Why an Eternal Circle of Time Cosomology Cannot Exist

[The Irish Ram]

Yes, really. We have no way to prove multiple universes exist or if the Big Bang was the result of two branes colliding of if the other dimensions beyond the four we know and love are possible. The math suggests all of those things, but we have no way of designing tests, much less carrying them out, that can confirm or deny the validity of the hypothesis.

Which goes back to the philosophical question: if a scientific hypothesis cannot be tested, is it still science?

It can be, because of the use of science to reach the hypothesis, but it can't be scientific law until the hypothesis can be proven, twice.
For instance, we have a theory of relativity that we accept as law, that is about to be proven not to be completely correct, because of advancements in the scientific tools we have developed to experiment on the theories with. New technology tells Einstein that light may not be immutable.

We have the theory of evolution, that can't be proven, that we teach as law instead of theory.

Like it or not we do have a way to prove scientific theory. Bible. It took us until the 1900's to find the four dimensions earth is bound by, the ones described in the Bible a long long time ago.
And it took until now, to realize there are more than 4, even tho Jesus was described, in the 6th dimension, and possessed the attributes found in a sixth dimension, more than once.
Without the Hadron Collider, the transfiguration was a fairytale myth. With the Collider, it's science.
Ether, attributes of dimensions, attributes of time, light, energy, tilt, rotation, circumference, were all addressed first in the Bible.

And now that mankind has discovered that other dimensions are possible with today's tools, tomorrow they will verify what the Bible says are the attributes of our latest discovery, i.e. thin, can be rolled up, stretched, burned, torn, traversed, misplaced, can meld, be attached to, separated from, parallel to, perpendicular to, or adjacent to.
Because once we discover something we set about to answer why and how it works.
The next time you hear a science notable say any of the above, remember where you heard it first:

Jeremiah 51:15 With his own understanding he stretched out the heavens...

Psalm 104:2 The LORD wraps himself in light... He has stretched out Heaven like a curtain.

Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves ...

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth... He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. ... He who is stretching out as a thin thing the heavens, And spreadeth them as ... It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth; rather, above the ...

With His own understanding He stretched out the heavens. With ours, we'll verify it.
Science will discover God, in time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You're missing the point. Gravity is reduced by distance but has no limit to its reach. A grain of sand on Earth has a gravitational affect, though infitesimal, on distant planetary bodies.
Gravity from stars in far galaxies touches us here on Earth.

The greater the distance the more reduced the gravitational effect.

But if one is talking about infinite space and infinite quantities of matter, then the distances do not reduce in any effective way. And the infinite mass of the whole universe would still crush itself back together.

And why do you think, given the existence of Black Holes, that compressed energy can overcome enormous, let alone infinite, gravitational forces?

False. Infinite distances would, in fact, reduce that effect. Gravity is not reduced by distance in a direct manner but rather is exponentially reduced by distance.

Force = (G*M1*M2) / r^2
G= 6.6726 x 10^-11
A simple math experiment give us a real picture of how this works. Let’s set up the ‘infinite’ universe with an average density of one mass 100 billion KG separated by 1 million meters. For simplicities sake we are going to assume an even distribution of that mass but all on one side ‘us.’ From our equation above, the first mass exerts a force .66 N on us. The second, added to the first, brings that up to .83. The third, .9. Notice that the difference between the total force is shrinking FASTER than the increase increment. IOW, that total will NEVER exceed 1.1. By continuing this out, we find that the combined force of 100 masses is 1.0909. The combined force of a thousand masses 1.0969. The combined force of a TEN THOUSAND masses 1.0975. Even all the way out to thirty thousand masses you do not exceed 1.0975.

His version that he was presenting never postulated that the infinite mass was ever in one locality but rather the universe in general continued forever and there were various ‘big bang’ spots (and other things if it was truly infinite) that would be a finite mass.


Because the distance (r) is squared in the function, distance WILL overpower the increased force from infinite matter. Further, you must also accept that if there is infinite mater, it goes without saying that any direction that you point to will have an infinite mount of matter as well. Essentially, that force would balance out. Take, for instance, the earth. If you were to delve to the exact center of the planet, and hollow it out so that you were not in contact with any of the ‘walls’ you would not experience any gravity at all. The planet would be pulling you in all directions equally with the only gravitational force that you experience being controlled by local masses.

At the end of this though we can state that such a belief in an infinite universe, while not contradictory to facts, is based entirely on faith as there is no evidence to suggest that such a condition exists. There is noting that contradicts it though.

Your math is lacking. Force = (G*M1*(infinite) )/ r^2 = infinity, lol. not 1.01.

You are incrementally increasing things by low amounts. Our sun has 1.9891×10^30 kg, or to spell it out, 1,989,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. Our sun exerts gravitational effects on nearby stars.

And my point isn't that the gravitational force felt on one point would be infinite, but that the WHOLE of the cosmos would have remained collapsed. As far as multiple black holes goes, that is conjecture. There is some subjective evidence of circular impressions in the universal cosmic background radiation, but nothing has been proven and certainly nothing is settled. And even these new theories do not posit an infinite universe. The latter is simply fantasy and only the many world theory people give it any serious thought, and that theory is not much more than fantasy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, really. We have no way to prove multiple universes exist or if the Big Bang was the result of two branes colliding of if the other dimensions beyond the four we know and love are possible. The math suggests all of those things, but we have no way of designing tests, much less carrying them out, that can confirm or deny the validity of the hypothesis.

Which goes back to the philosophical question: if a scientific hypothesis cannot be tested, is it still science?

If it isn't testable then it is NOT science.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lets take the most popular theory that I know of in that the universe as we know it experiences a ‘big crunch’ due to gravity and then a ‘big bang’ due to the inability for forces to keep that crunch together.

... due to gravity


FA_Q2, perhaps not Crunch but Collision Compression - all mater in expansion from the "Bang" travels at a certain angle that in extreme time returns the matter to its origin causing compaction not compression ... the compaction is not due to gravity but everything colliding back into theirselves.

If our universe is a 4th dimensional spherical surface, then ultimately everything returns to its origin point.

Why not the expansion of the universe itself?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You're missing the point. Gravity is reduced by distance but has no limit to its reach. A grain of sand on Earth has a gravitational affect, though infitesimal, on distant planetary bodies.
Gravity from stars in far galaxies touches us here on Earth.

The greater the distance the more reduced the gravitational effect.

But if one is talking about infinite space and infinite quantities of matter, then the distances do not reduce in any effective way. And the infinite mass of the whole universe would still crush itself back together.

And why do you think, given the existence of Black Holes, that compressed energy can overcome enormous, let alone infinite, gravitational forces?

False. Infinite distances would, in fact, reduce that effect. Gravity is not reduced by distance in a direct manner but rather is exponentially reduced by distance.

Force = (G*M1*M2) / r^2
G= 6.6726 x 10^-11
A simple math experiment give us a real picture of how this works. Let’s set up the ‘infinite’ universe with an average density of one mass 100 billion KG separated by 1 million meters. For simplicities sake we are going to assume an even distribution of that mass but all on one side ‘us.’ From our equation above, the first mass exerts a force .66 N on us. The second, added to the first, brings that up to .83. The third, .9. Notice that the difference between the total force is shrinking FASTER than the increase increment. IOW, that total will NEVER exceed 1.1. By continuing this out, we find that the combined force of 100 masses is 1.0909. The combined force of a thousand masses 1.0969. The combined force of a TEN THOUSAND masses 1.0975. Even all the way out to thirty thousand masses you do not exceed 1.0975.

His version that he was presenting never postulated that the infinite mass was ever in one locality but rather the universe in general continued forever and there were various ‘big bang’ spots (and other things if it was truly infinite) that would be a finite mass.


Because the distance (r) is squared in the function, distance WILL overpower the increased force from infinite matter. Further, you must also accept that if there is infinite mater, it goes without saying that any direction that you point to will have an infinite mount of matter as well. Essentially, that force would balance out. Take, for instance, the earth. If you were to delve to the exact center of the planet, and hollow it out so that you were not in contact with any of the ‘walls’ you would not experience any gravity at all. The planet would be pulling you in all directions equally with the only gravitational force that you experience being controlled by local masses.

At the end of this though we can state that such a belief in an infinite universe, while not contradictory to facts, is based entirely on faith as there is no evidence to suggest that such a condition exists. There is noting that contradicts it though.

If we lived in a finite universe then it must be possible to detect that it is finite in a similar manner to how we can detect that we live on a finite planet. Geometry states that the sum of the angles in a flat planed triangle always add up to 180 degrees. However if you were to draw a triangle on the surface of the earth starting from the north pole down to the equator along the greenwich meridian and then another from the north pole 90 degrees west down to the equator you would end up with a triangle that contained 270 degrees because of the curvature of the earth.

So if you apply this to the universe and draw a triangle from the earth to edge of one of the larger "hot spots" in the background radiation and then to the other edge you would have a triangle that would detect the "curvature" of a finite universe. However the sum of the angles in that experiment returned 180 degrees thereby proving that the universe is indeed infinite or so huge as to be indistinguishable from infinite.

How Big is the Entire Universe? ? Starts With A Bang

So it is not a "belief" in an infinite universe but the scientific mathematical facts demonstrate an infinite universe.

Lol, that does not prove an infinite universe, it only demonstrates that the math can be tricky. There is no certitude that a finite universe would cause the three angles of a triangle to add up to anything other than 180 degrees, your analogy proving nothing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If we lived in a finite universe then it must be possible to detect that it is finite in a similar manner to how we can detect that we live on a finite planet. Geometry states that the sum of the angles in a flat planed triangle always add up to 180 degrees. However if you were to draw a triangle on the surface of the earth starting from the north pole down to the equator along the greenwich meridian and then another from the north pole 90 degrees west down to the equator you would end up with a triangle that contained 270 degrees because of the curvature of the earth.

So if you apply this to the universe and draw a triangle from the earth to edge of one of the larger "hot spots" in the background radiation and then to the other edge you would have a triangle that would detect the "curvature" of a finite universe. However the sum of the angles in that experiment returned 180 degrees thereby proving that the universe is indeed infinite or so huge as to be indistinguishable from infinite.

How Big is the Entire Universe? ? Starts With A Bang

So it is not a "belief" in an infinite universe but the scientific mathematical facts demonstrate an infinite universe.

Well, no not at all. What you are describing is the fact that the earth is not a sphere yet what we observe in the universe is a sphere.

I would expect nothing else because the limitation on our view of the universe is NOT limited by the edge of the universe. Your thought experiment that you are trying to claim as absolute proof would require that we were capable of measuring out to the distance of the edge of the universe. AFAIK, we are not even close to being able to measure at that distance. It may not even be possible with physics as we currently understand due to the distances involved and the limitations on the speed of light.

There is also the point that the universe might just be spherical anyway. I don’t think that a non-spherical universe is mathematically guaranteed as the universe is not going to operate in the same way that a planet or a solar system does. That all depends a great deal on spin and rotation as the solar system would not exist without it BUT the universe is under so such pretension. It MIGHT be spinning but there is nothing conclusive on it.

Until someone can demonstrate that the math is wrong the results corroborate an infinite universe.

lol, no they do not, since you cannot measure the edges of the universe or any abstract geometry on it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

inw

lol, you give up too easily.

 

[JimBowie1958]

First, for the Eternal circle of time to be valid, it must be the same precise string of events of time. This is because each iteration of the circle has to be the SAME EXACT iteration or else the whole concept collapses into another version of "kick the can down the road" non-answer to the infinite regression fallacy.

This is false. There is nothing that determines that the timeline must follow exactly in an infinite time loop for the universe. The only thing that is required is that there exists a specific set of circumstances that lead to that loop. Everything outside of those circumstances are completely irrelevant.

Lets take the most popular theory that I know of in that the universe as we know it experiences a ‘big crunch’ due to gravity and then a ‘big bang’ due to the inability for forces to keep that crunch together. If each cycle were to be balanced (IOW, the system does not lose energy) then whether or not Bill exists from one iteration to the other is irrelevant because the same conditions still exists to restart that cycle. Given an infinite timescale, Bill WILL come back into existence exactly as before as well as an infant number of other outcomes but there is no reason that time must repeat itself exactly each and every time.

All that needs to repeat is that the underlying circumstances stay identical.

No, if you do that, then all you have is more iterations of non-SAME periods of time, and that just kicks the can down the road regarding the infinite regression fallacy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, no not at all. What you are describing is the fact that the earth is not a sphere yet what we observe in the universe is a sphere.

I would expect nothing else because the limitation on our view of the universe is NOT limited by the edge of the universe. Your thought experiment that you are trying to claim as absolute proof would require that we were capable of measuring out to the distance of the edge of the universe. AFAIK, we are not even close to being able to measure at that distance. It may not even be possible with physics as we currently understand due to the distances involved and the limitations on the speed of light.

There is also the point that the universe might just be spherical anyway. I don’t think that a non-spherical universe is mathematically guaranteed as the universe is not going to operate in the same way that a planet or a solar system does. That all depends a great deal on spin and rotation as the solar system would not exist without it BUT the universe is under so such pretension. It MIGHT be spinning but there is nothing conclusive on it.

Until someone can demonstrate that the math is wrong the results corroborate an infinite universe.

lol, no they do not, since you cannot measure the edges of the universe or any abstract geometry on it.

There is no need to measure "the edges of the universe". All it takes is to measure something that is sufficiently distant from ourselves so that the curvature would show up in the math. So far the math is consistent with a universe extending 150 times further than what we can currently observe. Given that this means 150 times in all directions it is entirely consistent with an infinite universe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Until someone can demonstrate that the math is wrong the results corroborate an infinite universe.

lol, no they do not, since you cannot measure the edges of the universe or any abstract geometry on it.

There is no need to measure "the edges of the universe". All it takes is to measure something that is sufficiently distant from ourselves so that the curvature would show up in the math. So far the math is consistent with a universe extending 150 times further than what we can currently observe. Given that this means 150 times in all directions it is entirely consistent with an infinite universe.

That's about right from what I recall reading, but that is not even close to being infinite.

 

[Derideo_Te]

lol, no they do not, since you cannot measure the edges of the universe or any abstract geometry on it.

There is no need to measure "the edges of the universe". All it takes is to measure something that is sufficiently distant from ourselves so that the curvature would show up in the math. So far the math is consistent with a universe extending 150 times further than what we can currently observe. Given that this means 150 times in all directions it is entirely consistent with an infinite universe.

That's about right from what I recall reading, but that is not even close to being infinite.

Until proven otherwise the logical deduction from the mathematical results is the current model of an infinite universe.

 

[RKMBrown]

Time only exists up to the speed of light. Beyond 186,000 mi/sec, time stops. Doesn't that break the "cycle of eternal time"? God is on eternal time. Unless we can move faster that the speed of light, our time is finite.
Beyond 186,000 you can be: I was, I am, I will be, at the same time. You can throw a football down field and catch the pass at the same time. Folding and reliving would only work if you are in dimensions that never vary.
Sound waves vary. Light is constant, And light is a particle and a wave. How do you make them conform to the past to produce the same now or future, especially when photons interact with each other in a conscious way?

Define move. I think you are assuming we are limited to movement in three dimensional space.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, really. We have no way to prove multiple universes exist or if the Big Bang was the result of two branes colliding of if the other dimensions beyond the four we know and love are possible. The math suggests all of those things, but we have no way of designing tests, much less carrying them out, that can confirm or deny the validity of the hypothesis.

Which goes back to the philosophical question: if a scientific hypothesis cannot be tested, is it still science?

You misunderstood my statement.

Not really – as in it is not really science. The rest of my statement goes on to say that even though it is not testable now, we have to start somewhere and that start is usually in math before we can really make it true science through testing and verification.

 

[FA_Q2]

So it is not a "belief" in an infinite universe but the scientific mathematical facts demonstrate an infinite universe.

No they don't. Einstein was one who tried to prove that quote with mathematics and discovered the opposite. Expansion.
For as long as we have had telescopes, not one has captured the universe, time, or light circling in a manner that would cause the universe to end back where it began.

Quote: Originally Posted by MaryL
I read that time isn't what we perceive as mortals. BAMB! It all happens at once. Whether or not you have a eternal life or sin, rendered irrelevant. No need for reincarnation, none of that mysticism. No need for religion. It's all about human perceptions of time.

To see how relevant time is to us, hold your breath for two hours.
If one was out cold, in the back of an ambulance, and had no perception of time, racing to the hospital would still be of the essence, and could be the difference between life and death. Time matters.
We live in a 4 dimensional arena. Mortal time can be calculated and is as relevant as gravity, to mortals. It does not happen all at once, here, in the dimensions the earth is bound by. What I did yesterday at 3pm. is different than what I did today at 3pm. And 24 hours of minutes can be calculated to have passed between yesterday and today's 3pm and tomorrow's 3pm.

Having said that, time is relative to us, which makes the things you eliminated very much relevant to us also.
God, not confined to our arena, can be everywhere at once, see everything at once, because time doesn't effect the dimension He lives in. He can see time begin, unfold and end from His perspective.
It would be the difference between watching a parade turn a corner, until it is out of your sight, or watching the parade from the prospective of a helicopter, where you can see it begin, proceed, and end without have to change location. One sighting is bound by gravity and hence is limited. One sighting defies gravity, and sees the whole thing.
Beyond the speed of light, not just gravity, but time can also be observed the same way.

We are eternal beings because once we rid ourselves of our clay exterior which is bound by 4 dimensions, then we also can navigate dimensions free of time and gravity restraints. Christ demonstrated this by appearing without entering, leaving without the use of a door.
Without time and gravity, there is no aging, there is no end. The earth is finite, your soul is not.

?
And?

Such is not required for an infinite universe. As a matter of fact, IF space were to curve back in on itself it would, by definition, be finite. There would be no ‘end’ but still finite. An infinite universe would have no end and experience no ‘looping’ back in on itself.

 

[FA_Q2]

Your math is lacking. Force = (G*M1*(infinite) )/ r^2 = infinity, lol. not 1.01.

No it is not. Your understanding of calculus and how infinity works in math is what is lacking. What we have is mathematical proof that no matter how much matter you add, the gravitational force that matter exerts WILL NOT EXCEED a certain number based entirely on the distribution of that matter. I noticed that you used an infinite matter without regarding the fact that we are also talking about an infant distance. You don’t seem to realize that no matter how many masses are used, the overall gravitational effect drops off FASTER than the increase in that force meaning that you will never get past a certain FINITE amount of force no matter that the masses are infinite in number.

Go here: Sequences and series (part 2) | Sequences and series review | Khan Academy
What we are looking at essentially is a geometric sequence and here is a short explanation of exactly how such a sequence nets you a finite number even when you are adding an infinite number of terms.

You are incrementally increasing things by low amounts. Our sun has 1.9891×10^30 kg, or to spell it out, 1,989,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. Our sun exerts gravitational effects on nearby stars.

The actual numbers used are meaningless. The proof STILL shows that the gravitational force of infinite mass that is distributed within an infinite amount of space is NOT infinite but rather will be a finite number. See the mathematical proof linked.

And my point isn't that the gravitational force felt on one point would be infinite, but that the WHOLE of the cosmos would have remained collapsed. As far as multiple black holes goes, that is conjecture. There is some subjective evidence of circular impressions in the universal cosmic background radiation, but nothing has been proven and certainly nothing is settled. And even these new theories do not posit an infinite universe. The latter is simply fantasy and only the many world theory people give it any serious thought, and that theory is not much more than fantasy.

But here you assume that the infinite universe was contained in a single Big Bang – something that deidro specifically stated was not part of what he was talking about. You are assuming that our big bang envelopes everything and that assumption is based on nothing more than conjecture. There is no reason that the big bang encompassed everything in existence – just that it encompassed everything that we have observed so far.

If our universe is a 4th dimensional spherical surface, then ultimately everything returns to its origin point.

Why not the expansion of the universe itself?

IF. That is a big if. The key here is finding empirical data that supports that theory. Do you have any?

Lol, that does not prove an infinite universe, it only demonstrates that the math can be tricky. There is no certitude that a finite universe would cause the three angles of a triangle to add up to anything other than 180 degrees, your analogy proving nothing.

Yes, as a matter of fact there is. Click the link that he provided. If goes into a rather in depth description as to why such is fact and not mere conjecture. As I pointed out, this does not conclusively prove an infinite universe (and to be honest, that is an impossible thing to really prove unequivocally) but it does give real evidence that the universe is FLAT and that lends credence to the infinite universe theory.

You need to realize that this is not an analogy as you put it. It is real scientific testing. A test that actually led to results that the scientists were not expecting.

inw

lol, you give up too easily.

That is not ‘giving up.’ That is taking in evidence that was presented and incorporating it. That is how science works. You either show how it is false, that it leads to other conclusions or you change your opinion to reflect the new evidence. Simply discounting it out of hand because you don’t like the conclusions that it brings is not only unscientific but makes real debate impossible.

lol, no they do not, since you cannot measure the edges of the universe or any abstract geometry on it.

There is no need to measure "the edges of the universe". All it takes is to measure something that is sufficiently distant from ourselves so that the curvature would show up in the math. So far the math is consistent with a universe extending 150 times further than what we can currently observe. Given that this means 150 times in all directions it is entirely consistent with an infinite universe.

That's about right from what I recall reading, but that is not even close to being infinite.

There is still nothing showing that the figure is accurate though. Infinite is just as probable as a universe that size as there is nothing showing that the universe is finite.

No, if you do that, then all you have is more iterations of non-SAME periods of time, and that just kicks the can down the road regarding the infinite regression fallacy.

Why? There is no reason for time needing to be identical except that you have arbitrarily demanded it. Simple fact, there is no requirement for the timeline to be identical, PERIOD. You are demanding that the timeline cannot be identical and because of that time cannot be infinite. That is complete circular reasoning. There is nothing that demands the timeline be the same for an infantry old universe. Again, the ONLY requirement is that the underlying force that restarts the timeline be the same. What happens in the universe aside from that driving reality is utterly irrelevant.

This is somewhat similar to pi – the number will go on ad infinitum never repeating and never stopping but yet it will still go on infinitely.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no need to measure "the edges of the universe". All it takes is to measure something that is sufficiently distant from ourselves so that the curvature would show up in the math. So far the math is consistent with a universe extending 150 times further than what we can currently observe. Given that this means 150 times in all directions it is entirely consistent with an infinite universe.

That's about right from what I recall reading, but that is not even close to being infinite.

Until proven otherwise the logical deduction from the mathematical results is the current model of an infinite universe.

No, there is no logical deduction for ANYTHING reaching an infinite limit in the REAL world using time segments that are greater than zero.

 

[RKMBrown]

That's about right from what I recall reading, but that is not even close to being infinite.

Until proven otherwise the logical deduction from the mathematical results is the current model of an infinite universe.

No, there is no logical deduction for ANYTHING reaching an infinite limit in the REAL world using time segments that are greater than zero.

Yes, it is hard to get people to think in three dimensions when they serve the religion of flat earth.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your math is lacking. Force = (G*M1*(infinite) )/ r^2 = infinity, lol. not 1.01.

No it is not. Your understanding of calculus and how infinity works in math is what is lacking. What we have is mathematical proof that no matter how much matter you add, the gravitational force that matter exerts WILL NOT EXCEED a certain number based entirely on the distribution of that matter. I noticed that you used an infinite matter without regarding the fact that we are also talking about an infant distance. You don’t seem to realize that no matter how many masses are used, the overall gravitational effect drops off FASTER than the increase in that force meaning that you will never get past a certain FINITE amount of force no matter that the masses are infinite in number.

Go here: Sequences and series (part 2) | Sequences and series review | Khan Academy
What we are looking at essentially is a geometric sequence and here is a short explanation of exactly how such a sequence nets you a finite number even when you are adding an infinite number of terms.

You are incrementally increasing things by low amounts. Our sun has 1.9891×10^30 kg, or to spell it out, 1,989,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. Our sun exerts gravitational effects on nearby stars.

The actual numbers used are meaningless. The proof STILL shows that the gravitational force of infinite mass that is distributed within an infinite amount of space is NOT infinite but rather will be a finite number. See the mathematical proof linked.

But here you assume that the infinite universe was contained in a single Big Bang – something that deidro specifically stated was not part of what he was talking about. You are assuming that our big bang envelopes everything and that assumption is based on nothing more than conjecture. There is no reason that the big bang encompassed everything in existence – just that it encompassed everything that we have observed so far.

IF. That is a big if. The key here is finding empirical data that supports that theory. Do you have any?

Yes, as a matter of fact there is. Click the link that he provided. If goes into a rather in depth description as to why such is fact and not mere conjecture. As I pointed out, this does not conclusively prove an infinite universe (and to be honest, that is an impossible thing to really prove unequivocally) but it does give real evidence that the universe is FLAT and that lends credence to the infinite universe theory.

You need to realize that this is not an analogy as you put it. It is real scientific testing. A test that actually led to results that the scientists were not expecting.

That is not ‘giving up.’ That is taking in evidence that was presented and incorporating it. That is how science works. You either show how it is false, that it leads to other conclusions or you change your opinion to reflect the new evidence. Simply discounting it out of hand because you don’t like the conclusions that it brings is not only unscientific but makes real debate impossible.

That's about right from what I recall reading, but that is not even close to being infinite.

There is still nothing showing that the figure is accurate though. Infinite is just as probable as a universe that size as there is nothing showing that the universe is finite.

No, if you do that, then all you have is more iterations of non-SAME periods of time, and that just kicks the can down the road regarding the infinite regression fallacy.

Why? There is no reason for time needing to be identical except that you have arbitrarily demanded it. Simple fact, there is no requirement for the timeline to be identical, PERIOD. You are demanding that the timeline cannot be identical and because of that time cannot be infinite. That is complete circular reasoning. There is nothing that demands the timeline be the same for an infantry old universe. Again, the ONLY requirement is that the underlying force that restarts the timeline be the same. What happens in the universe aside from that driving reality is utterly irrelevant.

This is somewhat similar to pi – the number will go on ad infinitum never repeating and never stopping but yet it will still go on infinitely.

I disagree with your mathematical assumptions built into your analogy. The greater the mass the stronger the gravitational pull and the distances do not increase proportionally with greater mass, sorry.

An infinitely large universe is not only impossible to be anything other than a black hole, but there is NTOHING in the real world that is infinite, so the whole thing is purely hypothetical abstract wishful thinking, no matter how you spin the math.

Unless you can point to an example of an infinitely large quantity of some sort.

 

[Youwerecreated]

JB: "Today there is a new solution of sorts to the difficulty of describing time in the context of an infinite past vrs a finite past. This idea is that of an eternal circle of time that has always existed and always will exist."

Not sure I am grasping the problem of describing time as being infinite past and present. The universe is infinite therefore the space/time continuum is infinite. What is the difficulty with that concept?

The universe is not infinite.

Please provide a link proving that the universe is finite, thank you.

According to physics and what I have read the universe is an isolated system how could it be infinite ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

That's about right from what I recall reading, but that is not even close to being infinite.

Until proven otherwise the logical deduction from the mathematical results is the current model of an infinite universe.

No, there is no logical deduction for ANYTHING reaching an infinite limit in the REAL world using time segments that are greater than zero.

Infinity, by definition, does not have any limits.