[Bored chemist]

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 non-existence. 

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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?

[andreasva (OP)]

    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. 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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 mass-less 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. 

[Bored chemist]

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 through

A black hole in my view is a mass constant

Your view is not the same as reality.
This is not because reality is mistaken.

[andreasva (OP)]

This is an excerpt from an article on Einstein.

I think Einstein was right all along.

But the fact that Einstein experimented with the steady-state concept demonstrates his continued resistance to the idea of a Big Bang, which he at first found “abominable”, even though other theoreticians had shown it to be a natural consequence of his general theory of relativity. (Other leading researchers, such as the eminent Cambridge astronomer Arthur Eddington, were also suspicious of the Big Bang theory, because it suggested a mystical moment of creation.) When astronomers found evidence for cosmic expansion, Einstein had to abandon his bias towards a static Universe, and a steady-state Universe was the next best thing, O’Raifeartaigh and his collaborators say.

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?

[Bored chemist]

I think Einstein was right all along.

The evidence disagrees; it's not a popularity contest.

[andreasva (OP)]

The evidence disagrees; it's not a popularity contest.

Ironic.  Considering popularity is the entire basis of your argument, not evidence. 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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.