I said, quite a long time ago, in a few different threads, all of which had by this point turned into a discussion of the origins and nature of the universe, despite the small, seemingly unimportant, fact that we had arrived at a point so incredibly far off topic that, looking back, it appeared as a mere speck on the horizon, and it was confusing to me, and presumably to the others arguing with me, how we could be at the same, distant, off-topic position, in so many different threads, the topic of which ranged from the morals of atheism to the threat from extra-terrestrials, that I would make a thread about my beliefs on the universe, so the argument could be unified in a thread where it would no longer be off-topic. This, ladies and gentlemen, is that thread. My views are here, all ready for you to criticise, and tell me how mistaken, invalid and unscientific they are.

I believe that the universe - by which I mean all of everything, and also all of the space which contains nothing, and not just the area of this vastness which actually contains planets, solar systems, galaxies and any other celestial bodies you care to mention. I make this distinction here, because when I have debated this point before, I believe many have been confused by this slight problem, in that, while some people use the term “universe” in the same way I do, others mean only that area which is occupied by the aforementioned celestial bodies. From this point on, the term “universe” means what I said, and if I am talking of the occupied universe I will use that term - “occupied universe.”

I believe the universe is infinite, and I also believe that it is eternal, as is time, which I believe is a spatial dimension, and can be freely travelled by those who know how - which nobody does - but this thread is not about time as a fourth dimension, and it isn’t really important, but I mentioned it as a bit of useless background information about my own beliefs.

I hold my beliefs that the universe, and time, are eternal and infinite, for a number of reasons, both scientific and philosophical. I realise that the theory I am about to put forward will be slated by most of the scientific community, but I ask that, before anyone posts that I am wrong, and spouts out the scientific doctrine about the universe being finite, but curved, expanding but from nothing into nothing, and other related logical fallacies, you read my theory carefully and, even if they don’t convince you, you actually consider the points I have made.

Now, the scientific view, as told to me by a few people on here, is that the universe was originally a singularity, an infinitely dense, infinitely small thing, which existed before space and time (and if this part is wrong, feel free to correct me, although it may just be bad wording), and that, to all intents and purposes, it didn‘t exist. It expanded, and that was the beginning of the universe. Space is expanding still, but there is no single point where the universe began, nor is there anything outside of the universe (which using the term meaning it the way I do, there obviously couldn’t be anything outside it) and thus the universe is expanding, but not from anywhere or into anything.

I say, this is impossible. It is completely illogical to suggest that something can get bigger in this way. There has to be space already there. To me, the universe cannot be expanding - but the occupied universe can, as this is another thing altogether.

However, if the occupied universe keeps expanding, and space doesn’t, we have a finite number of possible conclusions to this:

If the spatial universe is finite:

1) The galaxies must stop moving, which defies the rules of momentum.
2) The galaxies will reach the “edge” of the universe, which apparently does not exist, and either a crash, destroying everything, which seems ludicrous, or b) leave the universe and enter a void of nothingness, thereby ceasing to exist, which also seems nonsensical.

Or if the spatial universe is infinite, they can keep moving forever and ever, constantly expanding, at a steadily increasing rate, via the momentum of the expansion which began at the Big Bang, and they will be perfectly fine, and no vital scientific laws need be broken. To my mind, infinity is the only evasion of calamity.

Now, I have been told, by ZUers I respect deeply, but cannot bring myself to agree with, that, although, the universe is finite, it is curved in the fourth dimension, and we can never reach an “edge” because one does not exist. However, I see a number of problems with this idea.

Firstly, if the galaxies move away from each other, but follow a curved path, there must come a point where they will either stop moving apart and move closer together instead, or all begin circling the nonexistent central point to the universe, and now move at the same speeds as each other, all evenly spaced apart. Probably then their orbits will get smaller and smaller and they’ll eventually end up back at the start and the universe will be over, and this is all nonsensical.

Secondly, scientific members will tell me that the above idea is invalidated by the “fact” that the universe itself is expanding as fast as the galaxies are moving apart so that lot won’t happen. However, I cannot possibly comprehend a way in which they can truly justify this idea in any way. I believe the intrinsic ridiculousness of this idea is self evident, and I honestly can’t see how the scientifically minded members here cannot see this. However, I will point out, that what I have said about my view is scientific too, as I am looking at ways to evade the total obliteration of the laws of physics, logic, and, soon, averages.

One small point I would like to add on that matter, is that I was told that, at the point of the Big Bang, the laws of physics did not apply, as they were created then, and apply to this universe only. Yet, even now, the implications of the events that began then, and were, then, breaking no laws, are with us, so it seems that the laws are effectively still being broken. Yet, if we were to accept it, could we not also allow for the possibility of anything, provided the events that caused it in the first instance were at the time before this universe existed. The idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent God is alleged to be impossible by many people I know who use science to refute the idea. So how about if he started out before the universe, which he is supposed to have done, doesn’t that make his existence every bit as sensible as the Big Bang theory? To me, it seems that scientifically-minded atheists, who support the Big Bang theory are contradicting themselves.
So, at this point, I have said that the spatial universe is infinite, and explained why. If anybody is convinced, which I know is unlikely, but I can only hope, [U]please[//U] vote “yes” in the poll before reading the rest. And if you think I’m wasting my time, and that my ideas are blatantly wrong, invalid, inaccurate and/or nonsensical, please vote “no.” But please, before you vote against, just take a moment and seriously consider the ideas I put forward. If you still don’t believe me, that is fine, and I don’t mind, just as long as you thought about my views and didn’t just immediately reject them. There is also an “undecided” option if you feel that way.
Now on to the most outlandish part of my theorising.


Supposing the universe is infinite, in the extra-terrestrials thread, it was said that this would make certain the existence of alien life, as it would be a logical certainty for all these possibilities to be true in an infinite universe. That idea I have heard many, many times before, and, as far as I am aware, is accepted, except for the fact that it is also accepted that this hypothetical idea is invalidated by the fact that the universe is, in fact, finite.
However, if we are to accept the premise of that argument, and also my argument that, outside the occupied universe, there is an infinite spatial universe, I think we have strong support for the Multiple Bang Theory.

Multiple Bang Theory

This idea is basically that similar explosions to the alleged Big Bang, have happened, will happen, and are perhaps happening now, all over the universe. The idea is that the galaxies blasted away from the singularities pass by each other, and eventually end up with galaxies from other occupied universes, to form another singularity. This expands creating another occupied universe. This process happens over and over again, throughout time (which is infinite), keeping the universe in balance, ensuring that the potential for life is always there (which in an infinite universe ensures that life is ever present), and it also means that the Big Bang actually happened, just that we misunderstand it. This means that the scientific evidence we have for the Big Bang Theory also apply to the Multiple Bang Theory, and that we do not have to keep shattering the laws of physics and etc.

And if you answered yes to the poll, and believe that the universe is infinite, then the same logic that makes it certain that aliens exist (but may never visit us), could possibly be applied here, to guarantee that there are infinite planets in the universe. But an infinite number of planets could not come from a finite but incredibly large singularity. No matter how close to infinite the singularity was, its expansion could not bring an infinite number of galaxies into existence. Not a truly infinite number anyway. Unless, of course, you reject the BB and accept instead the MB, which means there was an infinite number of “singularities”. Thus an infinite number of galaxies could be formed, and we don’t have to break the law of, this time, averages.


Apologies for putting that part in spoiler tags, but I wanted it not to affect the decision on the poll.

And there ends this chapter in my Saga of Infinite Reality (a series of philosophical-sci-fi novellas I may one day actually get round to finishing).
I await your disputes .