On 1/20/2020 10:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
*Maybe I can summarize it this way; if it had a beginning, which I will label as T = 0, and was finite in spatial extent, including zero spatial extent, it has remained finite in spatial extent since all expansion rates are finite, and have been going on for finite time. Thus, if it started as finite, it must remain finite to avoid a singularity; namely, an infinite expansion rate.This is really easy, and shouldn't present a problem. OTOH, if it had a beginning and was spatially infinite at that time, it's not null at that time, the beginning. *
But it's simply your prejudice that it can't be null at T<0 and infinite at T=0.
Above you explicitly allow that a finite space might come into existence at T=0, i.e. one that was null at T<0 and finite at T=0. You wrote, "*if it had a beginning, which I will label as T = 0, and was finite in spatial extent". * But that is just as much a discontinuity or "singularity" that you consider a logical contradiction, as the coming into existence of an infinite space at T=0. Offenses to your intuition are not necessarily logical contradictions.
Brent
*So the assumption that it's spatially infinite at the beginning when it should be null (at the beginning) is a contradiction. (Proof by contradiction). AG*
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5E26A17E.4050404%40verizon.net.
