[andreasva (OP)]

(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 platinum-irridium 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 space-time 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. 

[Kryptid]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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 non-absolute 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. 

[Bogie_smiles]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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. 

[andreasva (OP)]

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 zero-point 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.   

[Kryptid]

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 non-absolute 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 non-testable, logical argument counts as science.

[jeffreyH]

"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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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.

Zero-Point 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.   

[andreasva (OP)]

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. 

[Kryptid]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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. 

[Kryptid]

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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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. 

[andreasva (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

Your argument is clearly non sequitur at this point, and taken well beyond the context of this thread.

How can it be a non-sequitur? 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 easily-defined 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.

[andreasva (OP)]

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

[Bogie_smiles]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.