I can't prove it or disprove it to anyone, including myself.  You know my position on the topic.  I've made that pretty clear throughout this discussion.     

If you say " static state, which defines finite" as part of your "proof" then you have a circular argument.

stat·ic
/ˈstadik/Submit
adjective
1.
lacking in movement, action, or change.

finite adjective
fi·​nite | \ˈfī-ˌnīt
\
Definition of finite

1a : having definite or definable limits

0 and 1 without time applied to the universe fits both definitions, closely enough.  Not sure what you're disputing.  I can certainly rewrite things for more clarity, if you're having difficulty inferring context.  I admit that I probably don't write things in the best style sometimes.  I try to explain things the best I can.  Doesn't always come out the way I intend sometimes, I suppose. 

I think anyone reading this can infer what I'm implying from the overall content.  I think they're all smart, and can read between the lines reasonably well.  It's an informal topic of discussion, not a formal theory.

0 applied to nothing is the baseline definition of a finite universe.  And we most certainly aren't nothing.  Seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me.  x=x.

[Bored chemist]

without time applied to the universe

That doesn't actually mean anything.

fits both definitions, closely enough

So, something meaningless fits your definition.

What does that say about the definition?

[andreasva (OP)]

    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.     

[Bored chemist]

    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?

[andreasva (OP)]

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?

I know this is a New Theories topic on a science forum, which I assume would be intended to push the limits of what we think we understand.  I assume everyone here is after new ideas and new concepts.  I would never post this on a purely physics forum, as that would be inappropriate, and a violation of most forum rules. 

Yes, I say finite to extent, which we're not.  Exactly.

We are living in a virtual reality infinitely, wedged between two potential finite states.  So the idea that we're defining the universe via a temporal definition of finite is extremely relevant.  Is that a truly accurate definition of what the universe knows as finite.  That is unknown.  Not know in the sense that it thinks obviously.
 
In my view, true finite is defined by a truly finite state of the universe, and that baseline is nothing.  0 applied to nothing is the complete absence of both space and time.  If the universe was nothing, it would be defined as finite.  Clearly that is true.  So there's a conflict when looking at our current state of the universe today and calling it finite, when everything is in a constant state of change.  Right now it is not finite, which is blatantly obvious by all observations, and I think most everyone would agree with that statement.  So, what is it right this moment if it's not finite? 

What does finite truly mean in terms of the universe?  I don't think that's a question that has ever been delved into to my knowledge.  We take for granted the virtual nature of our existence, and how we define things temporarily.   

We define everything we observe temporarily by default, which is not a pure definition of a finite state, clearly.  0 is the baseline.

So, if we believe equality's are true in math, and finite really does mean finite in extent for the universe, then in x=x, the only option is infinite.  Einstein mixed space-time into a single woven fabric.  By it's very nature, space must change with time, continually.  To prove that wrong, you would have to disprove Einstein.

So yes, I don't have a lot to go on.  Just 0.  A lot can be said about 0 though, like it needs a finite partner in math.  It's also finite, and it's absolute.  We can apply it to a null state.  We aren't 0 obviously, which is also is known to be theoretically impossible.  Seems like it's impossible to be finite by theory, as well as mathematical logic. 

I've been thinking about this for 35 years.  I know it's right, but I certainly don't expect everyone to get it, or accept it.  I also know I can't prove it.  But, I think I've put up a fairly convincing argument.   

And yes, it's very possible everyone is wrong.  Is that so bad?  Being wrong is not a bad thing, because it opens the door to other possibilities.  I've lost count on the number of times I've been wrong over the years.  I'm indifferent to being wrong anymore.  I self correct and move forward.  Even in this debate of ours my view has shifted somewhat, although I doubt anyone noticed.  Olber actually resolved a long standing issue of mine.  It was a road block to full committal for me personally.  It made me look at my own view a little differently.  It helped me rule out additional universes, which I kept seeing as possible.  I only see one now.  I also couldn't see where the matter was flowing in from.  It's recycling, which aligns perfectly with the laws of physics.  Energy cannot be create or destroyed, just change forms.  Olber was the perfect solution to the final piece.  I've also discovered a few other things on the fly.       

And I do have you to thank for that, Bored Chemist.  I would have never found and read Olber on my own.  I have a day job.  My time is limited, so I don't know how much longer I'll be posting.  Olber was that missing link.   

Infinity is the constant of change.

[Bored chemist]

We are living in a virtual reality

You might be.

[andreasva (OP)]

You might be.

I had a feeling that was going to be a focal point.  I was hesitant to explain it that way. 

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.  Our finite observations are experienced through segments of time.  We are bound to these time segments.  That's our reality.  I can see why holographic theory is gaining traction in physics.  Just saw an article suggesting observational evidence to support it.  Hit all the headlines the other day.  That's certainly not what this theory is about, however.

[Bored chemist]

I did not mean that in the sense of a simulation, like a video game. 

Then why did you say it?

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

That's meaningless.
When  does 1 +1 stop being 2?
It's finite, so, according to you, it changes.

Your lack of understanding only makes it meaningless to you.  As I explained, we define finite elements in the universe as time segments.  You even said this yourself.  The universe is finite in time, and you considered this an irrelevant point.  I don't consider it irrelevant.  Our range of view may be finite in time, but the universe is infinite, not finite in my view.  The universe is bound to the forward motion of time.  It cannot go backwards to a point of non-existence.  The universe is bound to the constancy of change, as Einstein said, space and time are woven into a fabric of space-time.