Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: andreasva on 26/12/2018 20:02:01

The universe has to make logical sense in terms of human reasoning, not just mathematical sense, because the universe is following the laws of math, precisely. However, mathematics can be manipulated to support any false human reasoning, which can make it exponentially more difficult to make sense of the universe. And the deeper we go down that rabbit hole the harder it becomes to climb out. Opinions become solidified, and the science turns into belief. And then we just keep piling on the nonsense in support of faulty human reasoning. I’m sure mathematically most of it checks out. And I stress the word, most. That doesn’t make it right.
I guess where I take issue most is the Big Bang.
In order to have a “big bang”, we compact the entire universe down to a state of energy that’s void of all physics. Somehow this imaginary state of energy spontaneously burst into a universe, outside the laws of physics as we understand it. It’s just a clump of energy, where e=e, in which energy is completely void of an actual physical definition, even with our current understanding. e=c^2, or e=mc^2, so without C, E=0. This imaginary state of energy is so far removed from physics, that even the notion of density becomes meaningless. Its value can only be described as 1 mathematically, because it is only equal to itself in this state. None of it means anything.
Isn’t this the exact definition of pseudoscience? We’ve eliminated physical properties of the universe, and then piled on more theory to answer a question in support of a theory. Enter intelligent design. It’s no different really. The big bang is baseless, hinging on a single observation, the redshift. And no, the CMB only takes us to hot. That doesn’t imply a big bang.
The big bang also posits the condition of nothing, which again contradicts our own more realistic understanding of physical laws. Theoretically, nothing as a state, or absolute 0, is physically impossible. So, when we claim nothing came before the big bang, or nothing lies beyond the universe, we’re disagreeing with our own scientific reasoning. We’re saying, nothing, as a condition or state, can coexist with something. I don’t know, but it sounds a lot like 0=1 to me.
Can you really argue this rationally? I don’t think so. Something is fundamentally wrong with the Big Bang concept, and I don’t see any fix. I think the most obvious answer is the truth. It’s wrong.
I think this begs to question, can you really compress the genie back into the bottle?
I don’t think you can, because there probably is no beginning point. Makes far more logical sense, doesn’t it? The universe is a continuous state, and we jumped in somewhere along the way. The laws of physics are the only true constants in the universe. Without the laws of physics, a universe wouldn’t be here, ever.
Now you can claim I’m not a physicist, and that I don’t understand the math. I would have to agree on both, and confess, I’m not a physicist, and I do not understand the math. In my defense though, I seriously doubt any else does either. The reasoning makes no sense. I look for simple answers to complex problems. The truth is, I think the real answer has been in front of us all along. It’s not really a complex mathematical problem as much as it is a deeper understanding of the fundamental mathematical logic and human reasoning defining the universe. It’s a matter of grasping the concept of nothing, and infinity, and absolute. I don’t think we were ever done asking the most profound question in science.
How do you get something from nothing?
When you remove all the complexities of energy that we’re immersed in, and view space from a standpoint of a continuous empty void, that’s what the universe should be. There is no other ingredient available. That’s the underlying reality of the universe, period. Really think about that potential state.
So, how do we go from that potential state, to us?
With Big Bang reasoning, we take the sum total of the entire universe, hit rewind, and package it into a condensed ball of energy, and claim it’s the beginning. Right from the start you can see a flaw in this reasoning. There is no physical substance called energy. Unless of course, someone has a bottle of this raw material labeled “Pure Energy” sitting on a shelf somewhere that they want to submit as evidence. Anyone? I’d like to see someone dispute this rationally. You can’t, because there’s not a shred of evidence to suggest energy is a physical element in our makeup. I know, it sounds nuts, but it is an undeniable fact. There is no physical definition for energy. We don’t know what it is.
Let’s break this down rationally, starting with nothing.
Nothing, is exactly what it implies, nothing, or numerically 0. Mathematically, 0=0, always. 0 is a natural absolute value. 0 is also finite. Our universe obviously, is not 0. We are the empirical evidence, which becomes selfevident to that fact. And I would agree with physics that this state is theoretically impossible to achieve, ever. 0 is a real value, or real number, when looking at it in the context of the whole of the universe. Our universe could potentially be 0, but it’s not. Only the potential exists. And I would also argue this potential as infinite, because it is theoretically impossible to achieve. If in fact, 0, ever became the state of the universe, our universe would be nothing forever and always, because 0 is a finite value. 0 can never be anything else but 0. The universe would be in a perfect equilibrium with itself, forever and always. Spontaneously changing that state would be a violation of the most basic fundamental laws of mathematical equality as we understand it, because 0=0, and nothing else.
So, when I hear someone claim nothing lies beyond the universe, or suggests nothing came before the big bang, I have to say, nonsense. Nothing, as a condition of the universe, cannot coexist with something. 0=0. Can anyone really dispute this reasoning in a rational manner? No.
So, to answer the first question, “how do you get something from nothing?” You don’t. 0=0. 0≠1.
Our universe is, >0.
This brings us to another potential state of the universe, 1, which is a little discussed possibility, if at all. We tend to think of nothing and then the universe. This is the “something” state of the universe, but in the context of describing the whole of the universe in this manner, 1 is an absolute value. Meaning simply, it’s not 0. This is the potential continuous void state of the universe I mentioned earlier. It’s not nothing, but it’s a lot like nothing in that our universe would be an empty sea of darkness forever and always. This too is also a theoretically impossible state, similar to 0. Like 0, its potential is also infinite, because the universe can never be in this state either. 1=1. It is the only other true real number to describe the entirety of the universe mathematically. The universe has the potential to be 0 or 1, but it is neither, because both states represent a finite value. If the universe achieved this state of 1 in the absolute sense, it would suffer the same fate as 0. Something more would never happen forever and always, and that would be that. The universe would achieve a perfect equilibrium with itself, forever and always. Once again, spontaneously changing that state would be a violation of the most basic fundamental laws of mathematical equality as we understand it, because 1=1, and nothing else.
Our universe is, <1.
Clearly, these states have never occurred, because we’re here. We are the empirical evidence, which again becomes selfevident to the answer. I think we get the two values confused when describing the universe, because they are inversely equivalent to each other. Something is the antonym to nothing, but similar in effect because we wouldn’t exist in either state. They are exponentially different, but inversely equivalent.
Here’s where things start to get a little more difficult to grasp or accept. If you follow basic math, I think the answer becomes selfevident.
Are we infinite, or finite?
What becomes clear to me, is that finite is a theoretically impossible state for describing anything in the universe. We would not be here if the whole of the universe represented a finite value in any manner. There are only 3 logical answers when describing the whole of the universe, 0, 1, and infinite, because no other values make logical sense. None of these values can coexist. 0 ≠ 1, 0 ≠ ∞, and 1 ≠ ∞. 0 = 0, 1=1, and ∞=∞.
I suppose you could argue I am being too rigid mathematically, and that the universe doesn’t have to follow our mathematics. I would argue, it clearly does. If it didn’t, e=mc^2 would be meaningless. If there’s one thing we’ve learned in all of physics, our universe is following mathematical logic, precisely. In math, 0≠1, and it will never spontaneously change to 0=1. Math would make no sense if the rules of equality spontaneously changed. More importantly, our universe wouldn’t make any sense.
This is exactly what the big bang attempts to do. It starts with 1, represented as e=e, wraps it in 0, and then spontaneously changes 1 to some other random finite value, which becomes e=c^2. In addition, we’re apparently still shrouded in 0, because there is “nothing” beyond the universe. Does this really make sense? No. Of course not. Still, there’s a comfort level in suggesting it does, and it’s baffling.
Think of our universe as you would a simple bidirectional light switch.
In the off position, this represents the universe in a state of absolute nothingness. Its numeric value would be 0. This state could not spontaneously change to any other value, because 0=0. It would be a finite position of the universe. The universe would essentially reach a state of perfect equilibrium with itself, and that would be that forever and always. The total universe would be completely finite. Clearly our universe is not in the off position, so its numeric value is >0.
So, let’s switch it to the on position, but in the context of defining the universe, this on position is absolute. Its numeric value would be 1. It would be a finite position like 0, but only in the sense of forever and always, because 1≠0. Like 0, our universe would essentially reach a state of perfect equilibrium with itself, and that would be that forever and always. The total universe would be completely finite, because 1=1. Clearly our universe is not in the on position, so its numeric value is <1.
That leaves us with only one other possibility for that switch, which is somewhere in between 0 and 1. That position is not a finite value, it is infinite. Not just infinite though, it is infinitely variable. You cannot say where that switch is, at any given moment, but you can know where it isn’t. It is not 0 or 1. This is the only other choice we have in describing the universe, which is infinitely variable, or more to the point, analog. Our universe is in an infinitely variable analog state, not finite.
The Big Bang has that switch in the on and off position simultaneously, which then spontaneously creates a third finite position. It doesn’t make sense. It is an invalid theory. The Big Bang is nonsensical human reasoning. The Big Bang is wrong, and there’s no way to correct it.
Again, how could anyone argue this rationally? You just can’t, unless you want to abandon all human reasoning and simultaneously abandon mathematical logic. Or possibly, wave a magic wand.
Our universe is infinite, not finite. More profoundly, it can never possess a finite value, ever, so it is in an infinite state of change. There is no beginning, and there is no end.
My empirical evidence is us, or existence itself. That’s my observation.
My mathematical proof is basic fundamental equalities.
0=0
1=1
∞=∞
Only one of these equalities when applied to the whole of the universe is capable of variability. No other value makes rational sense, because X=X. And clearly, through decades of observation, our universe is analog. Sound, light, matter, gravity, etc., can all be described in wave format. Waves are infinitely variable analogs. Even we can’t consider our own lives as finite, because our own existence is the essence of continual change and evolution. We’re born, we peak, and then fade out, just like a wave. Yes, our total life could be described as finite, but our journey through time is anything but finite.
Following this reasoning, I could go on to dispel the myth of Dark Energy. It’s not real. I could also explain how expansion is not real. However, I think it’s prudent to leave this stet at the moment.
My sole prediction is that Dark Energy will never be detected or discovered directly. It’s a wild goose chase.
I will make a secondary less certain prediction. Dark matter is probably a myth, and all attempts to detect it will more than likely fail. I suspect a deeper understanding will adjust the math in spiral galaxies. As I confessed earlier though, I do not fully understand the math, so I’m not sure how we arrived at the theory. I get it, so it’s possible. It feels suspect to me though, but I could be wrong here. Not sure.
I think if we embrace the reality of an infinite universe, science will come to the same conclusions as I did, naturally. It forces you down a logical path, that makes rational sense.
The Big Bang theory was based on a preconceived notion that the universe was created, from a beginning. It assumed a beginning. Hubble’s observation was purely coincidental, in my view. The universe is in an infinitely variable analog state, always has been, and always will be. There was never a singular beginning event. It takes the laws of physics to make things happen. You can’t remove or disregard the laws of physics to satisfy an answer. The big bang does this in spades, with a singularity sitting in nothing, which is void of all physics by default.
So, seeing as how I'm killing off the Big Bang, I suppose I need to speculate a new replacement.
The universe is a wave of infinite height and infinite length, with an ongoing frequency of 1.
That's my best guess...
And if anyone is interested, I will elaborate further.

The universe has to make logical sense in terms of human reasoning
No it doesn't. The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us anymore than it is under obligation to make sense to a gorilla or a gnat. We just happen to be the smartest of the three.
In order to have a “big bang”, we compact the entire universe down to a state of energy that’s void of all physics. Somehow this imaginary state of energy spontaneously burst into a universe, outside the laws of physics as we understand it.
No, such a condition is not necessary for a Big Bang.
So, to answer the first question, “how do you get something from nothing?” You don’t. 0=0. 0≠1.
The Big Bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing.
The Big Bang has that switch in the on and off position simultaneously, which then spontaneously creates a third finite position. It doesn’t make sense. It is an invalid theory. The Big Bang is nonsensical human reasoning. The Big Bang is wrong, and there’s no way to correct it.
What's nonsensical human reasoning is your attempt to equate a physical object like the Universe to a single number or an on/off switch.

No it doesn't. The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us anymore than it is under obligation to make sense to a gorilla or a gnat. We just happen to be the smartest of the three.
Sure it does. It's following the laws of physics and math. They seem to be pretty logical to me. Just because it's not fully understood now, certainly doesn't mean it can or won't be understood.
No, such a condition is not necessary for a Big Bang.
Didn't mean to imply is was necessary. But it is theorized to be a highly condensed energy, sans physics. It's condensed into itself. Seeing as this would be the only thing in the entire universe, surrounded by nothing, I don't understand how this is a logical state. Its value is 1. Its density is 1. Its size is 1. Its mass would be 0. C doesn't exist yet either, so c=0. There's nothing there. It's an irrational state. It's nonsense.
Black holes are surrounded by spacetime, and gravity, and an entire active universe. They make sense.
The Big Bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing.
I never said it did either. I said it was sitting in nothing. You seem okay with it, so, okay then.
What's nonsensical human reasoning is your attempt to equate a physical object like the Universe to a single number or an on/off switch.
Why? The universe seems pretty bound to math. If the universe were nothing, it would equal 0. If the universe were 1, it would be an empty universe sans physics. It's not either. Logically, what else could it be? 3? 4? 299792458? I think the latter is nonsense. Infinity is a variable state. Clearly, we're infinitely variable.
But clearly, you find this incorrect, so there's not much point in discussing it with you. You're entitled to your opinion, which I happen to see as a bit closed minded. That's fine. I'm okay with differing opinions. I don't agree with you.

What's nonsensical human reasoning is your attempt to equate a physical object like the Universe to a single number or an on/off switch.
Maybe the universe is precisely this simple. Everyone wants the next e=mc^2, but maybe it's a simple matter of understanding 0=0, and 1=1, and that's all they would ever equal.
Kind of like Occam's Razor at its finest.
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.
0=0
1=1
∞=∞
Simple. No heavy explanation required.
The universe is infinite, because it can't equal anything else.

Sure it does. It's following the laws of physics and math. They seem to be pretty logical to me.
I'm sure the world makes sense to gorillas and gnats too, despite the fact that they are completely unaware of and incapable of understanding many aspects of it.
Just because it's not fully understood now, certainly doesn't mean it can or won't be understood.
Nor does it mean that we will necessarily be able to understand everything about the Universe. We might or we might not.
But it is theorized to be a highly condensed energy, sans physics.
No it isn't. Whoever said that physics did not apply to the Big Bang?
Its value is 1. Its density is 1. Its size is 1.
In what units?
I said it was sitting in nothing.
It doesn't make sense to say that something sits "in nothing". Nothingness, by definition, isn't there and therefore cannot have anything sitting "inside" of it (which also doesn't make sense, as the word "in" only makes sense when space is present).
Why? The universe seems pretty bound to math.
Bound to math, yes. And by consequence of that, there exist many different objects with different, measurable properties in the Universe. Momentum, energy, charge, mass and many other measurable quantities exist. It doesn't make sense to try to use a single number (and a number without units, at that), to describe all of these different things simultaneously.
You're entitled to your opinion, which I happen to see as a bit closed minded.
Being closedminded is dismissing a claim without examining the evidence first. I have examined your "evidence" and it doesn't make sense. Math doesn't work like you are trying to make it work. Physical objects have various properties that can be described by different numbers, but physical objects themselves do not have a single value that can describe everything about them. What sense does it make to ask what the value of a potato is? Is its value different from that of a cucumber?

Some of this comes down to human nature.
If I asked a physicist how big the universe was, they probably want to look at the age first. Then they would calculate the distance light travels over that time to come up with some sort of radius. From there, they may take a stab at figuring out the total mass based on some theory. They may eventually arrive at some astronomical number, and claim the universe is 10^300, or something crazy like that.
With me, I say,
It's >0 and <1. Between those two values lies an infinite number of variables, so the universe is infinite. That's how big it is.
You can certainly disagree with my answer, but you most certainly can't claim it's wrong. Mathematically speaking, it is correct.

In what units?
It's the only thing in the entire universe, so it can only be compared to itself.
In our universe, mass is based on a platinumirridium weight sitting in Paris. A Meter is defined by the distance light travels in x. All measurements are arbitrary.
Because this condensed energy is the entire universe, its value would be 1 for all measurements. But it also doesn't contain mass, because there's no spacetime, gravity, or motion.
As I said, it's nonsense.

Being closedminded is dismissing a claim without examining the evidence first.
What evidence are you missing?
0=0
1=1
∞=∞
The entire universe can be described in wave theory, and waves are analog, and analog by definition is infinitely variable.
Any finite value associated with the universe would make the universe eternally finite. Clearly it's not. 0≠1. 0≠∞. 1≠∞
It seems like pretty reasonable evidence to me.
Just because you can't wrap your head around the simplicity of the answer, doesn't make it wrong.

Bound to math, yes. And by consequence of that, there exist many different objects with different, measurable properties in the Universe. Momentum, energy, charge, mass and many other measurable quantities exist. It doesn't make sense to try to use a single number (and a number without units, at that), to describe all of these different things simultaneously.
My unit of measure is simple. 1 universe.
You may want to count the atoms and subatomic particles as related to mass, which is also an arbitrary unit of measure, I chose the whole universe as a unit of measure. What difference does it make? Math is math, on the quantum level, or the macro level. 1=1 on the quantum scale, and 1=1 on the universe scale. Same difference.

It's >0 and <1. Between those two values lies an infinite number of variables, so the universe is infinite. That's how big it is.
You could use the exact same argument to "prove" that a potato is infinite.
You can certainly disagree with my answer, but you most certainly can't claim it's wrong. Mathematically speaking, it is correct.
It's more akin to "not even wrong", because it doesn't make sense.
It's the only thing in the entire universe, so it can only be compared to itself.
That still doesn't make sense. If there was only one electron in the entire Universe, that wouldn't suddenly change the values of mass and charge that it has.
Because this condensed energy is the entire universe, its value would be 1 for all measurements.
That's a nonsequitur.
But it also doesn't contain mass, because there's no spacetime or motion.
There would have been an awful lot of mass, motion and spacetime during the Big Bang. If you are talking about before the Big Bang, that's a different story and there is still no consensus on what exactly that was.
Clearly it's not.
Unsupported assertion.
My unit of measure is simple. 1 universe.
Then that value won't change whether the Universe is finite or infinite (because the Universe is obviously equal to itself), so that doesn't get us any closer to solving the question of whether the Universe is finite or infinite.

It doesn't make sense to say that something sits "in nothing". Nothingness, by definition, isn't there and therefore cannot have anything sitting "inside" of it (which also doesn't make sense, as the word "in" only makes sense when space is present).
Couldn't agree with you more.
So what lies beyond the universe?
What is the universe expanding into?
What is the universe accelerating towards?
What came before the big bang?

Then that value won't change whether the Universe is finite or infinite (because the Universe is obviously equal to itself), so that doesn't get us any closer to solving the question of whether the Universe is finite or infinite.
It is equal to itself.
∞=∞
I said, the universe is not 0 or 1. The potential is there, but that's it. If we looked at the universe from a finite perspective of 1, then you're right, it wouldn't make sense. That's my point. The universe can only be infinite.
What would you define it as now? 17? 27? 10^300?
The only nonfinite value that makes sense is infinity.

I guess where I take issue most is the Big Bang. The Big Bang is nonsensical human reasoning. The Big Bang is wrong, and there’s no way to correct it.
I favour Conrad Ranzan's Dynamic Steady State Universe. He posits an infinite universe of cosmic cells where aether is created near center of cell & annihilated in mass (mainly in blackholes & mainly near edge of cell). He has written books for sale, & has many articles for free. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G4GravityCell.htm It’s a matter of grasping the concept of nothing, and infinity, and absolute. How do you get something from nothing? Nothing, is exactly what it implies, nothing, or numerically 0.
Ranzan posits something from nothing (creation of aether)(at centers of cells), & followed by nothing from something (annihilation of aether in mass).
Nothings & things need explaining. I think that subsubquantum things (lets call these Praeons) somehow make subquantum things (called aetherons)(or aetheons)(or aethons), which somehow make the fundamental quantum things (photons), which form secondary quantum things (elementary particles)(electrons quarks etc), which form subatomic particles, which form atomic particles.
The only possible nothing is the empty space tween preons, if such a space exists, it could only exist if praeons had a fixed kind of shape (eg if spherical). Praeons are the fundamental entity, they make or form aetheons. Making would be by virtue of a pulsation or vibration or something. Forming would be by virtue of adhering or clumping.
Aetheons make free photons, by virtue of spinning or something. Photons form confined photons which are elementary particles.
The annihilation of a thing in a low domain might give a nothing in that domain but it nonetheless retains the thing in the higher domain. And in the lowest domain (the subsubquantum domain), one might posit that Praeons cant be annihilated (i haven’t given this much thort). Or, if Praeons can be annihilated then this demands the existence of a subsubsubquantum domain filled with Primeons or Elemeons or Embryeons or Fundameons or Initieons or Starteons or Dawneons or Firsteons or Earlyeons or Createons.
The annihilation of mass means the annihilation of elementary particles, which means the conversion of confined (looped)(static) photons to free photons. The annihilation of free photons means the conversion of spinning aetheons to resting aetheons. The annihilation of resting aetheons means the conversion of vibrating praeons to resting praeons.
The only real thing is the Praeon, all else is a process (involving Praeons). There is no actual annihilation, what we have is the killing if a process, ie looping or spinning or vibration.
In that sense we can get something out of nothing, & nothing out of something.My sole prediction is that Dark Energy will never be detected or discovered directly.
I don’t know what their silly Dark Energy is supposed to be. Probly some unknown process giving a push to stars, or in silly Einsteinian terms some sort of process affecting the bending of their silly spacetime on a universal scale.Dark matter is probably a myth, and all attempts to detect it will more than likely fail.
I don’t agree. I think that there are at least five kinds of Dark Matter. I reckon that some sort of Dark Matter does affect orbits in spiral galaxies, but i think that the bulk of the problem is a misunderstanding of gravity & a misunderstanding of Newton's big G & a flaw in the theory behind the lab measurements of big G.

So what lies beyond the universe?
Nobody knows.
What is the universe expanding into?
This question assumes that there is something for the Universe to expand into in the first place. The current scientific consensus is that space is simply expanding. That's it.
What is the universe accelerating towards?
This question assumes that there is something that the Universe is accelerating towards, which is not a part of the current scientific consensus.
What came before the big bang?
Nobody knows.
What would you define it as now? 17? 27? 10^300?
I wouldn't definite it as anything because it's a nonsensical question.
You also need to learn how to use the edit function.

I favour Conrad Ranzan's Dynamic Steady State Universe. He posits an infinite universe of cosmic cells where aether is created near center of cell & annihilated in mass (mainly in blackholes & mainly near edge of cell). He has written books for sale, & has many articles for free. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G4GravityCell.htm
My view is much more elaborate than this, but simple really. I don't really want to go too deeply into it right now, because I'm just trying to get to step one. The universe is infinite, with no beginning or end.
I glanced through some of it, but I don't think my view aligns with it frankly.
I see a little string theory, a little holographic theory, a little steady state, a whole lot of bohemian and pilot wave, definitely a lot of relativity and quantum mechanics.
I like the idea of an infinite wave with a frequency of 1 to describe the universe honestly. Infinite height, infinite length, frequency 1. A wave is sweeping out leaving matter in its path. You have the heat, creation, etc, but it's ongoing. We drift in 3dimensionally away from the chaos and cool and condense on the downside of the wave, but I see too many possibilities there at the moment. Total speculation of course. So no, I don't want to get into it.

So what lies beyond the universe?
Nobody knows.
What is the universe expanding into?
This question assumes that there is something for the Universe to expand into in the first place. The current scientific consensus is that space is simply expanding. That's it.
What is the universe accelerating towards?
This question assumes that there is something that the Universe is accelerating towards, which is not a part of the current scientific consensus.
What came before the big bang?
Nobody knows.
What would you define it as now? 17? 27? 10^300?
I wouldn't definite it as anything because it's a nonsensical question.
You also need to learn how to use the edit function.
Exactly. No one has a clue what's really going on.
It makes no logical sense that space creates itself. Sorry, I will never agree with that reasoning. The overall consensus, and I quote theory, "nothing" lies beyond the universe, and "nothing" has to come before the big bang. Nonsense, in my opinion. The universe is infinite, and we simply haven't figured that out yet. This blackness of space goes on forever, in two directions, in and out.
The easiest way to look at homogeneity is with infinity. Every particle is in the center of the universe.

Exactly. No one has a clue what's really going on.
If your argument is "no one knows the answers to these questions, therefore the Big Bang theory is wrong", then that's a nonsequitur.
It makes no logical sense that space creates itself. Sorry, I will never agree with that reasoning.
Good, because that's not what consensus says either.
The overall consensus, and I quote theory, "nothing" lies beyond the universe, and "nothing" has to come before the big bang.
Which theory are you quoting? The Big Bang theory does not require nothing to have come before the Big Bang.

You also need to learn how to use the edit function.
lol... typing on a Surface pro with a tiny keyboard. Annoying, I know. I do apologize.

I favour Conrad Ranzan's Dynamic Steady State Universe. He posits an infinite universe of cosmic cells where aether is created near center of cell & annihilated in mass (mainly in blackholes & mainly near edge of cell). He has written books for sale, & has many articles for free. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G4GravityCell.htm
My view is much more elaborate than this, but simple really. I don't really want to go too deeply into it right now, because I'm just trying to get to step one. The universe is infinite, with no beginning or end.
I glanced through some of it, but I don't think my view aligns with it frankly. I see a little string theory, a little holographic theory, a little steady state, a whole lot of bohemian and pilot wave, definitely a lot of relativity and quantum mechanics.
I like the idea of an infinite wave with a frequency of 1 to describe the universe honestly. Infinite height, infinite length, frequency 1. A wave is sweeping out leaving matter in its path. You have the heat, creation, etc, but it's ongoing. We drift in 3dimensionally away from the chaos and cool and condense on the downside of the wave, but I see too many possibilities there at the moment. Total speculation of course. So no, I don't want to get into it.
I am ok with waves in some micro instances but i aint ok with macro waves, eg that every macro thing is due to waves or solitons.
Strangely, Ranzan is an aetherist, but at the same time is a semiEinsteinian (ie Ranzan's theory & equations accommodate a portion of SR). Most peculiar.

If your argument is "no one knows the answers to these questions, therefore the Big Bang theory is wrong", then that's a nonsequitur.
No, that's not my argument. I've been searching for the answer for 35 years, because the conflicting answers I continually hear don't make sense. It feels wrong. Can't explain it entirely.
This feels right.
Good, because that's not what consensus says either.
Well, that's what the big bang implies. Highly condensed energy spontaneously erupting into a universe, creating physics in the process. That's the way I interpret it.
Which theory are you quoting? The Big Bang theory does not require nothing to have come before the Big Bang
Big bang is what I'm quoting. Yes, I've read it. I've heard it countless times as well. Nothing lies beyond the universe.

No, that's not my argument. I've been searching for the answer for 35 years, because the conflicting answers I continually hear don't make sense. It feels wrong. Can't explain it entirely.
This feels right.
I'm not surprised. There are an awful lot of misconceptions about the Big Bang theory.
Well, that's what the big bang implies.
No it doesn't.
Highly condensed energy spontaneously erupting into a universe, creating physics in the process. That's the way I interpret it.
The Big Bang theory is about the first moments of the Universe, not about what caused the Universe to exist. It does not contain within itself a cause and it certainly doesn't say that space created itself.
Big bang is what I'm quoting. Yes, I've read it. I've heard it countless times as well. Nothing lies beyond the universe.
The Big Bang theory has evolved over time. It was initially believed that everything was condensed down into a singularity of zero size. Due to quantum mechanics, it is now thought that the Universe was a very small, but finite size. Some propose that the Big Bang was not the beginning of time, but that it is just one phase in a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Others propose that the Big Bang in our Universe was preceded by another Big Bang in a sort of "antiUniverse" where time travels backwards.
We don't have enough information to know what happened before the Big Bang.

Which theory are you quoting?
Here's the way I see it. The big bang hits the rewind button on the universe, and compacts the sum total of the entire universe into a infinitesimally small point of energy. So, beyond that state is nothing, or nothing yet. I don't know, it makes no sense. The fact is, nothing exists in this state, except that point of "energy", because spacetime has not been created yet, or gravity, or motion. It explodes, or inflates, some say by a quantum fluctuation possibly. Into what exactly? It is creating itself. It's nonsense. You will never convince me that this was the beginning. I don't even know how anyone could imagine space condensing in this manner. There's always more space. You can't just make it go away. And you ask someone to explain it, and they can't. The explanation are as varied as grains of sand on the beach. No one can wrap their head around it. The simple answer is, it's wrong.

The Big Bang theory has evolved over time.
Yes, and I'm evolving it right out of existence, because it's nonsense.
I would take the universe right to the bleeding edge of hyperinflation, and stop right there. Hyperinflation never happened.

No one can wrap their head around it. The simple answer is, it's wrong.
Just because you can't wrap your head around the simplicity of the answer, doesn't make it wrong.
Ironic.

The main theory behind the BigBang is redshift. Ranzan's best idea is his explanation of redshift being due to the stretching of photons as they approach mass & the stretching of photons as they recede from mass. Praps the cleverest thing i have ever read. Everyone must read his stuff.
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/Th9(ajaaR)CosmicRSTheoryRanzan.pdf

The main theory behind the BigBang is redshift. Ranzan's best idea is his explanation of redshift being due to the stretching of photons as they approach mass & the stretching of photons as they recede from mass. Praps the cleverest thing i have ever read. Everyone must read his stuff.
This is somewhere I didn't want to go yet, but I think matter recedes 3dimensionally inwards. Everything, including light. All the matter in the universe is moving inward at a velocity of C or C. We are scaling inwards. The universe has two distinct directions, in and out. Its direction is 1dimensional. We are moving away from each other, inwards, but gravity still pulls galaxies together, but we move inward a little faster. The gap widens between galaxies as we cool and condense, and trudge steadily inward. The force of gravity diminishes over time, so we have less influence. Our motion bends inward at an accelerated rate as gravity loses its grip on distant galxies. Gravity also becomes more focused locally, like a flashlight beam more or less, the further away galaxies drift apart. There is no expansion, and no acceleration as perceive in current views. The redshift is real, but our motion is the opposite direction from what we hypothesized in Hubble.
It's the reason I opt for an infinite wave with a frequency of 1, and continual creation. Way out in the distant universe creation is ongoing, and matter drifts inward as it cools. Or maybe, the universe is growing infinitely, so we lose scale in comparison to the sum of the whole. Like I said, I see a lot of possibilities. It creates an inward gradient of dense matter towards the outer edge, which thins out towards the center as it cools and condenses. Matter flows inward. The center being where ever you're at, but not really a destination. We're homogeneous.
I see all the mechanics pretty clearly in my head. I have a lot written out, much better than I describe here. Not that it's going anywhere, or anyone really cares mind you. I'm a nobody. It makes perfect sense, and fits every observation. Does not trash relativity one bit. It skirts this fine line to give a different view of the universe. It's a very simple and understandable view.
But, can't prove a lick of it.
I will say, I am watching dark matter and dark energy experiments very closely. So far, so good. Big fat nothing at the moment. 2020 is going to be the test for dark matter. Not sure if that's important though. I don't think it would change my view any. i only suspect it may be flawed, but definitely not necessary in my view of things. My theory could take it or leave it. Dark energy would do some damage to my theory.

No one can wrap their head around it. The simple answer is, it's wrong.
Just because you can't wrap your head around the simplicity of the answer, doesn't make it wrong.
Ironic.
No, not ironic. I said simple.
I really do appreciate your comments.
At the end of the day, I'll stick with the mathematical reasoning.
Big Bang could be viewed as 1, because the universe is equal to itself. The problem is, it expands into a finite universe with a bigger value of 1. Also, nothing lies beyond the universe according to the theory, which makes no sense. To get around it, I realize there's a lot of theories making mention of hidden dimensions and such. It's just really become patchwork of nonsense. I really thought the Big Bang would have died with acceleration back in the 90's, but low and behold, they added another theory to keep it going. It's wrong, but science refuses to throw in the towel. They keep tweaking it because it doesn't work. And every time they find another flaw, they add another theory. They've been doing it since 1927.
I'll stick with my reasoning.
0=0. If the universe was 0, that would be that, because finite values are mathematically finite. They don't change.
Ι1Ι=Ι1Ι. If the universe was Ι1Ι, that would be that, because finite values are mathematically finite. They don't change.
∞=∞ This is the only nonfinite solution that makes logical sense. Infinity is variable. We are infinitely variable.
The whole point of math is to narrow it down to the fewest possible variables. I've taken the universe down to the lowest possible number of variables, 3. Neither 0 nor 1 works, because finite values don't work in a variable state.
My answer is mathematically flawless. How could it not be? You can not like it, but no one can claim it's wrong.
There's just no debating it really. How can anyone argue 0=0, or Ι1Ι=Ι1Ι, or ∞=∞?
Those are the only 3 values that can be used to describe the universe logically.

My answer is mathematically flawless. How could it not be? You can not like it, but no one can claim it's wrong.
Of course I can claim it's wrong because the Universe doesn't have a single value. If it does, then show us how it was measured (with physical devices by the way, not logical arguments). If it isn't measurable, then what you have amounts to philosophy, not science.

Of course I can claim it's wrong because the Universe doesn't have a single value. If it does, then show us how it was measured (with physical devices by the way, not logical arguments). If it isn't measurable, then what you have amounts to philosophy, not science.
As I said, my unit of measure is 1 universe. A hunk of platinumirridium doesn't have a single value either, yet it is considered 1kg. The sun doesn't have a single value either, yet it is considered 1 solar mass. We use objects to compare things to other things all the time. It's all we can do frankly, because there are no static reference points, just theoretical ones. There is only 1 universe, and it is equal to itself.
As I said, the universe is infinite, because x=x, so x must be ∞.
It's the only logical value that makes rational sense.
Unless you want to show me another universe lying around somewhere.
I don't have anything to prove. The answer is selfevident.
I don't see that it's any more complicated than that, unbelievably. Humans want complicated, but the universe is under no obligation to be anymore complicated than x=x.

not logical arguments
:o
I think we've already tried this over the past several millennia. I prefer logic.

As I said, my unit of measure is 1 universe.
Earlier, you said that the Universe's value is less than 1:
The total universe would be completely finite, because 1=1. Clearly our universe is not in the on position, so its numeric value is <1.
Here you say that it is infinite:
That position is not a finite value, it is infinite.
So which is it? Is it 1, less than 1 or infinite? If you are so invested in math and logic, you should know that those three values are not equal to each other.
A hunk of platinumirridium doesn't have a single value either, yet it is considered 1kg. The sun doesn't have a single value either, yet it is considered 1 solar mass.
So are you talking about mass now?
We use objects to compare things to other things all the time. It's all we can do frankly, because there are no static reference points, just theoretical ones. There is only 1 universe, and it is equal to itself.
So how can one Universe have a value of less than one or infinity?
because x=x, so x must be ∞.
You realize that x=x works for any value of x, right?
I think we've already tried this over the past several millennia. I prefer logic.
Logical arguments are insufficient in themselves to count as scientific. It must be possible to falsify a hypothesis with experimental data in order for it to be scientific. Relativity started out as a logical and mathematical exercise, but it was eventually necessary to test it against reality via experiment. Tell me what experiment could be used to test your theory.

Stephen Hawking explains the concept of negative energy in his book The Theory of Everything (New Millennium 2002): "Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less [positive] energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together," he wrote.
Since it takes positive energy to separate the two pieces of matter, gravity must be using negative energy to pull them together. Thus, "the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."
This is almost identical to what I'm suggesting. Almost.
I'm introducing a value of Ι1Ι, in describing the whole of the universe.
Space moves outward infinitely towards Ι1Ι, and matter moves inward infinitely towards 0. Gravity is a negative force in my view.
So the total energy of the universe is Ι1Ι (virtually speaking), not 0. The universe is >0, and <Ι1Ι. The universe cannot be a finite value, or the energy would really be 0. That doesn't make sense. Energy is not nothing.
0 and Ι1Ι are potential states, and the potential between them is ΙxΙ.
We are, by direct observation, infinitely variable.
ΙxΙ=ΙxΙ, so the universe must be ∞.

I'm introducing a value of Ι1Ι, in describing the whole of the universe.
The universe is >0, and <Ι1Ι.
ΙxΙ=ΙxΙ, so the universe must be ∞.
There you go again, contradicting yourself by saying that the Universe is one, less than one and infinite all at the same time.
Space moves outward infinitely towards Ι1Ι, and matter moves inward infinitely towards 0.
What does that even mean? How can space and matter (physical entities) move towards numbers (conceptual entities)? When was it ever observed that matter and space move in opposite directions?
We are, by direct observation, infinitely variable.
When was anything infinite every directly observed?

So which is it? Is it 1, less than 1 or infinite? If you are so invested in math and logic, you should know that those three values are not equal to each other.
I said Ι1Ι, not +1 or 1. Although, it's possible I made a grammatical error or two along the way. 0 is naturally an absolute value. We are neither 0 nor Ι1Ι. We are an infinitely variable analog state.

I said Ι1Ι, not +1 or 1. Although, it's possible I made a grammatical error or two along the way. 0 is naturally an absolute value. We are neither 0 nor Ι1Ι. We are an infinitely variable analog state.
1, <1 and infinity are still all different.

When was anything infinite every directly observed?
Every analog state we observe is by definition, infinitely variable. We convert analog to digital to better understand it. Mathematically, we developed calculus to handle infinite values. Pi appears to be infinite as well, although we have to make a logical assumption to arrive at that conclusion. Georg Cantor made a career out of infinity. It was his life's work.

Every analog state we observe is by definition, infinitely variable. We convert analog to digital to better understand it. Mathematically, we developed calculus to handle infinite values. Pi appears to be infinite as well, although we have to make a logical assumption to arrive at that conclusion. Georg Cantor made a career out of infinity. It was his life's work.
You're talking about mathematical concepts, not observations in the physical Universe.

1, <1 and infinity are still all different.
Yes they are, which is why the universe is not 1.

You're talking about mathematical concepts, not observations in the physical Universe.
How about light? That supposedly lasts forever. Light is also a wave.

Yes they are, which is why the universe is not 1.
Oh really? What about the following statement?
I'm introducing a value of Ι1Ι, in describing the whole of the universe.
Looks like a contradiction to me.
How about light? That supposedly lasts forever.
Only in theory. Nothing has ever been observed for an infinite period of time to confirm it.
Light is also a wave.
Which is broken up into discrete particles called photons.

I'm introducing a value of Ι1Ι, in describing the whole of the universe.
Looks like a contradiction to me.
No contradiction there. I'm using the value to describe a potential state of the whole universe.
If you want to hack up grammar, I'm sure you can find a lot more things that appear contradictory. I think you're smart enough to understand the gist of what I'm saying.
Only in theory. Nothing has ever been observed for an infinite period of time to confirm it.
Of course that is physically impossible. We can certainly infer with reason. Which is why human logic offers the only possible solution. We are not bound to finite solution, like our digital counterparts.
The Big Bang is physically impossible to prove as well, but given its wide acceptance, no one seems to have much of a problem believing in it.
You say finite, I say infinite. I like my reasoning better.

No contradiction there. I'm using the value to describe a potential state of the whole universe.
So is the value of the potential state of the whole universe 1, <1 or infinity?
If you want to hack up grammar, I'm sure you can find a lot more things that appear contradictory. I think you're smart enough to understand the gist of what I'm saying.
Grammar has nothing to do with it. You can't say in one place that Universe's value is 1, in another place that it is <1 and in yet another place that it is infinite.
We can certainly infer with reason.
Until that reason is tested by experiment, then it isn't science.
Which is why human logic offers the only possible solution.
Then you are admitting that there is no way to experimentally verify your claims and that what you have produced is simply philosophy?
We are not bound to finite solution, like our digital counterparts.
What makes you say that? You think there are equations that humans can calculate that a computer cannot be programmed to calculate as well?
The Big Bang is physically impossible to prove as well, but given its wide acceptance, no one seems to have much of a problem believing in it.
Science isn't about proving things, so that's not a problem.
You say finite, I say infinite. I like my reasoning better.
I don't say it's finite, I say we don't know if it's finite or infinite.

The universe is infinite. There was no Big Bang.
So is the value of the potential state of the whole universe 1, <1 or infinity?
The potential state of the universe is both 0 and 1, not a singular value. Both states are theoretically impossible, so the resulting potential is infinite. 1/0 is undefinable.
Science isn't about proving things, so that's not a problem.
Beliefs have no place in science, so I would argue it's potentially a big problem. Beliefs are irrational. I think the evidence is pretty clear. When the answer becomes more illusive, beliefs rise, and opinions diverge. I bet you could stack current theories to the moon and back, and that number seems to rise daily. No one is on the same page in science. The most likely cause is a fundamental flaw in our reasoning or methodology.
I stick by what I say. The universe is infinite, not finite.

I'll walk through this one more time, and see if I can't reason this out with you. Not holding my breath mind you.
Nothing, or 0, is exactly what it implies, absolutely nothing. It is the absence of everything, including physical dimension. It is also theoretically impossible, according to science. I agree fully. So much so in my view, that I consider it more towards the certainty column, than I do an actual theory. 0 is also a finite value, and naturally absolute. Meaning it has no equal other than itself, and can never be any other value. It is a permanent finite condition. Its presence, or lack of presence, would be finite in all manner, and nothing would exist. Most importantly, a universe wouldn't exist. 0=0. It is also a lessor value than infinity. Although 0 cannot exist, its potential does remain, and that potential is infinite, because it is a physically impossible state.
Our universe is, >0
I can't see anyone disputing this simple fact. Nothing means nothing. Clearly, we aren't nothing.
The next absolute value in series is 1. And seeing as we have a lessor value than infinity, it stands to reason that we would have a greater value than infinity. That value is, Ι1Ι. This is the something state to nothing. The exact opposite of nothing. It is the inverse of nothing. It is exponentially different. It would also be a purely homogeneous state, with its dimension being defined as absolute. You could look at it as infinite dimension, but it's exactly the same everywhere, so it's finite. It is smooth and flat. Its a continuous state void of all energy as we understand it. There is no positive or negative. It's value is defined at 1. Like 0, 1 is a theoretically impossible state. Its potential remains though, and that potential is also infinite, like 0. I consider this more towards the certainty column as well.
The universe is <1
We are the infinite potential that lies between 0 and 1. Our existence is variable, or infinitely variable, making us analog.
0=0
1=1
∞=∞
The universe only makes sense with ∞.
You can claim I need proof, but I really don't. I am satisfied with the reasoning, although I imagine it's going to take a very very long time for science to come to this simple realization. Personally, x=x is all the proof I need mathematically.
As you said, science isn't out to prove anything. They only accept testable results. They want physical evidence. They want experimentation, that is repeatable. And that's just to move it to a theory. You can't have direct evidence for the big bang, and you most certainly can't prove infinity with physical evidence. And the universe isn't a repeatable experiment. It's one and done, and one of a kind. It has no equal other than itself.
My only indirect physical evidence is expansion and acceleration. Someone put a label on those already, and I hardly think they'll part with it. They won't find Dark Energy though. I wonder how many years it's going to take for them to give up? 20? 50? 100? We'll all be dead, so I suppose it won't matter at that point.
It's only a quandary for science, not me. In order for science to move forward, they're going to have to do something they can't do by design. Use their brains. I don't mean that in a derogatory manner, I mean that literally. They're all going to have to put down their pens, push away their keyboards, turn off their calculators, and make an educated guess based on human reasoning. The real answers are beyond reach of physical detection. Oddly enough, science knows this simple fact. Still, they demand proof. It's futile.
Keeps the money flowing I suppose. Always experiments to perform. In science, even the absence of a result is a result that requires more investigation.

And seeing as we have a lessor value than infinity, it stands to reason that we would have a greater value than infinity. That value is, Ι1Ι.
If you think that 1 is bigger than infinity then you should probably go back to math class...

If you think that 1 is bigger than infinity then you should probably go back to math class...
I have to call like I see it Krytid, and follow the logic. Technically, 1 and 0 aren't present in the universe, from my view. I see the universe as actively moving in opposite directions towards both values. In and out. Infinity isn't clearly defined, and not really understood in the context of the universe. Most consider it a concept, and not really something to toil in. I'm calling it a state, which is already a major violation to most peoples view towards it. We tend to think of the vastness as infinite. I'm defining it as infinitely variable, or analog, which is a state wedged between two potential finite values. The universe wants to be both finite values, but it is neither. They aren't really numbers as much as they are magnitudes between each other.
Yes, I'll stick with: <1

and follow the logic.
There's nothing logical about saying 1 > infinity.

There's nothing logical about saying 1 > infinity.
Sure there is. And I take your input very seriously. You made me pause that time.
I am using 1 as a label that signifies the magnitude between nothing and something. It's not a typical base 10 number like 3 or 5, or 7. It is describing an absolute state of the whole of the universe sans energy. It is the inverse of nothing, and the greatest possible magnitude of the universe, which is beyond infinity. It's value would be finite, because like 0, its properties are absolute. It's akin to a perfect solid dimensionaly speaking. No movement. No variability. No energy. Perfectly smooth and seamless. Not a wiggle. Nothing can exceed these absolutes in either direction, when applying them to the whole of the universe. It is the exact inverse of nothing.
You may not like it, but the logic stands.
∞<1
Infinity is not an absolute, it's a natural variable that can contain any base 10 value.
No variability, no infinity.
I think this proves my point more than anything else. Finite values are not infinite, obviously. If the universe possessed a finite value, we wouldn't be here. It would be stuck on that value.

I am using 1 as a label that signifies the magnitude between nothing and something. It's not a typical base 10 number like 3 or 5, or 7. It is describing an absolute state of the whole of the universe sans energy. It is the inverse of nothing, and the greatest possible magnitude of the universe, which is beyond infinity. It's value would be finite, because like 0, its properties are absolute. It's akin to a perfect solid dimensionaly speaking. No movement. No variability. No energy. Perfectly smooth and seamless. Not a wiggle. Nothing can exceed these absolutes in either direction, when applying them to the whole of the universe. It is the exact inverse of nothing.
Oh, so you are taking a concept with a wellknown, existing definition and replacing it with your own definition in order support your nonconventional ideas. You can "prove" anything you want to when you do something like that.

Oh, so you are taking a concept with a wellknown, existing definition and replacing it with your own definition in order support your nonconventional ideas. You can "prove" anything you want to when you do something like that.
I can assure you, I have no idea what you're talking about here. I close my eyes and imagine an empty void, and that's about it. I see all this. I have not plagiarized anyone else's concept here. These thoughts and ideas are mine and mine alone.
To what are you referring?

To what are you referring?
I'm talking about how you define 1. Those vertical bars mean "absolute value", so in terms of normal mathematical definitions, 1 means "the absolute value of 1", which is simply the common, familiar number of 1. In conventional mathematics, 1 is not larger than infinity. You have redefined 1 to refer to some imaginary number that is larger than infinity, so that means you have taken a concept with an existing definition and replaced it with your own.

I'm talking about how you define 1. Those vertical bars mean "absolute value", so in terms of normal mathematical definitions, 1 means "the absolute value of 1", which is simply the common, familiar number of 1. In conventional mathematics, 1 is not larger than infinity. You have redefined 1 to refer to some imaginary number that is larger than infinity, so that means you have taken a concept with an existing definition and replaced it with your own.
Numbers have many meanings depending on how they're applied. I'm describing 1 as a distance, or magnitude of distance. It is the greatest possible distance beyond infinity, which comes to a finite end. There can be no more distance. Infinity is an ongoing value. I stopped it at 1, where there is no more physical distance. I also said it is a physically impossible state, like 0. Both are finite values. 0 and 1 are potential states, and the potential between them is infinite.
It is exactly what I have been saying all along.
So in reality, you are agreeing with me. The universe cannot be finite.
I don't see a problem in that.
You don't see a problem in 0<∞, which is a potential finite state.
I don't see a problem in ∞<1, which is also a potential finite state.

"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 a catchy title for a thread. My response is that you can argue for or against it just as effectively, because you cannot prove it beyond simple logic. You can argue the universe is infinite because it seems to be a better answer than the alternative, which is that it is finite and there is "nothingness" beyond. 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.
However, to my way of thinking, you don't need an argument for or against. You are not likely to convince anyone that your argument is any better than an argument for a finite universe.
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?

An argument for what we can argue
What's stopping us?
Is there a rule book against that?

It doesn't look good if someone has to at least say the rule book is in doubt.

"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."
is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
Yes for sure the dark sky is an (Olber) argument against an infinite universe.
However Ranzan's explanation of redshift leads to the solution.
Old light is gradually redshifted out of existence, or at least into lower energy.

So, the idea of not knowing the universe is weak, right?

To explain the universe one needs to eliminate a lot of crap as much as the universe doesn't tolerate crap.....otherwise why would it be a universe? The universe is either tired or moving more slowly than your expectations.

Think about it, Jesus is the best answer for people, what about reality though?
Reality perhaps wants to keep people inthe loop.

"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."
is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
Yes 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

Why not? It has features that are completely baseless?

How good is a universe that can't explain itself?
Its useless.

"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."
is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.
I don't really care what anyone believes is correct. They're wrong.
Beliefs have no place in science.
Kryptid (I'm sure I will get a debate on the fact) and I just proved mathematically that the universe has to be infinite, otherwise, 1>∞.
What sense does that make?
The problem that I see is that science is looking at the universe through the eye of the storm, and wondering if there's anything beyond the eye wall. They're in the middle of the chaos. The real answer starts at 0, outside the eye wall. They think 0 and 1 is well defined, so not much interest in it. Infinity is cast aside like a redheaded stepchild.
What are numbers really?
They're zoom factors to increase resolution. Everything is a fraction of the whole, or 1. But it certainly wouldn't make much sense to reference my weight as a fraction of the universe, as I would be something like .000000000000000000000000195. Someone else might be .000000000000000000000000115. We would assume male and female by the weight difference more than likely. What we really do is shift the decimal place to the right, so I'm now 195lbs, and she's 115lbs. Once we were able to wrap our brains around that, we started to see patterns in the numbers. And math took on a whole new meaning. We forgot about 0 and 1, and cast aside infinity. Condemned it all to philosophy and metaphysics, because no one could wrap their brains around it.
I've zoomed out all the way, and shifted the decimal place as far to the left as it will go. What remains is 1. But, as we discovered, the universe can't be a finite value, or, 1>∞. The only solution is ∞=∞, when comparing the universe to itself, because 1=1 would make no sense. The universe we experience must be .9999..... It is slightly less than the whole, but infinite in nature. 1 is the maximum value, which cannot be achieved by the universe. 1 is a finite value, and 0 is a finite value, and the universe is clearly not 0 or 1. So we can deduce that the universe is not finite, so it must be infinite. It's the only other option really.
The universe is, >0 and <1. The universe is, ∞.
Another way to express might be; finite is the absence of infinity, and vice versa.
We're here, so the universe can't be finite.
We are our own empirical data that proves conclusively our universe is infinite.
There is no other rational explanation.

Its a very long distance, and why would anyone think that far?

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.
Doesn't matter what anyone suggests. Nothing is exactly what it implies, absolutely nothing. 0. It's an impossible state. Dimension = 0. That kills everything.
There's one thing it does have going for it, potential. And that potential is infinite.

Do you want to meet someone there?

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?
I see all the mechanics very clearly in my mind. I really do. I see it all, mostly. The big stuff anyway. The problem is, at this point, it's beyond the debate format of a forum thread, unless someone wants to develop it further on here, without judgement. I have the ideas, but not the skills. I'll get chewed up and spit out without math skills. I knew I could handle 1=1, so that's all I posted about. I also have to introduce a lot of new concepts, that frankly, people aren't ready to hear. It's things like, C. 3dimensional motion. A 1dimensional orientation of space. Inverse waves. Variable constants. It keeps intact all of relativity and quantum mechanics at the same time. It threads a needle. Kills big bang, expansion, and acceleration. Probably dark matter too, although I'm not certain on that point. I don't really have a beginning point for our existence figured out either, although I'm really liking the idea of a wave with infinite height, infinite length, and an ongoing max frequency of 1. I see a lot of dynamics there, like curved space, and entropy.
You see my point though?
That's not me. I can't run these kind of numbers. I'm incompetent in that area. Completely.
I only have my imagination, and a solid understanding of how math works, and programming logic from a few decades ago.
I have never read a single theory, nor stepped foot in a physics classroom. My highest level of math was Algebra 1 from high school. I was self taught in programming, although I never used it. I've been working since I was 14 or 15, primarily in the printing industry most of my life. This has been a hobby of mine, not my day job.

"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."
is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
Okay, so I did a quick read on Olbers' Paradox.
"The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark."
Nonsense right from the start. It's not a paradox, it's flawed reasoning.
It assumes a static, infinitely old universe. The flaw in the reasoning is blatantly obvious from the first 7 words in the first sentence.
"The paradox is that a static, infinitely"
Static is a finite assumption. The theory is claiming the universe is both finite and infinite at the same time.
This amounts to, 1=∞
I imagine the rest of the reasoning follows suit.

Beliefs have no place in science.
Nor do nonfalsifiable propositions like yours.

Nor do nonfalsifiable propositions like yours.
That's a matter of opinion, in which I completely disagree.
I'm right, and you know it. And to hell with the bureaucracy of the scientific process.

The theory is claiming the universe is both finite and infinite at the same time.
This amounts to, 1=∞
No

How 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 3dimensionally 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 1dimensional, in and out. We move 3dimensionally.
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.

No
Yes
Olber is imagining a square box universe, perfectly uniform in nature. He is also calling it static, although infinite in dimension. That's a conflict in reasoning on a number of levels.
He has not thought out the infinity problem.
Infinity is spherical, not square, and dynamic, not static. Homogeneity has a defined shape, which is spherical in nature.
Sorry, if this is what everyone is calculating, they're calculating it based on the wrong assumptions.
Olbers' Paradox is not a paradox at all. It only emphasizes how poor human reasoning can infect science, that it should stand for so long without question.
You've pretty much taken Olber as fact.
With all due respect, Olber was wrong.

How does an infinite universe defeat entropy?
This is one I can answer.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
It doesn't defeat it.
So it lives with it?
My first thought was that if it doesn’t defeat entropy, and the universe is still going strong, then it lives with it. Not a bad answer from some cosmological perspectives.
The universe is following all the laws of physics exactly as we understand them.
In that regard, there are known laws, and it would seem that there are “as yet” unknowns.
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.
You don’t impress me as being a person with a positive attitude, lol.
We are losing energy at a constant rate, probably somewhere at a value of C, or C. We are moving 3dimensionally inward towards 0.
Where are we losing it to?
I guess you are implying is that as we lose energy, what is left is shrinking, and will eventually have lost it all? (see my previous comment)
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.
Well, that is a little more comforting, I think …
It's more like a scaling process. We are simply zooming out of existence.
I considered that possibility when I started contemplating the universe! But that was long ago.
It seems like the idea of eternal inflation, and I use to wonder why it hasn’t reached the end yet.
Space goes outward at C, matter trickles inward at C.
Good point; I didn’t consider that.
The direction of the universe is 1dimensional, in and out. We move 3dimensionally.
I would ask about the quantum mechanics of that, but I’ll read on and see if you get to it.
No dark energy, no expansion, and no acceleration.
It is good to be able to eliminate the pesky “imponderables”.
Although, a lot of this a matter of perspective.
True, true.
The constants are variables, or virtual constants, because we are physically bound to C.
Someone had to tackle that one; you get an A for effort.
Our universe is completely infinite in every manner.
Ok, we’re in the same camp on that.
There are no static values, not even 0 or 1. Virtually, there are plenty, but the underlying reality is quite different.
I’m going to skip that one, lol.
We are analog, not digital.
This is actually a good topic for debate. I could argue both sides, but I’ll let it go.

This is actually a good topic for debate. I could argue both sides, but I’ll let it go.
Yes, one can very easily argue both sides. It is the exact inverse of expansion, for the most part. Most of the math is already done. Just needs to be flipped around and put into perspective. We didn't come from the inside moving outward, we came from the outside moving inward. And because this is a direct inversion of the big bang, there is a 33.33% chance it's right.
Either I'm wrong, or the big bang is wrong, or it's all wrong. If I'm right, which I think is higher probability than the BB, than the dominoes start to fall. They fall in a very good way though, because it really doesn't impact physics as much as you would think. Relativity and QM pretty much comes out unscathed. BB, expansion, and acceleration does nothing for science really. Nor does Dark Matter for that matter. It's superfluous physics, but it messes with finding the right answers. On the down side, we'd lose a lot of those sciencey shows on TV. You know, in the first fraction of second, and blah blah blah. It is a major simplification of the universe, as we would understand it. Would be great for science honestly. Just think of all the fresh calculation these geniuses can perform. And I mean that sincerely, because I'm certainly no genius. Patient  stubborn  determined  creative, yes. Genius? Hell no.
How the heck do you post images on here anyway? I tried using a google share link, but it comes up blank in the preview. Does Google not work?
This would make a lot more sense if I could post some of the graphics I use to guide me.

That's a matter of opinion, in which I completely disagree.
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'm right, and you know it.
I'll agree if and when an actual experiment confirms 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.
Okay, take a look at your watch right now. Go!
Don't forget to wind it!
I suppose we could go after $20 billion or so in funding, if you get tired of waiting for the results. I have a few ideas that might work.
Or, we could just accept that the universe is infinite as we proved mathematically. Priceless.

I have a few ideas that might work.
Then that's what I'm interested in hearing about.
Or, we could just accept that the universe is infinite as we proved mathematically. Priceless.
(1) Except that you had to redefine existing terms in order to "prove" yourself right.
(2) Math alone is not science. Science requires an idea to be testable.

"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."
is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
Yes 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
Ranzan's photon stretching theory that there exists a kind of redshift (in addition to the many other kinds of redshift that must exist)(eg Doppler) that is caused by the stretching of photons as they approach mass & stretching when they recede from mass is definitely a kind of tired light theory, but no other tired light theory explicitly refers to stretching, alltho some of the ones i have seen do lean in that direction (but they dont realize it).
The linked wiki article is completely ignorant of any stretching kind of tired light & therefore is completely irrelevant.
Plus i see that wiki resorts to illogical arguments, eg invoking bigbang & expanding universe in a silly attempt to counter a theory that falsifies bigbang & expanding universe.
A standard Einsteinian ploy, so often used that the wordage is now taking the form of a Hail Alby prayer making one of the small beads sitting on the Einsteinian Rosary, & the devout followers simply say amen & squeeze their eyes shut as hard as they can.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Holy Rosary (/ˈroʊzəri/; Latin: rosarium, in the sense of "crown of roses" or "garland of roses"),[1] also known as the Dominican Rosary,[2][3] refers to a form of prayer used in the Catholic Church and to the string of knots or beads used to count the component prayers. When used for the prayer, the word is usually capitalized ("the Rosary"), as is customary for other names of prayers, such as "the Lord's Prayer", and "the Hail Mary"; when referring to the beads, it is written with a lowercase initial letter ("a rosary").
The prayers that comprise the Rosary are arranged in sets of ten Hail Marys, called decades. Each decade is preceded by one Lord's Prayer and followed by one Glory Be. During recitation of each set, thought is given to one of the Mysteries of the Rosary, which recall events in the lives of Jesus and Mary. Five decades are recited per rosary. Other prayers are sometimes added before or after each decade. Rosary beads are an aid towards saying these prayers in the proper sequence.
A standard 15 Mysteries of the Rosary, based on the longstanding custom, was established by Pope Pius V during the 16th century, grouping the mysteries in three sets: the Joyful Mysteries, the Sorrowful Mysteries, and the Glorious Mysteries. During 2002 Pope John Paul II said that it is fitting that a new set of five be added, termed the Luminous Mysteries, bringing the total number of mysteries to 20. The Glorious mysteries are said on Sunday and Wednesday, the Joyful on Monday and Saturday, the Sorrowful on Tuesday and Friday, and the Luminous Mysteries are said on Thursday. Usually five decades are recited in a session.
For more than four centuries, the rosary has been promoted by several popes as part of the veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism,[4] and consisting essentially in meditation on the life of Christ.[5] The rosary also represents the Roman Catholic emphasis on "participation in the life of Mary, whose focus was Christ", and the Mariological theme "to Christ through Mary."

(1) Except that you had to redefine existing terms in order to "prove" yourself right.
I never redefined any existing terms, contrary to what you believe. That's simply not true.
I used the entire universe as a unit of measure, and labeled it Ι1Ι. It's a perfectly valid unit of measure, regardless of your like or dislike. As I explained, units of measure are arbitrary. A cubit was the length of an arm. A karat was derived from a carob seed. A meter was based on the swing of a pendulum. A hunk of platinumirridium defines a kilogram. All of these begin with 1, and so does my unit of measure, 1 universe. Your opinion of the way I define a unit of measure is pretty much irrelevant. It's valid.
It's really pretty simple. If there is only one universe, and it is defined by the finite value of 1, than 1>∞.
But we're beating a dead horse here. I know I'm right mathematically, and so do you.
So, it's pretty simple. The universe is infinite.
The only question becomes, is our universe finite or infinite. If it's finite, then we're talking about multiple dimensions that extend in two directions infinitely, or something even stranger. Like maybe our universe is a black hole in a another greater universe, or even a quantum fluctuation or atom in another greater universe. But then you run into the, and so on, and son on, and so on, in both directions, infinitely. It's a massive Russian egg that could undergo a cascading failure. as the universes collapse in on themselves.
I've also thought about cyclical, where our universe is a repeating big bang. With infinity, that simply gets ruled out.
Sorry, a singular big bang isn't possible, because it defines the universe in a finite state, which creates the very spacetime it sits in now. And possessing a finite value at any point, makes 1>∞. Nonsense.
I've been down all these roads. The mechanics just don't work out, or get so utterly twisted and convoluted, that you can't make heads or tails of it. There's no reason for the universe to be that complicated. When you strip away all the stuff in the universe, and leave the blackness of empty space, that's all there is at the core. That's what we're made from. Energy is not an ingredient, it's an action.
You can either accept one of these completely radical and equally unprovable scenarios, or accept the simplest and most realistic solution. That's my solution. There is only 1 single universe, and it is infinite.
(2) Math alone is not science. Science requires an idea to be testable.
Mathematical logic is the only way to figure it out, so it's all science has to work with. You can accept that reality, or bury your head in the sand. I don't really care what science requires. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a scientist. I can arrive at the correct answer without going through all the red tape. Sciences loss, not mine. We're infinite.
If science wants to move forward, they have to take an educated guess. Maybe they don't want to move forward. They've convinced a whole lot of people to give them whole lot of money to search for things that probably don't exist. Billions of dollars in fact. It's the scientific method of proof by funding at this point. The LHC was never really about the Higgs, it was about dark energy. That's what they were hoping to discover. If found, they potentially had a whole new form of propulsion. That's patentable. The real noble prize winners were the engineers that built the machine. Incredible piece of machinery. Detecting the Higgs, meh.
Even if I came up with some sort of experiment to prove indirectly any part of my theory, who the hell is going to fund me? Sure, I have ideas, but what's the point? Still can't prove infinity, anymore than you can prove a big bang.
So your demands for an experiment are complete nonsense, and you knew that from the start.
I'm right, and you know it.

I never redefined any existing terms, contrary to what you believe. That's simply not true.
If that's true, then show me a branch of mathematics where 1 is bigger than infinity.
I know I'm right mathematically, and so do you.
Then show me an existing branch of mathematics where 1 is considered bigger than infinity.
I don't really care what science requires.
Then you admit that you are not doing science.
So your demands for an experiment are complete nonsense, and you knew that from the start.
Exactly, which only confirms that this isn't science. If you can't do an experiment, then you can't do science.
I'm right, and you know it.
If that was true then I wouldn't be debating this.

If that's true, then show me a branch of mathematics where 1 is bigger than infinity.
Your lack of understanding is not my concern. But, I'll give you one last try to wrap your brain around it.
The finite values of 0 and Ι1Ι cannot represent the universe, or ∞≠∞.
0 cannot coexist with Ι1Ι in the same space, or 0=Ι1Ι
0 cannot coexist with ∞ in the same space, or 0=∞
Ι1Ι cannot coexist with ∞ in the same space, or Ι1Ι=∞
Both 0 and Ι1Ι represent finite absolute values.
∞ is a nonabsolute variable state.
0 and Ι1Ι are not present in our universe, and can only be represented as potential states. So, the potential between 0 and Ι1Ι must be infinite.
Science agrees with me on 0, as 0 is a theoretically impossible state. I consider this fact, not theory.
Science does not understand the concept of Ι1Ι, yet, but like 0, it would also be a theoretically impossible state. I consider this fact.
My observation is our existence.
Unless you can falsify our existence, then the universe must be infinite.
Our universe is infinite.
0<∞<Ι1Ι
Mathematical fact, whether you can wrap your brain around it or not.
I cannot help it if no one has discovered this fact yet.
My preference in using an absolute value is simple. Absolutes disregard the +/ energy that is associated with the value, and looks at the value from an object perspective.
For example:
1 kilogram is an absolute value, because 1kg is comprised of trillions of atoms possessing +/ energy.
If I were to use +1 or 1 in describing the universe, it would confuse the logic. Ι1Ι signifies the greatest possible finite magnitude of the universe, dimensionally speaking.
Perfectly valid method to arrive at an answer.

How the heck do you post images on here anyway? I tried using a google share link, but it comes up blank in the preview. Does Google not work?
This would make a lot more sense if I could post some of the graphics I use to guide me.
To post images, I click on "Posts" at the top of the page. You get a drop down box, and click on the "Gallery" option.
Click "add an image", or "my images", and it lets you "Upload picture", say from your photos. You have to name the new image, select the category of the gallery it is to go to, select the image from your "photos", and "choose file". Fill in description. Note that there is a file size maximum 1200 X 1200 pixels.
Once you have added a picture to the gallery, you then click on the image, it lets you cut/copy the
Image Linking Codes which give you a Direct Link.
I don't think Management would encourage nonsensical images of equations that don't hold up to scrutiny.

I don't think Management would encourage nonsensical images of equations that don't hold up to scrutiny.
Only a problem for someone that knows how to do one. :)

Then you admit that you are not doing science.
I only admit that you do not like my approach to science. What's science, and what's not science, is a matter of opinion. All that matters at the end of the day is results. I've given an answer through logic that did not exist before. That's a result. I've heard continually over the years, from some really smart people in physics, that 0 was infinite. And I took that bait many times, and spun off in all kinds of crazy directions. Hell, there's an entire theory on zeropoint energy. No, 0 is finite, by definition, and in reality. 0=0, exactly as we're taught in grade school. Problem solved. The absence of finite is the presence of infinite, and vice versa. There is only three possible states for the universe, 0, Ι1Ι, and ∞. Our existence nullifies 0 and Ι1Ι, so the universe must be ∞.
Falsify our existence, and I will concede.
I have to work with what I have, and what I can afford.

Your lack of understanding is not my concern.
So if you can't show me a branch of mathematics that agrees with you when you say one is bigger than infinity, then you are admitting that you made that up and therefore had to change the definition or either one or infinity in order to do it.
0 cannot coexist with Ι1Ι in the same space, or 0=Ι1Ι
0 cannot coexist with ∞ in the same space, or 0=∞
Ι1Ι cannot coexist with ∞ in the same space, or Ι1Ι=∞
Numbers are concepts. They don't have locations.
∞ is a nonabsolute variable state.
The only way that could be true would be if infinity changes value over time. It doesn't. It's always infinite.
Science does not understand the concept of Ι1Ι, yet, but like 0, it would also be a theoretically impossible state.
Science doesn't understand the number one? You must think scientists are awfully stupid then.
0<∞<Ι1Ι
Mathematical fact, whether you can wrap your brain around it or not.
Since you say that the unit you are using is the Universe itself, then when you say that one is greater than infinity, then you are actually saying that one universe is greater than infinity universes. That's like saying one apple is greater than infinity apples. It's wrong.
I only admit that you do not like my approach to science.
What you are doing isn't science.
What's science, and what's not science, is a matter of opinion.
That doesn't give you freedom to redefine it in any way you like. Otherwise, words would be meaningless. Show me an authoritative source on science that defines it in such a way that a nontestable, logical argument counts as science.

"An Argument for an Infinite Universe..."
is known to be wrong, and has been for ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
There is a reason why threads like this get moved to new theories. It's called lack of comprehension. Bored Chemist has already given you an acceptable answer. I very rarely read through all the content of this type of thread other than making sure the rules are not being broken. It just uses up valuable time. Try listening.

So if you can't show me a branch of mathematics that agrees with you when you say one is bigger than infinity, then you are admitting that you made that up and therefore had to change the definition or either one or infinity in order to do it.
At this point, it's just a wilful ignorance on your part.
This is only a problem mathematically if the universe held a finite value. ∞ would be nullified.
I'm right, and I stand by the logic.
0<∞<Ι1Ι
Your like or dislike is no longer productive.

There is a reason why threads like this get moved to new theories. It's called lack of comprehension. Bored Chemist has already given you an acceptable answer. I very rarely read through all the content of this type of thread other than making sure the rules are not being broken. It just uses up valuable time. Try listening.
That's always the challenge on these sites, isn't it? And it's never a good thing when the moderator wants to throw around his or her weight, and inject a finite viewpoint. I don't mean that in a derogatory manner either. It's just fact, and these sites do need some policing. I think it's the right thing to do, with a wide berth of tolerance.
I do listen. It's all I have been doing for the past 35 years. I also disagree, after listening to everyones' explanations for the past 35 years.
I know the challenges of an infinite universe. And, based on how an infinite universe is currently interpreted, sure, I'm wrong. Space needs a curve and entropy.
If a universe possessed a finite value, it would completely nullify the entire concept of infinity. So, the question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is not really a question at all, is it? I get it. So, if someone agrees the universe is finite, they must disagree with the concept of infinity. Infinity doesn't pause on a finite value.
I'm only at step one here, which proves mathematically that I'm not completely nuts. Whether anyone agrees or not at this juncture, is immaterial to me. I know it's right, as odd as it might look at the moment. I don't think it's any stranger than the 12 dimensions in String Theory though, so I'm not alone in strange.
Like I said, I'm at step one. The article that was linked is into step 942, and has no relevance to my interpretation of infinity or the universe. Olbers' Paradox was an immediate contradiction 7 words into the first sentence pulled from wiki, in my view. I'm just giving a mathematical argument in support of an infinite universe at the moment.
I don't assume anyone is correct. Kind of the whole point, isn't it?
What I do know at this point is this.
ZeroPoint Energy. String Theory. Big Bang. Unikef. Steady State. Holographic theory. Relativity. Quantum Mechanics. Mond. Pilot Wave. God. Intelligent Design. Buddhism. Islam. Judaism. And the list goes on and on and on. We have enough theory to stack to the moon and back.
Something is fundamentally wrong in our reasoning and understanding. If there wasn't, no one would be looking to define the universe.
We'd know.
We don't know.
Am I right? Odds are, no.
Though, it's always a possibility. You never know until you know.
The fun is in the process, not the answer.

Okay, seeing as I now have a moderator weighing in on the topic, and pointing me to the same old dead guy from the early 1800's, that claimed an infinite universe was impossible, in conjunction with another commenter, it's time to take a moment for a slightly philosophical analysis.
Infinity is a lot like God and religion.
It is impossible to observe, impossible to calculate, and impossible to prove or disprove. And being similar in nature to God and religion, holds the highest probability for flawed reasoning in science. Also like religion, there's a high probability those flaws in reasoning carry forward, generation after generation, without question. Having commenters point me to a wiki link is proof of this potential. Look here, it's already been answered definitively. No need to think for yourself anymore. I mean that with respect, by the way, so please don't take it the wrong way. Everyone is susceptible to the same flawed reasoning when that answer can only be defined with reason. Even more so when it defies calculation, as infinity does.
Infinity can only be reasoned with logic.
Here's Olbers' Paradox:
The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.
I see a whole lot of assumptions going on there, in such a small sentence, which I consider complete nonsense. I can only assume that this is the reasoning being handed down from one generation of physicists to the next.
The first assumption I see is "static." That represents a finite value, which stands in direct conflict to infinity.
Next I see, "infinitely old universe". There is no reason to assume age has any relevance to the process.
Then I see, "infinite number of stars". Once again, there is no reason to assume there would be an infinite number of stars.
Finally, "infinitely large space." Once again, there's no reason to assume an infinitely large space has any meaning.
Infinity is an ongoing condition, not static. All that's really required for an infinite state is a rising value, against a falling value. It would be an infinitely rising number of stars, against an infinitely falling number of stars. There is an infinite number of stars passing through the universe. Age becomes meaningless, as it's a continuous cycle of life and death. Age becomes a relative condition. We are a reflection of the greater process. There is never an infinite number of stars at any given moment in time, and in addition, would be physically impossible. The universe itself is more than likely expanding outwards at a rate of 1, but even light can't breach that speed limit, so it's always bigger than we can perceive. Once again, we are a reflection of the greater process. Infinity doesn't imply infinite dimension in a static manner, it implies an infinitely rising dimension, defining an infinitely falling dimension, with no end and no beginning. That's all that's required to maintain an infinite universe.
I never read Olbers' Paradox before this thread, but I can assure you, not one single statement from the very first sentence I read on wiki was even close to my interpretation of an infinite universe. Not one. Completely incompatible view of infinity. And if that's what everyone believes an infinite universe represents, I'm a little shocked.
Olber was wrong, and the reasoning that followed is also wrong.

I'm right, and I stand by the logic.
0<∞<Ι1Ι
If you believe that, then go buy one gallon of gas and put it in your car. If one is bigger than infinity, then you will now have more than an infinite number of gallons of gasoline in your car and can therefore drive your car forever without going to the gas station again.

If one is bigger than infinity, then you will now have more than an infinite number of gallons of gasoline
If I can get it accelerated beyond C, there may be some truth in that statement.

If I can get it accelerated beyond C
But you can't, and even if you could...
there may be some truth in that statement.
...it wouldn't increase the volume of gas in your car.
Either way, it sounds like you are agreeing that having one gallon of gas in your car won't let you drive it forever, and therefore that one is not greater than infinity.

Either way, it sounds like you are agreeing that having one gallon of gas in your car won't let you drive it forever, and therefore that one is not greater than infinity.
Your argument is clearly non sequitur at this point, and taken well beyond the context of this thread.
As I said, your arguments are no longer productive.

It's like this Kryptid.
Infinity is not a defined state, contrary to what you believe is true or false. It's pass through knowledge handed down from one generation to the next. We're relying on the reasoning of everyone before us, and believing they understood the implications of it as applied to the universe. Not a single person can say with any certainty, ∞>1, or ∞>0. There is 0 evidence to support any opinion on it. It is wide open to interpretation. Everyone is blindly following the accepted concept of infinity, without a shred of evidence to support that position. Not even Einstein himself could tell you what infinity meant. Seriously.
I'm following the mathematical logic blindly, and letting it go where it tells me to go. If that means Ι1Ι > ∞, then that's the direction I'm going to head. I think it's right, period. And I don't care what anyone has told you or I what ∞ means. I don't care. They're wrong.
I trust my own judgement.
No one knows.
In the end, it changes nothing in physics or mathematics really, because ∞ cannot be used mathematically.
What it can do is impact human reasoning, leading us down the wrong path. Given the uptick in theoretical nonsense, I think it's more likely we got ∞ wrong.
I'm not going to rehash my reasoning from earlier, but just go back and read it, and then let it marinate a bit. Post 82 has a pretty good explanation.
I'm not wrong. You just don't like the results.
I think it was Einstein who said, "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
What exactly do you expect something different to look like anyway? mc^2=e?

Your argument is clearly non sequitur at this point, and taken well beyond the context of this thread.
How can it be a nonsequitur? If 1 is greater than infinity, then it definitely follows that 1 gallon of gasoline is greater than infinity gallons of gasoline.
Infinity is not a defined state
Sure it is, and an easilydefined one at that. The Oxford dictionary defines it as, "A number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number." The Macmillan dictionary defines it as, "The largest number that exists."
Not a single person can say with any certainty, ∞>1, or ∞>0. There is 0 evidence to support any opinion on it. It is wide open to interpretation.
Of course we can. Infinity is, by definition, larger than any countable number. That makes it larger than one or zero.
If that means Ι1Ι > ∞, then that's the direction I'm going to head.
So once you've eaten a single hot dog you've consumed more than an infinite number of hot dogs and therefore never need to eat again.
∞ cannot be used mathematically.
Yet here you are, doing exactly that.
And I don't care what anyone has told you or I what ∞ means. I don't care. They're wrong.
If you had invented the concept of infinity then you could define it however you wanted to. You didn't, though. So you can't just make up any definition that you want to for it.
No one knows.
If no one knows what infinity means then you don't know either, and if you don't know what infinity means, that makes your argument collapse because it depends upon infinity.
What exactly do you expect something different to look like anyway? mc^2=e?
Different from what?
I'm not going to rehash my reasoning from earlier, but just go back and read it, and then let it marinate a bit.
Reading a statement multiple times will not make it any more true than reading it only once will.

So once you've eaten a single hot dog you've consumed more than an infinite number of hot dogs and therefore never need to eat again.
Your argument is once again, non sequitur, unfortunately you can't even comprehend that simple fact.
There are only 3 natural values that matter in the entire universe.
0
Ι1Ι
∞
That's all there is in the entire universe, period.
0 is the absence of dimension.
Ι1Ι is the absolute highest magnitude of dimension, sans a universe
∞ is everything in between.
The 1 hot dog I consumed, is actually more like .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of the whole of the universe. The fact that we learned how to shift the decimal place to the right, and zoom in on that hot dog is irrelevant. .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs is <∞. And so is that gallon of gas I got in your other comment.
You are confusing our base 10 numbering system with reality.
I stand by me logic.
0<∞<Ι1Ι

I stand by the logic.
0<∞<Ι1Ι
What exactly do you expect something different to look like anyway? mc^2=e?
Andreasva, you’ve been registered for a long time here, and now all of a sudden you are a serial poster? You have had a personal revelation, and no one but you knows what brought it on. I hope it is a productive event in your life!
Can you describe your revelation, and explain the circumstances of it (like, I was walking through the park and “such and such” came to me, or something) in 100 words or less, without using inexplicable logic or self defined symbols that only you own the meaning of, very briefly?

Your argument is once again, non sequitur, unfortunately you can't even comprehend that simple fact.
Either 1 is bigger than infinity or it isn't. You can't say sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. That would make as little sense as saying that the number 3 is bigger than the number 2 "only sometimes". If 1 > ∞ for universes, then 1 > ∞ for hot dogs and gallons of gasoline too.
The 1 hot dog I consumed, is actually more like .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of the whole of the universe. The fact that we learned how to shift the decimal place to the left, and zoom in on that hot dog is irrelevant. .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs is <∞. And so is that gallon of gas I got in your other comment.
It sounds like you are saying that 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs is equal to 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 universes. That would make 1 hot dog = 1 universe.
.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs is <∞.
I said 1 hot dog, because you have explicitly defined 1 as being bigger than infinity. If 1 is really bigger than infinity, then it doesn't matter what objects we are using to measure that with. If I say that 3 is bigger than 2, then that must apply in all situations whether I am measuring apples, kilograms, meters per second or anything else. You don't get to say that 1 is greater than infinity when you are measuring the Universe but not when you are measuring other things. That is mathematically inconsistent. Either 1 is greater than infinity in all circumstances or it isn't greater under any circumstances. You don't get to say that 3 is sometimes bigger than 2 and sometimes it's smaller than 2.

Can you describe your revelation, and explain the circumstances of it
I can't tell if you're being demeaning, or sincere, but I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
It was April of 2008. And it was certainly no revelation. It was 25 years of pondering infinity and chat forums. I finally flipped around the universe, and it all became clear. I saw it. It was a Eureka moment. You're never absolutely sure you're right though, so I've kept pondering the mechanics, just to make sure. Tweaking things, adjusting, etc. It all fits now.
I can only do this in short bursts. It's somewhat exhausting trying to present a new idea. The first one through the fence always gets a little bloodied. Change is bad.
I'm right Bogie_smiles, and I know it. It looks weird, I know, but it's right. Not all of it probably, but the big stuff I'm pretty confident about. Haven't even got past 0, Ι1Ι, and ∞ yet. Not sure when I'll move past this part. Very slow going. I understand. I've been thinking about it for 10 solid years, and new people have 10 minutes invested. They're right to be skeptical.

It sounds like you are saying that 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs is equal to 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 universes. That would make 1 hot dog = 1 universe.
Nope, not even close to what I'm saying.
I just don't see any point in debating you anymore.

Nope, not even close to what I'm saying.
Then why say anything about .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs at all?

Nope, not even close to what I'm saying.
Then why say anything about .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs at all?
Man you're hard headed.
The universe is ∞.
Remove the universe as we understand it, and you're left with a singular finite void of dimension.
Ι1Ι is the maximum magnitude of physical dimension, sans ∞. It is a finite value.
Remove dimension and you're left with nothing, which is also a finite value.
0 is the absence of dimension, and by default the absence of ∞. It is a finite value
That hotdog is a fraction of the whole (.00001 etc), but it is also a part of infinity. That hot dog cannot be greater than itself.
These are the only 3 true real values in the universe.
0 < ∞ < Ι1Ι

That hot dog cannot be greater than itself.
Nor can the Universe.
.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hot dogs is <∞.
I still want to know what you meant by this. Why are you mentioning such a tiny fraction of a hot dog?

Nor can the Universe.
If the whole basis of your argument is that I'm wrong, because that's what others have taught you, then we all may as well go back to church and call it a day.
You know exactly what I'm saying Kryptid.
Something different is always going to look different.
If you believe this:
"The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark."
Then why are you debating me? To boost your own ego maybe?
All that Olber proved was that his interpretation of an infinite universe doesn't work. That doesn't prove anything. There's a lot of different ways to interpret an infinite universe, not just his way. And if this is what science is basing their conclusions on, then they're simply confirming the same thing as Olber did. This proved nothing.
Obviously, our universe is not static.
Obviously, all the matter in the universe is not infinitely old.
Obviously, there is not an infinite number of stars.
Obviously, the universe is physically not infinitely large in a static manner.
So what? We ruled out one possible version of an infinite universe. Woohoo! Great!
Common sense tells us the universe is infinite, so lets keep going and find a version that does work.
Science gave up on infinity, and have spent the past 100 years or so trying to prove a finite universe will work. And guess what: Mond, Many Worlds, Unikef, String Theory, Big Bang, ZeroPoint, Pilot Wave, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....
How's that working out for us?

Infinity is not a defined state,
Guess again.
infinity
/ɪnˈfɪnɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state or quality of being infinite.
"the infinity of space"
synonyms: endlessness, infinitude, infiniteness, boundlessness, limitlessness, unlimitedness, extensiveness, vastness, immensity; infinite distance
"she stared out into the infinity of space"
2.
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
"the transmission approaches 100% as the frequency tends to infinity"

Infinity is not a defined state,
Guess again.
Text book definitions don't mean anything where infinity is concerned, as applied to a state of the universe.
Nobody knows what it means. Not you, and definitely not Olber. That was his interpretation of an infinite universe, and that's it. And I agree, if that's what an infinite universe looked like, it doesn't work.
I know you're a really smart guy Bored Chemist.
You know as well as I do that infinity can only be defined through human reason. To convert that interpretation to a hard mathematical definition is questionable at best. We're talking about applying that concept to the universe and our reality, not numbers in our base 10 numbering system, which is also a concept.
When you break down the universe, everything is a fraction of the whole, that sits between 0 and Ι1Ι. Those are the only two real numbers that define the universe. Infinity is everything in between.
It is the different between absolute nothingness, and absolute somethingness.
What an infinite universe looks like is totally up for grabs.
Infinity is pass through knowledge, like god.
If you choose to believe Webster has the answer, than there's probably not much point in you reading any further.
I do appreciate your input, sincerely.
However, I respectfully reject the notion we converted human reasoning adequately to mathematical logic.

You know as well as I do that infinity can only be defined through human reason.
No I don't.
I recognise that the people of the planet Zog might also do it too.When you break down the universe, everything is a fraction of the whole, that sits between 0 and Ι1Ι.
Actually, with an infinite whole, fractions don't mean much.
Half of infinity is still infinity.
Those are the only two real numbers that define the universe. Infinity is everything in between.
No.
There are an infinite number of values between 0 and 1.
That is not the same as saying that infinity is in that range.
It is clearly bigger.
Infinity is pass through knowledge, like god.
Two important things about God.
First, the word gets a capital letter in English.
Secondly, the word doesn't feature in science. If you start using it, you won't get taken seriously.

There are an infinite number of values between 0 and 1.
That is not the same as saying that infinity is in that range.
It is clearly bigger.
Not so clearly bigger, but possibly getting bigger infinitely, and conversely, smaller.
Have we solved pi yet?
Infinite is not finite. And I know it sounds blatantly obvious, but think about it in the context of the universe.
All that's needed to fulfill an infinite state, is the constancy of change.

Actually, with an infinite whole,
Back to Olbers interpretation.
A whole is finite, not infinite.

Bored Chemist 
Infinity was never about the quantity of decimals that spew out in an unsolvable equation, it's the fact that every decimal changes the value of the whole you're calculating.
Infinity = constant change.
Mathematically, that's exactly what we see. So when someone says the universe is infinite and static, they are mixing apples and oranges. That's why steady state didn't work. They assumed a finite infinity.
How big the universe is, is irrelevant. It is simply bigger than it was a moment ago. And a moment ago, it was smaller than it is now. Size does not mean anything. We are not infinitely large, but we're not finite either. There is no condition that can be described as infinitely big in the static sense.
That's the misconception about infinity.

If the whole basis of your argument is that I'm wrong, because that's what others have taught you, then we all may as well go back to church and call it a day.
No, you're wrong because math doesn't work the way you say it does.
Then why are you debating me? To boost your own ego maybe?
Because you claim that one is greater than infinity when it isn't.
Common sense tells us the universe is infinite, so lets keep going and find a version that does work.
Once upon a time, common sense told us that the Earth was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth.
Text book definitions don't mean anything where infinity is concerned, as applied to a state of the universe.
Then that means you had to change the definition of infinity in order to make your idea work. When you can change definitions, you can "prove" anything.
Nobody knows what it means.
You realize that "nobody" must include you too, right?
All that's needed to fulfill an infinite state, is the constancy of change.
According to what definition (other than the one you invented)?
Size does not mean anything. We are not infinitely large, but we're not finite either.
Then what aspect of the Universe are you claiming is infinite?

No, you're wrong because math doesn't work the way you say it does.
That's an absurd accusation. I never changed mathematics. I changed the definition of infinity, which is defined logically, and based solely on human reasoning.
I claim this definition:

2.
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

Inadequately defines infinity. It is wrong.
Right here is the glaring flaw in the reasoning. "a number". Numbers are finite. We're back to Olber.
Infinity is incalculable, and cannot be described in terms of assigning numeric values, countable or otherwise.
Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change
Tell me what math problem I destroyed there.
1+1=2
Because you claim that one is greater than infinity when it isn't.
No, I claimed the absence of finite is infinite. You just can't seem to understand it, no matter how many times or different ways I explain it to you.
Once upon a time, common sense told us that the Earth was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth.
Yes, ironic.
Then that means you had to change the definition of infinity in order to make your idea work. When you can change definitions, you can "prove" anything.
I changed the definition of infinity because it is wrong.
You realize that "nobody" must include you too, right?
Kind of the point of creating a theory, isn't it?
According to what definition (other than the one you invented)?
Have you solved pi yet?
Then what aspect of the Universe are you claiming is infinite?
The entire universe in which we exist.

I changed the definition of infinity,
Thank you for finally admitting this.
No, I claimed the absence of finite is infinite.
You continually say 1 > ∞ > 0. So yes, you are saying that 1 is greater than infinity (unless you've conveniently changed the definition of > symbol as well).
The entire universe in which we exist.
So it's infinitely large, infinitely old, has an infinite mass, infinite charge, etc?
Have you solved pi yet?
Pi has an infinite number of digits in accordance with the traditional definition of infinity.
I changed the definition of infinity because it is wrong.
Then you need to come up with a new word to describe what you are talking about instead of using a word that already has a commonlyaccepted definition.
Not a single person can say with any certainty, ∞>1, or ∞>0.
I just realized that you have contradicted yourself again earlier. In the above quote, you say that infinity being greater than zero is not certain. Yet you say the following in many other posts:
0<∞<Ι1Ι
Which you claim as part of your proof:
Or, we could just accept that the universe is infinite as we proved mathematically.
How can you say claim that ∞ > 0 is not certain in one post and then use ∞ > 0 as a form of proof in another post?

You continually say 1 > ∞ > 0. So yes, you are saying that 1 is greater than infinity (unless you've conveniently changed the definition of > symbol as well).
If only physical dimension was the state of the universe, its finite value could be defined as Ι1Ι.
I've said this many many times, and many many different ways.
The bottom line is, if the universe reached a finite state consisting only of dimension, change would cease, so that absolute finite state is greater than infinity. This is inversely equivalent to 0, where change ceases.
I stand by my reasoning.
0<∞<Ι1Ι

Quote from: andreasva on Today at 00:35:53
Not a single person can say with any certainty, ∞>1, or ∞>0.
I just realized that you have contradicted yourself again earlier. In the above quote, you say that infinity being greater than zero is not certain. Yet you say the following in many other posts:
I have to be fair. No, I cannot prove anything to anyone else. It's infinity.
It was not a contradiction, it was an admission.
Reasoning the problem logically is the only solution. I trust my own judgement.
That does not change my stance.
I know it's right.

Then you need to come up with a new word to describe what you are talking about instead of using a word that already has a commonlyaccepted definition.
Usually, when things stand in error, we correct the underlying problem. No need to alter the verbiage, considering it's currently wrong and could confuse people.

I think this perfectly sums up all 117 posts.
Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change
If the universe lacked constancy of change, it would be finite. Seeing as constancy of change is the observed natural order of the universe, it cannot be considered finite, and therefore, must be considered infinite.

Seeing as constancy of change is the observed natural order of the universe, it cannot be considered finite, and therefore, must be considered infinite.
Does that make a lava lamp infinite as well?

Does that make a lava lamp infinite as well?
Face it, you lost this debate Kryptid. And if you could bury your pride and ego for a moment, you might just figure out that question of yours someday.
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
I didn't realize we had a finite quantity of countable numbers, and the one just after that is the infinite finite number greater than all other regular finite numbers.
Interesting.
Considering you still believe this woefully misguided attempt at converting infinity into a numerical value, it's little wonder you can't wrap your brain around reality.
Infinity = Constancy of Change
Finite = Absence of Change
This perfectly describes both reality and mathematics.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.
It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Mark Twain
Willful ignorance is a choice, not a life sentence.

Without throwing a spanner in the works to this discussion, and without being too metaphorical, "if" all the laws of time and space, and their inherent platitudes, were like a snake chasing its tail, compensating for each other, in time, the universe could be endless, yet confined to a set of laws resolving its set of laws with each of its own sets of laws....with no end.....

On the one hand the concept is finite as a snake chasing its tail, on the other, its infinite, it never ends on that quest.

Key to that infinite struggle, as a snake chasing its tail, could be EM and G, light and location of actual mass.

Key to that infinite struggle, as a snake chasing its tail, could be EM and G, light and location of actual mass.
The universe consists of praeons (making the praether), & aetheons (an excitation of the praether)(making the aether), & gravity (the bulk acceleration of aether)(giving us mass), & photons (an annihilation & excitation of the aether), & photinos (emitted by photons) (em radiation)(an annihilation & excitation of the aether), & elementary particles (confined photons).
Confined photons are made by free photons that have caught their own tail (alltho some believe that a loop can also involve two such photons forming one loop)(& or two side by side photons forming a biloop)(a neutrino).
So, a snake chasing its own tail is closer to the truth than praps u might think.
Anyhow the universe that we see & feel is a lot of processes. The only thing in there is the praeon. Aether can communicate at over 20 billion c kmps by way of the simple bulk flow (gravity & inertia). And aether can communicate at c by way of the flow of excitations (photons). And aether can communicate at say 5c by way of the transverse flow of photinos & at c for the longitudinal flow of photinos (em radiation). Praeons can probly communicate at who knows what speeds, probly one speed for bulk flow, & another speed for the excitations that create aetheons (& giving us QE praps).

Good point. Is it about what works or what doesn't work that has to constantly resolve itself for not working?
Create the gap between the head and the tail, the problem, and you have infinity resolving itself as a circle in time...it could seem.

The real question is how is this a resolution between the first principles of time and space.

The aim of course is not to throw the contemporary scientific train of thought off track......no derailment of thought.....

….at worst, a repiecing of the puzzle of facts to give a new picture outcome....

And if you could bury your pride and ego for a moment, you might just figure out that question of yours someday.
Going by your definition of infinity as "constancy of change", the lava lamp would indeed be infinite. Actually, every single subatomic particle in the Universe (and even the quantum vacuum) would be infinite because everything is constantly changing. That is due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
I didn't realize we had a finite quantity of countable numbers.
We don't nor did the definition you quoted imply such a thing.
….at worst, a repiecing of the puzzle of facts to give a new picture outcome....
You seem to have forgotten that time when you were told by a moderator to stop multiposting.

Ouch, nothing to add scientifically then?

Answers are limited here, I get that.
Don't worry, I'm over my golden age of posting.

We don't nor did the definition you quoted imply such a thing.
The text book definition clearly defines infinity as "a number".
What number?
Then it implies, "greater than any assignable quantity or countable number"
Clearly, it implies exactly what you say it doesn't imply.
We're eventually going to run out of quantities or countable numbers somewhere.
Infinity appears to be a +1 thing.
Even if I took it out of context, and assumed we could count indefinitely, then infinity doesn't exist at all, because we never run out of countable numbers to reach infinity.
What sense does any of that make?
If I created an idea as such, and posted on a site like this, I'd be crucified by everyone. Moderators might even shut down the thread if I kept arguing what I saw as the truth, which is clearly nonsense.
Infinity is not a numerical value.
Infinity = Constancy of Change
Finite = Absence of Change
The more constant the change, the more constant that state. Light would be a pretty good example.
Unless you want to suggest 299792458 is an infinite number.

Cantor apparently went mad, searching for the aleph....I read his book....amazing work....truly amazing how the mind can challenge the idea itself of mathematics....to the point the human mind will always go beyond mathematics...despite criticism...

Then it implies, "greater than any assignable quantity or countable number"
Clearly, it implies exactly what you say it doesn't imply.
The definition doesn't say that there are a limited amount of countable numbers.
We're eventually going to run out of quantities or countable numbers somewhere.
I don't see how. There is no conceptual limit to how many zeroes can be placed after a one to create a very large number. Maybe a limit based on the number of atoms you could use to form a piece of paper or computer to write it down on, but not a limit conceptually.
Even if I took it out of context, and assumed we could count indefinitely, then infinity doesn't exist at all, because we never run out of countable numbers to reach infinity.
The inability to count to infinity doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a concept. You can't count to pi or the square root of negative one either. In fact, your very inability to run out of numbers to count is itself proof that there are infinite integers.
What sense does any of that make?
Plenty enough.
If I created an idea as such, and posted on a site like this, I'd be crucified by everyone. Moderators might even shut down the thread if I kept arguing what I saw as the truth, which is clearly nonsense.
Obviously not, as I don't see anyone here but you challenging the actual definition of infinity.

Why don't we set ourselves an experiment to perfect the circle using an Algorithm than inches ever so closer to that end? Will we ever get there as based on what is already happening around us in terms of time and space?

Why is a circle important?
Its basic to a point source of light emanating waves. It should be, right? Otherwise its on something wobbly.

The definition doesn't say that there are a limited amount of countable numbers.
Not directly of course, but it does clearly define infinity as "a number".
Then it clearly states, "greater than any assignable quantity or countable number"
What "number" is infinity? 10^300? 10^1000? 10^1000000? Are one of those the magic infinity "number" that is "greater than any assignable quantity or countable number"?
Oh wait, I think I get it. When I say 1, infinity = 2. When I say 2, infinity = 3. When I say 3, infinity = 4. This is fun!
It's the marco polo infinite numbering game. Makes perfect sense... :o
You cannot refer to infinity as a numeric value, which is exactly what the definition does do.
That's why:
Infinity = Constancy of Change
Finite = Absence of Change

I think this perfectly sums up all 117 posts.
Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change
Nobody else thinks so

Its difficult to look ahead beyond the works of those who have stressed beyond these current arguments.
Is infinite time or space, or both as one?

Is infinite time or space, or both as one?
Spacetime as we know from Einstein, is a bound state. As long as time keeps changing, both are infinite. If time ceased to exist, then space would be a finite state. Without time, change is meaningless.

Nobody else thinks so
And that's a shame.
Because this...
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
...Is conjecture at best, and nonsense at its worst.
My definition...
Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change
...explains both mathematically, and physically, what infinity represents. As I explained earlier, light would be a pretty good example.
The more constant the change, the more constant the state.
and conversely...
The less constant the state, the more finite the state.
Infinity is not what we imagined it to be, and most definitely does not translate to "a number".
Numbers are finite, and can only offer an approximation of an infinite state.
Pi for example, is an approximation, as it would take an infinite amount of time to resolve it. How accurate we are in resolving a given formula utilizing pi, is entirely dependent on the number of digits of pi we can resolve. There is inherently a limitation in that resolution, because numbers are finite.
You cannot define infinity with "a number". It is a contradiction, which makes finite=infinity in mathematical logic.
What anyone chooses to believe is most certainly beyond my control though, so this is what it is.

Is infinite time or space, or both as one?
Spacetime as we know from Einstein, is a bound state. As long as time keeps changing, both are infinite. If time ceased to exist, then space would be a finite state. Without time, change is meaningless.
Infinite time or infinite space....yeah, I got that as well.

Infinite time or infinite space....yeah, I got that as well.
Out of curiosity, do you get the reasoning and logic behind this, and do you loosely concur?
Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change

I'm like you if you know what I mean.
You need to know what you're doing, right?

You need to know what you're doing, right?
We all do, right?
Leave no stone unturned. Beat the dead horse. Keep questioning what we know. Brain storm a new concept and new ideas. Find the solution. Debate, cordially, but have some fun doing it of course.
We are becoming master operators of the machine, but have no clue how this machine works.
I'm 54, and I want to know now, before I'm 6' under. If you want something done, sometimes you have to do it yourself.

I have the opportunity for a valid input, is that it?

be brave at 80!

My definition...
Quote
Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change
...explains both mathematically, and physically, what infinity represents. As I explained earlier, light would be a pretty good example.
As has been pointed out, your "definition" fails to distinguish infinity from a lava lamp.
and yet you say "
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
...Is conjecture at best, and nonsense at its worst.
You should get a mirror.

I have the opportunity for a valid input, is that it?
As long as we aren't waving magic wands, absolutely!
be brave at 80!
You're 80?

No. I'm 50 or so...49.
Born 1969.

I'm trying to talk to my dad who is 90 or so....it's tough....he has no idea about science.

As has been pointed out, your "definition" fails to distinguish infinity from a lava lamp.
and yet you say "
And this is a problem why exactly?
I'm pretty sure we know the difference between a lava lamp and a toaster.
We changed energy into a lava lamp, so what?
And some day all the atoms that make up that lava lamp will be something else.
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.
Infinity ≠ Lava lamp
Infinity ≠ Immortality
Infinity ≠ Boundless dimension
Infinity = constancy of change
I never said anything about lava lamps. Not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs in Egypt, or not being able to distinguish the difference between "constancy of change" and a lava lamp. The latter is not too difficult for me.

A finite universe is a crisis, right?

You say
Infinity ≠ Lava lamp
But you also say
Infinity = constancy of change
and a lava lamp does achieve constant change, so, by your argument it is infinity
Come back when you make up your mind

A finite universe is a crisis, right?
In my view, yes.
To be brief, there are only two possible finite states in the whole of existence, and neither of these states are physically present in our universe.
0, being nothing, is the complete absence of dimension. An impossible state of course, but theoretically possible. The potential to be 0 though, is real, and also infinite, because it is an impossible state.
Typically, when you describe something as < something else, you can describe something as > something else. But with 0 in the absolute sense and in the context of defining it as the absence of physical dimension, there is nothing less than 0. 0=0. It is purely an absolute finite value. Nothing is lower.
So, 0<∞
Now that gives us a two object universe, of 0 and infinity, and that's it. It's too big, as was clearly understood in science.
Science arbitrarily made it finite to solve the problem, so we busted it up into 3 pieces.
Now we have a 3 piece universe
0<1<∞
We've just kind of pushed ∞ out of the universe.
It doesn't make sense.
So, I imagined a state of absolute Ι1Ι, which is dimension sans a universe. Basically a theoretical empty dimensional state which is the exact inverse of nothing. To me, it's the perfect solution to the problem.
0<∞<Ι1Ι
∞ to me represents an infinitely variable state of the universe, which is exactly what we observe. As we know, infinitely variable is an analog state. Waves are analog. We are comprised entirely of waves in my view.

and a lava lamp does achieve constant change, so, by your argument it is infinity
Yes, it does achieve constant change, but only while it's a lava lamp. The less constant the change, the more finite the state.
But yes, technically, it is part of an infinite universe, so it is infinite in nature.
But really, why would anyone feel a need to call a lava lamp infinite in the first place?
I don't call my computer by the list of composite materials that make up my computer. I call it a computer. That's someones else's job to know exactly what it's made of, and how it works on a technical level.

But really, why would anyone feel a need to call a lava lamp infinite in the first place?
Nobody would.
It's silly.
And yet, that's what your definition does.
Because a (working) lava lamp is constantly changing, it is, according to your weird definition, infinite.
That's a problem with your definition

Because a (working) lava lamp is constantly changing, it is, according to your weird definition, infinite.
That's a problem with your definition
Not really a problem if you truly wrapped your head around the solution.
That entire state that makes up the lava lamp is infinite, for a little while anyway, until it changes into something else.
If you'd like a more constant state of that lava lamp with more longevity, just accelerate it to C.
Not sure what the point would be though, after all, it's just a cheesy lava lamp.
Infinity ≠ immortality for that lava lamp. On the contrary actually, as infinity is a guarantee of it's eventual demise.
So, let's take the inverse of the argument, and call it finite. Although I don't know why we would want to do such a thing. It's a lava lamp, not a finite or a infinite.
Is that lava lamp finite, ever?
It's a mass of swirling and moving particles, changing with each moment of time. So, you can't really say it's finite either, can you? May appear finite to the average person, but it's anything but finite in the underlying reality.
Regardless, I wouldn't ask anyone for a finite lava lamp, anymore than I would ask someone for an infinite lava lamp. I'm not even sure what we're debating honestly.
infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change
What does any of that have to do with a lava lamp being a lava lamp?

What "number" is infinity? 10^300? 10^1000? 10^1000000? Are one of those the magic infinity "number" that is "greater than any assignable quantity or countable number"?
None of those, as infinity is not an integer. It is, by definition, larger than any finite number. Math contains concepts for numbers other than the natural numbers and real numbers. The square root of negative one is a good example.
Oh wait, I think I get it. When I say 1, infinity = 2. When I say 2, infinity = 3. When I say 3, infinity = 4.
Nope, as all of those numbers are finite values.
You cannot refer to infinity as a numeric value, which is exactly what the definition does do.
Not a finite numeric value, no.

The square root of negative one is a good example.
I'm talking about reality. Infinity is not a number. No matter what you do, you are physically expressing every number in a finite manner, whether it's solvable or not.
The change in the value is what signifies an infinite number, not the size or concept. The square root of 1? So what? That doesn't describe infinity. Not even close. If it did, that would = infinity.
The text book definition clearly states "a number". It doesn't differentiate, and specifically refers to a quantity and countable numbers.
What number, or concept, or noninteger are they referring to in the text book definition?
If they knew the answer, don't you think they would have put it in the definition?
Numbers are always finite, real, imaginary, integer, noninteger. You have to jot them down somewhere, and know what they mean. This, ∞, is not a number, it's a symbol. This, ∞, is a natural variable, possessing an infinite number of values over time, because it's in a constant state of change.
infinity = constancy of change

There is a fine line between a finite and infinite universe, and neither can coexist in the same state. It's one way or the other. Finite is not conducive to our existence, because it lacks motion, and time. Finite is an end state. It's like Hawking's said, if you took all the positive energy against all the negative energy in the universe it would cancel itself out, in addition, to a finite state. Stop change, stop motion, and C=0 universally, then we cease to exist. Finite is not good.
I think there's been too much misconception about what infinity represents. All I'm saying, is change. Seeing as the entire universe is in a constant state of change, is it so hard to believe we are infinite?
That does not mean infinite dimension, or an infinite number of stars, or immortality, or endlessness for anything in the universe at this point in time. It actually means quite the opposite. Life and death. Entropy. Change is inevitable. Change itself is a constant, like C. Infinity represents the constant of change.

I am currently looking at a finite plastic ruler. Finite is not good, oh my god we are all DOOMED! Better have a cup of tea then.

I am currently looking at a finite plastic ruler. Finite is not good, oh my god we are all DOOMED! Better have a cup of tea then.
Cute...
But you know as well as I do that if you were looking at the ruler in a quantum state, it wouldn't look so finite, would it? There would be a whole lot of activity going on. You could say, constant motion which results in constant change over time. Every second that ticks by actually results in a slightly different ruler the longer you look at it. Eventually, the numbers will fade, and the plastic will start to break down, and that beautiful finite ruler will crumble into dust. Not so finite anymore. The Quantum world is freaky.
Thank goodness we're bound to a relative view of the universe as defined by Einstein, and can interpret things such as a plastic ruler in a simple finite manner at the macro scale, as you so elegantly demonstrated.

Infinity is not a number.
I guess that means that you can't say 1>∞>0, since "greater than" and "less than" don't apply to nonnumbers.
What number, or concept, or noninteger are they referring to in the text book definition?
Infinity, what else?
If they knew the answer, don't you think they would have put it in the definition?
They did.
Numbers are always finite, real, imaginary, integer, noninteger.
Source?
I'm also curious: do you think there are a finite quantity of numbers on the number line?

I'm also curious: do you think there are a finite quantity of numbers on the number line?
That would be ridiculous, of course not. There is an endless supply of numbers, which would take an infinite amount of time to express in a finite manner.
What number, or concept, or noninteger are they referring to in the text book definition?
Infinity, what else?
Which is why number "infinity" is the most ridiculous thing I've heard you suggest so far. You are referencing infinity finitely if you didn't notice.
Numbers are linear, or sequential. Each value represents a position on a number line, with an infinite quantity situate in either direction.
So you're suggesting there exists a finite numeric value called infinity, that lies outside the concept of numbers as we understand them?
If they knew the answer, don't you think they would have put it in the definition?
And even though you seem to understand this, and those who created the definition also apparently knew this, failed to explain it is a number that lies outside our concept of numeric values as we understand them? It's not only greater than any countable quantity or number, it's something entirely different than a number.
Hmm, sure, that makes total sense. A completely Imaginary finite definition of a number value called infinity, like the blue fairy.
And without a single shred of evidence, you're willing to believe this completely "imaginary" value is fact, based solely on someone else telling you it's a fact?
It's an imagined numeric value that somehow escapes a finite reality of numeric values.
You don't see a problem in this?
Sounds an awful lot like the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster to me.

I guess that means that you can't say 1>∞>0, since "greater than" and "less than" don't apply to nonnumbers.
No, not exactly. It's not a number, it's a variable possessing many values, infinitely changing over time. Those values are situated between 0 and 1 at any given moment in time.
Infinity is not "a number".
I said this on page 1. "Infinity is an infinitely variable state." It is analog. We can only approximate this analog state numerically, or digitally, in a finite manner.

Mathematics
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
This textbook definition of infinity is wrong, clearly. As I said, it is conjecture at best, and nonsense at its worst. It is completely arbitrary and totally contrived. It means nothing.
Think I'll count to infinity now.
1, 2, infinity.
Phew. All done.
I'm tired, think I'll get a bite to eat.
Oh wait, let me solve pi first.
3.∞
What was so hard about that?

I'm a reasonable and patient person, with a dry sarcastic sense of humor. I've been at this a very long time. 35 years in fact. I've been looking for that proverbial needle in the haystack. It's that fundamental flaw in our reasoning and logic that is impeding our effort to move forward in figuring out the universe. And solve gravity hopefully someday, and before I die preferably. So, I erased the blackboard, and started from the beginning.
I've taken a lot of abuse on these forums over the years, but I'm a big boy, and can easily dismiss my own flaws in reasoning and move on to another path. I let the mayhem occur, and walk away licking my wounds and my pride, and then simply reevaluate my reasoning. They were right, I was wrong. So what? I'll get over it. I'll sacrifice being embarrassingly wrong 1000's of times, just to find that single flaw, which I know instinctively exists. I'm sure we all do.
I found that needle, and I know it's right, against all probability and conventional wisdom, and people way smarter and far more knowledgeable than I.
If we aren't here trying to figure this thing out together, what's the point of these "New Theories" forums? To boost each others ego's, and point everyone back to what we think we know as fact? We all know something is wrong, or we wouldn't be hanging around these crazy forums day in and day out.
I like to say I found it, but truly, this is the work of many people engaging in debates over the years. Steering me down a path of logical flaws, until those flaws slowly vanished, and only a question remained. Even you Kryptid, and Bored Chemist, and JeffreyH, and Opportunity, and Bogie Smiles, and many, many others. You're all contributors in your own way, either by opposition, and/or agreement. My methods may be unconventional, but it's all I have, and all I can afford. I used my brain, and checked my reasoning against others. That beautiful analog processor we all have, which has no builtin error detection and correction subroutines, and is susceptible to corruption via a multitude of internal and external inputs, both good and bad. It is the only way to solve infinity. Deductive reasoning. No, it can't be proved, but it does get to a point where it can't be disproved either, and just makes better sense.
We are left with a choice. A question. I certainly can't make anyone accept my conclusions, and I know that, but I know it's right. I don't believe it, I know it. Like I know 1+1=2 in the real world.
The answer I felt, started with 0. A completely uninteresting and totally neglected value. Should be simple, right?
0 is what the universe should be, but we're here. Then, upon further investigation, you come to the realization that 0 is what it can never be. To achieve 0 would require a complete dimensional collapse into nothingness. That makes no sense logically, because there's always more space to fill that void left behind. But the idea of 0 is real, so it can only be seen as a potential state of the universe.
0 is the first real number in the universe. It is naturally finite, and naturally absolute.
The universe can count to the absolute finite value of 0 all by itself, naturally.
Logically, that makes no sense, because the act of counting itself requires at least one more finite value. So, how high can the universe count? As stupid as that might sound.
The universe is considered finite, so the universe must be 1, or so you might think. If you're thinking I suppose. The problem is that pesky infinity. That says there is a limitless amount of numbers, and since we're considering our universe is finite, there must be an infinitely rising quantity of universes, each representing a different finite value. That makes no sense. The universe doesn't physically count. It's only the fundamental idea of counting that could exist. But, it has to be based on something physical, because the universe is following math precisely.
So, back to 1.
If the absence of a dimensional state can't exist, then something else must replace it in its absence. Logically speaking.
That state, is the absolute value of Ι1Ι. That value, although I am hesitant to use this term, as it may confuse people, represents *infinite (*in the literary sense) empty dimension only. I know, I realize I am mixing apples and oranges in that statement, but I think it's easier for people to comprehend as they're more comfortable with the term and what it implies. Ι1Ι itself in this empty dimensional state, only possesses the potential for infinity in reality. Ι1Ι itself is a finite state of potential existence, and also an impossible state for the universe. Infinity gets in the way of it. It's a potential state that is completely void of energy, and motion, and anything that we would construe as a definable subset of the whole. It is made entirely of itself only. A perfect solid, so to speak, derived entirely of empty space. Any value to describe it can only be seen as 1, and that value is absolute.
Ι1Ι is the next real number in the universe. It is naturally finite, and naturally absolute.
So now, our universe can count to the absolute finite value of Ι1Ι, all by itself, naturally, and that's as high as it can go. There's no room for anything more, as it occupies all of space. It is the exact opposite or inverse of 0, and exponentially different in nature.
These potential finite values of 0 and Ι1Ι, forms the basis for all mathematical reasoning and logic in the universe. They don't exist, and can't exist physically, which forces that potential between them to infinity. 0 and Ι1Ι is where the potential for all physics and math lies, that is physically defined in infinity by a universe, virtually. There's lots of 0's and 1's to choose from in infinity.
We are a reflection of what the universe is trying to be, but never can be. It cannot be nothing or something in the absolute sense, so it is everything else in between in a nonfinite, nonabsolute, infinite state.
Infinity is not defined by scale, or the size of a numeric value, it's defined by variability and change, and of course, the potential to be a finite state. The size of the entire universe collectively has the potential to be Ι1Ι, not infinite, or nothing, 0.
Finite bad, infinite good. (Caveman speak)
I stand by my reasoning.
0<∞<Ι1Ι
No one can tell me this is wrong, and consequently, I won't try to convince anyone it's right. I can only share my reasoning, and defend it when required.
The choice is yours.

What was so hard about that?
Apparently, the hard bit was understanding the definition.
It must be hard; you failed.I'm a very humble and patient person,
It's remarkable how often people need to tell us they are humble...

Apparently, the hard bit was understanding the definition.
I understand where the definition came from.
The magical flying spaghetti monster, greater than all other mere mortal finite numbers.
It lives in the imagination of those who communicated with infinity directly, and those who now propagate its teachings. It is the number of all numbers, greater than man can count, or amass quantities. All hail infinity.
Like I said, the choice is yours.

Isolate the accepted definition of infinity.
A number greater than any countable number.
Seeing as we don't run out of finite numbers, infinity invalidates itself in the definition.
And also cannot be referred to as a number in this manner by any stretch of the imagination, because it can never exist.
If it did, 3.15=∞, because it is greater than pi, which is infinite.
There is no specific infinite number, and the definition clearly suggest infinity is "a number greater". There are lots of infinite numbers.
And then you run into the other problem. Infinity appears to be 1direction in that definition, and only applicable to positive numbers.
2 < 1
I don't know about you, but I can count negatively for a pretty long time. So, is 1 always infinite? It's greater than 2.
They could have at least had the decency to add the negative clause.
A negative number less than any countable negative number.*
*excluding negative quantities, which makes about as much sense as the actual definition we're conjuring.
Either infinity doesn't exist according to the definition, or the definition is incorrect.
Infinite numbers are not about the greater size of the value, it's the fact that the resolution represents infinite change over time. It would take an infinite amount of time to resolve pi, and with each moment that passes, the value of the whole changes.
That's not a number, that's an infinite condition.
I'm really kind of shocked that I would receive so much push back on it, in favor of a completely imaginary definition that makes no actual sense. It's number infinity! What? I have no idea what you guys are rationalizing. The definition is flawed.
Numbers are finite, created by us to understand the universe in a finite manner. Numbers are digital. So, referencing "a number" greater or otherwise in the definition, makes infinity=finite. Period.
Numbers are finite by design. That's the way we made them, so we could count for trade. 3 pelts for an axe. They weren't designed to be infinite, and cannot be retrofitted in an infinite manner. Numbers are finite, intentionally.
It is wrong.

Okay, moving on.
Here's another piece of evidence based on actual physics to support my hypothesis.
Olber said that an infinite universe would suffer a heat death, because he looked at the universe like this.
0<∞
That made the universe infinite and static (finite) at the same time.
Modern physics changed it to finite like this.
0<1<∞
They pushed infinity out of the universe.
As I said, we cannot be finite. If the universe was finite, nothing would happen, because x=x, which is all that would ever happen. There are only 3 choices for the universe, 0, Ι1Ι, and ∞, because x=x.
The universe needs a dynamic state, and ∞ is the only variable in x that can give us a dynamic state, because it is a nonfinite value in x=x.
As I said a while back, we move 3dimensionally, and that the universe is actually 1dimensional in orientation. When we see something moving in a linear manner, like sending a rocket up into space, or throwing a ball, it's actually moving in the outward direction. The more at rest we are, the more inward we move.
This has to do with being homogeneous. Homogeneity is the state where everything sees the universe from a spherical perspective, looking outward 3dimensionally. Everything thinks its in the exact center of the universe.
All photons are moving outward, because their motion is constant.
As Olber suggested in his version of an infinite universe, we would suffer a heat death. Although his version of infinity was wrong, his idea and calculations were correct. If it was 0<∞, yes, that's what would happen everywhere.
I changed the layout an added a finite limit of [1], which corrects his interpretation, while still maintaining ∞.
0<∞<Ι1Ι
Outward in distant space, our outer edge is suffering the heat death that Olber discussed in his theory. It is happening, exactly as he predicted, but the universe is not static, or infinitely old, and also has an orientation. This heat gathers at the far edge in distant space. The photons are beating against the outer edge, which in turn keeps the universe churning. Well beyond our detection. The universe is a gradient of hot and cold. The universe recycles, infinitely. Matter transfers energy to photons, which eventually make their way to the outer edge.
As I've said, we are reflection of what the universe is trying to be, but never can be. We are in a thermodynamic state, sinking to the cold bottom inward as we continue to cool and condense. There is an infinite amount of space in either direction, so it's not really a problem of how much we condense, because we are bound to a relative perspective. It all looks finite, but it's not. We are changing at a constant rate.
As JeffreyH pointed out, that ruler only looks finite. It's state as a ruler is a temporary finite value. It is changing from the moment it is manufactured, and is never actually finite. It's a temporary illusion of sorts, and infinite in nature. Finite values are not maintainable indefinitely. They are changing from the moment they are created into something else.

I understand where the definition came from.
Yes, it came from Google.
I said you didn't understand the definition. I didn't say you didn't understand where it was from.
The rest of your posts prove my point.

Yes, it came from Google.
I said you didn't understand the definition. I didn't say you didn't understand where it was from.
The rest of your posts prove my point.
I don't care how many definitions you throw out there, infinity is a not a number, anymore than finite is a number. We use numbers as a tool to understand finite and infinite states. Numbers are finite by design. It was intentional.
Which proves my point.
The definition of infinity comes from the magical flying spaghetti monster.
You are free to choose whatever is you want to believe. That's your prerogative.
I'm going to stick with the mathematical facts.
x=x
The universe cannot be finite. Finite is the absence of change, by definition. It is final. Our universe is following mathematical laws. If it wasn't, e=mc^2 would not be our reality.
There are only two states the universe can be in, finite or infinite. 0 is a finite value no matter how you choose to look at it, and our universe is clearly not 0. I added the absolute finite value of Ι1Ι, which limits what infinity can be at any given moment in time.
Our current understanding of infinity is wrong.
Infinity is the equal and opposite reaction to the absence of change, which would be the constancy of change.
You are confusing the mainstream literary meaning with a practical meaning as applied to a scientific definition. It's not an endless static universe, or timelessness, or eternal existence, it is the constancy of change.
Yes, it came from Google.
And don't forget, you were the one who threw out the definition from Google, not me. You claimed it was proof I was wrong.
So I suppose you are now agreeing with me?
You clearly do not understand infinity any better than Google's definition, or you wouldn't have thrown it out there in the first place, knowing it was wrong or woefully deficient, which it clearly is. You believed it to be evidence, blindly.
At this point, it's just wilful ignorance on your part.
It's just too simple a solution for people to wrap their brain around apparently.
Is their anything in the entire universe that can possibly be identified as truly finite? No. That's the entire point of trying to find constants, so we have a reference frame to judge other things. Not so easy to find, and even harder to pin down with any sense of certainty. Every single constant we've identified is theoretical, and not fully understood.
Even when we observe the whole of the entire universe to be expanding, with our own two eyes, which makes it a nonfinite value, we call it finite. Mind boggling really. A nonfinite finite universe. x≠x. :o That makes a lot of sense.

Okay, so a quick recap.
As stated on the very 1st post, infinity is an infinitely variable analog state. By it's very nature, analog cannot directly convert to a finite numeric value, and can only be approximated. Numbers are digital not analog. This is well understood in mathematics, and in science, as the universe can pretty much be described in waves. The idea of number infinity is the logical equivalent of 2+2=tree. It makes no sense. It makes infinity=finite. It is a contrived concept, and stands in error. We can recognize a number as an analog condition by the continuous change in value over time, but numerically, it is only an approximation of that analog condition.
Numbers are a tool used to describe reality, which is either finite or infinite, but numbers themselves do not constitute our physical reality. Finite values coincidentally match finite states precisely, as numbers were invented before any such understanding even existed, but we know now finite states are never truly finite numerically in our universe. Finite is a temporary condition in our universe. The reason is pretty obvious once you realize we are analog. Finite values are a digital representation of the underlying analog state which is undergoing constant change, and in which we are immersed. Apparent finite objects, such as a ruler, are not quite as real as the underlying analog state they are derived from. How finite an object appears is dictated by the amount of change that state is undergoing over time. The more constant the change, the more constant that state appears over a longer time frame, and the less constant the change, the more finite that state appears, but for a shorter time frame. Constancy should not be confused with finite. A photon for example, is not a finite element. It is simply a state undergoing the maximum observable constancy of change, making it appear as a constant.
This is exactly what we observe. Not one single square millimeter of the universe can be construed as finite. This is by direct observation in science. The universe cannot be defined as finite, because it is not what we observe, and it is both mathematically and logically impossible to even make that claim. Everything is moving towards a finite ending of some sort, which makes the process infinite in nature by default. There is no other option.
The universe itself is infinite, because x=x. If the value of x was finite, our universe could never have existed. Period.
Infinite = constancy of change
finite = absence of change
I'm going to try and move forward from this topic.

Its very hard to see any type of significant "pattern" of knowing how to play this planet, as the planet will only play out as dumb as it seems...as gross and chaotic....because the design was never there to start with, historically, that feedback, that awareness, the intention of awareness, or the faith in it. It would be surprising if it happened quickly....our ability to know how to "run" from what we don't know about this planet when we need to run.

seeing the patterns in that infinity.
Long ago when I started this endeavor, I referred to the universe as a giant duplicator. It reproduces the same things over and over and over. It's a pattern, like life itself. The only ingredient is space. It's remarkable. The primary reproduction is hydrogen, as far as matter goes. And that hydrogen then transforms into the multitude of elements we experience in our sense of reality. And that's a finite limit of various elements on the periodic table. That primary hydrogen condenses into stars, forming more complex elements, which get shed off to form planets, and it all eventually gets sucked into black holes, which kicks back radiation in the form of high speed elementary particles. But it's all the same stuff, and same processes duplicated over and over again.
Thanks to Olbers' heat death paradox, I now see that this machine we call the universe is a very tedious and responsible recycler of energy, as well as a duplicator
Where are all the photons headed?
Outward.
Makes perfect sense, and fits sciences definition of that post big bang state nearly precisely.
These excess photons must be gathering on the outer edge of the universe, creating a tremendous amount of heat, probably in the form of plasma. As they combine to form heavy particles, gravity takes hold and starts pulling them inward and away from the chaos and heat. I see this continual gradient of hot to cold 3dimensionally in my mind. Gravity is a negative force, pulling everything impacted by gravity towards the cold center, filtering out things that aren't impacted by gravity.
As I've suggested, we are a reflection of what the universe is actually doing. A copy of that higher state, so to speak, but copies are always slightly less than the original. But there's still a parallel, or pattern to it. Even a hot cup of coffee mimics the greater process. Pour cold milk into that cup, and it immediately sinks towards the bottom, because heat rises. Heat goes out, cold goes in. A simple natural process.

I agree....the universe is a great reflection.
When I look in the mirror, I understand the image is a distance beyond in the mirror the same distance I look into it, and thus double.
Where's our best lab? Here on Earth or in space to see the stars with more apparent clarity?

Where's our best lab? Here on Earth or in space to see the stars with more apparent clarity?
Precisely. Earth. You have to understand the fundamental nature of our existence, before you can jump to conclusions and start working the numbers. You can get lost in the numbers trying to find an answer. What we see in the mirror isn't our reality, it is a reflection of our reality. You can't trust light, blindly.

So, China puts a drone on the dark side of the Moon.
https://news.yahoo.com/chinesespacecraftmakesfirstlandingmoonsfarside041122426.html
Is that anything significant?
Does the dark side of the moon yield different results?

Is that anything significant?
Chances are it's more of a political statement. They were the first to land on the dark side of the moon, but most certainly not the first to write a song about it, and/or title the album that way, as did Pink Floyd in 1973.

Speaking of understanding the fundamental nature of our existence.
I had a thought related to aging several days ago. I suspect the aging process is related more to physics than biology. At conception, we are created at a specific moment in time, and the universe is in a specific state at that moment in time. Our rate of change is dependent on our consumption and processing of energy. Stop eating, you die, obviously. The universes rate of change is constant, and we obviously can't keep pace with that, because our energy intake and processing would also need to be constant. We aren't so much aging possibly, as much as we're losing compatibility with the universe over time. Our specs, so to speak, were designed for a specific state of the universe, at a specific point in time, which will never be duplicated. We are a unique, one of kind, finite creation. As we age, we grow, until we hit a peak. That's when we cross that line, and start to become adversely incompatible. Things start to sag, and we lose density, etc, etc. The only way to keep going is through procreation, with a brand new blueprint, more or less. A slight design change. That change is reflected somewhere in our DNA.
Anyway, just kind of a weird fun thought, but it does make sense on some levels.

So, China puts a drone on the dark side of the Moon.
Did you think you were posting that in a thread where it was related to the topic?

Opportunity, would you mind deleting posts 176 and 180? They're just taking up space with song lyrics and video's. Thank you.

Opportunity, would you mind deleting posts 176 and 180? They're just taking up space with song lyrics and video's. Thank you.
@opportunity  you have been warned before about blocking people’s threads with sequences of contiguous posts, please go back over your posts and either remove them or combine them into a single post. Also, keep them relevant to the thread  that includes videos and links. We’ll give you a week to tidy up, otherwise we’ll view it as trolling.
Thanks

Changing the mathematical definition of infinity is a bit more difficult than I anticipated, but if you ignore the literary and/or philosophical meaning, and just focus on the mathematical portion of its definition as applied to reality and science, it might be simpler to comprehend.
Never has this been more pronounced than in the lava lamp discussion of this thread. No one seemed to be able to wrap there minds around the idea that a physical object could exist with an element of infinity. Even though I describe infinity as an analog state simply undergoing the constancy of change. We even know that lava lamp won't be here forever, because it is in a constant state of change, but the implications of infinity are so ingrained in our psyche, that we refuse to differentiate the literary meaning from reality. That lava lamp is not finite, because the energy that makes up that lava lamp is not finite, and it is in a state of flux while it's a lava lamp. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. We associate the absolute definition to the meaning of a lava lamp, and readily call it a finite object, even though the underlying reality is entirely different. It's just a clump of atoms. The laws of physics say that energy will transform into another state. We know this. At least, I think we do. It's not anymore finite than it is infinite in terms of human perception, it's a lava lamp, while we see it as a lava lamp.
No one has ever been able to pin infinity down to anything specific. The symbol itself was created in 1655, and represents a conjecture of infinity more so than anything, and that conjecture is wrong. No one knows how to describe it mathematically, because it is not an element in mathematics. Math can be used to identify the underlying analog nature of the problem, and that's about it. Analog and digital are different, which is the difference between infinite and finite respectively. They are equal but opposite states, where finite is the absence of change, and infinite is the constancy of change.
Wiki
Infinity (symbol: ∞) is a concept describing something without any bound, or something larger than any natural number.
Google
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
Webster
an indefinitely great number or amount
Cambridge
unlimited space, time, or amount, or a number large beyond any limit
Larger than any natural number? What does that even mean in wiki? A number is a number, and there is nothing unnatural about numbers. Numbers are finite, not infinite, so referencing numeric values in the definition makes infinite=finite by default. And technically, we created numbers, and had to imagine them in the process. Infinity as described in the definition, can't even be considered an imaginary number, because it can't even exist in our own imagination. And numbers can also be just as infinitely small, as they can large. Every single definition ignores incrementally smaller numbers, and negative numbers. You can either come to a finite solution numerically, or not. If you come to a finite solution, than you might be able to look at something in a absolute manner, and that's about it, even though we know nothing is truly finite in reality. Calculations that are not finite cannot be look at in an absolute manner, because that calculation remains in a state of flux indefinitely. Infinity is the constancy of change.
As I suggested earlier, infinity is a non absolute state, because it is more of a fluid condition undergoing constant change.
Mans attempt to invoke a numeric definition was misguided. It is clearly wrong.
We've solved pi to about 2 trillion decimal places, as near as I can tell. Obviously using a super computer. What if we can never build another super computer to exceed that resolution? Would that mean infinity = pi? Of course not. We know there's another number in the resolution, but it's not officially an actual number until we resolve the next decimal place. We know for a fact that the next number is finite, even though hypothetically, we couldn't resolve it. Now that would be closer to an imaginary number, because we know how to get there, but it's not real until we build a bigger computer to resolve the next decimal place. With infinity, we leap over human reasoning and mathematical logic and arrive at a finite conclusion, and simply say it's a really large number labeled ∞. And that is an absurd way to arrive at a definition for just about anything, especially from a scientific and mathematical standpoint when trying to apply that concept to the universe. It has to be a reasonable definition.
Another thing too, is that the actual definition predates technology, and we had a very rudimentary understanding of the universe in general. We didn't really understand waves like we do now. Quantum Mechanics and relativity didn't exist. We recently transitioned from analog electronics to digital. The concept of analog and digital didn't really even exist back then. That we may have figured it out now, should not be that hard to accept. I am very familiar with both states, because it is common knowledge. Hell, we even have holographic theory going on right now, which is based entirely on a digital existence. Things have changed quite a bit since 1655.
Things change. Meanings change.
The only thing more difficult to understand from where I sit, is why the definition of infinity remains the same.
Even back in time, there was some serious debate on the relevance of infinity in mathematics.
Leopold Kronecker (7 December 1823 – 29 December 1891) was a German mathematician who worked on number theory, algebra and logic. He criticized Georg Cantor's work on set theory, and was quoted by Weber (1893) as having said, "Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk" ("God made the integers, all else is the work of man.").
Like I said, the magical flying spaghetti monster.
Believing this, ∞, is some unimaginable numeric value, is a personal choice.
This is a lead in to the next portion of this theory.

Changing the mathematical definition of infinity is a bit more difficult than I anticipated,
Not at all.
You can define it as 3 if you like.
But be careful to ensure that nobody thinks yo are using the real definition, or folk will get confused.
Also, redefining it doesn't help at all.
Larger than any natural number? What does that even mean in wiki?
Which word are you struggling with?Things change. Meanings change.
Yes they do.
And they usually change in such a manner as to afford greater usefulness.
But your proposals don't do that, so your changes won't be adopted.
At this point, you are essentially be talking to yourself and so you would be better off with a blog, than with a discussion site.

Also, redefining it doesn't help at all.
I'll stick with Leopold Kroenecker's assessment, "God made the integers, all else is the work of man."
And I'll add to it.
Both of them, and an analog variable.
or folk will get confused.
And I suppose, "a number greater than any countable number," won't confuse anyone?
When .01>.001
I think they forgot something in these definitions, because that's a number less than, not greater than.
And Pi's not even a countable number, it's a calculated number. Does that count too?
Sure, that's not going to confuse folks.
And they usually change in such a manner as to afford greater usefulness.
And you think this, ∞, is useful in it's current form?
Interesting.
If you want to believe in the magical flying spaghetti monster, that's a personal choice. I won't stop you, like I can't stop you from reading this thread and making useless opinionated comments.

There's a difference between time and space. Time is change. Space, is physical. As Einstein said, space and time are woven into a fabric called spacetime. The physical property of space can be in one of 2 possible states, finite or infinite. As I've said, 0, is the absence of dimension, or the absence of space. This is a finite state lacking both space and time, because it's value is 0. Without time, change in that state would be impossible, which is what makes finite, finite. Clearly we are not 0. The other possible state would be empty dimension, or space without time. That value as I've stated is Ι1Ι. Once time is woven into space, the universe immediately becomes infinite, because time represents continual change. Every moment is different from the next, and space is woven into time, which makes space different every moment. Time though, is a smooth gradient, and analog in nature. As long as time moves forward, we cannot be finite by default.
Infinity is the woven fabric of spacetime in our universe, which results in the constancy of change.
As I keep saying, there are only 3 possible values that can be assigned to the universe. 0, Ι1Ι, and ∞.
We discovered numbers, and expanded their meaning well beyond the simplicity needed to describe the universe. As I keep stating, our universe can only be in one of two possible states, physically. Finite, or infinite. Finite lacks time. Finite is the absence of change, where infinite is the constancy of change.
x=x
The fact that a number sequence runs on forever is an indicator of change, and not relevant to physical scale as we understand it. Our universe is a derivative of the whole, or Ι1Ι, and fractional at its core. The greatest numeric value we can assign to the universe is Ι1Ι, not ∞. Infinity numerically is an infinitely variable fractional state, because it is less than the whole.
So yes, as hard as it is to accept:
0<∞<Ι1Ι
I stand by my reasoning, because I know it is correct.
Our understanding of infinity is wrong.

In our universe, we use things to compare things to other things. A meter for example, is now a derivative of motion and time. A kilogram owes its definition to a mass of platinumirridium.
In the absence of a universe as we understand it, there is nothing to compare. And without time, change is meaningless. All we can say mathematically about an empty universe void of time, is Ι1Ι, because it is only comparable to itself in x=x. Infinity requires a comparison value, because every definition of infinity clearly specifies a preexisting condition to claim something is infinite. It is deemed as greater than, or larger. In an empty universe, x=x. so the concept of infinity is rendered meaningless, because the only mathematical expression available is x=x. There's no counting or quantities beyond Ι1Ι. Counting itself also requires an element of time, as does the resolution of any infinitely deemed problem such as pi.
In our universe, we define finite virtually in a time segment. I'm 54 years and x number of days old as of today, for example. I had a beginning, which is defined by my birth, and will eventually come to an end in my death. In reality, there is only 2 mathematically finite moments in my life, which is defined by the very moment of conception, and in my death. I move from the absolute finite value of 1 to 0 though time. The clock does not stop moving for me, so change is constant. Everything in between those 2 moments are a nonfinite value, which makes those moments infinite in nature.
This is math in the purest sense of the word, because it is reality, not the virtual reality we create for ourselves mathematically.
The universe itself cannot follow the same pattern of life and death as we experience, because we are a derivative state. We are less than the whole, and experience the entirety of the universe in a finite manner, virtually.
The fact that we even exist owes itself to a simple understanding of the reality of finite versus infinite states, and x=x. This only leaves us one possible explanation for a universe. The universe cannot be 0, or Ι1Ι, because both of those states are finite values. That's all they can ever be. The only remaining option is ∞.
All other numbers are a tool created by man used for manipulating the world around us, and to help us understand the reality in which we are immersed. Reality only understands the basics of math, and we create the complexity.
0<∞<Ι1Ι

And I suppose, "a number greater than any countable number," won't confuse anyone?
Well... the rest of us seem to be able to cope with it.

Well... the rest of us seem to be able to cope with it.
I thought no one was reading this thread? Aside from the 30 people that were reading it at the same time this morning, and you of course, apparently.
As usual, the reasoning behind your arguments amount to a cut and paste, and the assumption that, "us", meaning not "them", think it's weird. Who is "us" anyway? "They" that are not "them"?
In addition you seem to believe that:
Finite, is not really finite, mathematically.
What exactly it means, I have no idea, and neither do you apparently.
My argument is:
Finite really does mean finite mathematically.
So, when you can prove that 0≠0, get back with me. I'm sure it'll be front page news.
Your moniker suits you well, because it must get really boring knowing everything.
Why are you still reading this thread, by the way? Clearly you seem to have the universe all figured out, unlike the rest of the planet, including "them", that are not "us".

In addition you seem to believe that:
Finite, is not really finite, mathematically.
It only seems that way to you.

Why are you still reading this thread, by the way?
I post replies pointing out mistakes.
That way people reading through the thread won't be misled into thinking you are actually correct.

I post replies pointing out mistakes.
That way people reading through the thread won't be misled into thinking you are actually correct.
Oh, the science muṭawwiʿ guy.
The only problem is, you have no idea what's right or wrong, only what Google and Wiki tells you, judging by your argument. Literally, all you've offered is a cut and paste from google for a definition on infinity, which dates back to around 1650, and a another cut paste about Olbers' Paradox from around 1850. Oh, and the fact you believe it's weird.
That's all you got.
You also apparently speak for all of "us", whoever that "us" is. You are like the spokesperson of the "us" crowd.
I'm not wrong at all, because to prove me wrong you would have to prove that x≠x.
Finite really does mean finite to the universe.
Like I said, when you can prove 0≠0, get back with me.
I stand by my reasoning.
0<∞<Ι1Ι

Let's put this theory into mathematical perspective.
If we had never created a full blown numbering system, and only understood 0 and 1 in the context of nothing versus something, there exists an infinite number of values between them as it stands now. That would make this statement, 0<∞<Ι1Ι, a mathematical fact. And really, when you think about it, even with our own numbering system there is an infinite number of values between each countable number.
0<∞<Ι1Ι True
Ι1Ι<∞<Ι2Ι True (redundant)
Ι2Ι<∞<Ι3Ι True (redundant)
Keep in mind, we created numbers. 0 and 1 is more of an association between nothing and something in the absolute sense. That's the fundamental basis of counting in general. You have to understand the difference between something and nothing. Those two numbers are natural numeric values as applied to reality, and both are finite and absolute.
As I've suggested, the universe can only count to Ι1Ι naturally. Space without time is a singular state in my view, and can be associated with the numeric value of Ι1Ι, like the absence of dimension can numerically be assigned the value of 0. The universe naturally distinguishes the difference between something and nothing. It most certainly doesn't understand numeric values in the literal sense, so any other number besides 0 and 1 is pretty much irrelevant to reality.
This reasoning is perfectly valid, and I stand by it 100%.
0<∞<Ι1Ι
I am adhering to mathematical facts, that finite actually means finite, and x=x. The universe cannot be finite, because finite is the absence of change. Nothing would happen. As I've said repeatedly, infinite is the inverse of finite, which results in the constancy of change. Infinity is an equal and opposite reaction to exponentially opposing finite conditions. The potential between 0 and Ι1Ι is infinite. The universe is infinite, and our concept of infinity stands in error.
Don't let anyone fool you. Infinity is most definitely not a solved problem for the universe. In fact, it's still a hot topic of open debate. Any old theories that disprove it are based solely on a single concept of an infinite universe which contradicts itself from the start, in my assessment. It claims a static (finite), infinite universe. That makes finite=infinite, which is a fundamental flaw in the current concept of an infinite universe. We're talking about infinity and the universe, so this version is not the only possible version by any stretch of the imagination. There are other ways to look at an infinite universe, as I've clearly demonstrated. All anyone is proving is that their concept of infinity won't work for a universe. That's not a paradox, it's the wrong concept of an infinite universe.

0<∞<Ι1Ι True
No
Infinity is not less than 1
That's plain silly.This reasoning is perfectly valid, and I stand by it 100%.
Nobody seems to agree with you.

Infinity is not less than 1
You really need to quit trolling my thread. You're not only wrong, you're annoyingly wrong.
Your inability to understand simple logic, and your inability to form an original thought outside google or wiki is not proof of anything, other than your own arrogance. If you want to play the supreme science moderator, open your own science forum. You're free to block anyone who doesn't conform to your understanding.
I'll take this one step further.
0<∞<1 is a mathematical truth.
In mathematics, we reduce problems down to the fewest number of variables. Considering our base 10 numbering system can be traced back to the 5th century, it's little wonder we became infatuated with numeric values over the centuries.
I noticed a pattern in the numbers.
0<≈<1∞<2<∞<3<∞<4<∞<5<∞<6<∞<7<∞<8<∞<9.....
What you see is that ∞ only exists between between countable sets of integers. Keep in mind, we invented a way to count continuously, so anything beyond 1 is superfluous, not reality. Claiming we can count forever is the logical equivalent of claiming we can recite 10 letters of the alphabet forever, with a different grunt between each cycle. It's literally meaningless in the context of the mathematical definition of infinity, which states:
"A number greater than any countable number."
Not only is this, 0<≈<1, mathematically accurate, infinity requires the integers before and after it to even exist.
You can obviously repeat the pattern as long as you'd like with our invented base 10 numbering system, but it never changes the fact that:
0<≈<1 is mathematically accurate.
As I said, mathematics is reducing the problem down to the fewest variables. To understand infinity, you need to reduce the problem down to the fewest countable integers, 0 and 1. The universe exists between 0 and Ι1Ι. All other numeric values are superfluous information, and unnecessary to define infinity accurately.
Our definition of infinity stands in error. It is wrong.

0<∞<1 is a mathematical truth.
No.
It is not.
You really need to quite trolling my thread.
I think most people would say you are the troll.infinity requires the integers before and after it to even exist.
There are no integers after infinity by definition.
Our definition of infinity stands in error. It is wrong.
or you are wrong.
Which of those possibilities is more likely?
Do you really think you are cleverer than everyone else who has considered this topic before?

I noticed a pattern in the numbers.
0<≈<1∞<2<∞<3<∞<4<∞<5<∞<6<∞<7<∞<8<∞<9.....
It's not a real pattern.
You made it up, and it's gibberish.

0<∞<1 is a mathematical truth.
No.
It is not.
Once again, you are wrong. There is an infinite number of values between 0 and 1. Our base 10 numbering system creates a logic loop, nothing more. We invented numbers.
or you are wrong.
Which of those possibilities is more likely?
Do you really think you are cleverer than everyone else who has considered this topic before?
The fact that's it's a possibility at all proves me right.
Do you think you're more clever than anyone else is the real question...
I'm just an average guy who refuses to believe much of anything until I understand it on my own terms.
The fact is, you lost this debate, and now you're just being a troll, by definition.
Unless of course, you can prove 0<∞<1 is mathematically false.

I noticed a pattern in the numbers.
0<≈<1∞<2<∞<3<∞<4<∞<5<∞<6<∞<7<∞<8<∞<9.....
It's not a real pattern.
Once again, you are wrong. It's a logic loop. Count all the fractions between 0 and 1, and get back to me when you're finished.

I already explained the mistake you are making there
No.
There are an infinite number of values between 0 and 1.
That is not the same as saying that infinity is in that range.
It is clearly bigger.
Do you not understand it?

Count all the fractions between 0 and 1, and get back to me when you're finished.
OK,
Counting things is a matter of putting them in a 1 to 1 correspondence with the integers and seeing how far you get.
And there's a method for ordering the fractions between 0 and 1
so they can be counted.
This explains it
https://www.askamathematician.com/2011/03/qhowdoyoutalkaboutthesizeofinfinityhowcanoneinfinitybebiggerthananother/
There are a much bigger number of numbers between 0 and 1 than there are integers between 0 and infinity.
Not all infinite sets are countable, but the fractions are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

We created a logic loop in our base 10 numbering system, which yes, unbelievably, we didn't notice. The universe doesn't care about our numbering system. As I said, we could repeat 10 letters of the alphabet with a different grunt between each cycle, and it would logically be the same equivalent of counting. Math is about reducing variables. We added an infinite number of variables when we created our base 10 numbering system. It made it easier for us to count logically, rather than using fractions of the whole. You know, a piece of pie, rather than a .125 slice of pie from the whole. The latter being a mouthful.
You know this is mathematically correct. It's a fact, not fiction.
0<∞<1
You may not like it, but it is a mathematical truth. There exist an infinite number of decimals between 0 and 1. To make things easier, we shifted the decimal place to the right and created a set of integers called our base 10 numbering system. We zoomed in on the fractions.
The universe is either 0, or Ι1Ι, in terms of finite values. We are everything else in between 0 and Ι1Ι, because we are a fraction of the whole. The whole being greater than its parts.
The universe is infinite.

We created a logic loop in our base 10 numbering system
No we didn't.You know this is mathematically correct. It's a fact, not fiction.
0<∞<1
Well, it's not fact.
It's just nonsense.

Well, it's not fact.
It's just nonsense.
Says you.
Like I said, when you get done counting the decimals between 0 and 1, get back with me.
0<∞<1 is mathematically and logically true
We created a repeating logic loop.

You know this is mathematically correct. It's a fact, not fiction.
0<∞<1
Have you tried pushing this on a mathematics forum? Or sending it to mathematicians? If what you have is really a proof, then those wellversed in theorems and the like should be pretty easy to convince.

Like I said, when you get done counting the decimals between 0 and 1, get back with me.
I did.
Unfortunately, you didn't understand it.
We created a repeating logic loop.
No
You have created a loop on nonlogic.
You keep on making the same laughable statement, even though I have explained why it's wrong.
And then you just say it again.

Says you.
Well, says me and others here.
Whereas you are the only one on your side.
You might want to think about that.

Well, says me and others here.
Whereas you are the only one on your side.
You might want to think about that.
If the number of people had any relevance to something being right or wrong, we'd all be in church today.
The fact remains:
0<∞<1 is a valid logical expression in mathematics.
Like I said, when you get finished counting the finite numbers that lie between 0 and 1, get back with me.

The fact remains:
0<∞<1 is a valid logical expression in mathematics.
It's logically valid.
But it is plainly wrong.
Like I said, when you get finished counting the finite numbers that lie between 0 and 1, get back with me.
Actually, that's not the question you asked me earlier.
You asked about the fractions.
The fact that you don't recognise the difference shows that you don't understand the maths of infinite numbers.

The fact remains:
0<∞<1 is a valid logical expression in mathematics.
It's logically valid.
Exactly.
Infinity is not a number, and can only be understood logically.
Infinity is analog, not digital.
Actually, that's not the question you asked me earlier.
You asked about the fractions.
The fact that you don't recognise the difference shows that you don't understand the maths of infinite numbers.
The math of infinite numbers is a logical definition for values that are too great to be expressed individually in a finite manner, because it would take an infinite amount of time to do so.
Logic had to be used to define infinite sets.

The fact remains:
0<∞<1 is a valid logical expression in mathematics.
It's logically valid.
Exactly.
Infinity is not a number, and can only be understood logically.
Infinity is analog, not digital.
You didn't understand.
It's only "a valid logical expression in mathematics" in the same way that
2+2=5 is a valid logical expression in mathematics.
It's logically valid the syntax works just fine.
But it's stupidly wrong.
Infinity is analog, not digital.
That's word salad.

It's only "a valid logical expression in mathematics" in the same way that
2+2=5 is a valid logical expression in mathematics.
It's logically valid the syntax works just fine.
No, 2+2=5 is an invalid logical expression in mathematics.
0<∞<1 is a valid logical expression in mathematics.
It's perfectly fine to show that there is an infinite number of decimals places between 0 and 1 in this manner.
You just don't like it.

No
There are an infinite number of fractions between 0 and 1
That is (still) not the same as saying that infinity is between 0 and 1.
You really need to understand that so you can make progress.

That is (still) not the same as saying that infinity is between 0 and 1.
You really need to understand that so you can make progress.
What I understand is that our inability to count infinitely doesn't in any way mean anything to the universe. The universe couldn't care less about 2, or 3, or any concept of an infinite number as concocted by us. The universe is simple.
Man creates the complexity.
Like I said, we could repeat 10 letters of the alphabet with a different grunt between cycles, and that is the logical equivalent of counting. Our inability to count indefinitely due to time doesn't mean anything to the universe, and most certainly doesn't help us understand it.

Like I said, we could repeat 10 letters of the alphabet with a different grunt between cycles,
What do you think you mean by "cycles" here?
It doesn't make sense.Our inability to count indefinitely due to time doesn't mean anything to the universe, and most certainly doesn't help us understand it.
Nobody said it did.

The universe could care less about 2,
The universe doesn't care about anything (and, btw, the phrase is "couldn't care less" think about it).
However, in this universe, we have, for example, planets in reasonably stable orbits.
That doesn't work unless the force of gravity falls with distance in inverse proportion to that distance raised to the power 2.
No other number works.
So, the universe is somewhere where 2 is really important.
Facts like that get in the way of your absurd idea that only 1 matters.

The universe could care less about 2,
The universe doesn't care about anything (and, btw, the phrase is "couldn't care less" think about it).
However, in this universe, we have, for example, planets in reasonably stable orbits.
That doesn't work unless the force of gravity falls with distance in inverse proportion to that distance raised to the power 2.
No other number works.
So, the universe is somewhere where 2 is really important.
Facts like that get in the way of your absurd idea that only 1 matters.
I never said numbers weren't important to us in understanding the universe, but as far as the universe goes, not so much. Numbers are a tool, as I've said many times, but numbers do not constitute reality.
Still doesn't change the fact that this:
0<∞<1 is a valid logical expression in mathematics.
or logically this
(0;1) is an infinite set
Not that I think redundant sets are necessary to understand the universe.

So I'll explain another way.
As I've said, I think the universe is situated between 0 and Ι1Ι, without rehashing everything.
Basically, 0<∞<Ι1Ι
We developed a numbering system, but it really just complicated our understanding of the underlying reality. All these infinite sets are just redundant logic.
This is what the universe actually represents numerically, but it makes it very difficult to use decimals for math.
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
So, we shifted the decimal place to the right, and called it our base 10 numbering system
0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Then we add more decimals between the numbers.
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
And shift them to the right again
0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
And obviously we can keep doing this over and over again and again, expanding the resolution of the original set, but they're just subsets of the master set in the underlying reality.
Cantor was obsessed with these infinite number sets, but all of the sets were simply a subset of the universal master set. There's only one infinity, not an infinite number of infinities. And I've always found that notion nonsense my entire life. infinity is infinity, not infinity 2, and 3, etc. I find the notion of infinite finite sets of infinity insanity, not that breaking things into sets is inherently wrong. On the contrary, whatever helps us understand the whole is best for us, but we've lost site of the original whole in the process, and think our counting system means something to the universe.
We exist as parts of the whole, and the parts are less than the whole.
As I've repeatedly suggested, there are only 2 possible states for a universe, finite or infinite. 0 and Ι1Ι are the only natural finite values available to the universe, and we aren't either. 0 is the absence of space and time, and Ι1Ι is the absence of time, and infinity is the woven fabric of spacetime, which is an infinitely variable state.
Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change
Everything else we do mathematically is a man made invention to better understand the underlying reality, which is:
0<∞<Ι1Ι
We are the values which exist between the finite values of 0 and Ι1Ι.
Everything we added to the numbers are superfluous data, which only confuses the underlying reality. There is only 1 master infinite number set in nature. We made copies of the original to increase the resolution and better understand the details of the universe.

(0;1) is an infinite set
A set with two elements is very clearly finite.
This is what the universe actually represents numerically,
That statement does not mean anything.
The universe doesn't "represent" anything; it just is..
Incidentally, it seems to have missed your notice that almost all calculations are not done in base 10, but in base two.Cantor was obsessed with these infinite number sets, but all of the sets were simply a subset of the universal master set. There's only one infinity,
That is exactly what Cantor showed to be false.
0 and Ι1Ι are the only natural finite values available
I explained that the universe certainly uses the number 2
It only takes a moment's thought to see that it also uses pi. etc.
There's only one infinity, not an infinite number of infinities. And I've always found that notion nonsense my entire life.
Just because you are not equipped to understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.
Infinity = constancy of change
finite = absence of change
That's still obviously wrong because a lava lamp is finite.
Why do you keep posting the same stuff even though it has been shown to be wrong?
Are you some sort of troll, or do you just not understand that you are not really cleverer that all mathematicians in history?

That's still obviously wrong because a lava lamp is finite.
A lava lamp is only finite through a segment of time from our perspective. Before it existed, it was something else, and after it breaks, it will become something else.
Energy cannot be created not destroyed, just transformed into something else. Clearly understood in physics. And it's also clearly understood that change is constant throughout the entire universe, mathematically, and by direct observation.
It's manufacture value can be considered Ι1Ι, and it's expiration value 0. Those are the only two finite moments in the life of a lava lamp. Everything in between is infinite, because infinity=constancy of change.
Finite means finite. All the energy that makes up that lava lamp is not finite. It is in a constant state of change from the moment it is manufactured.
A set with two elements is very clearly finite.
No, not so clearly finite. 0 and Ι1Ι is theoretically impossible, so the potential that remains between them is infinite.
That is exactly what Cantor showed to be false.
Cantor didn't prove anything about the universe. He only proved there was an infinite number of sets in a man made numbering system. As I've said, we can repeat 10 letters of the alphabet an infinite number of times with unique grunts between each cycle. So what?
There is only 1 infinity, and we're in it.
I explained that the universe certainly uses the number 2
Which we invented as a tool to understand the universe. So what? I never said it was a bad tool. Quite the opposite actually. The universe isn't made of numbers, it's made of energy, which behaves predictably for the most part.
Just because you are not equipped to understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.
I understand it, I just don't agree with it. Big difference. That you can't understand this is the puzzle.
Why do you keep posting the same stuff even though it has been shown to be wrong?
Nothing you've said indicates anything of the sort. It is only your opinion.
Are you some sort of troll
That's absurd. You can't troll your own thread, but you can certainly have trolls frequent your own thread, pretending to be the supreme moderator of all knowledge.

Cantor didn't prove anything about the universe...
There is only 1 infinity, and we're in it.
Cantor proved that there's more than 1 infinity and one is bigger than another.
Nothing you've said indicates anything of the sort.
Yes it does, but you don't understand it.
It is only your opinion.
No, it's an opinion shared by others which makes it one up on your opinion.
You can't troll your own thread,
No, but it's possible to start a thread just to troll the site.
Is that what you are doing?

Cantor proved that there's more than 1 infinity and one is bigger than another.
Even more ridiculous. Now we have various sized finite infinities? I thought infinity was "a number" greater than any countable number, and it was boundless? So the smaller finite infinite sets don't really qualify as infinite, because they aren't greater than the mother of all infinity sets, and they're bound to a specific scale?
Cantor didn't prove anything about the universe, just our numbering system.
You are certainly free to believe whatever it is you want to believe. Including the magical flying spaghetti monster.
No, it's an opinion shared by others which makes it one up on your opinion.
You know what they say about opinions. I'm okay with it.

Even more ridiculous. Now we have various sized finite infinities?
As I have said, it's not my fault that you do not understand that there are different sized infinite sets.
thought infinity was "a number" greater than any countable number, and it was boundless?
None of the infinities is a countable number (That's pretty obvious really).
So there's no problem with having two or more different ones.
Here's the story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor%27s_first_set_theory_article
(and please don't embarrass yourself by saying "it's just a theory").
Perhaps, when you find out more about infinities, you will understand that you have been talking nonsense throughout this thread.

None of the infinities is a countable number (That's pretty obvious really).
So there's no problem with having two or more different ones.
No, not a problem in our invented numbering system at all, but it certainly doesn't prove anything about the universe.
We created a base 10 numbering system, which is clearly derived from the digits on our hands. Could have easily been a base 5, or base 20, if we had chosen to do so.
The base logic in any of those numbering systems is 0 and 1. We essentially zoomed in 10x's, making it 10x more difficult to understand the universe, because we tossed aside that base logic we used to create the system.
Cantor only proved a base 10 redundant numbering system contains redundant infinities, as would any numbering system.
Dial back the zoom, and you're left with a 0 and a 1. That's reality. Both of those values are finite, and what lies between them is infinite. As I said, math is a process of reducing variables. Our base 10 numbering system added an infinite number of variables to the base logic. We did that.
As I have said, it's not my fault that you do not understand that there are different sized infinite sets.
Not so hard to understand, just not something I choose to believe in for the universe. That's a personal choice.
(and please don't embarrass yourself by saying "it's just a theory").
I would never call it a theory. He is right, there is an infinite number of infinities in our numbering system. So what? That most certainly doesn't cross over to the universe resembling some sort of fact. That would be theoretical at best, and complete nonsense at its worst. Besides, you seem to think we're finite, so it's a moot point, or that we're infinitely finite between the digits of our numbering system or something. Not exactly sure what you think.
You do not know this answer. In fact, the question of whether or not the universe is infinite or finite is an open topic of debate.

. In fact, the question of whether or not the universe is infinite or finite is an open topic of debate.
Not since Olber.We created a base 10 numbering system, which is clearly derived from the digits on our hands. Could have easily been a base 5, or base 20, if we had chosen to do so.
As I already pointed out (and you ignored as you usually do for things that are important) we don't use base 10 for most of our maths.
I would never call it a theory.
Then you would never be right.
Cantor only proved a base 10 redundant numbering system contains redundant infinities, as would any numbering system.
No, he showed that there are more irrational numbers than integers this is true in any number base. Both of those values are finite, and what lies between them is infinite.
No matter how many times you say that, it's still wrong. He is right, there is an infinite number of infinities in our numbering system.
Stop pretending that it's anything to do with the numbering system.

Not since Olber.
It's a theory, not fact. I don't agree with Olbers' Paradox. It assumes a static state of infinity. Static is finite, infinity is not. We've been through this already. We are not infinitely large, we are changing infinitely over time. His assumptions about an infinite universe were wrong, which were adopted by science, and continue to be wrong.
I explained that the universe certainly uses the number 2
we don't use base 10 for most of our maths.
Okay
Then you would never be right.
Wrong
No matter how many times you say that, it's still wrong.
Based on your opinion, sure, it's wrong.
I have a different opinion, and see it as correct.
This
0<∞<Ι1Ι
is logically equivalent to this
(0;1)
There's only 1 master set in the universe. We added an infinite number of sets to the master when we zoomed in digitally.

Whether you like it or not,Cantor's theory is a theory.
It's just silly to deny that.
It assumes a static state of infinity.
No, it says that the universe is not infinite in time it had a beginning.
That's exactly the opposite of what you claim.
You keep failing to understand the basics.
You pretend that you know better, but you really haven't much clue.I have a different opinion, and see it as correct.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
You are simply wrong
You misunderstood it, just like you misunderstood Cantor and Olber

No, it says that the universe is not infinite in time it had a beginning.
And that's wrong. There is no beginning, and there is no end.
The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.
It is not infinitely large. It is not infinitely old. There are not an infinite number of stars. It is not static.
The universe changes infinitely over time. Size and age are irrelevant in the context of the universe. Means something to us obviously, as we view finite in terms of time segments. The lava lamps life is a segment of time.
I did not misunderstand anything. I disagree.
I'll say it once again.
This
0<∞<Ι1Ι
is logically equivalent to this
(0;1)
There's only 1 master set in the universe. We added an infinite number of sets to the master when we zoomed in digitally.

And that's wrong. There is no beginning,
It started 13.799±0.021 billion years ago.
There really was a beginning.
I'll say it once again.
This
0<∞<Ι1Ι
is logically equivalent to this
(0;1)
It doesn't matter if you say it once or a thousand times.
It's still just as wrong as you were about Olber, Cantor, and the age of the universe.

It started 13.799±0.021 billion years ago.
There really was a beginning.
As I explained, it means something to us.
It doesn't matter if you say it once or a thousand times.
It's still just as wrong as you were about Olber, Cantor, and the age of the universe.
And this is a matter of opinion.
I said Olber was correct, in that he proved that his interpretation of an infinite universe wouldn't work.
I also said Cantor was correct, in proving our numbering system contains an infinite number of infinite sets.

As I explained, it means something to us.
You explained little or nothing.
What "means something to us"?

And this is a matter of opinion.
It is a matter of fact that you said "I don't agree with Olbers' Paradox. It assumes a static state of infinity.
whereas Olber's work shows that the universe had a start, so it can't be static.
So, it is a matter of fact that you are wrong.
It is also a matter of record that you said "
Cantor was obsessed with these infinite number sets, but all of the sets were simply a subset of the universal master set. There's only one infinity, not an infinite number of infinities.
Whereas Cantor's work shows that there's more than 1 infinity so, once again, it's a matter of fact that you were wrong.
And, it's a matter of fact that you said "
There is no beginning,
but there is about 14 billion years ago.
You keep saying stuff that is wrong.
Are you dumb, or trolling?

You explained little or nothing.
What "means something to us"?
I said it was fairly simple to understand that we are infinite, if you base your reasoning on the mathematical fact that finite really does mean finite in the strictest definition, and x=x. Infinity is the only option mathematically that offers variability. And I think it's prudent to do so, because we are following math. If something is truly finite from our perspective, it has either just begun, or came to an end. Those are the only two finite conditions mathematically in our universe. When a black hole forms for example, it is both the end of one state, and the beginning of another state. The journey between two points is everything but finite.
We view the universe in time segments. It's ingrained reasoning, so it is difficult to get past. I'm 54 for example, and will continue to age until I die, at which point I hit a finite limit of my existence. I am then 0.
The universe is infinitely changing, so its existence is entirely in the present. It is essentially a new universe every moment in time, because it is stuck in a single cycle of life and death, or between 1 and 0. Its efficiency is 100%. Ours is less than the whole. Even the concept of a moment is somewhat misleading, because a moment implies a small time segment. Time is analog, smooth and steady, as is the change. It is seamless change over time.
What we see is a segment of time coming to an end. It is a limited view. I'm guessing this range has to do with curved space, and where we're situated in the universe. As I suggested, I see a spherical gradient of hot to cold working its way outward to inward. We're drifting inward at a constant rate, as we continue to cool and condense, until we cease to exist at 0. The universe though, will plod away like it's always done, never aging, never tiring, doing the same thing over and over.
I never said it would be easy to understand the details, only that we're infinite. Accepting we're finite is the easier path obviously, but not the right path to explore in my opinion. We gave up too easy. Olber only proved that one concept of an infinite universe wouldn't work. And with the multiple directions we're headed now, and with the growth of ever more theory, finite isn't looking so good. We're searching for the answer, and failing to move forward. We are reaching the end of what we can physically observe, short of spending 100's of billions of dollars for more experimentation on the same problems that have eluded science for decades. Science has taken a back seat to funding.

I said it was fairly simple to understand that we are infinite
We are not.
I may be a bit fatter than I was before Christmas, but I'm still finite.
Why do you start from a position that's obviously nonsense?
Do you see why that looks like trolling?

but there is about 14 billion years ago.
Yes, we were created about 14 billion years ago. I'm not disputing that. We had a beginning, and will eventually come to an end.

I may be a bit fatter than I was before Christmas, but I'm still finite.
Nothing about your existence is finite in the strictest definition of the word. You change continually over time. You will have two finite moments in your life, and the first, your conception, has passed. The next, hopefully decades from now, will be your last finite moment.
We quantify time segments into finite numeric values or perspectives to better understand the world around us.

Nothing about your existence is finite in the strictest definition of the word.
I expect to live less than 100 years.
In the real world, that's finite.
Yes, we were created about 14 billion years ago. I'm not disputing that.
You didn't "dispute" it, you contradicted it.
There is no beginning, and there is no end.
Have you now realised one of your mistakes?

I expect to live less than 100 years.
In the real world, that's finite.
finite=absence of change
Based on the way I am interpreting the meaning of finite in relation to the universe, and the way I've repeatedly explained it on this thread, there only two finite points in your existence. The extreme beginning when you were conceived, which I place a finite value of Ι1Ι on, and the opposite extreme when you you die, which I place a finite value of 0 on.
infinite=constancy of change
finite=absence of change
Your change is continuous from the time you exist, until the time you die. You are a reflection of the what the universe is doing infinitely.
Ι1Ι represents the potential of your existence
0 represents the end of your existence
Ι1Ι>∞>0
You didn't "dispute" it, you contradicted it.
I clearly stated that we quantify the universe in finite time segments. Time is not finite, it is infinite, but that most certainly doesn't mean we can't perceive a finite segment of time. It's only a relative perception though, because your journey through life is the very definition of continual change.
So, no, I have absolutely not contradicted myself at all. Your lack of understanding is not a contradiction on my part, it is simply your intentional unwillingness to understand it.
We do not have all the answers by any stretch of the imagination.
A finite universe is not proven, and is still an open topic of debate. No one knows if the universe is finite or infinite.
For you to keep misleading people into believing it is solved, is absurd. It's not solved.
I came up with this theory before I read Olbers' Paradox. I find it a little more than coincidence that I not only saw his concept of an infinite universe wrong, but categorically wrong in all 4 aspects laid out in the original paradox. All 4.
The universe is not infinitely old. The universe is not infinitely large. The universe does not have an infinite number of stars. The universe is not static.
In addition, the heat death portion of Olber appears to solve a problem I couldn't reconcile in my own theory. I could not completely visualize how the matter was being continuously created in an infinite universe. As I said, our universe is 1dimensional in orientation. It's inward to outward. Anything at rest is moving more towards the inward direction. Anything in linear motion is moving more towards the outward direction. The faster you go, the more outward you travel. Considering massless particles can travel at a sustained maximum velocity in the universe, all massless particles travel to the outer edge of the universe. Mass particles cannot move in this manner, so they're headed the opposite direction, inwards. Mass particles shed energy as they move in, and that massless energy moves out. I see this as a potential cause for the hot plasma state discussed in the big bang, after the theoretical hyperinflation, which I disagree with. The energy efficiency in this universal process is 100%. We are less than the higher universal process, so our energy efficiency is less than 100%.
So, I not only fully contradict Olbers' infinite universe in my own theory, I can borrow his results as valid in my own theory. So, yes, I agree with Olber's conclusions, if an infinite universe worked like he assumed it did, but it doesn't in my view. His conclusions fit mine perfectly.
were created about 14 billion years ago.
Until we develop technology to travel out into the distant reaches of the universe and get a second perspective, we don't know what it means. All we know is that we can see out about 13 billion light years give or take, and that everything within our range of view appears to be moving towards an end.
My best guess is that the night sky will dim in the farthest reaches of the universe, and everything in our galaxy will get sucked into the black hole in the center. And then it will probably dissipate to 0.
Have you now realised one of your mistakes?
Have you now realized your own mistakes?

finite=absence of change
By this definition, the numbers between 0 and 1 are finite since they aren't changing. They are what they are and don't become anything else. 0.34 doesn't change into anything else no matter how long you wait.
No one knows if the universe is finite or infinite.
This contradicts your previous claim that you have proven the Universe to be infinite. If no one knows, then that means your proof isn't a proof after all.

By this definition, the numbers between 0 and 1 are finite since they aren't changing. They are what they are and don't become anything else. 0.34 doesn't change into anything else no matter how long you wait.
I've said many times, there are only two real finite values in the universe, both being absolute. 0 and Ι1Ι. We are the infinite potential that lies between those two real values. We experience the universe virtually.
The numbers of course, are assigned values, correlating to absolute nothing and and absolute something. Both are timeless states of existence and non existence, and only potential in nature. And that potential is infinite, which is us. Infinity is the woven fabric of spacetime, which results in the constancy of change.
This contradicts your previous claim that you have proven the Universe to be infinite.
I suppose I would have to agree, that I may have unintentionally contradicted myself. I can only prove it to myself, and offer my reasoning to others in the process. I think I've said something to that effect many times. What anyone else chooses to believe is up to them. I have no control over what others think. My personal view is that, my theory fits better than anything else on the market, so the probability is extremely high. So high, that I consider it closer to fact than fiction.
As I have stated though, I cannot prove it.
I've also said infinity can only be understood logically, because it is incalculable.
So yes, I can only prove it to myself, and no one else. If I contradict myself in the future, I apologize. There's a lot of words flying around here. Not hard to make a few errors in grammar and context.

I've said many times, there are only two real finite values in the universe, both being absolute. 0 and Ι1Ι.
It's ironic that you say there are only two real finite values in the Universe, since you are using a number other than zero and one to describe them. If two is not a finite value, is it an infinite value?

It's ironic that you say there are only two real finite values in the Universe, since you are using a number other than zero and one to describe them. If two is not a finite value, is it an infinite value?
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. We use numbers as a tool. We assign values to things. I'm assigning 0 to nothing, but nothing isn't a number in reality, anymore than 2. If you'd like to label nothing as 2, that's up to you. Wouldn't make a lot of sense though, because we'd have to reconfigure our numbering system to make 2 = 0 as we currently understand it.

We use numbers as a tool.
So the number two doesn't exist?

So the number two doesn't exist?
You aren't making any sense.

You aren't making any sense.
You seem to be saying that zero and one are real numbers but two isn't. Is that what you are saying?

You seem to be saying that zero and one are real numbers but two isn't. Is that what you are saying?
Technically, no numbers physically "exist". All numbers as we understand them will cease to exist with our more than likely inevitable extinction. Still don't know what point you're trying to make.
Numbers are a tool. We can reduce the application of numbers down to 2 when describing the universe, 0 and 1, and then add the variability of infinity.
Numbers are a tool.

Technically, no numbers physically "exist". All numbers as we understand them will cease to exist with our more than likely inevitable extinction. Still don't know what point you're trying to make.
Numbers are a tool. We can reduce the application of numbers down to 2 when describing the universe, 0 and 1, and then add the variability of infinity.
Numbers are a tool.
But do you consider zero and one to somehow be more real than two?

finite=absence of change
So wrong that there's a song about it
One is one and all alone and ever more shall be so.

But do you consider zero and one to somehow be more real than two?
I suppose, in a manner applicable to understanding the universe from a human perspective, that would be correct, to a very limited extent of what's actually real and what isn't. All numbers are a tool. Numbers are a concept created by man. The base logic stems from the idea of something versus nothing, which can be assigned the numeric value of 0 and 1 as we understand numbers. Without that basic understanding, you probably can't get to 2 or 3, or x=x. Basically, you're a tree stump or a house fly, or some lower form of life in general.
This has nothing to do with anything though, and you're clearly just trying to bait me.
Your time would be better spent trying to understand what I am saying, or playing fantasy football, if you're into that sort of thing, rather than wasting time trying to bait me on a pretty ridiculous question.
Clearly, in our minds, numbers exist as a tool in understanding many things, from the cost of a lava lamp, to the speed of light.

Your time would be better spent trying to understand what I am saying,
Then try explaining it rather than just posting stuff that's obviously not true.

Now you're trolling Bored_Chemist. Remove the post please.

This has nothing to do with anything though
Sure it does. How can you use a "less real" number (two) to describe "more real" numbers (zero and one)? What sense does it make to say that one integer is more or less real than another integer? They are all conceptual. They all have the same level of reality.

Sure it does. How can you use a "less real" number (two) to describe "more real" numbers (zero and one)? What sense does it make to say that one integer is more or less real than another integer? They are all conceptual. They all have the same level of reality.
That depends on how you look at the problem I suppose. 0 is a pretty real value when applying it to nothing, and in the context that you would no longer exist. Wouldn't mean anything to you anymore though, obviously, but for those left behind it may. And conversely, 1 as applied to the potential of your existence, might be a very happy moment for your parents.
But in general, all numbers are concepts derived from man. How we apply them is what gives any of them meaning. I'd like to have a million dollars for example, and that would be very real to me, all 1 million of them. And if I only had $2.00 in my pocket, I'd be pretty close to broke. Or when it's 32 degrees, it's cold. All of these values are real to us, depending on our application of the numbers.
Clearly you understand all this though, and in the context of applying 0 and 1 to the entire universe, yes, they're a bit more significant than the others.

Clearly you understand all this though, and in the context of applying 0 and 1 to the entire universe, yes, they're a bit more significant than the others.
But you can rephrase your argument using any numbers you want to. Instead of using 1 to describe the whole Universe, you could just as easily use 10 while saying everything between 0 and 10 represents your definition of infinity. If logic and concepts are all that matter and numbers are an arbitrary invention of man, then there is no one right or wrong way to write it down.

But you can rephrase your argument using any numbers you want to. Instead of using 1 to describe the whole Universe, you could just as easily use 10 while saying everything between 0 and 10 represents your definition of infinity. If logic and concepts are all that matter and numbers are an arbitrary invention of man, then there is no one right or wrong way to write it down.
What would be the point in that?
0 = nothing
1 = something
Why on Earth would anyone start at 10?
I don't think I ever said numbers were an arbitrary invention (might have said that inadvertently, but it wouldn't have been entirely what I meant), so I'm not sure where you got the notion from. Numbers are a logical invention of man. Our choice of base 10 was derived from the digits on our hands, but could have just as easily been a base 5 system (1 hand), or base 20 system (hands and feet). The choice in how to order them was somewhat arbitrary, but it clearly was a choice. Units of 10 made the most sense. Good choice.
The base logic starts with the concept of something versus nothing.

Now you're trolling Bored_Chemist. Remove the post please.
Well there are probably stacks of definitions, but let's look at the one from WIKI
"In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or offtopic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.".
So, the first criterion the Troll starts the argument.
Well, you started the thread, so you meet that criterion.
What's next?
" to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or offtopic messages in an online community"
Well, this is a science discussion community so posting stuff that's not science is a distraction. That's you bang to rights again.
Posting stuff that's plainly wrong is also inflammatory and discordant.
The nonsense about infinity being mathematically less than 1 is nothing to do with the size of the universe, so it's offtopic.
And you are posting to an online community.
So, you meet every single criterion for being a troll.
Guess what?
I'm not going to remove my post, I'm going to repeat it.
Your time would be better spent trying to understand what I am saying,
Then try explaining it rather than just posting stuff that's obviously not true.

Moderators  Please remove posts 251 & 259. They are intended "to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or offtopic messages in an online community"
He's clearly having a tough time comprehending the difference between a "message" from a "thread topic" for open discussion. And now he's attempting to digress this thread, because he simply doesn't like the topic. He's threatened to arbitrarily repost off topic messages, clearly out of spite at this point, and for the sole intent of digressing the thread.
He is being a troll by definition, and admission.
I'm not going to remove my post, I'm going to repeat it.

Asking you to explain what you mean is not trolling or thread hijacking.
I am asking you to comply with the forum's acceptable use policy.
"The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable."
from
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0

Asking you to explain what you mean is not trolling or thread hijacking.
reply 251 & 259 is not asking anything.
And this...
I'm not going to remove my post, I'm going to repeat it.
...is threatening more of the same
Please delete 251 & 259, and I will continue explaining, which I've done the past 261 posts.
Thank you

reply 251 & 259 is not asking anything.
Nobody said they were.
And this...
Quote
I'm not going to remove my post, I'm going to repeat it.
...is threatening more of the same
I was indeed, "threatening" to ask you to explain what you meant, rather than just repeating something (which is obviously wrong)
Please delete 251 & 259
No.
I will continue explaining, which I've done the past 261 posts.
No, you have not.

What would be the point in that?
It isn't that there is a "point" to it, it's just that it would be just as valid as what you are saying. Someone can say 0%<∞<100% and have it mean the exact same thing as 0<∞<1. The number 1 can refer to a whole, but so can 100%. It's just a matter of preference on which you use.

It isn't that there is a "point" to it, it's just that it would be just as valid as what you are saying. Someone can say 0%<∞<100% and have it mean the exact same thing as 0<∞<1. The number 1 can refer to a whole, but so can 100%. It's just a matter of preference on which you use.
You could I suppose, but I think it gets a little messy. I consider 0 and 1 inverse states. Both absolute, and both finite. Equal and opposite. They aren't physically real states either, only potential states. 0, obviously, does not exist. It's absolute 0 more or less. But I take a little further into full dimensional collapse of the entire universe to non existence. 1 is more like unwoven spacetime. I pulled the threads of time out of the fabric of space. They're frozen states that exist in the potential of infinity. 0 and 1 lack the element of time. 0 also lacks space.
Infinity is the woven fabric of spacetime. Space changes with time, because they are bound or woven. It's an entirely present state, never aging, never tiring, repeating the same process over and over. 1>∞>0. 1 being the potential for something in our universe, ∞ being it's journey through life, and 0 being the end of that state.
The universe is the highest order, and operates at 100% efficiency. 0<∞<Ι1Ι
I prefer 1 and 0 in the finite absolute sense. It's cleaner.
And understand, I'm using these values in reference to the state of the universe. When I say 0 doesn't exist, I mean as a state of the universe. Obviously, we're a bit more than nothing. I assume that is implied in the context, but some people are void of anything resembling an imagination, and are completely unable to formulate an original thought unaided by google or wiki, or whatever it is they picked up through life's journey. They may take the absence of 0 in the literal sense. I suspect anyway.

0, obviously, does not exist.
Zero is the number of sisters I have.
Unlike them, it exists.

What are numbers? What is finite or *infinite?
To us, they're both concepts, but when we apply these concepts to the universe, they take on a different meaning. It's very important to understand their meaning, precisely.
In math, a finite number is a static or fixed value, like 0 or 1. An infinite value is marked by continual change, like pi, for example. That's how we immediately differentiate finite from infinite numerically and mathematically in the real world. Finite is the absence of change in a value mathematically. Infinite is the constancy of change in a value mathematically. Whether you're counting or calculating, continual change defines infinity, and the absence of change in value defines finite.
When I look at the classic or accepted mathematical definition of infinity, I don't know what it has to do with how we identify it in reality. It's defined as a number, greater than any number that can ever be reached. Some sort of imaginary number, I suppose. I won't ever see this as the correct definition, because it's not grounded in the reality of how we differentiate finite from infinite numbers. I don't even see the current definition as reality. It's a contrived definition that doesn't align with the physical reality of how we differentiate finite and infinite numbers. The current definition doesn't physically mean anything. It's completely abstract or imaginary. It is literally, meaningless.
One of the greatest questions asked about the universe is whether we are finite or infinite. Understanding the true meaning of finite and infinite is crucial in making a determination of what the physical universe is, because it's no longer about numeric values. Infinite and finite become potential states of the universe. It's a greater meaning than just numbers. It's what we are, and answers a significant question about our reality. Do we leave it in the hands of an imaginary number, or base it on the physical reality we clearly understand and see with our own two eyes, change?
There's been quite a bit of controversy in the way I apply numbers to the universe, and the relevance of our physical numbering system and how that applies to the universe. I'd like to set the record straight on this point.
Technically, we only need two finite integers to perform all of our math. 0 and 1. Sure, we'd lose a lot of short cuts, like squaring or cubing in a formula, but technically, all math can be performed within the space of 0 to 1. Obviously wouldn't be a pleasant process. Not something we would want to do, but everything we need is there. We could literally replace our entire numbering concept with the decimals that lie between 0 and 1.
Math is the art of reducing variables. The universe is obviously following mathematics. The universe obviously doesn't need math, because it is simply behaving in a manner consistent with our mathematics. The universe also doesn't need our numbering system, because it can do everything it does within the space of 0 to 1, without performing a single calculation. It just behaves that way, naturally.
As I said, math is the art of reducing variables. There's one thing you may or may not have noticed above. Math requires two finite integers, minimum. 0 and 1. So, when applying number values to the universe, 0 and 1 become a requirement, because without them, our universe couldn't behave mathematically.
Looking at 0, it's pretty easy to apply to the universe as a potential state. 0 is the absence of everything, including physical dimension. 0 is also considered a natural finite and absolute value. It's also a state that lacks both space and time. The closest thing we have to a definition of 0 in physics is absolute 0. We see this as theoretically impossible. I would have to agree, seeing as we're here. No, the universe is not in a 0 state. The potential is there.
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with the above paragraph. To me, the significance of being able to apply 0 to the universe is very important in our understanding, because it is potentially a physical reality. The entire universe could be defined as 0, if it could ever reach that state. One finite and absolute value could be an entire definition for the universe. That's as real as it gets numerically and mathematically. A null state of the universe defined by a finite and absolute number value of 0.
To me, I see it as the first indication as to why the universe is following mathematics. But, as we see from above, we also need to close the loop, because math requires a second finite integer, bare minimum. 0 needs a comparison value to have any meaning. 0 needs a 1.
I will continue this portion of the discussion later, and leave it stet for now. You gotta eat!
*Please keep in mind, my definition of infinity is different from Googles definition, and this may confuse some people who lack the ability to think logically or independently, or are devoid of any critical thought. My definition is pretty straight forward. Infinite=constancy of change. Where this could differ significantly is things like pi. Anyone holding fast to the old definition set in the year 1650, would not consider pi infinite. They may even go through the bother of posting a message, pointing out that my definition is wrong, because 4 is greater than pi. Even more bizarre, they may even suggest I stop posting, because apparently, Google holds the key to the universe. Not sure. To be clear, my definition correctly encompasses all non resolvable's under the blanket of infinity, as they would take an infinite amount of time to resolve, while the value of the whole would be changing continuously over that time span. I tossed out the imaginary, and inserted reality. Change is hard for some people, even in 2019 apparently.

An infinite value is marked by continual change, like pi, for example
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.
You really should stop posting stuff that's plainly wrong.

Pi is not infinite.
It's not even infinite according to his own definition, because it isn't continually changing. The value of pi is very much a fixed value. It's the same now as it was yesterday.

It's not even infinite according to his own definition, because it isn't continually changing. The value of pi is very much a fixed value. It's the same now as it was yesterday.
That's the tricky thing about spacetime. No two moments are the same. I'm willing to bet if you started calculating right now, you'd notice the decimal changing the longer you tried to resolve it. You can probably predict that change out to about 2.7 trillion decimal places. I think that's as far as they've gotten currently. I wonder where you'd be if you started on the problem yesterday...

That's the tricky thing about spacetime. No two moments are the same. I'm willing to bet if you started calculating right now, you'd notice the decimal changing the longer you tried to resolve it. You can probably predict that change out to about 2.7 trillion decimal places. I think that's as far as they've gotten currently. I wonder where you'd be if you started on the problem yesterday...
The fourth digit in pi is 1. That's not going to change regardless of when you started the calculation. The same is true for all of the other digits too.

The fourth digit in pi is 1. That's not going to change regardless of when you started the calculation. The same is true for all of the other digits too.
So what you're saying is that all numbers are finite? Are we back to that again? So infinity=finite?
If we are, I fully agree with you. infinity=constancy of change. Infinity is not "a number".

So what you're saying is that all numbers are finite?
According to your definition they would be, because all numbers are unchanging. According to the real definition, no.
infinity=constancy of change, not "a number"
Which means that pi is not "andreasvainfinite" because it isn't constantly changing. If I'm calculating pi, then I'm the one who's doing the changing because I can only focus on one digit of pi at a time. Pi itself couldn't care less what I'm doing, though. It is what it is and is unaffected by time.

then I'm the one who's doing the changing
Now you're getting it! Numbers only exist in our minds as a tool for understanding.
Finite=absence of change
Infinite=constancy of change
It would take an infinite amount of time to resolve pi. That's what makes it infinite. When you see the value continually changing without a resolution, you know it's infinite. The number is irrelevant, but the concept of numbers can be applied to many things, so the resolution means something different depending on the application.
The universe is either finite, or infinite. Can't be both. Spacetime guarantees the constancy of change. Every moment is different.
Finite and infinite have a greater meaning than numbers.

Finite=absence of change
Infinite=constancy of change
The universe may very well be infinite, so your claim doesn't seem to be under very heavy opposition. However, there are still many who believe that the universe is finite, and to them, the saying, "Finite=absence of change" must certainly seem wrong. They have a good case too, because when it comes to observations, the observable universe, our Hubble view, seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate. That is continual change in anyone's book.

The universe may very well be infinite, so your claim doesn't seem to be under very heavy opposition. However, there are still many who believe that the universe is finite, and to them, the saying, "Finite=absence of change" must certainly seem wrong. They have a good case too, because when it comes to observations, the observable universe, our Hubble view, seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate. That is continual change in anyone's book.
There's a lot more to this than what I have so far. I just can't seem to get out of this one topic. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many different ways I explain it, it all comes back to some 400 year old definition of infinity written by a bunch of dead mathematicians. I'm sure they were good at what they did way back when, but physics didn't really even exist at that point in time. They didn't have the benefits of information. They weren't doing science, they were doing math. I've spent 35 years listening to physicists and scientists trying to explain their view. They're all different. Some didn't believe C was a limit of motion. Some were off on holographic theory. Some didn't believe in spacetime. Some believed in multiverses. Many, and I mean a lot, don't buy the Big Bang. They're all over the map. Main stream just keeps regurgitating the same old same old, reinforcing theory that is more than likely just plain wrong.
My theory cuts a path right through all the conflicts, borrowing pieces. It's a big puzzle. We know the math is right, so the most likely place for an error is in the reasoning, and conflicts.
I'd love to move forward, but it's like walking through mud right now.
I think the universe is way less complicated than we're making it out to be. We're either finite, or infinite, and the only way to figure it out is with logic. The problem is, logic requires consensus. Do you agree with the reasoning, right?
Think about this Bogie. What is finite to the universe? Absolute nothing, which we can assign a value of 0. That's the baseline for a finite universe, nothing. And because we're following mathematics, we also need a 1, and that's it. Math requires two opposing integers for comparison. The common denominator for a finite universe would be the absence of time. Ι1Ι = space without time, because change needs time. The only thing left is infinite. Infinity is the woven fabric of spacetime, and neither 0 or 1 are present. No 3 states can occupy the same universe at the same time. And if we're following math, x=x. We're infinite, always have been, and always will be.
To me it seems so easy to arrive at the conclusion. But then again, I've had a 10 year head start on everyone here.
What will really cook some noodles around here is 3dimensional motion and variable constants. Why not though? We can move 1 and 2 dimensions, why not all 3? I think 3dimensional motion is key. That gives us a 1dimensional direction of in and out, which is the flow of time. We flow inwards towards 0 from 1. Thermodynamics starts to play a big roll in defining the universe at that point. We shed massless energy, which flows out, mass energy flows in. It's a big continuous loop, with the universe running at 100% efficiency. It will never stop, and never age. Olber's heat death is the perfect solution for an infinite universe. All hot massless energy goes out. Cold mass energy goes in.
Anyway, I haven't even gotten to all of that yet, and I'm not sure I want to jump in with both feet yet. I want to make sure this, 0<∞<Ι1Ι, is well defined.
A part of me feels, 1/0, may be the real answer. We're caught in an unresolvable math problem, and the answer is infinity.

It would take an infinite amount of time to resolve pi. That's what makes it infinite.
Pi would still have the value that it does whether we were trying to resolve it or not. The circumference of a perfect circle divided by its diameter would still be pi even if humans did not exist. It would have a fixed, unchanging value whether humans existed to calculate it or not. That means nothing about pi is changing and therefore cannot be andreasvainfinite.
When you see the value continually changing...
Then you're not talking about pi, because it doesn't continually change.
A part of me feels, 1/0, may be the real answer.
1/0 has no answer. No number of zeroes added together equals one, not even an infinite number of them.

Then you're not talking about pi, because it doesn't continually change.
Sure it does, while you're calculating. Would still take an infinite amount of time to calculate it, and each decimal would keep changing during the calculation.
1/0 has no answer. No number of zeroes added together equals one, not even an infinite number of them.
It's undefined. I didn't intend it for a debate topic.
You are too hung on numbers. They don't mean anything to universe, only to us. The universe is simply following math, naturally.

Pi would still have the value that it does whether we were trying to resolve it or not.
You're thinking too much like a human. The universe doesn't understand pi, it lives it. Every single time it runs across a situation that results in pi, it does it. What pi tells me is that volume is in a constant state of change, because pi doesn't resolve. The universe doesn't have the luxury of rounding like we do. It just keeps trying to finish the problem, naturally.
We have to round off to use pi, and force it to a finite value. Pi is used everywhere in the universe, because basically, everything is built on spherical shapes, and curves.
You keep focusing on numbers as we understand them, but the universe is only behaving in a manner consistent with mathematics. It doesn't know numbers, it just does its thing.
I don't know why you keep doing that Kryptid. Numbers do not matter to the universe, only us. Our existence is more of a virtual experience. We remember things. The universe has no real memory, because it is always in the present. Every moment is new, and it can't look backward or forward. We have memory, and can look backward and predict forward.
When I say infinity isn't a number, it's because infinity is a physical reality, and numbers are simply a concept in our minds. To hold fast to that stupid Google definition posted on this thread is borderline insanity in my view. Infinity is real, numbers are not.
Numbers are a tool for us, nothing more. How we apply them is what matters. We can assign the concept of a numeric value to a state, but numbers do not define that state. The state is what it is.

There's a lot more to this than what I have so far. I just can't seem to get out of this one topic. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many different ways I explain it, it all comes back to some 400 year old definition of infinity written by a bunch of dead mathematicians. I'm sure they were good at what they did way back when, but physics didn't really even exist at that point in time. They didn't have the benefits of information. They weren't doing science, they were doing math. I've spent 35 years listening to physicists and scientists trying to explain their view. They're all different. Some didn't believe C was a limit of motion. Some were off on holographic theory. Some didn't believe in spacetime. Some believed in multiverses. Many, and I mean a lot, don't buy the Big Bang. They're all over the map. Main stream just keeps regurgitating the same old same old, reinforcing theory that is more than likely just plain wrong.
It is an admirable cause to fix what is wrong with science, and not a task to be taken lightly, or with inadequate preparation. You have to understand the roots of science, and give credit where credit is due. Disparagement of the highly talented and respected scientists over those 400 years is not a unique approach, unfortunately; but your application of it will be unique if you come up with even a single important contribution, so good luck and go for it.
My theory cuts a path right through all the conflicts, borrowing pieces. It's a big puzzle. We know the math is right, so the most likely place for an error is in the reasoning, and conflicts.
I'd love to move forward, but it's like walking through mud right now.
I think the universe is way less complicated than we're making it out to be. We're either finite, or infinite, and the only way to figure it out is with logic. The problem is, logic requires consensus. Do you agree with the reasoning, right?
I do agree that if you have something worthwhile you should get on with it. I don’t agree, if what you are asking me is if good logic requires a consensus. Good logic rises above the current consensus, isn’t easily refuted, and sets a sequence of events into motion that will determine if it becomes the new consensus. You don’t get that by posting it in science forums. Is your material organized and ready to submit to journals?
Think about this Bogie. What is finite to the universe? Absolute nothing, which we can assign a value of 0. That's the baseline for a finite universe, nothing. And because we're following mathematics, we also need a 1, and that's it. Math requires two opposing integers for comparison. The common denominator for a finite universe would be the absence of time. Ι1Ι = space without time, because change needs time. The only thing left is infinite. Infinity is the woven fabric of spacetime, and neither 0 or 1 are present. No 3 states can occupy the same universe at the same time. And if we're following math, x=x. We're infinite, always have been, and always will be.
I like the saying: Anything finite, whether we are talking substance, space, or time, is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never, relative to the infinite.
To me it seems so easy to arrive at the conclusion. But then again, I've had a 10 year head start on everyone here.
Lol! If you think that 10 years of contemplation, study, learning, thinking, etc., is considered ample rigor to make your conclusions credible, what would you say was the normal or average length of time that noted science professionals who have gained stature in the scientific community over those 400 years have dedicated to science in order to gain their reputations? I would bet it was more like 30 plus years of intense immersion, but I don’t have the actual statistics.
What will really cook some noodles around here is 3dimensional motion and variable constants. Why not though? We can move 1 and 2 dimensions, why not all 3? I think 3dimensional motion is key. That gives us a 1dimensional direction of in and out, which is the flow of time. We flow inwards towards 0 from 1. Thermodynamics starts to play a big roll in defining the universe at that point. We shed massless energy, which flows out, mass energy flows in. It's a big continuous loop, with the universe running at 100% efficiency. It will never stop, and never age. Olber's heat death is the perfect solution for an infinite universe. All hot massless energy goes out. Cold mass energy goes in.
Anyway, I haven't even gotten to all of that yet, and I'm not sure I want to jump in with both feet yet. I want to make sure this, 0<∞<Ι1Ι, is well defined.
Your hesitance makes me hopeful for you as a contributor. Perhaps by the time you jump in with both feet, you will have reevaluated your readiness. Prove that you understand the reasons why “history” has resulted in a great deal of respect for the dedicated members of the scientific community. Think before you jump in, and maybe test some of your ideas by submitting them in a science forum where the members already know you and respect you. Springing them on us cold is not starting on the right foot, IMHO. Then bring it to us with some credibility.
A part of me feels, 1/0, may be the real answer. We're caught in an unresolvable math problem, and the answer is infinity.
I take back all of my concerns and unnecessary, arrogant advice. You had the answer all the time; 1/0 is a simple definition of infinity, and I agree. Do you want to leave it at that, lol.

Lol! If you think that 10 years of contemplation, study, learning, thinking, etc., is considered ample rigor to make your conclusions credible, what would you say was the normal or average length of time that noted science professionals who have gained stature in the scientific community over those 400 years have dedicated to science in order to gain their reputations? I would bet it was more like 30 plus years of intense immersion, but I don’t have the actual statistics.
Let me rephrase that slightly. 35 years total. 10 years ago is when I had that moment, when it clicked, and I saw it. Spent another 10 refining it. I suppose it was one of those Eureka moments. Rush of emotions, etc. I just saw it.
Maybe a slight tweak. A part of me feels, 1/0, may be the real answer. We're caught in an unresolvable math problem, and the answer is infinity.
I take back all of my concerns and unnecessary, arrogant advice. You had the answer all the time; 1/0 is a simple definition of infinity, and I agree. Do you want to leave it at that, lol.
lol.... maybe a slight tweak. "and the continuous resolution is infinity."

Sure it does, while you're calculating.
If you want to get technical, we never actually calculate pi, we only approximate it. Pi itself (I mean the real, actual pi, not our mere approximations of it), doesn't change.
You are too hung on numbers. They don't mean anything to universe, only to us.
Then I could say the same thing about you being too hung up on zero and one, since those are numbers too.
Numbers do not matter to the universe, only us.
Then 1>infinity>0 doesn't matter to the Universe because it involves numbers.

That's the tricky thing about spacetime. No two moments are the same. I'm willing to bet if you started calculating right now, you'd notice the decimal changing the longer you tried to resolve it. You can probably predict that change out to about 2.7 trillion decimal places. I think that's as far as they've gotten currently. I wonder where you'd be if you started on the problem yesterday...
That's just silly.
It makes as little sense as saying that , just because 2+2=4 today, you can't be sure that 2+2 will be 4 tomorrow.
Well, you can.
Face up to it; your ramblings never made sense and they have now reached the point of being selfcontradictory.

Spent another 10 refining it.
And it falls apart as soon as a bunch of independent people look at it.

Then I could say the same thing about you being too hung up on zero and one, since those are numbers too.
Kryptid, you know exactly what I'm implying. The universe is behaving mathematically, not by choice, by nature. We discovered numbers and math, then discovered the universe is behaving mathematically with our numbers, precisely. To us, they mean something. Many things. They're a concept. We can apply them to many things, and we do.
You keep trying to bait me, and it isn't working.
You can try to understand what I'm saying, or not. Things change. I'm redefining infinity to something more consistent with how we determine something is infinite, because it makes more sense to do so. A completely fictitious number that can never be used is not useful to math or us, or in understanding the universe. So, it doesn't mean anything. We determine something is infinite when we can't resolve it. Like counting infinitely, or increments of time, calculating pi, or 2/3. What does a number greater do for us? Nothing. Infinity is not a numeric value, anymore than finite is a numeric value. They are two potential states of the universe. It's important to understand what all three mean when applying them together. Infinity makes our numbers run on in a constant manner, and numbers don't define that state, they help us to understand that state.
Finite and infinity have a greater significance than numbers. The numbers help us to understand the states, not the other way around. We can quantify a number, which can alter the meaning of a state. A segment of time for example, does not make time finite. It makes the segment of time as applied to something else we are analyzing virtually finite.
Which is fine, but the number is not necessarily the definition of a finite state as applied to the universe. it is only finite as a segment of time as we perceive it.

You keep trying to bait me, and it isn't working.
No.
He's trying to get you to realise that you are wrong.
If you were not wrong you would not keep contradicting yourself (and, indeed, contradicting reality). I'm redefining infinity
If you make up meanings for words then you can say anything and make it true.
But it isn't useful.because it makes more sense to do so.
Only to you.
The rest of us get on just fine with the proper definition. A completely imaginary number
Do you realise that the phrase "imaginary number" has a meaning already and you are not using it correctly?

« Reply #286 on: Today at 11:22:08 »
I changed it to fictitious. Happy now?

I have not plagiarized anyone else's concept here.
Nobody said you had.
The problem is that if you change the definitions of words you can prove anything (as Kryptid and I have both pointed out) so it's meaningless.
So, for example, If I want to prove that black is white, all I have to do is redefine "black " to mean something that reflects light.
And them, for my "special" definition, black is white.
True, but meaningless.

I have not plagiarized anyone else's concept here.
Nobody said you had.
The problem is that if you change the definitions of words you can prove anything (as Kryptid and I have both pointed out) so it's meaningless.
So, for example, If I want to prove that black is white, all I have to do is redefine "black " to mean something that reflects light.
And them, for my "special" definition, black is white.
True, but meaningless.
The universe is either finite, or infinite.
Does it make sense to say that the universe is "a number greater than any countable number"?
And in the context of finite, does it make anymore sense to describe the universe as 3, or 10?
Finite and infinite are states, not numbers. We apply numbers to states. I'm 54, does that mean 54 means me?
What makes sense is to logically say that the universe=x. And in math, x=x. Infinite is the only choice that offers variability, otherwise the universe can be any finite value we choose to make it, which makes no sense. I'm applying the concept of numbers to two potential states of the universe. The baseline for a finite universe is 0, or nothing. Math requires a comparison value, so I give that next finite state an absolute value of 1, which is a reasonable thing to do. The infinite state is wedged between two finite states.
Infinite is the opposite of finite. To force some fictitious singular (finite) value on one state versus the other, and define it as "a number greater than any countable number", is a contrived definition.
That most certainly is not the same as redefining colors.

The universe is either finite, or infinite.
Does it make sense to say that the universe is "a number greater than any countable number"?
Nice try at a "bait and switch" there.
Don't do it again.
For those who were not paying attention, obviously, it doesn't make sense, but nobody said it did.
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".
So, stop the straw man attacks.
They don't work.
That most certainly is not the same as redefining colors.
Trying to redefine "infinity" as being the same as "infinite" is the same as redefining colours.
Did you not realise that?

The "a number greater than any countable number" definition applies to infinity which is a number
For those of you paying attention, here's the definition of infinite and infinity posted on my thread by you.
Don't mince words.
And here's a little gem you dropped earlier, in which you use the definition of infinity for infinite.
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.
Do you want to retract that post?
Notice the mathematical definition in infinite?
in·fi·nite
/ˈinfənət/Submit
adjective
adjective: infinite
1.
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
"the infinite mercy of God"
synonyms: boundless, unbounded, unlimited, limitless, without limit, without end, neverending, interminable, cosmic; More
antonyms: limited, small
very great in amount or degree.
"he bathed the wound with infinite care"
synonyms: very great, immense, supreme, absolute, total, real; More
antonyms: very little
MATHEMATICS
greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
MATHEMATICS
And the definition of infinity.
in·fin·i·ty
/inˈfinədē/
noun
noun: infinity
1.
the state or quality of being infinite.
"the infinity of space"
and the mathematical conversion the "a number greater than any countable number" of space
and my definition the "constancy of change" of space
Which makes more sense?
synonyms: endlessness, infinitude, infiniteness, boundlessness, limitlessness, unlimitedness, extensiveness, vastness, immensity; infinite distance
"she stared out into the infinity of space"
an infinite or very great number or amount.
plural noun: infinities
"an infinity of combinations"
synonyms: infinite number, unlimited number, very great number, abundance, profusion, host, multitude, mass, wealth; More
informalheap, stack, ton;
informalshedload
"an infinity of different molecules"
antonyms: limited number
a point in space or time that is or seems infinitely distant.
"the lawns stretched into infinity"
2.
Mathematics
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
They mean the same damn thing. Ones an adjective and one is a noun. That's the only difference between them.
And I'm the one changing meanings of words? I'm not changing it, I'm realigning it with reality.
If we can apply a finite state to any static number, then we can most certainly apply infinity as a state to any dynamic number, such as pi. That just makes sense, as they are opposite states. Our numbering system is also infinite, but not any specific value in the entire numbering system, because it's not a number, anymore than finite is any specific value in our numbering system. They're states that we apply to numbers, and vice versa.
No matter which word you use, it makes no sense as applied to the current mathematical definition.
I can't help it if they didn't realize they were applying finite and infinite states to numbers back in the 1600's. As far as they were concerned way back when, the universe was infinite, and the idea of a finite universe would have been a completely foreign concept to them. They're looking out at the infinite vastness, and thinking, geez, infinity must be greater than any number we can physically conceive of, so let's let make that the definition. They were thinking numbers, not states. They did not have the benefit of modern information, or Einstein, or Quantum mechanics, or redshifts, or expansion, or acceleration, which is all common knowledge today.
The standard definition doesn't take negative numbers into consideration either. Back then they were thinking big and greater, not small and lessor. We can count negatively equally as well as we can positively, and both directions are equally infinite. Clearly the mathematicians who originally defined infinity were applying it as a definition to the vastness of the universe they assumed it would apply to, without understanding it was simply one possible state of the universe. And they clearly didn't understand these as potential finite and infinite states for the universe, being applied to the concept of numbers.

We determine something is infinite when we can't resolve it.
So you've changed your definition for infinite? I thought you said that something is infinite if it is constantly changing? The inability to resolve something doesn't mean the thing you're trying to resolve is constantly changing. The ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter isn't constantly changing nor does it change at all.

Do you want to retract that post?
No
Pi is a number, the Universe isn't.

Pi is a number, the Universe isn't.
At least there's one thing we can agree on.

Let me rephrase that slightly. 35 years total. 10 years ago is when I had that moment, when it clicked, and I saw it. Spent another 10 refining it. I suppose it was one of those Eureka moments. Rush of emotions, etc. I just saw it.
Maybe a slight tweak.
lol.... maybe a slight tweak. "and the continuous resolution is infinity."
I hear you, and a moment of realization is impressive and memorable.
You use the word resolution, saying, "And the continuous resolution is infinity.”
Do use “resolution” in that sentence to mean “the continuous solution is infinity” or to mean “a continuously improving focus is infinity”?
Please elaborate.

You use the word resolution, saying, "And the continuous resolution is infinity.”
Do use “resolution” in that sentence to mean “the continuous solution is infinity” or to mean “a continuously improving focus is infinity”?
Interesting question.
I meant it more in the context of a continuous solution, but the word solution seems to feel more like there is one in my mind. I chose continuous resolution because there is no solution to the problem, which is what makes it infinite. No beginning, no end. x=x, and x=∞. Just a constant recycling of energy.
However, I have imagined an increased focus apply to the nature of the problem as we drift inward. As galaxies become less relevant to each other over time, gravitational energy gradually shifts inward becoming more locally focused, possibly accelerating the process in the end game. It would increase at the inverse square over time, so it wouldn't be a straight line gain. Kind of like focusing a beam on a flashlight. Might have even described that on this thread somewhere, but I can't fully recall after so many post on a single topic.
Why do you ask?

Interesting question.
I meant it more in the context of a continuous solution, but the word solution seems to feel more like there is one in my mind. I chose continuous resolution because there is no solution to the problem, which is what makes it infinite. No beginning, no end. x=x, and x=∞. Just a constant recycling of energy.
However, I have imagined an increased focus apply to the nature of the problem as we drift inward. As galaxies become less relevant to each other over time, gravitational energy gradually shifts inward becoming more locally focused, possibly accelerating the process in the end game. It would increase at the inverse square over time, so it wouldn't be a straight line gain. Kind of like focusing a beam on a flashlight. Might have even described that on this thread somewhere, but I can't fully recall after so many post on a single topic.
Why do you ask?
I ask because I think that eureka moments can apply to “imponderables”; lol. By “imponderables” I mean the big questions of science and cosmology, like what caused the Big Bang? Or what were the preconditions to the big bang? Or did the universe come from nothingness? Or did God do it? Or do we eliminate that possibility because the scientific method does not consider the Supernatural as a valid explanation or solution.
The avenues of thought leading to realizations, and leading from them on to logical connections that come to mind as a result of them, are part of the ongoing thought processes we go through as we contemplate the universe, IMHO.
They tend to be memorable because they are meaningful parts of the way that we put together our own individual views of the universe. As we keep the process of individual science thinking going, things continually make more sense, and more known science comes into our own sphere of understanding, and if we keep thinking, the depth of our views are continually built on top of what we believed yesterday.
Probably we all go through spurts of progress in our thinking, and then there are the inevitable points where we have to go “back to the drawing board”. In that context, my view of your case is that you came to a point where you realized what infinite means, to your satisfaction, and you weren’t sure if what you just realized was unusual among science enthusiasts, or did you really come upon some new thinking, or at least some appreciation of the finer details of the meaning of finite and infinite, as it relates to the universe.
Just wondering if you have gone beyond the realization of what infinite means to you, and have connected it to the nature of the infinite universe in comparison to the observable portion in our Hubble view?

Just wondering if you have gone beyond the realization of what infinite means to you, and have connected it to the nature of the infinite universe in comparison to the observable portion in our Hubble view?
I didn't have a spiritual awakening of any kind, if that's what you're asking. I've always felt infinity was the engine that animated the universe, or gave it life. I've always imagined it as a state of motion, like reaching out towards an edge, but never quite being able to touch it, or conversely, having it slip through your fingers as you try to hold it. It was something that remained just out of reach no matter how hard you tried to touch the limits. It kept feeling like motion.
And also understand, I am not trying to impose my viewpoint onto anyone. It's a choice to accept this version of the universe as I see it, and build upon it if desired. Although I thinks it's mostly correct in concept, I cannot prove anything, and conversely, no one can disprove it. I think I've laid out a pretty solid argument so far. Unless of course, someone wishes to hold onto things we really don't understand to be fact, as much as we think we do. The one thing I've learned over the years, the more you know the less you know to be fact. Collectively, we do not know how the universe works, although we know how to manipulate things within it. We're operators of the machine, but lack a fundamental understanding of how the machine really functions. Mostly we understand things through repeated observation of how something behaves, and check that against math. Then we take an educated guess, and call it a theory.
Knowledge is a reducer. The more you understand, the fewer questions remain. In that sense, understanding how infinity interacts with the universe, shrunk it a bit for me. You realize your time is truly limited, and all we really have is each other. The universe is a mindless beast driven purely by mathematics. It is completely indifferent to our existence, naturally speaking. Our continued survival collectively is all that really matters to anyone in the end. What meaning we derive from the survival process is up to us to decide. Do we become as cold and calculated as the universe in our efforts to survive, or will we all finally come together and realize a common purpose and derive a common meaning we can all share from what we know? We're definitely flailing at the moment.
I was personally hoping more for a 0 sum game, with a repetitive cycling of the universe, hoping we were just repeating our lives over in time. Pretty happy with mine, so I'd do another round. What I see now is infinite time applied to the universe, with an infinite number of variables. No two moments are alike, and no two lives are alike. We are unique in time and space, infinitely. Is there anymore than this? No idea. So, I certainly don't want to waste the life I know lies in front of me today.
We're starting to get a bit too philosophical for this thread though, so I'll leave it at that.

…
We're starting to get a bit too philosophical for this thread though, so I'll leave it at that.
I think I recall you stating that you accept the Big Bang. If so, that was a very major physical event that took place ~14 billion years ago, and everything that we observe today is within an event horizon connected to that one big bang event. The observable portion of the expanding universe is often called our Hubble view. That is more generally accepted cosmology than is it philosophy.
If you see time and space as infinite with no beginning, and I thought that might have been your eureka moment, then the one big bang event that is generally accepted to have occurred would logically have had preconditions. I usually address that topic of preconditions to the big bang by asking, “If there was one big bang event, why not multiple big bang events?” Maybe that is a bit philosophical, but not nearly as philosophical as saying that the existence of the universe is the result of “something from nothing”, or “God did it”, right? The “always existed” scenario holds the logical advantage among those three explanations for the existence of the universe.
If our big bang had preconditions, and if there have been multiple big bangs across infinite space and infinite time, then each such event might logically have been preceded by a big crunch that then collapse/banged into expansion, leaving an event horizon and an observable Hubble type of view that encompasses only a portion of one of the expanding big bang "arenas"; like we observe in our Hubble view.
I just wanted to share that thinking with you.

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.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/3RnFwesHKClEkKe4fpMeOrQbAw0JiQeYMOESn04rsZkRYJOo0j9VxQZbxSa_RZQUK3NUztdW0ZEkgOD_XgeoFfm2on4MZzY0qumGpgJDN5sB_ia0NINZmwAN_1a3A0PibXFa_5fcAkB_Pu2auXN0h3qOqMLgeytyOL6D6el434xdJI5OeKFYL37NYVqM44WGhdxRSm4xLtoojJQStMV93q59btF086h3ppk6BbrVJMEpEmrt31miFHgnwYKLu9P8UzpvQqh6BRQuTe8nDk9LqRGNTN8nVhVeeCyurL_O675am4LVHAb1ZiELytCSftmscwSHMpczJFrcWzQgEtV4kpK_AjUvbqTKlPCVWjK29VYLV5nTJdJhI5wTLIDN5U8sBmX1lX3WyGVF45EuFIpaTADbFBs2zkgE2BPudSBj412l9rGI9eXA5jAnmLKP1TvpnNJahEaKCUO1DiWEkh5tmm2RRam_hybykWOAXaGbwOqMjNqSwZ45wPKrUK61CotoMKYcfPA_IYc1t8X2PFNBgFUcUk2em8YaeiBYX86wqopI0bHDQtCUiwy2BCBK4GUIdHiUE3iKY1TF2GYJ76n1ZEbD0FDIowg3TToFlkmrRf_TyIbALBI6sTCatQNbqVNomqg40q56krg4bX_T=w184h148no)
Science tends to look at it like this
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6wKdbJQKGasFUb1ywDzpk81eJk6gE4WyF6zkubzOqJEz97lgTeO_VEmFXdFMuxDyEXRWBYiL8R0uW_nZvmXA_Q9zcQF7jH4n5ov2MfvGJ2TclztY14iq1Q9keKpDrAPnupyo5I68ggFYoYPYp9mPnQgWw12D5FYLvkKBuX9GFUjImIBKAjX7LE6WjJBzJ_tY_YIqv0Q8vE9HAQclHPDKnr38UQjbjlDBSKClvAHc2bUV_ytGbOHE__FoHCuUzB7bguPIcU0UKgSCdvBAajXo9bpGTpZqVM37GqBDSLkhrWmf2271a7B8ISxRmQZaU2tvtLdNZaSqRh095KgmnABz1rytxtt60ANBtyo53p4_ajKHgG96ttShjTgPWYXaEmCTgIsGq_e7Ko7_2Pyqb1oZU3Ll49VV1vc7kzsg_iduPXylW6G8OJBFec3ewBcoEoaMbV3sDulNnolnsWmKGP06FsfJakZwIDznmXhWhplcmK6WsNELr1D23d0i9ljgLiudRohXD99PYRcEUJyDJ3eAgr01UVVcPEHn_8RaU3uY9QJO6deoR7_EmM1j3TSZxOTVHvqua4R6ZuUdVInsjtagQmwW1dpfx_bX96fwXTylzpdkBNJFquQUu0iirbrxiUSy5L6JtEPAVcxS5heCQ=w277h48no)
I'll get into all that tomorrow maybe.

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.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/3RnFwesHKClEkKe4fpMeOrQbAw0JiQeYMOESn04rsZkRYJOo0j9VxQZbxSa_RZQUK3NUztdW0ZEkgOD_XgeoFfm2on4MZzY0qumGpgJDN5sB_ia0NINZmwAN_1a3A0PibXFa_5fcAkB_Pu2auXN0h3qOqMLgeytyOL6D6el434xdJI5OeKFYL37NYVqM44WGhdxRSm4xLtoojJQStMV93q59btF086h3ppk6BbrVJMEpEmrt31miFHgnwYKLu9P8UzpvQqh6BRQuTe8nDk9LqRGNTN8nVhVeeCyurL_O675am4LVHAb1ZiELytCSftmscwSHMpczJFrcWzQgEtV4kpK_AjUvbqTKlPCVWjK29VYLV5nTJdJhI5wTLIDN5U8sBmX1lX3WyGVF45EuFIpaTADbFBs2zkgE2BPudSBj412l9rGI9eXA5jAnmLKP1TvpnNJahEaKCUO1DiWEkh5tmm2RRam_hybykWOAXaGbwOqMjNqSwZ45wPKrUK61CotoMKYcfPA_IYc1t8X2PFNBgFUcUk2em8YaeiBYX86wqopI0bHDQtCUiwy2BCBK4GUIdHiUE3iKY1TF2GYJ76n1ZEbD0FDIowg3TToFlkmrRf_TyIbALBI6sTCatQNbqVNomqg40q56krg4bX_T=w184h148no)
Science tends to look at it like this
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6wKdbJQKGasFUb1ywDzpk81eJk6gE4WyF6zkubzOqJEz97lgTeO_VEmFXdFMuxDyEXRWBYiL8R0uW_nZvmXA_Q9zcQF7jH4n5ov2MfvGJ2TclztY14iq1Q9keKpDrAPnupyo5I68ggFYoYPYp9mPnQgWw12D5FYLvkKBuX9GFUjImIBKAjX7LE6WjJBzJ_tY_YIqv0Q8vE9HAQclHPDKnr38UQjbjlDBSKClvAHc2bUV_ytGbOHE__FoHCuUzB7bguPIcU0UKgSCdvBAajXo9bpGTpZqVM37GqBDSLkhrWmf2271a7B8ISxRmQZaU2tvtLdNZaSqRh095KgmnABz1rytxtt60ANBtyo53p4_ajKHgG96ttShjTgPWYXaEmCTgIsGq_e7Ko7_2Pyqb1oZU3Ll49VV1vc7kzsg_iduPXylW6G8OJBFec3ewBcoEoaMbV3sDulNnolnsWmKGP06FsfJakZwIDznmXhWhplcmK6WsNELr1D23d0i9ljgLiudRohXD99PYRcEUJyDJ3eAgr01UVVcPEHn_8RaU3uY9QJO6deoR7_EmM1j3TSZxOTVHvqua4R6ZuUdVInsjtagQmwW1dpfx_bX96fwXTylzpdkBNJFquQUu0iirbrxiUSy5L6JtEPAVcxS5heCQ=w277h48no)
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.
Nevertheless, 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)
Notice how in the Wiki link, they talk about it: TheBig Bang theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) is the prevailing cosmological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology) model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling) for the observable universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe)[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_noteNYT201702201)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note3) from the earliest known periods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology) through its subsequent largescale evolution.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#cite_note6)The model describes how the universe expanded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe) from a very highdensity and hightemperature 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.

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?

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?

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.

I'm not proclaiming anything of the sort.
...
Note that I edited my reply #301 to add a Wiki link and a comment.

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 3dimensions 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. Spacetime always moves forward from 0 to 1. Spacetime 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.

You have missed the linguistic distinction between "infinite" and "infinity".
Infinity is not what we thought it was.
Says who?

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 3D space into the 4th dimension of time, into what we all know as the fabric of spacetime. That is what infinity physically represents, spacetime, 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.

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.

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.

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  \ˈfīˌnīt
\
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.

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?

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.

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 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 spacetime 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.

We are living in a virtual reality
You might be.

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.

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.

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 nonexistence. The universe is bound to the constancy of change, as Einstein said, space and time are woven into a fabric of spacetime.

As I explained, we define finite elements in the universe as time segments.
No we don't.
You even said this yourself.
No, I didn't
It cannot go backwards to a point of nonexistence.
There is no expectation for it to do so.
I can't go back to 1965 to have a look round.
But it is still true to say that I go back to 1965.
The Universe really does go back about 14 billion years.

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.

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.
I never said it was infinite temporarily. Quite the opposite, we are infinite, always have been, and always will be. Where did you get that idea from?

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
Sure you did.
We know that it's finite in time so that's hardly relevant.
You explained the entire universe was finite in time. We are most definitely a part of the entire universe.

How did you come to the conclusion that
"we define finite elements in the universe as time segments. "
Is the same as
"it started"
?
For example, one element of the universe is "my house".
That's a spatial segment, not a temporal one.

For example, one element of the universe is "my house".
That's a spatial segment, not a temporal one.
Is it?
The internet can sometimes lose the subtle inflections in tone, so I don't mean this in a derogatory manner.
You are thinking way to simply about the problem. 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.
Meters are defined by a segment of time. So, even a spacial concept, like a house, is a time derivative.
And you also know, like the lava lamp, your house won't be around forever. Its composite materials will breakdown over time, some quicker than others, unless you keep putting energy in to maintain it. And we all know about the cost of upkeep, and the hard work it takes to supply funds for contractors. Things break, siding needs replacing, shingles wear, paint fades and peels, grass needs to be mowed, etc. Everything in the universe is bound to time, no matter how we perceive it. Stop maintaining it over time, or putting energy into it, and your house will eventually deteriorate until it no longer exists.
We quantify things useful to us in a finite manner, like a cup, or a car, or a house, but the underlying reality of all these things is continual change over time. They won't be these things forever. The state of matter is bound to change over time. As I suggested, time runs negatively for matter. We are at peak time on our manufacture date, and it's all downhill from there, until we reach 0.
Consider a black hole for a moment, and then consider my definition of infinity as the constant of change.
A black hole in some respects, is exactly like light. A black hole is a state of mass undergoing the maximum constancy of change, so it is a constant like light, as long as it can keep feeding on matter at the constant of C. Once it's supply runs out, it will more than likely dissipate or evaporate exactly as theory suggests. The 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, like light is a massless constant. Black holes control all the gravity within our local galaxy. It will keep feeding on the matter that surrounds it at a constant rate until it's all gone.

Meters are defined by a segment of time.
Only as a convenient practicality.
In principle, they are defined as a distance.
It could be that they will be defined as a distance at some point in the future.
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.
If it is wrong "on the surface" then it's wrong.
Stop maintaining it over time, or putting energy into it, and your house will eventually deteriorate until it no longer exists.
Yes, but its location will still exist (for a given reference system)
Consider a black hole for a moment, and then consider my definition of infinity as the constant of change.
OK, so you have a definition of "infinity" that apples to black holes.
Black holes are finite in mass and time.
So your definition of infinite only applies to things that are not infinite.
Do you think that's somehow better than the definition that everyone has been using for centuries?he black hole in the center of our galaxy is a constant, for as long as our galaxy exists.
That black hole has only 2 essential properties, spin and mass.
Both of those change from time to time when something falls into it.
If the BH were stuck in the middle of nowhere with nothing near it falling in then it would evaporate (slowly).
So, once again, it wouldn't be constant.
You really have not thought this throughA black hole in my view is a mass constant
Your view is not the same as reality.
This is not because reality is mistaken.

This is an excerpt from an article on Einstein.
I think Einstein was right all along.
But the fact that Einstein experimented with the steadystate 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 steadystate Universe was the next best thing, O’Raifeartaigh and his collaborators say.
The problem they've always had with an infinite universe was the concept they had laid out. Einstein was not wrong, it was simply the wrong model of an infinite universe. They assumed an infinite universe was open, and static in nature. I am limiting what infinite means in terms of structure. It hits a wall at Ι1Ι. It is closed and dynamic.
I accept the expansion seen in the field equations of Einstein's relativity as correct. So, if infinity is capped, where would that expansion go?
Expansion is a positive energy, so if you place a limit on that expansion at Ι1Ι as I've done, all that positive energy would flip, and turn negative. That's gravity.
Gravity is a negative energy.
Relativity inverts into mass energy, and runs backwards in time. That's quantum mechanics. The universe is stuck forward in time, because it's capped off by a finite limit. Gravity pushes inward against matter in a constant manner until it hits 0 density.
This would be analogous to setting off a firecracker in a sealed bottle strong enough to withstand the blast. While it's sitting there, pressure is 0. Once the firecracker ignites, the pressure immediately rises to 1. As the bottle sits long enough after the explosion, all that positive energy that was released starts to cool and condense, negatively, until the pressure returns to 0.
Matter is negative, and space is positive.
Einstein did not like the big bang.
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’.
They had the wrong infinite universe.
0<∞
My version corrects the flaw in reasoning
0<∞<Ι1Ι
Infinity = Constant of Change
finite = Absence of change
Society wanted creation, and once Hubble observed the redshift, we spun off in the wrong direction.
Is that so hard to believe?

I think Einstein was right all along.
The evidence disagrees; it's not a popularity contest.

The evidence disagrees; it's not a popularity contest.
Ironic. Considering popularity is the entire basis of your argument, not evidence.

The 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.
Would you be happier if I had pointed out that you post was an argument from authority and thus also invalid?
And I have, in spite of your protestations, provided evidence.
You seem to have ignored it.

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.
Who is nobody and everybody? You and 2 others? Is that nobody and everybody? Are you everybody or nobody?
And as I mentioned earlier, the number of people that believe something is no basis for an argument.
Your entire argument is based on a google paste, and the number of people that believe it, including you obviously.
I'll stick with the mathematical facts. x=x
If you want to believe in the magical flying spaghetti monster, knock yourself out.