Really? This is not something I have heard. As far as I've ever heard, the current thinking is that the universe is finite but unbounded. So, you could travel in any direction forever and never see and edge, but the universe would still have a finite...volume, I guess is the word.
You are right in that the universe is finite but unbounded (unbounded in that it can expand forever unless acted on by gravity or "ripped"). However, the assumption that the universe is infinite in your context is that it is infinite in the sense that we could never reach reach the end. However, this argument relies on the assumption that nothing can move faster than the speed of life, which is true... to a point. If you have heard of "warp drives" from Star Trek, then you should know that they are actually looked as a possible technology today (though obviously not immediately). I won't go into total idea here, but the ulterior idea is that such a drive would warp the space around it such as light does, moving space relative to us rather than the other way around.
And earlier in the thread I read about the beginning of the universe. ICANT (and everyone else), if you want, you could take a look at a thread I just made called When Branes Collide which addresses this point.
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts
“I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in” - Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move." - Douglas Adams
Re: Your creationist position relative to the mainstream creationist position?
The age of the first human (Homo sapiens)? – Mainstream science has it that the Homo sapiens species goes back many 1000’s of years (I don’t offhand have a good number). Anyway, this is far outside the mainstream YAC/YEC timeframe of 5 to 10 thousand years. Does your position conflict with that many 1000’s of years timeframe or are you willing to accept that?
I thought we had GPS because of a satellite system of 27 satellites with 24 working all the time. That has some equipment on it that keeps very accurate time and sends data which includes its location and the time continuously. These satellites are kept up to date by fixed land stations.
Then we have receivers that can receive the signal from 3 or 4 of those satellites. Calculate its position in relation to those satellites and know within a meter of where it is located on planet earth.
There are receivers that are much more accurate by using a land based station also.
Apparenty, ICANT, you do not understand what role relativity plays in GPS. Judging by Einstein's relativity, the faster an object goes, the slower time goes relative to that object. In GPS satellites, the radar depends on bei ng able to accurately measure the time and distance made by a vehicle or person extremely accurately. If it misjudged your time or speed, you could end up in, for example, Ground Zero in stead of the Empire State building- possibly more.
The duration is the same on the beach and on the mountain or in the satellite.
All you have influenced is the man made instrument that is supposed to be marking time.
That influence is caused by what is called gravity. How one body of mass affects another body of mass.
Please, please, pleasetry to understand what we are trying to say. The actual time that has passed for the clock on Everest is different than that that passed for the one that is at a lower elevation. This is because gravity, as a product of matter, has influenced space-time. If you can, please take a look at the speed of light in relationship to time- I'm sure you will find out a lot and hopefully bring something to the discussion.
The definition of duration is existence.
Existence is all those little atoms and waves.
Without those little atoms and waves there is no existence.
With no existence there is no duration as we call it to measure.
Not so. Existence and duration are the same thing. This is what we call space-time. And just because we measure it does not mean that it does not exist independent of our measurements. For example, if I look at a forest and say there are 200 trees (whether right or wrong) does that mean that there would not be 200 trees if I was not there to count?
When it comes down to it, science and mathematics are just properties of the universe that we have discovered, not created. If we had created, them, then why do we still not know more/everything? Do you think that science and mathematics exist regardless of being measured or observed? It's the "If a tree falls in a forest" argument. Please answer with a straightforward and clear answer. If you do not or cannot, then the continuation of this thread is a waste of time.