0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
As I explained, we define finite elements in the universe as time segments.
You even said this yourself.
It cannot go backwards to a point of non-existence.
Entropy is increasing over time. If you model this backwards in time then there was a point in time where entropy was at a minimum. Hence the universe cannot be infinite temporally. To argue otherwise shows a lack of scientific understanding.
As I explained, we define finite elements in the universe as time segments. No we don't.Quote from: andreasva on Today at 13:39:12 You even said this yourself. No, I didn't
We know that it's finite in time- so that's hardly relevant.
For example, one element of the universe is "my house".That's a spatial segment, not a temporal one.
Meters are defined by a segment of time.
You stay right on the surface determined to prove me wrong, without thinking about the simplicity of the problem sitting underneath the surface of what we perceive.
Stop maintaining it over time, or putting energy into it, and your house will eventually deteriorate until it no longer exists.
Consider a black hole for a moment, and then consider my definition of infinity as the constant of change.
he black hole in the center of our galaxy is a constant, for as long as our galaxy exists.
A black hole in my view is a mass constant
But the fact that Einstein experimented with the steady-state concept demonstrates his continued resistance to the idea of a Big Bang, which he at first found “abominable”, even though other theoreticians had shown it to be a natural consequence of his general theory of relativity. (Other leading researchers, such as the eminent Cambridge astronomer Arthur Eddington, were also suspicious of the Big Bang theory, because it suggested a mystical moment of creation.) When astronomers found evidence for cosmic expansion, Einstein had to abandon his bias towards a static Universe, and a steady-state Universe was the next best thing, O’Raifeartaigh and his collaborators say.
A manuscript that lay unnoticed by scientists for decades has revealed that Albert Einstein once dabbled with an alternative to the Big Bang theory, proposing instead that the Universe expanded steadily and eternally. The recently uncovered work, written in 1931, is reminiscent of a theory championed by British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle nearly 20 years later. Einstein soon abandoned the idea, but the manuscript reveals his continued hesitance to accept that the Universe was created during a single explosive event.The Big Bang theory had found observational support in the 1920s, when US astronomer Edwin Hubble and others discovered that distant galaxies are moving away and that space itself is expanding. This seemed to imply that, in the past, the contents of the observable Universe had been a very dense and hot ‘primordial broth’.But, from the late 1940s, Hoyle argued that space could be expanding eternally and keeping a roughly constant density. It could do this by continually adding new matter, with elementary particles spontaneously popping up from space, Hoyle said. Particles would then coalesce to form galaxies and stars, and these would appear at just the right rate to take up the extra room created by the expansion of space. Hoyle’s Universe was always infinite, so its size did not change as it expanded. It was in a ‘steady state’.
I think Einstein was right all along.
The evidence disagrees; it's not a popularity contest.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/01/2019 18:48:21The evidence disagrees; it's not a popularity contest.Ironic. Considering popularity is the entire basis of your argument, not evidence.
No, I have mentioned that you have convinced nobody- which is evidence that your view is unconvincing.And I have pointed out that your viewpoint is at odds with that of everybody else.