The Universe is Infinite: Discuss

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 .

Your theory makes sense and your multiple big bang theory is very interesting. I really can't disagree with you because i have hardly any knowledge in this area(i hope to learn more as i become more active in this forum) so well done, you obviously spent alot of time on this.

Thank you. Yes, I did spend a lot of time on it, and I'm glad it is accepted by at least one person. I'm thinking most people will disagree with me, but I'm glad someone doesn't.

I'd like to give an extra idea.

If the universe was an infinitely small, infinitely dense entity, which proceeded to explode -- why would it explode in all directions at once? Wouldn't it break the boundaries at a single point? If you look at anything else, they break at one specific point, and not suddenly every side at once.

So immagine that the universe was a full stop. It wouldn't suddenly explode outwards and become a spherical shape, but rather a cone -- the universe expanding from a single point.

Having laboriously read through your theory -- I am increasingly aware of my lack of a phD in some kind of physics. And unless you, too have one -- I see no reason to believe that any of your theories are backed by anything more than thought. And however commendable that is -- teams of people who have spent their lives working off the backs of other people who spent their lives, continuing on a study that has taken thousand of years -- have the opposite view.

I voted "undecided". Before I ever heard of the Big Bang theory, or at least understood it, I believed that the universe (the physical allowance of displacement) was infinite.

However, after understanding the big bang theory, it gave me a possible reason as to why time seems to move forward, it could be being pushed along with the spatial dimensions, however, I don't know. I am undecided.

Excellent work by the way OP (opening poster). You seem to have spent a good deal of time composing your theory and wording your post. And also, the spoiler usage was interesting and noble.

Originally Posted by Awkin

If the universe was an infinitely small, infinitely dense entity, which proceeded to explode -- why would it explode in all directions at once? Wouldn't it break the boundaries at a single point? If you look at anything else, they break at one specific point, and not suddenly every side at once.

So immagine that the universe was a full stop. It wouldn't suddenly explode outwards and become a spherical shape, but rather a cone -- the universe expanding from a single point.

That's interesting... You may or may not be right, I'm not sure. I would guess though, that if this infinitely small thing were equally strong all around its surface then it would break in all places at once. Normally when something, e.g. a water balloon, bursts, it either bursts from impact outside on one spot, or from one spot being weaker, and I'm realising even as I'm typing this that my water balloon analogy was terrible, but never mind, I'm sure you get the idea.

Having laboriously read through your theory -- I am increasingly aware of my lack of a phD in some kind of physics. And unless you, too have one -- I see no reason to believe that any of your theories are backed by anything more than thought. And however commendable that is -- teams of people who have spent their lives working off the backs of other people who spent their lives, continuing on a study that has taken thousand of years -- have the opposite view.

Well firstly, thank you for reading my theory. It is backed up by thought, largely, but I have taken into account all of the evidence of which I am aware, and brought myself to the most reasonable conclusion I can. I do not have a phD in any kind of physics, but let me ask, do those who have come up with the Big Bang theory have a phD in common sense?

I have been brought up to trust myself more than I trust most others. While I am not saying these astrophysicists are untrustworthy, what I am saying is that if what they say conflicts with my own common sense, and I can look at everything they say, understand it, but see gaping flaws, and a more likely conclsion from their evidence, it is my conclusion which I will trust, until I see further evidence.

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

However, after understanding the big bang theory, it gave me a possible reason as to why time seems to move forward, it could be being pushed along with the spatial dimensions, however, I don't know. I am undecided.

Well to me, time moves forward because it is the only logical thing for it to do. Well. actually no. We move through time I think... or I don't know. Interesting idea though.

Excellent work by the way OP (opening poster). You seem to have spent a good deal of time composing your theory and wording your post. And also, the spoiler usage was interesting and noble.

Thanks. I did spend a lot of time composing the theory (three years, actually), and it has only been recently that I have managed to phrase it. I struggled, when posting before, on the other threads. A lot of it was nonsensical simply by virtue of appalling phrasing. I could understand it, but not get it straight enough in my head to explain to others. I resorted to crude, and often confusing, MS Paint drawings, which didn't seem to help much.

Originally Posted by Awkin

I'd like to give an extra idea.

If the universe was an infinitely small, infinitely dense entity, which proceeded to explode -- why would it explode in all directions at once? Wouldn't it break the boundaries at a single point? If you look at anything else, they break at one specific point, and not suddenly every side at once.

So immagine that the universe was a full stop. It wouldn't suddenly explode outwards and become a spherical shape, but rather a cone -- the universe expanding from a single point.

Having laboriously read through your theory -- I am increasingly aware of my lack of a phD in some kind of physics. And unless you, too have one -- I see no reason to believe that any of your theories are backed by anything more than thought. And however commendable that is -- teams of people who have spent their lives working off the backs of other people who spent their lives, continuing on a study that has taken thousand of years -- have the opposite view.

You say that because he doesn't have a phD in physics his theory is nothing more than thought, well since you don't have a phD either how can you disprove it.

I'm considering doing some university study of physics, but I won't be able to until after I have finished my studies to become a lawyer, and those will take about 6 further years, then I will need to set myself up, so it will be about 8 years before I can enrol in such a course. However, when and if I get the chance to do so, I will come back to this theory, and see if I still believe it.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

Well to me, time moves forward because it is the only logical thing for it to do. Well. actually no. We move through time I think... or I don't know. Interesting idea though.

If time is a dimention (which it is), being pushed through time would be similar to being pushed in a direction. Time seems to be passing, so why? Well, apparently the big bang is pushing everything away in all directions as it expands...

Here is a quote:

Time must have also expanded with these three other dimensions. Every ounce of time a new length point, width point, height point and time point were coming into existence (beside the previously existing points of those dimensions). Is it possible that the the pushing of the time we feel has some sort of connection to the universe's expanding?

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

Thanks. I did spend a lot of time composing the theory (three years, actually), and it has only been recently that I have managed to phrase it. I struggled, when posting before, on the other threads. A lot of it was nonsensical simply by virtue of appalling phrasing. I could understand it, but not get it straight enough in my head to explain to others. I resorted to crude, and often confusing, MS Paint drawings, which didn't seem to help much.

Yeah, I think I nearly strayed my own religion thread off topic recently!

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

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.

That's pretty much bang on the accepted theory, yes.

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.

The thing is, common sense has no role here. We have evidence that this is what's happening (Red-shift isn't actually caused by the Doppler effect, instead it's due to space's expansion.), and it's an inevitable conclusion of General Relativity (which is probably the strongest scientific theory out there.)

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.

Not at all. If the universe had an edge that things could actually collide with then they'd do so and presumably "bounce" off.

However, a simpler solution than an infinite universe is an expanding universe.

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.

Nope. Galaxies are moving away at only a small fraction of the speed of light. The universe is expanding at the speed of light. Faster, even.

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.

Why not? If you're in a room that has it's walls moving away from you at 100 km/h you will never be able to hit those walls.

Originally Posted by Awkin

I'd like to give an extra idea.

If the universe was an infinitely small, infinitely dense entity, which proceeded to explode -- why would it explode in all directions at once? Wouldn't it break the boundaries at a single point? If you look at anything else, they break at one specific point, and not suddenly every side at once.

It didn't explode, nor was it contained by some sort of wall.

It simply...expanded.




Guy: Really the only thing I can say is that every Physicist since, oh, the 40's or so has subscribed to the big bang theory. This is in a profession where the fastest way to make a name for yourself is to prove someone else wrong. (Einstein would be nowhere near as famous if he hadn't proven Newton to be wrong.)

Does this mean you can't doubt what they say? Well, no, obviously not. However, any argument that claims that common sense shows a theory to be wrong won't work, these people have just as much common sense as you, yet they have no problem with it.

Besides, quantum mechanics (which is used in making super-fast computers) defies common sense far more than the big bang does, yet it's obviously correct since we can observe the various theories in action. Obviously common sense isn't a criteria for how good a theory is.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

That's pretty much bang on the accepted theory, yes.

That's good then.

The thing is, common sense has no role here. We have evidence that this is what's happening (Red-shift isn't actually caused by the Doppler effect, instead it's due to space's expansion.), and it's an inevitable conclusion of General Relativity (which is probably the strongest scientific theory out there.)

I think common sense has a role in every aspect of life. If scientists told you (using an example you use often, but twsiting it out of all proportion) that there was an invisible dragon behind you, I would expect you would deny their science by using your common sense.

Not at all. If the universe had an edge that things could actually collide with then they'd do so and presumably "bounce" off.

I thought galaxies were moving pretty fast. When a car hits a wall at 70 miles per hour it doesn't just "bounce off," it is crushed by the force of impact.

However, a simpler solution than an infinite universe is an expanding universe.

How is that at all simpler? An infinite universe is one existent, whereas a finite universe plus its expansion is two existents. Which makes an infinite universe simpler, and applying Occam's Razor (as I do a lot) that implies its truth.

Nope. Galaxies are moving away at only a small fraction of the speed of light. The universe is expanding at the speed of light. Faster, even.

Ok, but I still don't accept that the universe itself CAN expand.

Why not? If you're in a room that has it's walls moving away from you at 100 km/h you will never be able to hit those walls.

But there is potential in the room to create something that can move that way. It will already have the momentum from my movement, and it wil have its own propulsion and it may be theoretically possible to hot the wall and get splatted. Last time, you said that the universe was curved in the fourth dimension and so didn't have an edge, but that seems ridiculous too. If I speed towards the wall of my room, and many others speed towards walls in different directions, and we all have curved paths, we eventually won't be getting further apart anymore, and will probably come closer.

Guy: Really the only thing I can say is that every Physicist since, oh, the 40's or so has subscribed to the big bang theory. This is in a profession where the fastest way to make a name for yourself is to prove someone else wrong. (Einstein would be nowhere near as famous if he hadn't proven Newton to be wrong.)

And so I admit I am at a loss to explain that one. But still, I don't believe these people were right. Every doctor, for many years, believed that leeches were a miracle cure, but now we "know" that penecillin is the real cure for many things. And surely common sense says that sucking out your blood doesn't cure everything, but they still thought so. They probably had the common sense, but, like many physicists, ignored it totally.

Does this mean you can't doubt what they say? Well, no, obviously not. However, any argument that claims that common sense shows a theory to be wrong won't work, these people have just as much common sense as you, yet they have no problem with it.

I don't understand why not. But still...

Besides, quantum mechanics (which is used in making super-fast computers) defies common sense far more than the big bang does, yet it's obviously correct since we can observe the various theories in action. Obviously common sense isn't a criteria for how good a theory is.

I think common sense is a great criterion for the validity of a theory. And as for all the observable evidence for the BB, all of it that you have ever told me seems to support the MBT equally. Give me more, if you have it, or tell me why what you have given me cannot support the MBT?

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

I think common sense has a role in every aspect of life. If scientists told you (using an example you use often, but twsiting it out of all proportion) that there was an invisible dragon behind you, I would expect you would deny their science by using your common sense.

Ah, but if they then climbed on that invisible dragon and flew away while burning down my house, I'd be much more inclined to believe them, no matter how far it went in contradicting common sense.

I thought galaxies were moving pretty fast. When a car hits a wall at 70 miles per hour it doesn't just "bounce off," it is crushed by the force of impact.

So galaxies would get denser and then rebound away.

I should note: It's up for debate if the universe is infinite or not. It seems to depend entirely on if it is curved through the 4th dimension, which is not yet certain.

However, the majority opinion right now is holding that it probably isn't.

But there is potential in the room to create something that can move that way.

No, there isn't. The universe is expanding at the speed of light. Nothing can go faster than light, and only massless things can even go that fast to begin with, so they can't actually "catch up" to the edge of the universe.

Last time, you said that the universe was curved in the fourth dimension and so didn't have an edge, but that seems ridiculous too. If I speed towards the wall of my room, and many others speed towards walls in different directions, and we all have curved paths, we eventually won't be getting further apart anymore, and will probably come closer.

You're taking a curved path that is growing at a rate that is faster than you are moving at. As such you'll never actually turn around and start heading back, since the distance to the "turn" is growing faster than you can move.

Actually, the universe may not be curved, it's up for debate.

And so I admit I am at a loss to explain that one. But still, I don't believe these people were right. Every doctor, for many years, believed that leeches were a miracle cure, but now we "know" that penecillin is the real cure for many things. And surely common sense says that sucking out your blood doesn't cure everything, but they still thought so. They probably had the common sense, but, like many physicists, ignored it totally.

Ah, but until very recently it was considered "bad form" to question accepted medical practices, since that would mean that these doctors had let people die out of ignorance.

I think common sense is a great criterion for the validity of a theory. And as for all the observable evidence for the BB, all of it that you have ever told me seems to support the MBT equally. Give me more, if you have it, or tell me why what you have given me cannot support the MBT?

MBT?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Ah, but if they then climbed on that invisible dragon and flew away while burning down my house, I'd be much more inclined to believe them, no matter how far it went in contradicting common sense.

Really? I'd be more inclined to believe that, since it was impossible, I was somehow being deceived. Perhaps by having been slipped an undetectable, hallucinogenic drug.

I should note: It's up for debate if the universe is infinite or not. It seems to depend entirely on if it is curved through the 4th dimension, which is not yet certain.

However, the majority opinion right now is holding that it probably isn't.

No, there isn't. The universe is expanding at the speed of light. Nothing can go faster than light, and only massless things can even go that fast to begin with, so they can't actually "catch up" to the edge of the universe.


You're taking a curved path that is growing at a rate that is faster than you are moving at. As such you'll never actually turn around and start heading back, since the distance to the "turn" is growing faster than you can move.

Actually, the universe may not be curved, it's up for debate.

This is the first time you have said these things were up for debate. When we discussed this in the atheism thread you spoke as though they were undeniable fact. Since your view on that seems to have changed, how do you know you may not one day decide you were wrong all along?

And about this "moving at the speed of light" thing, I have never understood, how do we know this? That the universe is expanding at that exact speed?

MBT?

Multiple Bang Theory, as cited above.

A real infinite amount of time cannot exist. The universe cannot have existed forever or we would not have arrived at this point in time yet, nor would we ever arrive here.

^Would you care to explain why?

The full explanation could takes pages, but simple logic shows that if time has been "going" forever--literally forever--we would never get to this point. Think about it: the beginning of time would have been an infinite amount of space (thinking of a linear number line) away from our current point. We would never get here.

I don't believe that. We would get here. Just, the path we took to get here would never have had a beginning and will never have an end.

The very nature of time means that it cannot begin, because then it would have happened at a point in time, which didn't exist.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

I don't believe that. We would get here. Just, the path we took to get here would never have had a beginning and will never have an end.

The very nature of time means that it cannot begin, because then it would have happened at a point in time, which didn't exist.

How would we get here? A real infinite amount of time--that's the period you must cross. Perhaps you can explain how that is possible?

Your assessment of the "nature of time" is not supported by any physical theory I know of. In fact, time is, from my understanding, a function of space (the two are combined into the term spacetime), and the abstract awareness which we have of it (the kind your theory seems to base itself on) is merely a way of conceptualizes something we cannot manipulate (at least not fully).

You mentioned your rejection of fallacious philosophical arguments earlier. Perhaps you should look at the fallacies of your own:

Originally Posted by Guy

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.

Infinite density does not become spatially dense; infinite "smallness" does not become infinite expansion. The very notion contradicts your conclusion. Spacetime is the ultimate substance of our universe (in terms of how we can manipulate it)--it could not have existed before our universe, because then there would be no universe. That you reached the same conclusion is ironic because it necessarily contradicts your idea of an eternal universe. That the universe is expanding, but not from anywhere or into anything, is an impossible conclusion. And if it started in a singularity (the very definition of a "single point"), then how can you then say "but there is no single point where the universe began"? That is the singularity; but then you say it's not...

Let me take this one step further: that we have arrived at this point in time, the universe had a beginning. There may be more premises in between these two, but that's where we end up. We would not get here if the universe had existed forever. See Hilbert's Hotel. Thus, we know that something must have began the universe from "before" it began. This is essentially the cosmological argument for God. Perhaps you'd like to discuss its implications.

I've got to go for my law exam right now and so can't respond fully to this just yet, but I must point out that the argument you quoted and refuted above is the scientific argument, confirmed above by GDwarf, and NOT my belief. I too, believe it to be impossible, which is why I came up with this whole argument in the first place.

EDIT (here is my larger response):

Originally Posted by Bobsnox

How would we get here? A real infinite amount of time--that's the period you must cross. Perhaps you can explain how that is possible?

I can see your point, but as I see it, there is no problem existing within infinity, just that time doesn't end. If you have the numbers, going back, from infinity you can't do it unless you use algebra. You can always get to a number, but it will not have any specific value. Or something to that effect.

Your assessment of the "nature of time" is not supported by any physical theory I know of. In fact, time is, from my understanding, a function of space (the two are combined into the term spacetime), and the abstract awareness which we have of it (the kind your theory seems to base itself on) is merely a way of conceptualizes something we cannot manipulate (at least not fully).

Nothing can happen if time is not passing. If time were paused, nothing would happen. So if there was, at some point, no time, then the coming-into-existence of time could not happen, so if there had ever been no time, there still would not be any time, because the time leading up to the beginning of time would not have passed, as time did not exist at all.

You mentioned your rejection of fallacious philosophical arguments earlier. Perhaps you should look at the fallacies of your own:Infinite density does not become spatially dense; infinite "smallness" does not become infinite expansion. The very notion contradicts your conclusion. Spacetime is the ultimate substance of our universe (in terms of how we can manipulate it)--it could not have existed before our universe, because then there would be no universe. That you reached the same conclusion is ironic because it necessarily contradicts your idea of an eternal universe. That the universe is expanding, but not from anywhere or into anything, is an impossible conclusion. And if it started in a singularity (the very definition of a "single point"), then how can you then say "but there is no single point where the universe began"? That is the singularity; but then you say it's not...

As I said above, that is not at all my thoughts, but the thoughts of most of the scientific community, so I am glad you too reject it. That means that on some level you acknowledge that there is(/are) a problem(s) with the modern idea of the origin of the universe.

Let me take this one step further: that we have arrived at this point in time, the universe had a beginning. There may be more premises in between these two, but that's where we end up. We would not get here if the universe had existed forever. See Hilbert's Hotel. Thus, we know that something must have began the universe from "before" it began. This is essentially the cosmological argument for God. Perhaps you'd like to discuss its implications.[/QUOTE]

Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel says that if a hotel has an infinite number of rooms, and an infinite number of guests come to stay the rooms would be filled. That, as I see it, is deeply, and self-evidently, counterintuitive, much like the Big Bang theory.Because if an infinite number of guests arrive, the rooms will never be filled, because more guests will be going up the infinite stairs and along the infinite corridors for all eternity. If the number of patrons arriving is truly infinite they will never finish entering. BUT, there will be a point when three have arrived, checked in, and gone to their rooms. There will be a point when two million have done so. There will be a point when googol will have done so. Just that the process will never actually end.

My beliefs are different.

"I believe the universe is infinite, becasue the God who created it is infinite. You cannot contain God, so therefore you cannot contain the universe."

That's how I see things.