Swdkii-the atomic fuel

[jag]

"Potential infinity" of what? Those two words in of themselves have not meaning.

Our physical universe is finite and eternal --energy cannot be created nor destroyed--- ergo physical universe is and eternal source not infinite source.

This is not difficult concept to grasp and not sure why cannot understand it. The words "potential infinity" in of them selves is meangingless to me and you certainly do not show how those words are relevant to my eternal bu finite source of energy comments.

Rybo

Thank you for your comments Rybo. You speak is if you have a clear and complete understanding of the timeless and absolute nature of eternity/infinity, but then you say "our physical universe is finite and eternal". How can our physical universe be subject to the limitations of space and time (finite) and exist outside all relations of time and not be subject to change (eternal)?

If our physical universe is eternal then it's finite nature must be an illusion and we don't really exist.

If our physical universe is finite our consciousness, as finite beings, is real and there is only the 'potential' of understanding eternity/infinity more clearly than we now do.

That is our quest right?...somehow making the connection that there is a higher understanding of eternity/infinity.

We really know very little in the scheme of things. Science does a great job defining our 'finite' physical universe but our concepts of eternity/infinity, as mortal finite beings, can only be an approximation of their potential.

jag

[Rybo]

Thank you for your comments Rybo. You speak is if you have a clear and complete understanding of the timeless and absolute nature of eternity/infinity, but then you say "our physical universe is finite and eternal". How can our physical universe be subject to the limitations of space and time (finite) and exist outside all relations of time and not be subject to change (eternal)? If our physical universe is eternal then it's finite nature must be an illusion and we don't really exist. If our physical universe is finite our consciousness, as finite beings, is real and there is only the 'potential' of understanding eternity/infinity more clearly than we now do.That is our quest right?...somehow making the connection that there is a higher understanding of eternity/infinity. We really know very little in the scheme of things. Science does a great job defining our 'finite' physical universe but our concepts of eternity/infinity, as mortal finite beings, can only be an approximation of their potential.
jag

Hi Jag, it appears your not able to make the distinciton between concepts of eternity and infinity.

Eternity is relative to time only.

Infinity is relative more to space and specifically includes both occupied( physical universe ) and non-occupied space.

The finite physical universe ---a spatially related concept involving volume--- can and does exist eternally ---a time related concept that is beyond time--- and this evidenced by the cosmic law of thermodynamics, i.e. energy/physical cannot be created nor destroyed ergo the spatially finite physical universes, exists eternally.

I'm not sure what part of this above you do not understand, as I believe I have laid out the scenario in clear manner.

If I have made error in my logic, and you are trying to point out some specific error, then I have yet to spot which of you concepts clearly and specifically shows my error.

RYbo

[Benyehooda]

Sorry to interrupt your discussion. I just thought to point that " the spatially finite physical universes, "Have exists until now, but assuming it was created at the "Big Bang" it is likely to have an ending.
The concept of eternal universe seems like a wishful thinking rather then fact.

[Rybo]

Sorry to interrupt your discussion. I just thought to point that " the spatially finite physical universes, "Have exists until now, but assuming it was created at the "Big Bang" it is likely to have an ending.
The concept of eternal universe seems like a wishful thinking rather then fact.

"energy[ physical ] cannot be created nor destroyed", if true, is "not wishful thinking" but science fact and a non-ending, end of story[ ] and your comments are then considered irrelevant t i.e. if true, then there is not a beginning, or ending of the finite physical universe, rather, there is initial set of specific circumstances that lead to another specific set of circumstances, within the parameters of an eternally existent universe.

This is not difficult concept to grasp and is revolves around a law of thermodynamics, which you appear to have ignored, or glossed over and possibly do not understand what a cosmic law is.

Rybo

[Benyehooda]

Hi Rybo,

The "law of thermodynamics" could be relevant in the universe without being relevant to the universe it self.

My point was that if there is " initial set of specific circumstances that lead to another specific set of circumstances, within the parameters of an eternally existent universe." there can be a similar set of specific circumstances that will "undo" the Big bang and end the known status of the universe.

Read my book and you will find out everything you wanted to know....
Cheers.

[Rybo]

Hi Rybo,The "law of thermodynamics" could be relevant in the universe without being relevant to the universe it self. My point was that if there is " initial set of specific circumstances that lead to another specific set of circumstances, within the parameters of an eternally existent universe." there can be a similar set of specific circumstances that will "undo" the Big bang and end the known status of the universe. Read my book and you will find out everything you wanted to know....
Cheers.

Huh? First of all there are two laws of thermodynamics and I was only considering one of those two.

You propose a "similar set of specific circumstances, that will undo the big bang". I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me that you are trying to undo the big bang.

I didn't realize I was asking you question. Quite the contrary, I was showing the illogic of you statments by inducing one of the laws of thermodynamics. You offer no counter logic to that alledged cosmic law ergo there is no rational counter argument if any counter logic at all.

No beef in your comments, so to borrow line from commericial in the 90's wheres the beef?

The initial set of specific circumstances I propse, do not violate the any laws of thermodynamics. I think your proposal of a "similar set" appears to gloss over this point and you want "undo the big bang" for some reason I do not understand.

The big bang scenario can exist with out creating enery/physical or adding new energy/physical to already eternally existent finite amount.

Rybo

[jag]

Hi Rybo,

The "law of thermodynamics" could be relevant in the universe without being relevant to the universe it self.

My point was that if there is " initial set of specific circumstances that lead to another specific set of circumstances, within the parameters of an eternally existent universe." there can be a similar set of specific circumstances that will "undo" the Big bang and end the known status of the universe.

Read my book and you will find out everything you wanted to know....
Cheers.

Hi Ben,

I agree with you...the notion of a big bang needs to go.

I look forward to reading your book.

jag

[jag]

You propose a "similar set of specific circumstances, that will undo the big bang". I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me that you are trying to undo the big bang.

The big bang scenario can exist with out creating enery/physical or adding new energy/physical to already eternally existent finite amount.

Rybo

Rybo, The big bang is a humbug of technical jargon...it never happened!

jag

[Rybo]

Rybo, The big bang is a humbug of technical jargon...it never happened!
jag

Jag, you appear to only envison one scenario associated with the label "big bang" and my comments were responding to not understand B,hoodas bringing the "big bang" into disscussion.

This seems kinda of narrow minded too me i.e. there are many possible scenarios with many possible variations of those scenarios, old or new, I'm not sure you understand this more comprehensive line of reasoning and thinking in general.

No where have I stated that the conventional ---if that word even appllies--- "big bang" is correct. I dunno. What I do know, is that as we go forward new data and new ideas come about that still reference the old data and old ideas.

If you some scenarios that do not have technical jargon please share them. Rybo