[andreasva]

Referring to some of the points in your last post, instead of infinity being a work in progress, I maintain that the infinite universe already fully exists, has always existed, and has always been infinite, so in the spatial sense the definition of infinite includes infinite in all directions from all points. An infinite universe is not expanding or contracting because it is already everywhere. The expansion going on in the observable universe is local action that is the result of prior local actions, i.e., the larger scale actions that cause what we see locally.

This is the heart of understanding what infinity means, and precisely where we differ.  It's also where science fails to understand the meaning of infinity, and why the Olber paradox starts off with the flawed assumption of a static infinity.  Static is a finite term which stands in direct conflict to an infinite universe.  Infinity is not static.  It cannot occupy all of existence at any given moment in time.   

|0| < ∞ < |1| 

Static lies outside the universe.

The comprehensible universe is not everywhere, it's anywhere dimension is, and mass=dimension.  And no, it is not expanding or contracting, it is expanding and contracting simultaneously, or at least the waves are.  Infinite only looks finite.  It looks like it had a beginning.  It looks like it will have an end. 

If the universe were ever to fill all of existence it would become static in nature, and it's value would be |1|.  It would no longer be infinite, because motion would cease.  We would transition to a finite universe, which is the absence of change. 

Infinity = Constant of Change
Finite = Absence of Change 

If we don't set a limit on what infinity represents at any given moment in time, ironically, we make it finite, because we end up with a static, or finite infinity.  That's illogical.   

I know this is hard to wrap your head around.  We have a preconceived notion of endless lengths.  And yes, we can sort of imagine it, but lengths are only infinite in motion. 

There is no such thing as infinite length or dimension in the static sense, because they are limited by time.  We move infinitely towards these finite lengths and dimension, but never quite reach the end.  There is always more dimensionless space to be defined by mass. 

Note, your terms Ew and Cw don’t work for me because I have to keep looking back to your earlier post to remember what they mean

Agreed.  Always the problem when introducing new lingo.  I get tired of typing out Contraction Wave and and Expansion Wave all the time.  Maybe I should type them out for clarity sake.   

Also, saying that infinity is infinite motion in two directions, or it is acceleration and deceleration, and both are infinite in nature, … well it just seems hard to adopt that thinking; why not just go with … spatially infinite.

Yes it is hard to adopt that thinking, which is why it has taken me so long to understand it myself. 

Spatially infinite is a meaningless term without motion.  Mass and motion are inseparable, because E=Motion of Mass.  Mass is either contracting while accelerating inwards, or expanding while decelerating outwards.  Without motion there is no spatial to consider as infinite. 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Static lies outside the universe.

I don’t think there is anything that lies outside the universe, by definition, so what meaning does it have to only use “static” as a strictly finite term, or to relegate it to “outside” the universe. If the universe is spatially infinite, there is no outside to it.

Additionally, I readily accept that an infinite universe does occupy all of existence at any given moment in time, and I think it is sufficient to use the term spatially infinite, which, by the way, is one the Three Infinities referenced in my thread title .

The universe that I contemplate is everywhere, and if you have to apply “dimension” as a qualifier for where the universe exists,  then I wonder what physically exists without dimension, so why even qualify it like that?

If we don't set a limit on what infinity represents at any given moment in time, ironically, we make it finite, because we end up with a static, or finite infinity.  That's illogical.   

Interesting that you call it illogical not to set a limit on what is infinite, because the space occupied by the universe, to me is limitless, and that is just a way of saying infinite.

And also, I do think that typing “Contraction Wave and Expansion Wave” in your narrative would help convey the intent.

Now, as to saying that the universe is expanding and contracting simultaneously, sorry. Those two actions seem separate and independent in their application, and further, an infinite universe can’t expand or contract unless you invoke a boundary to the universe, and when you do, it no longer can be called infinite. You might want to let go of the "simultaneity of expanding and contracting" idea.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

You have had some time to contemplate my objection to the "simultaneity of expanding and contracting" idea; I hope I didn’t offend. There are some of you who would most likely take exception to my opinion that the universe can’t expand or contract.

I have often stipulated that the observable portion of the universe displays expansion based on the observations that light from the more distant galaxies in all directions is red shifted, indicating that distant observable galaxies are moving away from us.

It has also been speculated that what we observe out there is only a tiny puzzle piece in a great jigsaw puzzle of infinite space, time, and energy.

Am I promoting a contradiction when saying that our most distant observations support an expanding universe, while at the same time saying that the universe, with its infinite reach, can’t expand or contract because it is already everywhere? No, I’m not, because I explain the contradiction on the basis that the observable universe is a limited view of the greater universe, which in its entirety is infinite.

I will say that logic is on my side on this, because if you posit a finite expanding universe, you run into all kinds of logical problems. Mainly, backtracking the expansion of a finite expanding universe leads to the conclusion that it had to have had a beginning in space and time. A beginning requires somethings from nothing, like space and energy, coming into existence at a point back there in time.

The logical convolutions that you have to go through to posit an expanding universe that has always existed should call into doubt that notion, simply on the basis that a beginning associated with an infinite greater universe are logical incompatible. Agreed?

[andreasva]

No, you haven't offended me at all.  I've been a little side tracked. 

Without a decent ability to post graphics on this site I feel very limited.  I've been posting on another site that I tend to like better than this one.   

My position is firm.

|0| < ∞ < |1|

This is the universe.  The above statement is mathematically correct.  Infinity is part of a single linear line segment, with absolute time and absolute motion separated by a universe.

C=0 < ∞ < C=1
T=1 > ∞ > T=0

And endless loop of time and motion forever expanding while simultaneously contracting. 

The universe is open on both ends, negating the possibility of a big bang entirely, let alone multi big bangs.

(1D-Space)+(1D-Motion)+(1D-Time) = 3D

The only reason we even think about a big bang is that a theory was presented in 1927 from Georg Lamaitre, a Catholic Priest.   The original theory has been kept alive on the threads of even more dubious theory which can never be proven, observed, or experimented on.   All we've ever observed in dissipation of explosions, and when a large amount of matter condenses we find black holes, which theoretically dissipate.  That original theory died a long time ago. 

A wave of creation swept through the universe leaving behind a cloud of matter.  We've been cooling and condensing ever since.  That wave is still going, and never had a beginning.   

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Good, and taking a step back, when a person attempts to quantify the universe as a whole, they hopefully will include the concepts of "infinite and eternal". I think it is appropriate to include a sentence in our description that says that the universe, on  a grand scale, is infinite and eternal. Do you agree that it is? Some people like to express it as "potentially" infinite, but to me, anything less than infinite begs the question how some boundary could be established, short of the creation scenario, which is not scientific.

Granted, by referring to anything less than the entire infinite and eternal universe, you would be referring to a portion that is in the process of expansion and/or contraction, but when taking a "less than the whole" perspective, you simply are not talking about the "all inclusive" universe.