Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

IAJ,you honestly do not understand the IT if you think there is no evidence the universe is infinite.

---

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

Define infinity - then debate it. There is no evidence of infinity anywhere. The subsequent issue remains that many are fearful of confronting a finite universe, and should question themselves: namely, what are the impacts when the universe is 100% finite.Any discussion outside this factor is a runaway, evasive fantasy which will yield nothing, or worse - take mankind on the wrong path.

Science is an explanation how things work - nothing more. Science is not what makes things work, but explains only those works which are already subsisting - well prior to the science phrase and faculty being coined.Once we know how something works - the focus must go elsewhere - if it stops only at the instruction manual, it becomes self negating and causes only a barrier to further thought elevation.Analogy: we find a car on Mars. We are clever and understand how the car works, and thus explain it in mathematical and scientific terms. We then make a car manual, showing how the car works and functions. But is his where we stop - is the car manual the end all diety of everything? I think not.

I asked this question upthread, but you didn't give a very useful answer -- especially in light of your unsupported subsequent statements concerning a "100% finite" universe.So here is the question again: If the universe is finite, where is it going to go?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

I asked this question upthread, but you didn't give a very useful answer -- especially in light of your unsupported subsequent statements concerning a "100% finite" universe.

---

There is only one factor which defines and determines infinity, and it is 'CHANGE'. Anything subject to change is not infinite. Amazingly, this factor is declared in the source which first declared the universe is finite, and that it had a BEGINNING. Whatever changes something is transcendent of it. There is nothing we know or imagine, which can claim to be changeless; thus nothing in the uni can be infinite. This is 100% science and logic: only a force which is transcendent of all in the universe, can be capable of being infinite, and if that force was subject to change, it could not be transcendent of the universe.

quote:

---

So here is the question again: If the universe is finite, where is it going to go?

---

If you are referring to the factor of space, IMHO space is a post-uni product: the uni is not going where the space leads it, because the space is post-uni; instead, the space is occuring where and when it is directed.If you are referring to the directional philosophical factor of where the uni is going - my answer would be it is in a state of ever changing; namely, expansion/enlargement/growth is a change of state.

Why not?Don't tell me you're one of those 'there must a purpose' people. A purpose to what 80 years of life at best? The 'manual to life', as you called it, is all there is because it would explain birth and death, then you're done. A purpose would give YOU the feeling that life is infinite, when life, I can guarantee you, is finite. That goes for humans, Stars and Universes.So a purpose to what exactly? Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

First, I'm not being argumentative. This is an area I have not studied, so I am approaching it with "the beginner's mind."What you have written suggests that the universe may in fact be infinite. The beginning comes from something prior to the Big Bang, while there is no end specified. There is nothing in what you have written that convinces me that the universe had a specific beginning, or that it will not either repeat the Big Bang or continue expending indefinitely.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

There is nothing in what you have written that convinces me that the universe had a specific beginning, or that it will not either repeat the Big Bang or continue expending indefinitely.

---

Ok, lets agree what factors, if any, can be convincing the uni or anything else, is finite or infinite. This is an appropriate pursuit, because we cannot physically go check every nook and cranny of the universe - so we have to do this academically and logically. IOW, we need a criteria for infinity. I list the following factors:1. NO CHANGES.2. There is nothing we know or can imagine as being infinite - thus this is an anomoly in the universe.3. If something is expanding, it represents a change of state, namely that it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. Thus we cannot add or subtract to or from an infinite.4. Infinite transcends finite; thus the universe cannot contain what is infinite or what transcends it: a measure of a 100 light years cannot contain an infinite number of light years.5. Everything has a beginning and an end, and all such come under finite.6. If something has an end - it must have a beginning. This is proven by all which is universe contained.7. A change of state is not a back-door to infinity, but a negation of infinity; the change of states incur loss in each change, and there is no free energy.8. 'NOTHINGNESS', while a difficult subject to contemplate or remove from the menu, cannot be proposed as an infinite; nothingness cannot be evidenced in the universe, and does not represent a proof or negation of infinity. Nothingness, if such exists or is possible, can only represent a pre-uni, or non-uni factor, devoid of anything post-uni. If anything, if a nothingness premise can apply or be possible, it only sustains and proves the finite universe premise.9. There must be a factor or treshold, which seperates finite from infinite, because these two factors are different in kind than degree.10. There must be something which connects the finite with the infinite, based on the premise one is the result of the other; and one is precedent and transcendent of the other. This does not signify a continuation thread, because such would only point to a cyclical, as opposed a first and second format - and a cyclical mode is always a proof it is the wrong path. By the process of elimination, the 'something from nothing' becomes vindicated, and the only factor which negates the cyclical.Those are the prime factors which evidence the universe is finite, while there is not a single shred of evidence the uni is infinite, or that it can be so via any premise whatsoever.The compelling factor here is, why the pursuit of an infinite universe, in contradiction of all scientific and logical deliberation - does a finite universe cause a host of problems for some, and how does it impact premises held of an infinite VS a finite universe? IMHO, science has to subscribe to a path away from the finite, because it points to creationism, and thus brings science to a stand still brick wall, in effect negating science after a certain point. So science must deal only with the post-uni scenario, and cannot indulge in origins of any kind and on any level - namely science refers to the B to Z only; while origins can only be vested outside of science, being pre-uni and thus pre-science. Scientifically and logically, there is no alternative to the 'something from nothing' premise, whether this be vested in creationism, theology or any other path one sees as its underlying, ultimate conclusion. This makes genesis a most scientific treatise.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

IAJ,read the link:
http://discovermagazine.com/...-up-the-big-bang/article_view

---

Thanks

I guess I'm getting lost at #3: If something is expanding it was just smaller 10 seconds ago, not necessarily "not infinite." The old idea of an oscillatory universe which I remember from an early astronomy class has been scrapped, but Wiki indicates a newer model in brane cosmology called the cyclic model has been introduced. To me this is a more satisfying solution.And if the universe has no end (where is the matter going to go???) it is halfway to infinite anyway.I would appreciate opinions from some of the science-literate here as well, as I really would like learn about this field.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Fascinating article! Thanks.That is just what I was looking for.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

A remarkable picture began to take shape in the two physicists’ minds. A sheet of paper blowing in the wind is a kind of two-dimensional membrane tumbling through our three-dimensional world. For Steinhardt and Turok, our entire universe is just one sheet, or 3-D brane, moving through a four-dimensional background called “the bulk.” Our brane is not the only one; there are others moving through the bulk as well. Just as two sheets of paper could be blown together in a storm, different 3-D branes could collide within the bulk.

---

Its hardly a remarkable picture. This is a non-confronting, deflection of the issue, and only moves the goal post further. It assumes that there is a sheet [analogy] which always existed, and that this had abilities to result in the universal structures of and by itself - without even regarding any external impacts. No reasonings is given for this premise - nor can there be one, thus the leap.This assumption collapses with the finite premise, as does the MV, String & Brane concepts. There is absolutely no basis for the assumption of an original sheet, nor that it was infinitely existent, nor that there were or are parallel realms [this is solely based on unproven, non-scientific academics], or that this can somehow foster the universe. It is based on nothing, while being a contradiction of every sciences available to us. Science is about defining how things work - not to say, here it is - it was always here.What paper blowing in the wind? - there was no wind and no first paper: this just assumes a prevailing construct, and all we have here is a 'WHAT IF?' guessing, with no foundation whatsoever - its like lets try this shape and see if it fits the jigsaw - and never mind where the piece came from - it was always there and it fits exactly. This is not science.Basically, it is saying that a car is not a construct of a human impacting in its making, but that the car evolved from prototype, infinitely existing car material, thus the car is infinite. But could that car emerge without an external impact - therein is the rub!?

This article poses a good question "What was god doing before the genesis"? To go a bit further - was there a god before genesis and god of what was it?

This would be false. You can add to and subtract from infinity. See the Wikipedia article on Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel for an accessible example of adding to infinity.You can even multiply and divide by infinity, something I used to do all the time in circuit theory classes.There are even different kinds of infinity, see the Wikipedia article on Infinity. Infinity is a multifaceted concept, not a numeric value.--Percy

quote:

---

In a hotel with a finite number of rooms, it is clear that once it is full, no more guests can be accommodated. Now, imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. One might assume that the same problem will arise when a new guest comes along and all the rooms are occupied. However, in an infinite hotel, the situations "every room is occupied" and "no more guests can be accommodated" do not turn out to be equivalent. There is a way to solve the problem: if you move the guest occupying room 1 to room 2, the guest occupying room 2 to room 3, etc., you can fit the newcomer into room 1.

---

This is a slight of hand casino science - it is very reminiscent of a surface having no centre. The definition of infinite = no changes; and moving 1 to 2 represents a change.You cannot pose an academic premise to evidence reality - you have to also walk on the physical earth. I won't be surprised if you cannot offer anything in reality. But seriously!