Einstein on the train

[Scott Mayers]

What you are describing is a BOUNDED, not an infinite universe.

Hilbert's Hotel, anyone? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert ... rand_Hotel

Yes, I was trying to remember whose paradox it was.

For logik, "bounded" includes infinities. They are those "infinitesimals" bound between any two points. That is how mathematical Calculus uses the meaning of 'bounded' intervals. If you hold the Universe 'constant', any infinite space in it is infinitesimally bound. Hilbert's Hotel is a 'finite' bound concept but the rooms are infinite as well as the act of moving individuals from one room to the next when adding new guests from outside.

[-1-]

And can an infinite universe expand infinitely?

This is a purely geometrical question, but our minds are now focussed on what's happening in reality.

I think the crux is the "event horizon". If Einstein was right, and the speed of light is the maximum attainable speed, then the matter in the expanding universe we observe and know,

Is the Universe, you observe and know, expanding?

If yes, then what evidence do you have to support this observation and knowing?

must stop expanding once its speed of displacement attains the speed of light.

If, however, Einstein was not all that right, and I have no way to prove this, nor a wish or motivation to prove this, and in fact things (matter) can obtain speeds larger or faster than the speed of light, then we can't make any claims as to what happens on the other side of the event horizon.

Thanks for asking this question, Age. The answer to your question I wrote in a thread which can be found at this URL:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26470&p=405490#p405490

Please read the opening post of it. Not the later bitching by Logik and by me.

[Age]

...and I need you to respond to url=viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26163&start=150#p405034]the understanding infinities of infinities[/url] challenge as it relates to everything of your congested questions.

Why do you NEED me to respond to that?

But, if you really NEED me to respond, then I will.

What is the challenge, exactly?

The question I posed was: HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

So, HOW does explaining the understanding of the infinities of infinities, which is in relation to numbers, help you to answer the question HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway? Either you can answer that question or you can NOT.

My question is in relation to IF the Universe is infinite, which means FOREVER MORE, then HOW could that GET BIGGER?

You don't understand how the math relates to the reality.

And you base that knowing on what exactly?

It is based on a 'continuous' space, whether real or virtual. (math or real space)

This has just about nothing to do with what I am thinking.

If between any two integers, like 0 and 1, has an infinity of numbers, in real space the continuity of dividing it is also infinite. The same is true of a consecutive integral space, like between 1 and 2. Yet between 0 and 2, there is also an infinity of division, yet it is ALSO 2 times the infinity of the space between only a unit integer space.

Again not much to do with my view.

Thus you have a REAL space that has MORE than one simple infinity. This proves how you CAN still FIND more space than any given 'infinity' at some point in time.

Besides that this has not much to do with my view, convoluting FINDING "more" space, than any given 'infinity', at some point of 'time', is so far removed from my view that I think this best left alone, completely.

The concept of infinities is DYNAMIC. The question of any "origins" is a question of dynamics because you require a time and space either to POP into sudden existence from nothing or be infinitely expanding NOT from an actual origin but a perceived one, similar to how real parallel railway tracks 'appear' to join at a point in a distance.

I do NOT require any such thing proposed here.

Do you even KNOW what my view IS?

If yes, then please clarify.
If no, then do be it.

Now, given your hostility towards me from the start, the religious assumption of you is valid

Is it?

because you are resisting not only Will's NORMAL SCIENTIFIC explanation but my own in support of a prior theory,

Am I?

both of which are the limiting possibility types of 'origin' explanations given what we observe. You can't contest an 'origin' of space AND one that is infinite (non-origin type) of a Steady State explanation without expecting this contradiction to be answered EXTRA-SPACIAL, like that there is some greater world YOU KNOW that is sufficient to 'cause' our universe.

You are so removed from my view that even if the Universe is infinite you could NOT be further from what my actual view IS.

Those ASSUMPTIONS are leading so far afield from me and my view.

Thus, you MUST be attempting to pre-stage a religious argument FOR this 'extra-spacial' (and extra-special) origin. If you are not, then please tell me,

I Am NOT. Please tell me that you HEARD that.

Do you believe an 'origin' to our Universe AND yet also believe our space to be 'infinite'?

How many times do I have to tell you people. I neither believe or disbelieve ANY thing. Please tell me you heard this.

And how many times do I have to write: To me, the Universe is eternal AND infinite. This, OBVIOUSLY, means that what I SEE is A Universe WITHOUT an origin.

If so, you are precisely of the original Big Bang theorists position to which Fred Hoyle was insulting for an instantaneous creation of our Universe (as infinite now) without physical causation. The only alternative left is for you to hold the 'static' interpretation if this is NOT about some religious idea you have.

LOL The "only" alternative left ...

You make me laugh.

Did you have any idea what my view is BEFORE I told once again my view is just now.

The 'static' interpretation was a secular interpretation that is rational without an origin in space nor time. While it doesn't require a religious belief, it treated both time and space coexisting in the same way as the Steady State explanation.

Who cares?

This has just about nothing at all to do with my view.

However, if you are faithful of some 'origin' at all, you deny time itself as being infinite but not space, space to be infinite but not time, or both space and time to be DEFINED from some external 'cause' via a super-physical factor beyond our capacity to witness using physics alone.

You are getting further and further away from my view.

Which is it?

Absolutely NONE of them.

It is a significant prerequisite YOU need in order to qualify for understanding anything you doubt.

But what do I doubt?

You are doubting ALL the possible physical theories it appears.

Am I?

It amazes me how you say you KNOW what thoughts are within this body, YET you appear to have absolutely NO idea what my ACTUAL thoughts ARE.

While skepticism is a good thing, you are hiding some motivational reason for it OR would be investing in every effort to understand AT LEAST how the present science has determined that expansion is occurring. [/quote]

Two MORE things you say that I am doing YET if I was to ask you, What am I hiding? AND what do you say I do NOT understand about how present science has determined that expansion is occurring?

Until we SEE if you are able to answer these, or not, let me remind you I EXPLAINED the very REASON WHY human beings SAY that the Universe is expanding.

The Universe is either infinite in size or finite. As far as I can SEE there is NO limit/boundary/edge to the Universe.

If you can SEE or KNOW of any limit/boundary/edge or finite to the Universe, then just say what this IS/COULD BE.

Also, IF you could explain HOW an infinite Universe could get bigger, then please just say that as well.

Infinities of infinities, especially in relation to things like numbers, really does NOT have much to do with some thing like the Universe Itself.

If infinite, how do YOU determine this for merely not 'seeing' it? If finite, it could still be too large for you to 'see' it. Why aren't you claiming an 'agnostic' position?

Because I do NOT know what is an 'agnostic' position, from your perspective, is.

I already trust the infinite universe and only differ from the Big Bang interpretation as to an 'origin' in space or time, personally.[/quote]

You are FREE to 'trust' whatever you want to trust.

If you are only questioning how you can get MORE out of what it already infinite, you are assuming that the infinite size is 'finite' at all times in the same way the distance between 0 and 1 is 'finite' as a whole, yet can be still be divided 'infinitely'.

You are so FAR from the Truth that this is becoming more funny the further we go into it.

You'd then have to also ask yourself how anything in our local world is 'finite' in the same way.

Why would I ask myself about anything that is NOT even in my view?

After all, some universe CAN logically fit on the head of a pin if its own structures are infinitesimally divisible.

But, from my perspective, there is only One Universe.

And if this simple math challenge is beyond you, then therein lies your confusion.

I did NOT even see what the math challenge was. Therefore, the math challenge must be beyond me, so WHERE is my confusion exactly?

And, what has my confusion, about a math challenge, got to do with you answering, or NOT answering; HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

If you understand the math part, at least you can understand that when relating real measures, there are infinities upon infinities that rationally explain how expansion CAN be a possibility.

If a thing, which is made up of matter AND space is infinite, then how could that expanding?

Your supposed math challenge AND real measures really do NOT have much to do with what my view actually IS.

YOUR numbers, literally, do NOT add up. "Infinities of infinities" MAY explain how numbers and/or space CAN expand, but that REALLY has nothing whatsoever to with what I am talking about, which IS the Universe, Itself.

If you cannot even understand the logical problem about infinite MEASURES, you cannot even assert even an infinite universe let alone a finite one.

But I can.

I have done it already.

That is, if YOU WANT an answer, you need to first understand HOW it is even possible to express reality in mathematical modeling. Then you need to agree to the convention of using models with mathematics and logic to communicate what we observe in common.

If I WANT an answer or not, then this has NO bearing whatsoever on if you just explain with english words HOW an eternal AND infinite Universe could expand.

I gave you a model (that illustration) which I thought helped express your concern.

I have already EXPLAINED that YOUR illustration may or may NOT help. But from what I have SEEN it does NOT and could NOT help my view. By the way I have NO concerns.

That IF we imagine an infinitely BOUND universe as a whole

I can NOT imagine a BOUNDED infinity.

(like how the integers can have an an infinite division of parts in them), then any 'expansion' is identical to the components in them to be 'compressing' infinitely.

That might be the case IF you can imagine what you proposed above, which I can NOT imagine.

This suffices to model what you are thinking.

NOT AT ALL.

If the red squares that represent matter are just replaced with spaces they occupy, then the model shows that the space it occupies 'shrinks' if you look at the universe as one WHOLE. I don't know how to even represent what your thinking if you won't agree to some means to model what you mean in some mathematical or logical way.

What is illogical about what my view is?

Are you sure you even KNOW what my ACTUAL view IS?

[Age]

What game do you think I am playing?

And, what are you skeptic about exactly?

That you are acting 'skeptical' but appearing to simultaneously not be by your choice to deny any position as even potentially possible without proving them impossible as a potential yourself as well as:

So, you are skeptical about that I may be acting "skeptical", is this correct?

If yes, but then you also think that I am also appearing not to being 'skeptical', is this correct?

If yes, then that is SOME assuming going on here.

If no, to both or either of them, then what is correct?

If you Truly WANT to KNOW what I am doing, then WHY NOT just ask me, instead?

By the way from my understanding I do NOT see how any of the so called "positions" in relation to the Universe, Itself, could work. I am curious to SEE how they could so that is WHY I ask clarifying questions.

Of course because of the way I LOOK AT things, to me, the "current" positions on the Universe are potentially possible. BUT first some one would NEED to be able to explain HOW the Universe, when defined as ALL-THERE-IS, could 'start', and HOW it could start from nothing, or from some thing, would NEED to be explained also. When that is sufficiently explained, then we can move on to the so called "expansion" part. I will then explain HOW the FACTS as expressed in the book do NOT add up to a so called "expansion", and then I will move on to asking HOW an edge/boundary/et cetera could BE to a so called "finite" universe AND WHAT it could be made up of. When that is sufficiently explained, then I will ask WHERE that possibly could be, and if explained sufficiently enough, then I will ask WHAT exactly is on the "other" side of that boundary/edge/et cetera, as well as ask WHY is 'that', which is proposed to be on the "other" side, NOT also part of ALL-THERE-IS, and then ask WHERE does this "other side" stop/finish/et cetera?

If ANY of these can NOT be explained efficiently enough, then I will propose that there is ANOTHER view, which can explain ALL-OF-THIS SUFFICIENTLY enough. I will also say IF any one is Truly interested enough, then I can EXPLAIN ALL-OF-THIS to them.

I don't assume anything of you either.

Are you SURE?

But you posited a comment that suggested you HAD some theory, if anyone would care to ask.

I did NOT intent to suggest that I HAD some "theory". I intended to say; That I HAVE a VIEW, instead.

If you do but lack understanding of the regular science involved, what else is there left but some non-scientific theory you have?

One does NOT need to "understand" the so called "regular science" involved, from YOUR perspective, to HAVE a VIEW.

If my VIEW is WRONG, then so be it. Just point out the WRONG in it. But I suggest first gain a perspective of my VIEW BEFORE you make any ASSUMPTION at all.

Could it be possible that a VIEW of the Universe, may be correct, which is just based on the understanding that that ONE HAS of the so called "regular science" involved, and NOT necessarily have the exact same "understanding" that you may HAVE?

Also just because you have a particular "understanding" of a particular thing, which you use to back up and support YOUR own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS does NOT mean that YOUR "understanding" of things is necessarily CORRECT.

I'm going to try to explain how space can expand realistically but need to determine HOW you think first.

Listen to me this time. I do NOT care IF 'space' can expand or not. I have NEVER asked how could 'space' expand. I explained this to you previously.

Tell me that you have now determined HOW I think. Tell me what you HEARD, this time. I WANT to make sure that you have determined these thoughts CORRECTLY.

We are talking about the Universe expanding and NOT space expanding. 'Space' is only ONE part of the Universe. (Well to me space is a part of the Universe, and a fundamental part. But to some, however, the Universe is NOT even made up of space. To them space has NO place in the Universe.)

If I can't present a model you cannot agree to first about how you may be thinking with charity, the onus is on you to posit your model of what you think is your normal model of reality.

The VERY REASON we are discussing here is because I HAVE posited MY VIEW previously of what I SEE. That is; The Universe exists, infinitely AND eternally.

Are you ABLE to comprehend this VIEW?

If yes, then great.
If no, then WHY NOT?

If you avoid the potential religious theory,

I do NOT even know what the "potential religious theory" is. What is the "potential religious theory" that you know of?

I need a shareable understanding of what you think by giving your own proposed explanation of WHAT you see as normal about space and time.

Okay. I just did that. Along with the OTHER TIMES I SHARED MY VIEW PREVIOUSLY.

Does it have a beginning in your view? (a time origin)

OF COURSE NOT.

Have you been READING the words that I have been writing?

If so, can we have a finite origin but not a finite end?
Given if you think space infinite, can time be finite?

Any thing is possible. But my answer is NO, NOT yes.

By the way I do NOT think space infinite.

You have TRIED TO say this many times previously AND many times previously I have questioned you about you saying this.

To me, the Universe is eternal and infinite.
To me, the Universe is made up of space AND matter.

Does this NEED to be elaborated on and/or explained in MORE detail for you to comprehend what I am saying?

If no, then great. If what I just wrote is WRONG in any way, shape, or form, then PLEASE explain WHY.
If yes, I do NEED to elaborate and/or explain MORE, then WHAT clarifying questions do you WANT answered.

[Age]

An expanding infinite universe is of course a logical impossibility, someone here is making even Age look smart. Drawing a parallel between the infinity of the universe (which is a "real" infinite) and the various infinites of mathematics (which are made-up concepts) is pure nonsense.

A "real" infinite that isn't conceptual ?

Since you have access to "reality" through approximately the same faculties as all humans - which God revealed that "real infinite truth" to you?

I think this it the crux of the argument that I think Age was referring to and why I am likely the one Alta may be referring to?

If something is hard to determine as 'real', we need something locally real to model. As for infinities, all we can compare locally to is infinitesimals as a model.

The ancients used the thought experiment of dividing something in half without limits. Some believed this could go on forever while others believed if this division pointed to a real nothing as a limit, then either nothing could exist for being made up of an infinite nothings, OR there IS some finite 'size' (atom) OR, a third way, that we can never know nor decide for the fact that both models are unable to be proven realistically.

'Infinities' are dynamic expressions, not actual finite realities as a 'static' factor. But we also have BOUND infinities, such as the infinitesimals between any two points we define as 'fixed'. So if we treat the ACT of dividing the infinitesimal space, this is indifferent to thinking the infinite time it would take to divide an infinitesimal space is a type of infinite action of an infinite space. Thus the ACT of expansion is the nature of things that change IN and infinite space infinitely in time as well.

If given all the possibilities plus the fact that we cannot logically decide (incompleteness, undecidable limits) then even the reality is itself limited from complete certainty when given multiple possibilities where each is not decidable with absolute certainty. Yet we still trust 'causation' as a local experience. Thus we trust that even if we do not KNOW the particular answer, we know it is certain that at least one of the possibilities exhausted to which we cannot decide is still the case but indeterminate because of our limitations only.

Instead of going down some path, which leads to NOT LOOKING AT the question posed, which is; How can an infinite Universe expand?, WHY NOT just LOOK AT this question, from the VIEW I posed. That is; A Universe, which is infinite in size?

[Age]

STOP implying that you do NOT make assumptions, or that you make "efforts" to "avoid" making assumptions, when the opposite is obviously True.

Age, this is what assumptions look like:

I KNOW, and that is WHY I wrote this below like this. I WANT to be questioned AND challenged. I am trying different ways to find out what works and what does NOT work in order so that I GET questioned AND challenged. This was just another way. I was wondering; If I write what I ASSUME, then that MIGHT evoke the response that I WANT? It seems to have worked.

The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.

You will note that they are your own that you have arrived at by ignoring the evidence generated by the most powerful observational tools ever built,

I will note that they are my own ASSUMPTIONS. But it is YOUR ASSUMPTION that I arrived at them by "ignoring the evidence generated by the most powerful observational tools every built". Agreed?

It is, and was, from the EVIDENCE from those TOOLS that back up and support what I write here. That is; IF you ever cared to become informed about this. Your own book even provided MORE EVIDENCE for my ASSUMPTIONS here. By the way all I have to do is take out the words "The actual Truth IS", and then they are NOT assumptions but only just my VIEWS.

Anyways, the so called "conclusions" you, and "others", are arriving at are due to your own previously held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. You, and them, are MISINTERPRETING the "evidence from those tools" to back up and support the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that you already hold.

and the opinion of the thousands of scientists with the education and intellect to interpret the findings.

LOL the "interpretations" that THOUSANDS of "yous" ARE distorted because of ALL of YOUR own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which you will NOT let go of. How many times do I have to repeat this OBVIOUS FACT before it becomes CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD?

Instead you apparently believe

How many times do I have to tell you that I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY THING before you can comprehend and UNDERSTAND this FACT?

that your ability to "SEE" is more reliable than all that hardware and brainpower.

If my ABILITY to SEE is NOT more reliable than all that hardware and brainpower, then that SHOULD BE a very SIMPLE and EASY thing for ALL of that hardware and/or brainpower to SHOW and PROVE where my VIEW is WRONG or partly wrong. There is after all THOUSANDS of brains, which you are implying KNOW what is actually true and right. So, WHY do some of those brains NOT POINT OUT and SHOW where my VIEW/S are WRONG, that is; if any of the brains THINK/BELIEVE that my VIEW is WRONG anywhere?

I purposely wrote:
The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.

To evoke a response and also to put some thing forward that SHOULD BE so SIMPLE and EASY to prove False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. So, now go right ahead and do this. That is; IF you can.

The "evidence" you say that says that the Universe is expanding is the actual EVIDENCE that supports what I say and opposes the expansion theory.

Not only do you provide no evidence that any of your assumptions are true,

No one has challenged me nor asked me ANY clarifying questions YET, so I have NOT found it necessary to provide any evidence. Although I specifically INVITE people to challenge me and question me, this rarely ever happens. You have also stated that the Universe IS expanding and therefore started. So, if this is the Truth, as you have expressed it as, then there could be NO evidence to show otherwise.

I do NOT need to provide any evidence for what I wrote as the Truth stands on its own. If, however, there appears to be any thing WRONG here in what I write and/or any inconsistencies any one can SEE, then just simply POINT THEM OUT, and then I KNOW what NEEDS to be explained better and/or in more detail. But as I keep reminding people if there are BELIEFS already, then absolutely NOTHING can show and/or prove otherwise.

You BELIEVE that the Universe is expanding and started, right?

Until I am challenged and/ or questioned, then what I wrote here stands up all by Its Self.

but you include assumptions that are mutually exclusive. Either "The Universe is made up of two fundamental things..." or "The Universe is one thing..." - it can't be both.

LOL Still NO question. Just an ASSUMPTION and a BELIEF on your part that you KNOW what IS True, Right, and Correct, correct?

This can be SO EASILY explained BUT because NO clarifying questions are asked I do NOT know what it is exactly, which is puzzling to you.

The two, by the way, are NOT mutually exclusive at all. The Universe has many 'paradoxes', which appear to be seemingly absurd or contradictory statements, or propositions, but which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

ONLY WHEN you start to investigate/ask clarifying questions, then what APPEARS seemingly absurd, contradictory, or mutually exclusive, to you, may in fact prove to be well founded on the actual and real Truth.

Until then you will NEVER know and just keep on continuing to ASSUME and BELIEVE that you already KNOW what is true, right, and/or correct.

Now, be a good boy, stop wasting everyone's time and tell us how you know "The Universe did NOT have a beginning", or, as I suggested earlier, fuck off.

Finally. A clarifying question.

Because IF the Universe could come from nothing, or from some thing, then that could be explained. If the Universe could come from either, then HOW COULD THIS EVEN BE POSSIBLE? Until any sort of reasonable answer is given, then I SEE A Universe without beginning, and that is one way HOW I KNOW the Universe did NOT have a beginning.

Another way I KNOW is because light diminishes over time, or distance, so there is NO way of KNOWING what IS actually out past earth. The vastness is unknown. Therefore, the actual extend of a finite Universe will NEVER be KNOWN.To put a limit on the Universe is only to STOP LOOKING AT what COULD BE.

The answers to: WHAT is that limit to a finite universe? HOW that boundary/limit could even exist? WHAT is on the "other" side of that limit/boundary are YET to be answered in any reasonable way. So, IF there is NO reasonable answers to HOW the Universe could be finite in size nor have a beginning, then from what I SEE, and thus KNOW, the Universe did NOT have a beginning. The FACTS from ALL the human made tools POINT to this also.

There are many other explanations, backed up by your OWN facts within your own book, making this KNOWING stronger also. But only through being asked clarifying questions do I then KNOW what is being Truly sought. If I am NOT asked clarifying questions, then either people already KNOW what the answers are, agree with and accept what I am saying, could NOT be bothered asking, just ASSUME and BELIEVE otherwise, or some thing else.

[Age]

Wow, you were holding your temper in well for a long time!

It's a gift.

I'm anticipating he might respond with, "How did you determine that I'm a 'boy'? Why don't you ask me instead of assuming?"

Well, the way he/she/it keeps referring to others as "you humans", I wouldn't be surprised if Age claimed to be a mushroom.

We might be too harsh on him/her though. Obviously Age is investing in communicating and the problems of understanding reality as a whole are hard questions. I'm trying to be fair in understanding where (s)he is coming from.

Point taken, but there are only so many times you can be told you are wrong because you are 'close-minded' or making 'assumptions' when you have jumped through hoops to show neither is so.

May I ask if the illustration I provided at least makes you think of what his/her position of disagreement may lie with (external to potential religious theories (s)he may be speaking about, of course)?

I gather you mean something like this: https://dailygalaxy.com/2016/02/an-alte ... d-feature/ Who knows? It seems entirely possible and I'm all for challenging orthodoxy. My own issues with the big bang are 'inflation' - seems a bit ad hoc, and the implication that while 'space' is expanding, the 'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.' to cite Erwin Schrodinger, are not. My own hypothesis has something of the steady state about it, in that I think it is conceivable that fundamental particles are, if you like, whirlpools and eddies in this expanding 'space', as outlined in chapters 4 and 6.

I'm uncertain (s)he understood the representational example. But maybe you might have some alternative model expressing this to his/her understanding better? I'm hoping my last post may be one, but the problem is not limited to his/her understanding alone.

No indeed, but anyone who claims the universe is easy, or obvious, clearly hasn't bothered to look at it.

Or JUST MAYBE they HAVE LOOKED AT It from a relatively different perspective that human beings tend to LOOK from?

And from that perspective the Universe, Itself, is Truly SIMPLE and EASY to understood. The 'Universe', that is which includes how human beings, themselves, work also, which was discovered by finding out how the Mind and the brain actually work to. The MORE that is discovered and learned the EASY and SIMPLER ALL things become.

Instead of ASSUMING and BELIEVING things like; IF some one says some thing, then that means they CLEARLY HAVE NOT BOTHERED to do some thing IS TRUE, and instead become and remain OPEN, then you WILL SEE what the actual Truth IS.

[Age]

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.

What evidence is there that the Universe did not have a beginning ?

If EVERY action causes a reaction, then there is NO beginning.

If the answer to; What evidence is there that the Universe had a beginning? is given, then I might be able to SHOW how that is WRONG.

What evidence is there that the Universe is not expanding ?

Light diminishes over distance so the so called "limit" of a finite and/or expanding Universe can NEVER been SEEN. If a limit can NEVER be SEEN, then there is NO reason to ASSUME the Universe is finite, nor thus expand, in the first place. Only a finite Universe could expand.

Is there any evidence of how an infinite Universe could expand?

There is NO sound, valid argument/explanation of how the Universe could begin, be finite, nor be expanding. If the FACTS about the red shift are true in the book in discussion here then that is more observational evidence that the Universe is NOT expanding. But anyway, there is a sound, valid argument/explanation for how the Universe could be infinite AND eternal. A sound, valid argument is an ambiguous Truth, which can NOT be refuted. That is all the evidence that is needed. Further observations will then falsify the finite, beginning, expanding universe theory.

What two fundamental things have always co existed ?

Space AND matter. Always have AND always will, in all ways. This resolves any so called "infinity of infinities" problem/s.

What two things are quarks and electrons made from ?

I do not know, which type of quark are you referring to here exactly?

What two things are quarks and electrons made from?

[Age]

On that last sample, it tried to show an ever increasing rhythm which I felt is not as good. I originally heard the first such audio paradoxes from Wikipedia. Here is the Wikipedia link to the ever increasing rhythm which is better: Risset Accelerando

These were only meant to show THAT the concepts are 'possible' in reality, not merely of abstract math. I also should have pointed out in the last post that the characters I used as 'real' for a count has to also include the ACT of counting as 'real' in time. That is the infinity of infinities. That you can have one unique infinite history of reality may be trusted by you as a default. But you should be able to question whether that particular history is also itself 'uniquely' sufficient to dismiss ALL possible infinity of different histories.

In respect to your thinking on this (that coincides with Age's), I share an agreement of the problem but that this CAN occur when we have any types of interpretation of reality that treats time and space IN SYNC with each other. If we have a REAL train track that loops around a perfectly spherical planet, the lines of the two rails appear to converge to a point in the distance. If I tried to trace the track to seek some 'end' of it, I cannot find one in any amount of time. We can image allowing for a marker to place down as some means to determine if we made one loop, but cannot do this if the circumference is itself infinite. In this way, space is itself can be infinite but we can question whether the convergence we deem as 14 Billion years in time to that singularity is actually just an illusion or not. As such, we cannot say whether space/time is actually finite, infinite, NOR one infinite of an infinite infinites. That is we can't rule out expansion as a default position without doubting even ANY infinity. Expansion is thus equally as conjecturally as weak or strong as any static infinity. And of course, if the 'distance' in time is finite, our perception is still limited to some finite apparent convergence in time regardless. Thus we cannot even determine if space is FINITELY limited if our space is sufficiently big enough.

(side note @ logik given shared conversations: notice the similarity to the precondition of the limit problems as stating the condition of a system that is 'sufficient' to include all arithmetic? Here the sufficient comparison in reality is IF the finite distance is great enough, the apparent completeness of the apparent convergence of the lines that represent something 'complete' is needed. Otherwise, in some finite limits, we CAN determine whether the illusion of tracks converging is or is not true.)

Not sure what you are commenting on, I only said that an expanding infinity is logically impossible. Because an infinite universe can't get any bigger, it's already infinite. In fact any change in "size" or any change at all is logically impossible.

Just to make sure that my VIEW does NOT get entangled with this. I SEE an infinite Universe can NOT change is size, BUT can very EASILY and DOES CHANGE in shape and form.

I don't entirely rule out anything however, because maybe the world is a-logical / insane / works by magic / whatever.

[Age]

An infinite universe can't get any bigger, it's already infinite.

What you are describing is a BOUNDED, not an infinite universe.

infinity + 1 > infinity

finity + 1 = error

From what I see, saying; "A BOUNDED universe" is describing a 'bounded universe' while saying; "An infinite Universe" is describing an 'infinite Universe'. So, HOW and WHY is saying; "An 'infinite Universe' can not get any bigger, It is already infinite" supposedly is describing a BOUNDED universe, and NOT describing an infinite Universe?

[Age]

What you are describing is a BOUNDED, not an infinite universe.

Hilbert's Hotel, anyone? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert ... rand_Hotel

What has some hotel got to do with an infinite Universe expanding or not?

Either an infinite Universe COULD expand or It could NOT.

I ask HOW could an infinite Universe expand? And, if any one knows how an infinite Universe COULD expand, then please go ahead and explain HOW.

[Logik]

From what I see, saying; "A BOUNDED universe" is describing a 'bounded universe' while saying; "An infinite Universe" is describing an 'infinite Universe'. So, HOW and WHY is saying; "An 'infinite Universe' can not get any bigger, It is already infinite" supposedly is describing a BOUNDED universe, and NOT describing an infinite Universe?

uwot posted a link to Hilbert's Hotel.

If the hotel argument doesn't make sense to you then I can use the metaphor of an infinitely tall glass to convey the same concept.

How much water can you put in an infinitely tall glass? Obviously - an volume of water.

Can you put one more drop in an infinitely tall glass? Yes.
Can an infinitely tall glass ever overflow? No.

Because you can add more and more drops of water and because it can't overflow an infinite object can expand infinitely.

[Age]

And can an infinite universe expand infinitely?

This is a purely geometrical question, but our minds are now focussed on what's happening in reality.

I think the crux is the "event horizon". If Einstein was right, and the speed of light is the maximum attainable speed, then the matter in the expanding universe we observe and know,

Is the Universe, you observe and know, expanding?

If yes, then what evidence do you have to support this observation and knowing?

must stop expanding once its speed of displacement attains the speed of light.

If, however, Einstein was not all that right, and I have no way to prove this, nor a wish or motivation to prove this, and in fact things (matter) can obtain speeds larger or faster than the speed of light, then we can't make any claims as to what happens on the other side of the event horizon.

Thanks for asking this question, Age. The answer to your question I wrote in a thread which can be found at this URL:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26470&p=405490#p405490

Please read the opening post of it. Not the later bitching by Logik and by me.

Okay. Not sure why you sent me to the "bitching" part when you could have send me directly to the opening post instead, but anyway; The uniform increase of speed as a function of increased distance between two points is the geometrical proof of an expanding universe Is the evidence that supports what 'you' observe and know, correct?

What came first, for you, the expanding Universe that you observe and know, or, the evidence that the Universe is expanding?

Also, I observe and know of a different Universe. But this might be because I LOOK AT and OBSERVE the WHOLE picture and NOT just LOOK AT and OBSERVE a part of the picture.

[Age]

From what I see, saying; "A BOUNDED universe" is describing a 'bounded universe' while saying; "An infinite Universe" is describing an 'infinite Universe'. So, HOW and WHY is saying; "An 'infinite Universe' can not get any bigger, It is already infinite" supposedly is describing a BOUNDED universe, and NOT describing an infinite Universe?

uwot posted a link to Hilbert's Hotel.

If the hotel argument doesn't make sense to you then I can use the metaphor of an infinitely tall glass to convey the same concept.

How much water can you put in an infinitely tall glass? Obviously - an volume of water.

Can you put one more drop in an infinitely tall glass? Yes.
Can an infinitely tall glass ever overflow? No.

Because you can add more and more drops of water and because it can't overflow an infinite object can expand infinitely.

BUT the object, itself, (hotel/glass/Universe) does NOT expand. It is ALREADY infinite.

Just because you can keep adding more of any thing, water or people, to some thing that is ALREADY infinite has NO bearing on the FACT that an infinite thing can NOT get bigger.

Obviously, IF some thing is ALREADY infinite, then it can NOT expand, grow, or get bigger, logically.

That hotel argument/paradox, just like ALL the other ones, human beings discuss as though they make sense, ALL get misconstrued just BECAUSE of a few of the words within them.

Just like in this example given. Just because MORE people/water are being added to the thing in question does NOT mean that the thing itself is expanding, getting bigger, or becoming MORE, also.

Some times the forest can NOT be SEEN just because of a few trees.

[Logik]

BUT the object, itself, (hotel/glass/Universe) does NOT expand. It is ALREADY infinite.

Just because you can keep adding more of any thing, water or people, to some thing that is ALREADY infinite has NO bearing on the FACT that an infinite thing can NOT get bigger.

Obviously, IF some thing is ALREADY infinite, then it can NOT expand, grow, or get bigger, logically.

That hotel argument/paradox, just like ALL the other ones, human beings discuss as though they make sense, ALL get misconstrued just BECAUSE of a few of the words within them.

Just like in this example given. Just because MORE people/water are being added to the thing in question does NOT mean that the thing itself is expanding, getting bigger, or becoming MORE, also.

Some times the forest can NOT be SEEN just because of a few trees.

*sigh* So you have focused on the hotel, not on its occupancy. OK

Lets skip the dualism and your silly shenanigans and boil it down to Maths.

Is this true or false: ∞ + 1 > ∞