Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 22:03, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 1:12:13 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, if you’re postulating a closed universe, that’s entirely different > from claiming an infinite universe contradicts high temperature at the Big > Bang. It just means you're favoring a specific topology. > > The problem is that your argument keeps shifting. Initially, you argued > that an infinite universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang to > saying a finite, positively curved universe is a possible model—which is > trivially true but irrelevant to your claim. > > > Can't I make more than one claim without being accused of "shifting"? I > concluded that a flat geometry is infinite, so it can't be the case IF our > universe is finite; that is, If it's finite, it can't be flat. In such > case, it's very likely slightly positively curved and spherical, thus > closed and finite. I am virtually certain that some cosmologists claim the > entire universe actually decreased in volume as we run the clock backward. > I'll try to name names if I can. BTW, I'm not making a category error when > applying the Cosmological Principle. It says what you said it says, but > there's more to it than that. Being the same everywhere in terms of > distribution of matter is just one example of sameness. Finite or infinite > *everywhere* is another example of sameness. AG > > > If your point is just "a finite universe is possible," sure, but if you're > still trying to argue that an infinite universe is incompatible with high > density at early times, you haven't demonstrated that at all. > > > CORRECTION: I'm arguing that super high temperature is ALSO compatible > with very low volume. So, I would think some "expert" would have made the > effort to prove this contradicts GR, instead of just claiming, as you do, > that a small volume is actually not compatible with GR without proving it. > AG > > AG, no one is claiming that a small volume is incompatible with GR. A finite, positively curved universe would have had a smaller volume in the past, and that’s completely consistent with GR. No contradiction there. What was incorrect in your earlier argument was implying that an infinite universe couldn’t have been in a high-density state at early times. That’s what doesn’t follow. GR allows an infinite universe to remain infinite while its density increases as you go back in time, no need for a global volume to "shrink." If your point is just that a finite universe with high temperature is also possible, then there’s nothing to argue about. But if you’re still implying that only a finite universe makes sense with high temperature, then yes, that contradicts GR and modern cosmology. If you think an expert has proven otherwise, find the argument, because right now, you’re just asserting it without backing it up. Quentin > 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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/49883da3-6afc-4f61-a0e1-f80885e24ca1n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/49883da3-6afc-4f61-a0e1-f80885e24ca1n%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAo7Gab_%3DM7ERWK1Pmyi6TdBhOCO5GOY50eYtmP-3A1JMg%40mail.gmail.com.
