On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 11:50:09 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, you’re trying to rewrite your position while accusing me of having an agenda. You initially claimed an infinite universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang. That’s not "just not generally accepted"—it’s wrong. An infinite universe can still be extremely hot and dense everywhere. Now you’re arguing that a finite universe is more plausible. That’s a completely different claim. Changing your position is fine, but pretending you didn’t is dishonest. If you had simply said, "I think a finite universe is more likely," we wouldn’t have been debating this at all. You're really are an incorrigible asshole. I explicitly stated that I changed my position, in response to your replies! No dishonesty except in your perverted imagination. I told you the truth, but you refuse to accept it. The truth is that your replies showed me that my original claim about a contradiction was too extreme, so I consciously changed my position. That's really all there is to it, but because of your agenda, you just can't accept it and continue with your baseless, juvenile accusations. AG Your claim that a finite universe is being dismissed due to "bias" is nonsense. The best measurements suggest the universe is extremely close to flat, which implies either an infinite universe or one so large that its curvature is undetectable. No one is ignoring evidence—cosmologists follow the data. Your argument about "from nothing to infinite" being a singularity is based on a misunderstanding. If the universe is infinite now, it was infinite at the Big Bang, just in a much hotter and denser state. There’s no "instantaneously infinite" transition. That only seems strange if you assume an origin point, which an infinite universe doesn’t have. IMO, Brent's post implies that an infinite universe began at a point. If so, it would have to begin as* instantaneously infinite,* a singularity of sorts which I reject. You behave as IF you know something about the time the universe came into existence. I think you give yourself way too much credit. AG You’re allowed to have an opinion, but you originally presented your claim as a contradiction. Now that it’s been shown not to be one, you’re reframing it as just a personal belief. If you’re now simply saying "I think a finite universe is more likely," fine. But don’t pretend that was your argument from the start. Fact is I'm not pretending anything. It's just something in your sick and aggresive mentality. AG Quentin Le jeu. 13 févr. 2025, 01:54, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:43:01 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 22:30, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:17:30 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, you can make multiple claims, but when you start with "an infinite universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang" and then pivot to "a finite universe is possible," it is shifting the argument. If your real point was just that a finite universe is possible, we could have skipped all the contradictions that weren’t actually contradictions. You're correct that a finite universe can't be spatially flat—a positively curved, closed universe would be finite. That’s basic topology, and it’s a valid possibility. But whether the universe is finite or infinite is still an open question in cosmology, and current observations suggest it’s either infinite or so large that any curvature is undetectable. As for your claim that some cosmologists say the entire universe decreased in volume as we go backward, that only applies to finite universes. An infinite universe doesn’t have a meaningful "volume" in the same way—only the density increases. If you find specific names making this claim, make sure they’re talking about the global universe, not just the observable one. Your argument about high temperature being "ALSO compatible with very low volume" is trivial—it’s true for finite universes. But you started by arguing that an infinite universe was somehow incompatible with high density, which is false. GR allows both scenarios. You haven’t shown any physical reason why an infinite, high-density early universe would be impossible. You’re just asserting that a small volume would be possible, which no one is disputing. So we're on the same page. But what I am claiming is plausible and possible, and my initial comment was too extreme, so I corrected it. But it's certainly not trivial. Calling it trivial shows your bias, which you essentially presented as a certainty, AG AG, if your point is simply that a finite universe shrinking in volume as we go backward in time is possible, then sure, that’s a valid scenario within GR. But that was never in question—cosmologists already consider positively curved, closed universes as a possibility. What was in question was your earlier claim that an infinite universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang, which was incorrect. It's not incorrect; just not generally accepted at this time. AG That’s why your shift to simply defending the plausibility of a finite universe seems like a retreat rather than an actual defense of your original argument. You have an agenda to prove me wrong. I changed my position in response to your comments. Maybe you'd prefer that I stubbornly insist on a contradiction. I believe that a super high temperature is more plausible due to spatial contraction, than simply due to infinite space in the context of shortening distances between galaxies. AG Calling it trivial isn’t bias—it’s just stating that this is a well-known, uncontroversial fact. It is a bias IMO. You've fallen in love with your theory because that's the prevailing opinion based on measurements of a flat universe. You can't seem to imagine a universe finite but so large that the distinction between flat and slightly spherical is a reasonable position. AG The debate was never about whether a finite universe was possible; At first you seemed to suggest it was *not* possible, if not expressly than implicitly, then you were clearer, so that was useful information, causing me to change my mind. But apparently you insist on being right, so you refuse to allow that. AG it was about whether an infinite one was impossible under high density, which you originally suggested. If you’re now just saying a finite universe is a possibility, then there’s no actual argument left. I think it's not just possible but *likely* because if it started out infinite in spatial extent, IOW from Nothing to instantaneously infinite, that would be a type of singularity which seems impossible and to be avoided in any physical theory. Now that's my opinion, and last I heard I allowed to have it. AG Quentin -- 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/44628f56-69b4-47a0-9284-ca2a5c724817n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44628f56-69b4-47a0-9284-ca2a5c724817n%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/a2c479c5-2d20-47b2-ae71-7877ff2c5b04n%40googlegroups.com.
