Is the universe finite?

[IamJoseph]

IamJoseph:



Which particular observable and empirical indicators are you referring to?

I ask because the ones used by professional astrophysicists apparently disagree with yours.

The observable and emperical indicators are the expansion factor and cause and effect. While most of the greatest scientists agree with a finite universe, I am open to your astrophysists premises - enlighten me.

I don't know what this means. Can you please explain?

That life and any action per se can only occur where more than one entity is available? This is of course manifest observable science. The latter is not even encumbent, it is so manifest. Consider any singular entity and nothing else: how can an action occur when interaction is not possible in this scenario? This becomes far more onerous when we speak of an original lone entity. It asks the Q: can 1 + nothing = 2 or something other than 1? Can a verb with no subject and object be a verb?

So, all I have to do is produce one thing that can be derived from a "singular entity" and your claim vanishes. Right?

Yes. Absolutely.

Please define "singular entity" for me, since I'm not clear what you mean by that.

A vert clear and simple definition, and one which crosses all borders - including life, inanimate bodies and natural phenomena:

An indivisible and irriducable entity.

Natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. What comes first is water. Then, billions of years later, humans come along and name hydrogen and oxygen. They then nut out how those elements combine to form water, and you have the "law" of water.

Oxygen is a new product on earth - it was not there at the beginning of the earth. Water, like oxygen, are fuel factors ony, and their impact is wholly dependent on their attributes and interaction abilities. Water + stones do not produce life - if water existed on mars no life would result, even if we add nitrogen and carbon. A critical mix occured on earth, indicating only a focused impact in relation to the rest of the known universe.

 

[birch]

I gave the analogy of life - it could not have emegred as one singular entity, whereby interaction here is not possible. Contrastingly, two pre-programmed entities does answer the emergence of life. This scenario agrees with all entities, including non-biological ones. If correct, then it KO's the BBT on fiundamental scientific premises: the BB could not have occured by a singular entity.

i don't agree with that as an objective fact devoid of necessary context. it's what we observe here but we do not know that life itself is based on duality. it may not be.

 

[IamJoseph]

Joseph

Not much of science in your posts. What do you mean by needing several entities?

I am speaking science. A minimum of two entities are required to effect an action. An action is only derived by an interaction. Nothing happens with one - there is no one in the universe - actually.

Your other threads show that you believe an all-powerful deity 'magicked' the universe into being. This is just as speculative as anything anyone here has said, and leaves just as many unanswered questions.

Forget the term 'belief' - a generic, inherent trait in all life which has nothing to do with any theologist's held premises. The magic factor only applies when we allow an action with one entity. It does not impact on a universe maker for a universe or a pre-programed construct as the source of the universe.

Science has the virtue of admitting when data is missing, and hence when explanations cannot be given immediately. Those of us more wedded to science, rather than religion, will readily admit we do not know what the universe consisted of at time zero, or whether there was a cause before time zero, or whether there is something outside the universe.

This premise becomes inadmissable in a finite realm. Not knowing does not allow what is not scientifically possible. We cannot base science on magic as its foundation with the term 'WE DON'T KNOW THAT AN ACTION IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH ONE SINGULAR ENTITY'. We do know that a finite universe cannot occur by itself where a singular entity was at the foundation - because from a science pov an action cannot occur with a pristine singular entity. Period.

I have considerable confidence in the innovative abilities of humans, and especially of those few humans who end up as super-genius physicists. Sadly I am not one, but I know that the ones that exist and are working with cosmology, will expand and increase our knowledge. I am prepared to wait for answers. Like the true followers of good science, I do not need to fall back on superstition for my answers.

Why do you see the duality factor as superstition and not empirical science - any negatable examples or analogies?

 

[IamJoseph]

we do not know that life itself is based on duality. it may not be.

Can it be based on a singular entity - and still be science?

 

[birch]

I am speaking science. A minimum of two entities are required to effect an action. An action is only derived by an interaction. Nothing happens with one - there is no one in the universe - actually.




Forget the term 'belief' - a generic, inherent trait in all life which has nothing to do with any theologist's held premises. The magic factor only applies when we allow an action with one entity. It does not impact on a universe maker for a universe or a pre-programed construct as the source of the universe.



This premise becomes inadmissable in a finite realm. Not knowing does not allow what is not scientifically possible. We cannot base science on magic as its foundation with the term 'WE DON'T KNOW THAT AN ACTION IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH ONE SINGULAR ENTITY'. We do know that a finite universe cannot occur by itself where a singular entity was at the foundation - because from a science pov an action cannot occur with a pristine singular entity. Period.



Why do you see the duality factor as superstition and not empirical science - any negatable examples or analogies?

your supposition that life (which we do not understand the source of) can't be singular goes against theism.

anyways, you are confusing what can be or what occurs to what has to be. you don't definitively know this since life is not understood at it's core level, meaning we really don't know what causes life. it's only experienced.

 

[birch]

Can it be based on a singular entity - and still be science?

there are certain things that remain unknown. that is all.

everything that we define is based on a construct of this universe and it's laws as well as it's materials.

also what we define as life is also based on this construct as that is what we are working with. but you can't say that pure energy doesn't exist or cannot be singular. and also definition of life is relative.

 

[Skeptical]

On the statement that a single item cannot produce an action.

A large enough block of pure Uranium 235 explodes, as an atom bomb. All that is needed is U235. A singular item. In fact, impurities of any kind just slow the reaction. Similarly, a large enough block of pure Plutonium will explode. A single item producing a very dramatic action.

In the early universe, hydrogen gas condensed into suns, which emitted energy. They also generated fusion, creating a large amount of larger atoms. Even more, when the suns went nova. A single item - hydrogen - producing terrific action, and generating many, many larger elements.

Sorry, Joseph. Your singular items are just so much intellectual garbage.

 

[IamJoseph]

On the statement that a single item cannot produce an action.

A large enough block of pure Uranium 235 explodes, as an atom bomb. All that is needed is U235. A singular item. In fact, impurities of any kind just slow the reaction. Similarly, a large enough block of pure Plutonium will explode. A single item producing a very dramatic action.

In the early universe, hydrogen gas condensed into suns, which emitted energy. They also generated fusion, creating a large amount of larger atoms. Even more, when the suns went nova. A single item - hydrogen - producing terrific action, and generating many, many larger elements.

Sorry, Joseph. Your singular items are just so much intellectual garbage.

I don't agree with this because it refers to an unstable element, which, although naturally occuring, is reacting [interacting] to externally impacting forces in the invironment. While this scenario may or may not apply to a singular entity which effected the BANG in the BBT, this is not conducive to the premise of the bang itself: there is nowhere for the first particle to bang to - as opposed to that entity doing so in an already secured invironment. This math and physics are incorrect.

A better understainding of a singular entity must be undertaken to see why this is incorrect. You have assumed, incorrectly, Uranium 235 can explode as it does now if it were a lone singular product: this would only point to it not being a singular item [with internal compartments and other products] - or that it is being impacted by external factors. Your scenario lends itself only to the duality principle applying - with both parts being pre-programmed.

 

[IamJoseph]

everything that we define is based on a construct of this universe and it's laws as well as it's materials.

This is not disputed nor can it be. However, the given and accepted scenario and its principles is in contradiction of its foundational provisions. The universe is based on interaction of entities and forces, but this cannot apply to the BBT where such interaction is not possible. So the BB occured out of magic or a source which is not aligned with the scientific premises we accept.

but you can't say that pure energy doesn't exist or cannot be singular. and also definition of life is relative.

I can and I do. Energy is a result of an interaction, and an interaction is only possible with a duality - it is not possible with a singularity.

 

[IamJoseph]

your supposition that life (which we do not understand the source of) can't be singular goes against theism.

The reverse applies. Genesis, the most theist threatise we have, says life emerged out of a duality: 'Man and woman created he them'. When contemplated, there appears no alternative to this principle. The option of an offspring being male or female requires the host to possess both genders.

anyways, you are confusing what can be or what occurs to what has to be. you don't definitively know this since life is not understood at it's core level, meaning we really don't know what causes life. it's only experienced.

I understand we are fundamentally in a prison, whereby there is nothing wrong with our minds but that this info appears barred. However, it has zero chance of being un-barred unless the correct questions and path are pursued. And our BBT has big time core problems, primarilly, not because it accepts that the core, fundamental issue cannot be acquired, but because the road we are on is 100% wrong that it can never apply to the fundamental issue. There is a dilima and enigma here: the science cannot be wrong when applied to what is manifest - and it cannot apply to that what is not manifest but what we all pursue.

 

[birch]

I can and I do. Energy is a result of an interaction, and an interaction is only possible with a duality - it is not possible with a singularity.

wrong. energy can exist as a singularity. it's just what you observe as energy is based on the effects of a reaction.

it doesn't matter if it's energy or not. the truth is things can and do exist by itself regardless.

 

[IamJoseph]

energy is based on the effects of a reaction.

And a reaction is only possible with multiple factors intergrating - never with a singularity.

 

[Skeptical]

Joseph

Your idea of singularity is a crock. When challenged, you simply try to change the definitions. The more intelligent on this forum will not be fooled for a second.

 

[birch]

The reverse applies. Genesis, the most theist threatise we have, says life emerged out of a duality: 'Man and woman created he them'. When contemplated, there appears no alternative to this principle. The option of an offspring being male or female requires the host to possess both genders

if a so-called god is alive, then how was it created? mommy and daddy?

 

[IamJoseph]

Joseph

Your idea of singularity is a crock. When challenged, you simply try to change the definitions. The more intelligent on this forum will not be fooled for a second.

My definition has been constant and unchanged. There are novel manipulations around, but for me a singularity is as I have defined it when asked: an indivisible and irreducable entity. This is also what the GUT is based upon in its quest to find the common base for the universe. They will never find it - because a singularity is an impossibility.

The more intelligent will have to agree with it.

 

[IamJoseph]

if a so-called god is alive, then how was it created? mommy and daddy?

Genesis does not posit a circular path here, which we know is the wrong path. You have to at least give credence where it is due. The circular merry go round lies with the willful runaway from the finite factor by positing never ending multi universes as their escape - as if one can run from cause and effect by substituting it with a causeless effect.

Only an infinite being can be said not to require a precedessor [parents, etc] as this would negate the infinite premise. Only Genesis correctly defines the notion of infinite, namely anything which is subject to change is finite, subsequently only that whch does not change is infinite. Whatever changes something transcends it. And there is nothing in the universe not subject to change. Moses too asked this obvious question and was answered fully and correctly. Thus:

I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED.

Ponder on it.

 

[Skeptical]

Joseph

You clearly stated that nothing singular can effect an action.

I pointed out that a block of pure U235 (as singular an item as you can get)will explode as an atom bomb - a very dramatic action. Therefore you are wrong.

 

[IamJoseph]

Joseph

You clearly stated that nothing singular can effect an action.

I pointed out that a block of pure U235 (as singular an item as you can get)will explode as an atom bomb - a very dramatic action. Therefore you are wrong.

I am not wrong, if you see my response. Despite the manipulation attempted, U235 is not a singular entity, not by and of itself, nor does it cause action on its own. U235 has a nucleus and billions of electrons; further down the track you will find a universe of quarks. Uranium-235 is an isotope of uranium making up about 0.72% of natural uranium. Even if this was a singular, it would still not incur an action if it was the sole entity in the universe and without an inviroinment to interact with.

Understand I am not here to defend for the sake of defending. The point of a singulairty is an important issue and is connected with the premise the universe is finite and nothing in the universe is singular. Its not even possible and a wholly unscientific premise to question this logic. Pause and think instead of swallowing whatever is shoved down our throats as science: do you really accept a sole entity can perform an action and still call it science - not even in the star trek realm will such be condoned!?

 

[birch]

Genesis does not posit a circular path here, which we know is the wrong path. You have to at least give credence where it is due. The circular merry go round lies with the willful runaway from the finite factor by positing never ending multi universes as their escape - as if one can run from cause and effect by substituting it with a causeless effect.

Only an infinite being can be said not to require a precedessor [parents, etc] as this would negate the infinite premise. Only Genesis correctly defines the notion of infinite, namely anything which is subject to change is finite, subsequently only that whch does not change is infinite. Whatever changes something transcends it. And there is nothing in the universe not subject to change. Moses too asked this obvious question and was answered fully and correctly. Thus:

I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED.

Ponder on it.

your whole premise is ridiculous. if a so-called god is unchanging and singular, it can't create something else.

also, if it's singular then it can't be a living entity according to your logic.

your reasoning is full of holes and hypocrisy

 

[Tiassa]

A simple suggestion

While it's true that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, empty space itself has been expanding at a rate much faster than the speed of light. So what the cosmologists say is that the stars themselves are not violating relativity, but their positions in space are moving faster.

Don't ask me to explain that, it sounds like a bad 1930s science fiction story. The math gives me a headache but apparently the entire world community of physicists has peer-reviewed it and found it to be valid.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic here, but if we might—for simplicity—imagine two edges of the Universe, say, this one and that one, traveling away from each other at exactly half the speed of light, the expansion of area or between would seem to increase at the speed of light. If the velocity of those borders is (c/2)+1, the expansion would appear to occur at a rate faster than the speed of light.

That's the simplest I can come up witht.

But for those of us who haven't read the Cosmology thread, do you recall which one it is? I mean, I could easily be floating an idea that has already been laughed out of the room.

(I'll be in the corner, playing with the cat.)