Is The Universe Infinite Or Finite ?

[Profpat]

Pat, may I suggest you read other threads on this forum, to obtain information that the universe has no paradoxes, and does not come from nothing. Several posters and many threads clearly show these results. The universe is eternal, and always has existed as a fundamental substance with fundamental motion. It's only quack science that says something from nothing. Fundamental science knows better. The rest of the pieces are slowly falling into place. Evolution of ideas___You Know...? Even Einstein knew it came from something more than nothing, he just failed to find the answer...

Lloyd

Hi Lloyd;

Yes I have to admit Robert allows a lot in these threads. Some sites (BA and SFN ) wont even let you post, if you don't accept the big bang as fundamental, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary. And if you mention steady state, they will remove your thread.

Our friend WIKI I think agrees with me LLoyd.

By extrapolating this expansion back in time, one approaches a gravitational singularity where everything in the universe was compressed into an infinitesimal point; an abstract mathematical concept that may or may not correspond to reality. This idea gave rise to the Big Bang Theory, the dominant model in cosmology today.

Notice how the idea of something from nothing gave rise to the big bang theory.

Best to all,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Well Pat, the idea of something from nothing had nothing to do with the big bang theory. It came about by a sarcastic remark by a religious personality, to mock the foolishness of the times. Science was studying something quite different. I agree that many interpret the theories this way, but that's not all the scientists and physicists. The leading ones do not, and Wikipedia is a poor source, to check information from. Go to the real physics books, and you'll find quite a different story. As I suggested, read some of the other threads on this forum, and they will direct you to the more sensible and possible ideas. The reason a lot is allowed, is we are searching for a theory of everything, not just a physics theory. In many of our opinions, here at ToeQuest, the many threads all contribute, in some way, to what we seek. Check out Dirac's ideas, to get a different story.

BTW, something from nothing is just pure stupidity, ignorance of the overwhelming facts to the contrary. Faith and or belief in ideas is not knowledge. True knowledge is based in scientific fundamental facts, and nothing else is true knowledge. Cry all you want, that's the facts...

Lloyd

Hi Lloyd;

Yes I have to admit Robert allows a lot in these threads. Some sites (BA and SFN ) wont even let you post, if you don't accept the big bang as fundamental, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary. And if you mention steady state, they will remove your thread.

Our friend WIKI I think agrees with me LLoyd.

By extrapolating this expansion back in time, one approaches a gravitational singularity where everything in the universe was compressed into an infinitesimal point; an abstract mathematical concept that may or may not correspond to reality. This idea gave rise to the Big Bang Theory, the dominant model in cosmology today.[This isn't science. It's faith and belief in false ideas. Wiki posts a lot of ignorance, along with some good science. Didn't you notice; "may or may not correspond to reality" in the above.]

Notice how the idea of something from nothing gave rise to the big bang theory.[You sure do exaggerate the printed word, right before your eyes. Pay attention...]

Best to all,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Lloyd;


[quote=Lloyd Gillespie;36665]Well Pat, the idea of something from nothing had nothing to do with the big bang theory.Only its logical starting point. Even now Lloyd we know our reality is primarily nothing, but movement and interactions of the tiniest of particles. Atoms, space for the most part, ditto for the proton, neutron, quark. Only when we get to the string do we get to substance? It came about by a sarcastic remark by a religious personality, to mock the foolishness of the times. Science was studying something quite different. I agree that many interpret the theories this way, but that's not all the scientists and physicists. The leading ones do not,I disagree and Wikipedia is a poor source, to check information from. Go to the real physics books, and you'll find quite a different story.Books are too stale Lloyd, not updated, even articles may take a year to be published. I find Wikipedia to be a valued research tool, that is peer reviewed and updated. As I suggested, read some of the other threads on this forum, and they will direct you to the more sensible and possible ideas. The reason a lot is allowed, is we are searching for a theory of everything, not just a physics theory. In many of our opinions, here at ToeQuest, the many threads all contribute, in some way, to what we seek.I'm sorry It wasn't meant as a criticism to Robert and his policy I was only noting his policy which I too agree with. Check out Dirac's ideas, to get a different story.His antimatter or negative space theory, or is there another?

BTW, something from nothing is just pure stupidity, ignorance of the overwhelming facts to the contrary. Faith and or belief in ideas is not knowledge. True knowledge is based in scientific fundamental facts, and nothing else is true knowledge. Cry all you want, that's the facts...Now You are getting nasty Lloyd! If you don't buy into the something from nothing theory, or in a created universe, thats Ok Lloyd.

Best to you,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

[quote=Profpat;36672]Hi Lloyd;

Only its logical starting point. Even now Lloyd we know our reality is primarily nothing, but movement and interactions of the tiniest of particles. Atoms, space for the most part, ditto for the proton, neutron, quark. Only when we get to the string do we get to substance?[I'd suggest you study science, instead of your own dated ideas.]

Books are too stale Lloyd, not updated, even articles may take a year to be published. I find Wikipedia to be a valued research tool, that is peer reviewed and updated.[You'll never learn anything that way.]

His antimatter or negative space theory, or is there another?[Being nasty, I don't think it's really worth telling you. You think you know everything, already.]

Now You are getting nasty Lloyd![No, just honest about faith's and belief's pseudo-knowledge.] If you don't buy into the something from nothing theory, or in a created universe, thats Ok Lloyd.[I thought so...]


Best to you,

Pat

Like I said Pat, study something. I'm not a nice guy to pseudo-beliefs...

Lloyd

[Profpat]

LLoyd you can't handle the truth.

Best to you Lloyd'

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

LLoyd you can't handle the truth.

Best to you Lloyd'

Pat

I'm waiting...

Lloyd

[Profpat]

I'm waiting...

Lloyd

Well just keep on waiting quietly, and when you are really ready for the truth, she will reveal herself to you Lloyd.

I promise.

Best,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Well just keep on waiting quietly, and when you are really ready for the truth, she will reveal herself to you Lloyd.

I promise.

Best,

Pat

My research on the internet has yielded both results. While I'm open to both possibilities, I would like to know the answer.
Is the jury still out on this one, or is there proof of one or the other.

The jury is still out. Infinity is the most likely answer, but the decay mechanics math, is the only proof possible, through probability math, based on the cesium atom's decay rate, yet most won't go to such fundamental mathematical mechanics of total universal decay, into the fundamental substance. The idea seems to be too over their heads. Unless this situation changes, we'll be stuck with the foolish faith and belief arguments, about many areas of knowledge...

Einstein stated his position as an unbounded finiteness, which to me, translates to infinity. Linguistics is such a nasty little bugger...

Lloyd

[Profpat]

The jury is still out. Infinity is the most likely answer, but the decay mechanics math, is the only proof possible, through probability math, based on the cesium atom's decay rate, yet most won't go to such fundamental mathematical mechanics of total universal decay, into the fundamental substance. The idea seems to be too over their heads. Unless this situation changes, we'll be stuck with the foolish faith and belief arguments, about many areas of knowledge...

Einstein stated his position as an unbounded finiteness, which to me, translates to infinity. Linguistics is such a nasty little bugger...

Lloyd

Thanks for that answer Lloyd. Would you like to share your thoughts on Futrethink's thought on pi and the mobius strip as being paradoxical?

Best,

Pat

[futrethink]

Profpat.

If I was walking on your mobius strip, and started to lay crumbs of bread down, I would eventually return to my starting point, where I started with the crumbs ( assuming no stupid birds ate them ).

---You do notice that it was your starting point, as well as the crumb’s? You may have come to your starting point and call that the end, but was that the end of the path that you walked upon?
---You are placing your limits upon the Mobius’ lengthwise plane. When you are walking that path, tell me where you would find the end of it? Not the point where you would stop, but the point where the path would stop.

also mobius has edges, further limits.

---Yeah, I already mentioned those, “but only as long as you don't move away from the strip and see the edges/boundaries/limits of the strip's existence or you don't tear the strip apart or it degrades due to entropy or..or...or,,.”
---Want to explain why; you are pointing out something I have already shown that I know? Or are you like most individuals I converse with and you skip the entirety of the post and just skim it?

But if you want to view it as paradoxical it's OK with me.

---It’s ok with me, if you don’t want to see the paradox.