AG, you’re cherry-picking while ignoring the full context. My statement was a conditional explanation, not a categorical claim. Here’s what I actually said:
"If the universe was infinite at one moment, it stays infinite—shrinking only applies to what is within our causal past, not the entire space." And earlier: "We don’t know if the universe is infinite or finite. Observations are consistent with both possibilities." I was explaining the logical consequences of an infinite universe—not asserting that the universe is infinite. Your failure to distinguish between an explanation and a claim is your problem, not mine. Quentin Le mer. 26 févr. 2025, 13:36, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 6:30:06 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mer. 26 févr. 2025, 12:02, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 4:44:05 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, the question isn’t whether I conclude the universe is infinite—it’s > whether the cosmological models allow for an infinite universe and what > their implications are. > > We don’t know if the universe is infinite or finite. > > > *OK, but in the post I responded to, you categorically stated that the > universe is infinite, and that's on you! AG * > > > I did not and never have. You're so entrenched in your own prejudices that > you forget to read. > > > Really? Here are YOUR words. "AG, the key point is that the observable > universe is just a finite portion of an infinite whole. As we go back in > time, the observable region contracts because the horizon of what we can > see shrinks, but the entire universe remains infinite." Later, you took a > more objective view. AG > > > Quentin > > > > Observations are consistent with both possibilities. If it is infinite, > then it has always been infinite, and the observable region shrinking as we > go back in time is just a consequence of our causal horizon contracting, > not the entire universe shrinking. If it is finite, then its total volume > could decrease over time. > > This isn’t about opinion, it’s about following the logical consequences of > each assumption. If you’re struggling with that distinction, that’s on you. > > > > Le mer. 26 févr. 2025, 11:38, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 4:29:13 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, the key point is that the observable universe is just a finite portion > of an infinite whole. As we go back in time, the observable region > contracts because the horizon of what we can see shrinks, but the entire > universe remains infinite. > > Why does the unobservable part remain infinite? Because spatial infinity > doesn’t depend on what we can observe. If the universe was infinite at one > moment, it stays infinite—shrinking only applies to what is within our > causal past, not the entire space. > > The density increases everywhere, meaning in any finite region—including > our observable universe—matter gets packed into a smaller space. But an > infinite universe still has no overall “volume”, so it never “shrinks,” > only becomes denser. > > The dichotomy isn’t a contradiction, it’s a consequence of causal > horizons—our observable universe is just a window into an infinite cosmos. > > > And you know that how? How did you conclude it's infinite, other than > having an opinion? AG > > > Quentin > > Le mer. 26 févr. 2025, 11:08, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 3:51:50 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, your statement "density can't diverge unless volume goes to zero" > assumes a finite volume, which doesn’t apply in an infinite universe. In an > infinite universe, density can increase indefinitely everywhere without > requiring a total volume to shrink. > > > I was explicit, that the observable universe shrinks, but according to you > and Brent the unobservable part remains infinite. I can't imagine such a > dichotomy. AG > > > Brent is correct that the observable universe (the region we can see) > shrinks as we go back in time, but that doesn’t mean the entire universe > (including the unobservable part) does the same. > > > Why not? Is that just your opinion, or something demonstrable? AG > > The observable universe is just a region within an infinite space, and as > we go back in time, the light cone that defines what we can observe gets > smaller. > > If the entire universe is infinite, its total volume remains infinite at > all times > > > OK. AG > > > —but its density can still increase without bound. > > > Density of what region? AG > > There’s no contradiction. > > > The contradiction is the dichotomy between the behavior of the two > regions. AG > > > Quentin > > Le mer. 26 févr. 2025, 10:47, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 3:33:55 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mer. 26 févr. 2025, 10:24, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 1:22:21 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 25, 2025 at 10:07:41 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 2/25/2025 7:59 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 25, 2025 at 6:40:35 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 2/25/2025 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 25, 2025 at 12:46:46 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: > > I think all cosmologist, like Hartle, recognize that *the observable > universe* was much smaller in the past. Which is perfectly compatible > with *the universe* be spacially flat and infinite. > > Brent > > > I fully anticipated that response. But why would the observable universe > behave radically different from the entire principle, particularly in light > of the Cosmological Principle? AG > > It's not radically different. It's different in exactly the way that > finite subsets of infinite sets behave. > > Brent > > > But if the observable universe contracts to zero volume, the entire > universe has a singularity, which is inherently contradictory. So, the > model is, to say the least, inconsistent. AG > > It's not contradictory or inconsistent, it's unphysical, i.e. it can't be > physically realized; which just means the theory of general relativity > doesn't work there. This is not a surprise since GR is not a quantum > theory and if you're concerned with a subatomic scale region you'll > probably need a quantum theory. > > Brent > > > My conjecture is that there's a fifth force, repulsive in Nature, that > prevents the mass of a high mass collapsing star to reach zero volume. AG > > > I don't imagine a quantum theory. More important, I can't grasp the idea > of the observable universe contracting to zero or near zero volume as we go > backward in time, while the unobservable universe remains infinite in > spatial extent. Can you grasp it? Can you explain it? AG > > > As I've explained already, it's not that the volume goes to zero, but > density that goes to infinity, everywhere, there is no valid notion of > volume in an infinite universe. > > Quentin > > > Density can't diverge unless volume goes to zero. FWIW, Brent thinks the > observable universe shrinks to zero or near zero as we go backward in time, > while the unobservable part remains infinite. 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d8ecca7d-0eb5-4222-b5e4-f77fc76465c4n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d8ecca7d-0eb5-4222-b5e4-f77fc76465c4n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/536d62ff-ee43-4d47-a7bf-1ccbcdf840cen%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/536d62ff-ee43-4d47-a7bf-1ccbcdf840cen%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAqXLFAa88aNsOh%2B1t_4_Uv8Xrzup09vGY4z7oB-Cx1VoQ%40mail.gmail.com.
