[Bored chemist]

"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

[opportunity]

Why not? It has features that are completely baseless?

[opportunity]

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

Its useless.

[andreasva (OP)]

"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.

[opportunity]

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

[andreasva (OP)]

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.   

[opportunity]

Do you want to meet someone there?

[andreasva (OP)]

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.  3-dimensional motion.  A 1-dimensional 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.     

[andreasva (OP)]

"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.     

[Kryptid]

Beliefs have no place in science.

Nor do non-falsifiable propositions like yours.

[andreasva (OP)]

Nor do non-falsifiable 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. 

[Bored chemist]

The theory is claiming the universe is both finite and infinite at the same time.

This amounts to, 1=∞

No

[andreasva (OP)]

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

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.       

[andreasva (OP)]

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.   

[Bogie_smiles]

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

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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.   

[Kryptid]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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.     

[Kryptid]

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.

[mad aetherist]

"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 lower-case 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 long-standing 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."