David Handeye wrote:Hi everybody, Consider universe as infinite. This means it has no beginning, no ending, no borders, no center. In every point you will be in it, you will have infinite points in front of you, infinite points behind you, infinite points below you, inifinite points above you, you will have inifinite points everywhere around you, so that you'll be the center of the universe. If you go on the Moon, you'll be in the same conditions, so that in an infinite universe there are infinite centers at any time, not none. But center can be only one, so infinite centers infinite universes. But infinite has neither beginning nor ending, so there can't be even two infinites, and universe can't be infinite.
infinite - adj. immeasurable.
immeasurable - adj. incapable of being measured; indefinitely extensive.
universe - n. cosmos; world.
An infinite universe apparently lacks a specific size, magnitude, quantity, etc. How it is immeasurable in that regard is left to those who claim it is an infinite universe. They might sport anything from "because it is continuously growing" to "it constantly fluctuates between higher and lower values or limitations" to "the edges curl into higher dimensions, singularities, nested crinkliness, etc". Which then becomes a matter of whether or not the fallout of their explanation / clarification results in a cosmos that still coincides with an ascription of being immeasurable or does not contradict that designation.
It does not seem quite fitting that any world which is vastly great but still completed / settled (not a continuing process of adding / subtracting units of _x_) and thus measurable in theory, if not practice, should elude the classification of finite. Supposedly this universe is not static or immutable or definite when it comes to measurement ("for yata, yata, yata reasons" --infinite universe advocates), if the infinite universe advocates are to have a case of it being immeasurable.