Le mar. 21 janv. 2020 à 08:29, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 12:00:22 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >> > > *At its beginning it's null. This is my definition, if you will, of what > exists at "the beginning" for our universe, nothing. You can call that a > prejudice but it's much more logical than positing a creation event with > something already in existence, or infinite at T > 0. It seems you're the > one with illogical prejudices. AG * > >> >> >> 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. >> > > *Yes it is, but I was just allowing the possibility of finite spatial > extent at T = 0, as a way to emphasize the fact that once finite, always > finite. In any event, for consistency and what I believe, it had zero > spatial extent at the time of creation AG * > Then it is a singularity, any finite amount of matter in a zero volume, has infinite density ==> singularity. Also zero to finite, or zero to infinite; are both as magical... it's your prejudice not to see it. > > 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/19bef91b-12fa-412f-9cc7-55800cf4f7c9%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19bef91b-12fa-412f-9cc7-55800cf4f7c9%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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/CAMW2kAobMu04mgDWV5j7ZBE9Md3hxzcXKkx4wFjGL5___x01%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
