On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 12:33:26 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mar. 21 janv. 2020 à 08:29, Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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. >
*Firstly, there was no matter at T = 0, but you can argue infinite energy density. I'm fine with that; no BB. AG * > > Also zero to finite, or zero to infinite; are both as magical... it's your > prejudice not to see it. > *I have no idea why space-time expands, no one does, but if it does, it goes from zero volume to increasingly larger finite volumes, unless zero volume was never it's state, in which case you've falsified the BB. Time to publish? Also, it can't go from finite to infinite volumes when the expansion rates are finite. Why is this so hard to see? AG * > >> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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/b65d5ad5-53ea-427b-83fc-4a448d0ee926%40googlegroups.com.
