On Infinity

Now, Answers, how could you possible know this? Last time I looked the "McFall-to-English" decryption program had degenerated into absolute gibberish and was sent back into R&D. Has there been some kind of major advance in decryption algorithms of which I am unaware?Edited by AZPaul3, : Well, see, when one is in a hurry one has a tendency to leave out words that should be in the sentence. Sometimes ones fingers are incapable of keeping up with ones thought processes and thus compensates by skipping certain words, like, the subject of the sentence. This is not conducive to proper communication and, thus, a correction was in order.

We see laid bare here the results of the extreme emotional stress caused by your deigning to question my ability to decipher McFall scriptures. Exactly what were those little fingers so busy with while you were composing your post? If you also wish to master the ability to understand McFall missives, you merely need to read all of his previous 3125 posts without interruption. This will, of course, leave you unable to comprehend anything else in life, but you also won't care. As the great but taciturn Geurdieff so wisely said, "...". You will also notice that I don't actually read posts on this forum; I just read the edits. This allows me to keep up with the latest thoughts without the nuisance of actually thinking them.Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : Reason for edit: Because the voices told me to.

Actually, my friends call me 'Genitals'. Or something along those lines. Maybe they're not my friends.

Yes, I do have a problem with leaving out words sometimes, but this time I am in Miami and the sand turned into a broken glass bottle that cut my foot. Too bad for Answers himself. I have no notion that I AM incorrect here, there will be no edit, only South Beach!!

In truth, Brad, the problem people have with comprehending your posts is not due to the words you leave out. It is due to the words you leave in.

It is in the forms...types, not the words I think.

I have heard ID/creationists say that god is eternal and therefore was the only thing that could have created the universe. The common answer that I have heard is any premise that allows god to be eternal can apply to the universe. I have used it myself but I am no scientist. My question has to do with future eternalness not past.Doesn't the Big Bang Theory imply that there will be an eventual death of the universe when it loses all it's energy and matter? I understand that the universe could have existed in some steady state in the past for infinity. But the first time it had a chance to be "unsteady" (for lack of a better term) it is going to die or burn out. Does that death imply non existence in the future or just that it finally breaks back down to it's smallest parts with no energy left?Are there plausible theories that allow for the universe to be eternal (with energy and matter) into the future? Does one way infinity (past not future) imply not being eternal? Will there always be some remnants of the universe (perhaps undefined minute particles or space)?

---

I think therefore I am...busy

Big Rip, and Big Crunch, and Heat DeathCyclic Universe

Thanks Catholic Scientist!Obviously a cyclic universe implies infinity as long as energy isn't being lost.Since the Big Crunch leads us back to a singularity I will assume it could then lead to another Big Bang potentially starting another cycle and could go on for infinity as long as energy isn't being lost. Even if energy was being lost it would seem like an infinite amount of energy could never be lost. If it is measurable it could be lost...right? I guess if energy was being lost there might come a time when the cycle would stop when there wasn't sufficient energy to create a Big Bang and end in infinite singularity.What about the other two...Big Rip and Heat Death?Can you tell me if the "death" of the universe in these two theories implies nonexistence? Or does this imply breaking down into it's smallest parts and lacking energy? When the energy is gone and matter is gone does the space it occupied cease to exist?Which of these is the most popular theory of today?

---

I think therefore I am...busy

You're welcome, numnuts.lol I've thought that before but, IIRC, our resident cosmologist didn't think it was possible. His name is cavediver, he is very knowledgable and a nice guy. Son Goku, Sidelined, and Percy seem to know alot about cosmology too.Look at Message 6. That's where I was asking about something similiar to what yur saying above. There's some good stuff in that thread.Just use the boards Search function or browse the cosmology forum for threads on the questions you have.If you don't find what your looking for, you could start a new topic and hope No, it wouldn't be nonexistence. There is always something. I'm not really sure. The "fabric" of space would still exist. I think the analogy goes like the ocean. Think of the two dimensional plane of the surface of the ocean as representing four demensional space-time. The waves and ripples in the surface are what are causing energy/matter to exist, or matter is ripples in the 4 dimensional fabric of space-time.When all the ripples are gone, you still have the fabric. I don't know.{smartass}Its not like there's a Billboard Chart for scientific theories!{/smartass}

Impressive, most impressive... You have learned much, young padawan

Okay CS,Thanks again for the feedback. I'm not really sure what to make of this analogy. I was thinking it was the other way around. The ripples in the fabric were caused by matter warping space time with gravity. You are saying the ripples allow for the matter to exist.So if I have a flat surface like a plane of glass (representing the universe) but it had imperfections like a bubble on top or underneath it would leave room for matter/energy to exist. Not that existence of the matter and energy cause the imperfections. Am I now thinking in the right terms?I will look into the rest of your links you directed me to when I get a chance. Thanks again.

---

I think therefore I am...busy

No, the ripples are matter existing.Gravity warping spacetime is on a large scale. That is something a whole planet does.The ocean fabric analogy is describing the basic fundamental properties of spacetime, itself, on a very small scale. Atoms of matter are actually ripples in the fabric of spacetime. No, see above. The ripples are not allowing for 'places' for matter to exist. The ripples, themselves, are matter existing. And don't forget that the 2d anology represents all four deminsions of spacetime.

Okay CS,That's what I was thinking in the first place...matter/energy creates the ripple.As for your 2d model being 4d. I am assuming you mean that the flat plane is not really flat but has some unknown depth. Is time the 4th dimension or are you talking about another spacial dimension?

---

I think therefore I am...busy

CS,Another question on the flat fabric. I have seen a demonstration on the warping of spacetime with a person holding and stretching a wet paper towel. Then a ball is placed in the middle and the indentation the ball makes is the ripple or the warping of space time.My next question is should I imagine the ball (a planet) actually sitting on top or underneath the fabric or actually existing inside the fabric itself. In other words like the same ball in the middle of two wet paper towels? I have always wondered that.

---

I think therefore I am...busy