Is the universe finite?

IMHO, the universe we are in now is the centre itself and there is nothing else but the centre. We are in the centre, which expanded to the current universe: if the BB is assumed, then there was no outside to expand to, based on a finite universe.

It is also a reason we can never fathom the size of the universe: imagine a bee in the center of a 5 km balloon - it will keep churning within the balloon because there is no space outside the balloon. This is just a conjecture based on my own contemplation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No - I am not presuming or asuming - it is the given text in Genesis, which I agree with because I have thought about it and examined its scientific veracity - which does not have to agree with ToE to be scientific. Obviously, you did not do this, nor did you retreat or correct yourself about other portions in the text you accused me of inventing.

Genesis says that after all life forms were created and complete, they did not move or come alive, untill this was ignited by a host of cycles - like the rain cycle [ch. 2]. If one does not agree with this, it does not mean it is not a valid scientific premise. I gave the example of a car and other constructs - they cannot perform untill they are in a completed form and then after they are ignited to come on/become alive.

I see no alternative to this - even if one holds that primitive life evolved to complex life - the primitive life still had to be in a complete form as a life form, but is yet not alive - untill they are ignited. It is like a new born baby - it has to be ignited by a mild slap; and speech - it has to be ignited by a parent - else it does not happen. Similarly, this planet had to ignite the lives which emerged with the cycles required to sustain life as living.

If you cannot show an open mind and call such amazing premises as myth - then it can also be described as tunnel vision and a one-eyed-jack outlook.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A simple boundary, easily enough distinguished

And yet, when it comes to the simple task of citing that text in Genesis, and citing its corresponding scientific outcomes, you seem to refuse. Or else you can't. Which is it?

Demonstrate where in nature a car occurs without human intervention. Don't get me wrong, I accept that life is necessary for certain outcomes in nature. I mean, certainly, bird droppings can be used to make gunpowder, but if those compounds could exist without birds shitting all over the place, they would. Nature is not extraneous. Neither is God, if you insist on believing in that.

You appreciate the example of the car because it suits your needs, not any specific need of nature.

Exactly. Therein lies the hitch: You see no alternative to this. Are you omniscient? Are you perfect? Is your perception a result of your perfection?

And of the millions of planets in this Universe, sir, only a few meet the criteria for spawning the kind of life we recognize. Our distance from the sun. The diameter and composition of this planet, which corresponds integrally to its gravitational acceleration. This occurs while a G2 star operates in its main sequence.

Ask yourself a fun theoretical question. You know those grey aliens? With the big eyes and the long, thin fingers? Look into the folklore about them. Speculate as to the nature of their home world. It's a geologically active planet, with a slightly higher gravitational acceleration. And a star that tends a little bluer than the sun. How do I know this? Because the long fingers are suited to geological youth—sharp, craggy features. The bone structure and agility are indicative of higher gravity. The big, black eyes suggest a dim spectrum shifted toward the ultraviolet. And here's the kicker: They don't exist. Where the hell did this myth come from?

Still, though, such an exercise reminds you that life, as we understand it, exists according to its environment. Once upon a time, Aristotle explained that rocks fall because they have "falling properties". Do you get it? Water evaporates because of environmental factors, not because a drop of water on the picnic table has "evaporating properties". If it was cloudy and the air around it colder, it would freeze instead. What exists in the Universe is a result of the properties of the Universe, not vice-versa. Life, at this level of examination, is no different from the raindrop stilled on the tabletop. Its existence and behavior is subject to its environment, not because God decrees that it should freeze or evaporate. The result does not require God.

You give us nothing to work with but untestable, mythical pronouncements. This is not science.

I'm sorry that science is so damn boring. It's not mystical, I admit. And, yes, that kills some of the fascination for some of us. I'm a fucking mystic, Joseph, not a scientist. But even I can perceive the boundaries 'twixt the two.

And you need to learn that difference.

If we can help you achieve that, great. If not, I'm sorry. Maybe it's just God's will.

Tell us how to test Genesis. Or else give it up, man. Your current approach doesn't work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did supply the texts! Which ones did you miss?

Your on the wrong exit path. I cited examples of both nature and life forms needing an ignition to click them on. It shows this pointer in Genesis is generic to all functions, observable - but not mentioned in ToE. Genesis wins here - rather than being myth. Here, ToE is myth for not factoring this in. ToE is aso wrong in not factoring the critical seperation factors anticipating life - whch is seen in the Genesis listing before life's eergence. So which is the magical myth and which is the scientific process here? Hmm - I bet you have a roblem acknowledging the point!

Does a new born baby not need an ignition? Why do you ignore the fundamental factors and focus on what does not impact?

That's not a hitch because no alternatives was provided. This is also true of the universe being finite. Science rests on observable evidences and what is plausable - not what is possible.

The fact of a first hand survey in the known universe evidencing no life, is still greater than what we cannot see in the unknown. Basically, the known is more likely the same as the unknown - than not so.

I don't know. Its fiction and has nothing to do with genesis - which is vindicated by observable criteria [the seed factor] and by evidential imprints [a finite universe].

That is a wrong assessment. Both entities have to have attributes which allow the resultant action - which makes the environment factor negated as ToE's only premise. The stone and water have attribute thresholds which become surmounted when certain other entities and forces with pre-determined attributes impact them: this is because of their program thresholds. E.g. billions of life producing seeds have no impact on a stone.

Test Genesis finite factor - the universe is expanding! Test genesis seed factor - it is the fundamental initiator of life. Test the process which introduced the premise of incurable deseases.


In fact only the absence of Genesis does not work. When do you expect to find life on the moon because of NS and survival of the fittest - and why not? Do you understand that an action cannot occur with only one entity and nothing else? To further on this, it is logical that also both entities interacting have to be embedded or inherent of a pre-programmed directive which determines the result - else nothing happens: check the environments of Mars.

I am saying that Genesis is the most mysterious and advanced document humanity possesses - by poeriod of time relevance [we are debating it as no other], by evidential determinations - and by concencus. Which otoher measures?

 

But I am not saying anything to negate a process called evolution. This is an after the fact process, and correctly listed in its correct protocol in Genesis.

 

Start Making Sense

Let's pretend there is a hundred posts in this thread. Point me to the one I need, please.

I would say the one that looks to God, isn't testable, and contradicts itself is the magical myth.

An interesting claim. Especially since you've decided that the theory you're arguing against isn't an alternative.

If that was supposed to make sense, you're going to have to explain it to us.

How can someone who invents such fanciful excuses for science have so little imagination?

Ah, so it's selective imagination. I see.

And tell us, sir, how should those tests be conducted?

Can you prove there is no life elsewhere in the Universe?

Me? I'm betting on Europa, for the time being. See, that's the fun part—waiting to find out what's real. Presuming one knows everything? I can't imagine a more boring way to live.

That a document is the most advanced in comparison to its contemporary primitive outlooks does not make it science.

 

I think the following terms are causing some confusions:

1. Finite
2. Infinite
3. Bounded
4. Unbounded

Everyday language will always mess people up. I am not sure we speak the same language but this is the way I understand said terms.

In everyday language bounded = finite and unbounded = infinite. But in physical reality that is simply not true!

Something that is finite volume CAN have a boundary, but it also may not have a boundary.

Specially, the term "unbounded" causing confusion. When I say unbounded, I mean...let me temporarily invent a new term: boundaryless. Meaning has no edge or boundary.

Let me know if you agree with my definitions. We need to ensure that we speak the same language so we could understand each other and move forward.

 

For example the ring universe---all existence is in this ring. This universe has no boundary. But it can have finite volume (for the one-dimensional creatures living in the ring, volume for them is 1 dimensional, we would call it length.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Or the 2D sphere universe. It has no boundary, but it is also finite from the standpoint of any 2D creatures who might live there.

In studying d.m. all the basic concepts are defined from the inside. All the basic geometric properties are intrinsic.

So finiteness and edgelessness are intrinsic to be discovered by hypothetical inhabitants moving around and measuring their world with no outside reference.

I think you can think of examples of other cases. Something can have a boundary and yet be infinite---like an infinite line from 0 to forever. All the non-negative numbers. It has one boundary point, which is zero. So it is bounded and also infinite.

 

Why do we need to pretend - other than to pretend you guys read and then respond?!

Medicine - introduced in the Hebrew bible: post # 76.

I already posted few posts back for the second time that vegetation can exist without sunlight when Genesis is understood.

This is not about religion. This about a universe maker of a universe. If one really understand what they read, they will see that the creator is indefinable and indescribable - this is the Hebrew mode and it is vindicated. Its also a scientific premise. The premise of no universe maker of a universe is not scientific - it is poor magic.

One must give a counter of what they dispute. Galeleo did not just refute a flat earth: he proved it as incorrect.

Its quite clear, specially for those in a science oriented subject. We have made numerous incursions outside the earth, visitied other space bodies, viewed Jupiter from 7 B miles, analized and indexed galaxies, measured radiation distances to when time began - this is a factual, first hand survey poll of the known universe. Even if the universe is immeasurably vast with immeasurable other space bodies - it says the unknown is more like the known than not. It should not be complicated to get an agreement here: the odds for life are NO as opposed we don't know. This is how science works, although this does not impact on the finite factor or anything said in Genesis. Its just a mathematcial deduction.

This was in response to the denial of the seed factor as a pivotal premise of Genesis for repro. I won?

Its pure logic instead. If your mobile and your chip can interest, it means they have a directive program which enables them to do so. The same principle applies: every single interaction is dependent on the attributes embedded in each entity. It is surprising to even debate this!

Is it confusing?

To test if the universe is finite - check if its expanding. To check if something is infinite, check if it is subject to changes.

To check if the seed rules repro - try it without the seed.


To check if Medicine was introduced for the first time - check the details and match it against a doctor's process today.

How else can one check if Genesis is talking science?

.

Yes. This does not require impossible demands to check every nook and corner of the entire universe. We deduce by evidential imprints in one sector - and apply it to the whole as a conclusion. We throw away this conclusion when we have evidence the imprints has been overturned by new findings which contradict. There is no alternative to this method - all of science works this way.

And I will stand with you if contradicting findings are made. But now - we 'MUST' conclude - no life out there. Math 101.

There are no primitive outlooks elsewhere, and we are certainly not debating anything else as a counter today [3000 years +] of anything other than genesis. Whatever do you mean by other primitive outlooks - head bashing dieties, divine kings or Zeus: we don't even have an alphabetical book for 800 years after Genesis!? The issue of the universe being finite or infinite in today's forums - says we are debating the science introduced in the very opening of genesis.

Sorry, I cannot allow you to get away with your bogus premise of fictionally equating all writings in one green bag. This forum is brim full of the MYTH word of Genesis - yet none of them know what they are talking about - they are on auto-mode, so akin to another belief system. I have trouble even convincing some that Judea once exsted and that there was a real temple there!?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Volume needs a space bed or some foundation, and also borders - else how can it be a ring or a containment? There cannot be space outside a finite universe.


Does your universe and all your science become negatively effected if the uni is finite?

I am wondering why you guys are argueing against scientific evdence the universe 'MUST' be finite if its expanding. Has this not got anything to do with a negation of some prime doctrines erounously held today? I cannot see any other reason.

 

Well, things can be infinite and yet have different density. For example, there are as many whole numbers as there are even whole numbers, but the even whole numbers are less densely packed.

 

This confusion is obviously from an intentional agenda to negate the blatant. A finite universe throws off the core doctrines of today's widespread sciences which reject a universe maker. Thus the novel, imaginative manipulations of partial and selective finite, subject to other inventions as a safeguard. A finite universe KO's all conclusions, theories and deductions made today - including that of Hawkins' new book - based on the few excerpts I've read. Einstein did not commit this error - he sageguarded himself by saying yes there must be a source for the universe, but not necessarilly aligning with any religion's premesis. I admire Einstein's intelligence - I don't admire Hawkins.

I think Genesis puts it very aptly by the word BEGINNING - because this thumps those who resort to parallel universes - that cannot prevail and this universe also being a BEGINNING! This would then have to be BEGINNING # 79999,9999999999 + TAX.

I see the same engenius writings at work in Genesis' DAY ONE, which is followed by SECOND DAY, THIRD DAY, etc. So why is the first day called DAY ONE and not FIRST DAY? Because first is one of many precedents - which would violate the finite factor. That is no typo! The reason any additions and subtractions from this writing is forbidden.

Again the word CREATE - this only occurs in the first short chapter, than it is replaced by FORMED for the rest of the five books. There's a deep lesson here and it does not indicate any myth or primitive mind here. It says mess not with this writings - its above us.

 

Its an established rule - one cannot prove something based only on mathematically derived theoretical premises. While we may one day elevate ourselves with new math and new knowledge, today's mind must agree the universe is finite - which is a very scary thought for anti-creational science. Speech is the most scary thing for ToE.

 

what physical characteristics makes density??? what makes things show a difference in density? a difference in energy levels? air goes up, and solids go down if protons and neutrons contain the mass then what gives the elements a difference in energy levels.

the universe is only finite if your brain is mathmatically stymed.

 

This seems like an argument of semantics.

Here's the plain and simple truth: no one can prove if the universe is infinite. Seeing as the idea of a multiverse is honestly being tossed around the table in regards to the brane theory, I'd say asking if "our" universe being infinite seems dull. It's impossible to have multiple infinite universes. They'd never be able to touch, which is believed to be what they do in the brane theory. They can't touch something else if they're infinite. Infinite doesn't imply only one direction. Infinite means never ending. If there's a boundary at any point, then it ends.

 

Density is a mathematical concept, and mathematical concepts can be proven using just math. I disproved you by example.

We don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite. There is no evidence that the universe is finite.

 

I concur and its not mere semantics to conclude the universe cannot be infinite - all indicators display a finite universe. My view is an infinite is intentionally inclined to because a finite realm has a most negative impact on our state of art and widespread, trendy outlook against theological premises. A finite realm becoming the complex universe, based only on environment impacts - is perhaps the most unscientific premise possible. Thus the infinite premise is inclined, but this too is unscientific and it negates science per se: who needs observations, maths and equations if the thing was 'ALWAYS' there!? And who can say the environment was always there - in a finite universe!?

While the array of theologies display blatant chaos bordering on insanity and anti-human doctrines - e.g. two of the biggest theologies, Christianity and Islam, are mutually exclusive of each other - even of the same space-times they refer to - so there can be no clearer definition theologies and chaos are one, and at least 2 Billion humans will give their lives for a blatantly wrong premise, no matter how this is rationalized. What this has done is foster a trajectory all theologies belong in one green bag - but this may not be correct when a closer examination is made. I already see tomatoes being thrown at me. At least, I find the Hebrew transcendent here, in historical and scientific portrayals, to the extent it alone can stand up to our state of art sciences - and counter with equal scientific veracity. We see this in all forums today - Genesis is always the target and the most hated - despite that every other theologies either has nothing to input - or makes the most insane doctrines.

With ToE's cross-speciation, this is what I find more practical is the case. All life forms have commonalities. Some birds look like human faces. This means they are all from the same 'dust' [common sub-atomic elements of earth/Genesis]. However, all life did not/could not have emerged from one source - cats and dogs are different, displaying only that original certain head groups emerged and branched out according to their own kind. It shows a tiger could have been a saber - while still displaying commonalities with all life - but still maintaning absolute core variants.And yes I have read Darwin.

The time factor does not allow billions [trillions?] of ocean life forms to have emerged from one source - and never mind the insect and virus worlds. Further, the time factor does not impact if evolution is an 'on-going' process - do the math and it concludes there can be not a second's ceasing of cross-speciation, and it will be seen in our midst always if this is a correct premise. This says Genesis is correct - heads of life form groups emerged, then they branched out. This is logical - they spread according to the head forms, while its reverse says in the future humans will become another kind - or that tomorrow we will see cats turn to a new life form such as a zebra with pink stripes: has not happened and the proof tended has no relevance to actual and surrounding imprints.

But this is also insufficient: if cross-speciation is common to all life from one, even if via intricate and minutae branchings - we would not see only what is vindicated in Genesis, whereby one species had exclusive survival elevations with speech, dispite humans being the most recent species. Based on ToE, bears should have gone to the moon before man - why ever not when they have the advanage of time to select the most powerful tool in the universe - 'speech'? Genesis is also scientific when it says a universe maker has to apply for a universe. There is nothing mythical or insane of this premise - its reverse is unscientific!

 

Then why are there billions/trillions of life forms? Why is this 'not allowed' by the time factor?

Also, humans aren't, and can't be, the most recent species. That implies that evolution has stopped somehow, since humans evolved. We are also still evolving, by implication.

And another thing: big brains, intelligence and 'speech' are evolutionary advantages, but so are flippers. Or hooves. Or the ability to run faster than a predator, dive underwater and stay there for a while, etc.

 

Density is not a mathematical premise, but it seems you misundstood my meaning. The more particles in the same space, the more solidified - the difference between wood and iron, and empty space and physicality.

We don't know anything because the origins of everything is unknown. But all indicators and evidences [as opposed actual proof] say the universe is finite and cannot in any wise be infinite: the universe is expanding - it was not infinite 10 seconds ago; an infinite cannot fit into a finite realm.

I agree with Genesis there was a BEGINNING; I also agree with Genesis that maths and sciences ['laws'] occured in its second verse - or what must happen next to beget science and math - namely the formless had to change to form. I also agree that light per se had to predate the stars, and that pre-life anticipatory actions [critical seperations of this planet's elements] had to be performed before life could emerge.

I agree that all things in the universe are the result of a duality, and that each part had to be embedded with pre-determined directive programs to conclude in pre-determined results from that interaction. I agree that humans are a species on their own, varied from all other life forms by a ratio of 1: all other life forms - while still retaining the commonality of all life forms. I agree that the first emergence of the human species had to be a dual-gendered entity, then split asunder. I agree a unverse must have a universe maker, but not necessarilly according to any theological doctrines.

If someone does not agree - it does not mean Genesis is not dsplaying scientific and logical premises.

 

Density is most definitely a physical-mathematical concept. Roughly, it's the amount of material in a unit volume.
Or more exactly it's the number of particles with a given mass per unit volume--see, for instance Avogadro's number and the volume of this number of molecules of gas at STP.

Classic fail.

But humans appear to have closely related species--the great apes. What's the 'ratio' between humans and apes/chimps?
We can't claim to be "on our own" at all--we depend heavily on other animals, and on various species of plants, fungi, bacteria, even viral forms appear to be required.

Double fail...