|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
| Re: The Infinite Universe (warning: top post) |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: de.org.mensa · Group Profile
Author: ctyguyctyguy Date: Jan 4, 2007 04:55
No one can say of certainty if our observed universe is finite or infinite.
The NASA big bang approach is humorous. If light from the "big bang" is
just now reaching us from 13.5 billion years ago traveling at 180,000 mps,
how did we get here before the light?
"Dante Alighieri" wrote in message
news:uqu8p2hfjh7j4jkbk6d10jbohe3k5bflfe@4ax.com...> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:07:30 +0100, Dante Alighieri
> wrote:
>
> :-) On 13 Dec 2006 02:48:07 GMT, Jeff.Relf Yahoo.COM> wrote:
> :-)
> :-) :-)
> :-) :-) The origin and early development of the Universe.
> :-) :-)
> :-)
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:53:59 GMT, Rick Hawk wrote:
>
> :-) Dante Alighieri wrote:
> :-) > If the universe is infinite then any point can be selected as the
> :-) > center. The universe will extend infinitely in all directions from
> :-) > that reference point. The instant the universe is defined to be
> :-) > finite it has one center only.
> :-)
> :-) I doubt this. I even suspect that modern astronomers think that the
> :-) universe is finite; it would be quite awkward if the universe were
> :-) infinite.
> :-)
>
> The Universe is finite, by definition, without definition it does not
> exist,
> no suspecting necessary, their published views maintain the universe
> is "confirmed", as they say, to be finite, as confirmed by their
> calculations.
> I said finite meant measurable, they corrected and advised finite means
> definable.
>
> Thus in the their finite universe I must agree with them. The universe is
> finite
> because every point can be defined. They say, therefore, I am incorrect
> when
> suggesting the universe is infinite. They gave me, by that correction, a
> way to
> say that the universe is finite, the boundaries of the, known to be finite
> universe,
> are merely defined to be infinitely far away. As the boundaries are now
> defined,
> my "Infinite Universe" becomes "finite" by their definition.
> They have molded my concept into agreement with theirs.
> If I say the universe has undefined boundaries to be in disagreement with
> them,
> that universe cannot exist because it does not exist until it is defined
> to be in existence,
> and as soon as the universe is defined it becomes finite, i.e.,
> The universe is finite, by definition, without definition it does not
> exist.
>
> A modern equivalent of the Celestial Sphere theory, not the same, just
> similar,
> as we know today the heavenly bodies are not equidistant from the earth.
> Indeed, they do find it to be quite awkward because their explanations
> for what lies beyond their universe involves time and distance warp.
> I consistently agree that their universe is extremely warped.
>
> The universe as it actually exists is incomprehensible to humans.
> But humans demand an answer for everything.
> When humans did not know what caused thunder they created a god who
> made thunder. When humans did not know what caused the sun to shine
> they created a god who was the sun or caused it to shine, go away and
> come back again in the morning. Humans eliminated those and other gods
> and goddesses when the true reasons for natural phenoma were discovered.
>
> Humans must explain creation to eliminate the one remaining God of
> creation.
> Humans have explained creation and the God of creation is no longer
> required.
>
> ROTFL
>
> :-)
> :-)
> :-)
> :-) (c) 2006 by the author, me,
> :-) Michael Merisi da Caravaggio, aka, Dante Alighieri, and other names.
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
