AG, you’re spinning in circles. You changed your mind, fine, but you’re still trying to justify your original reasoning instead of just admitting it was flawed. Your so-called "singularity" argument is just your own discomfort with an infinite universe, not an actual contradiction. If you prefer a finite model, that’s your choice, but stop pretending it’s based on some deep physical insight.
Quentin Le jeu. 13 févr. 2025, 10:06, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 1:29:01 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le jeu. 13 févr. 2025, 09:25, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 1:06:31 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, you’re lashing out because you got called out. You claim you changed > your position, yet you keep twisting the conversation to make it seem like > your original argument was reasonable all along. That’s the issue, not > whether you’re "allowed" to change your mind. > > Brent’s post doesn’t imply an infinite universe "began at a point" because > an infinite universe doesn’t have a single origin point, it was always > infinite, just in a hotter, denser state. The idea that it must have > started as "instantaneously infinite" is your own misunderstanding, not a > flaw in the model. > > You accuse others of having an agenda, playing the victim each time, yet > you’re the one constantly using insults, you’re the one shifting from > argument to argument, looking for something to cling to. If you reject an > infinite universe on personal grounds, just say so. But stop acting like > it’s some deep physical contradiction when it’s just your own discomfort > with the idea. > > Quentin > > > I was certainly correct on at least one point; you're an incurable, > incorrigible asshole, who just can't understand that I changed my opinion, > and stated that I did so because of your comments. It's like you can't take > YES for an answer. It's useless to try to have a mature discussion with > someone like you. AG > > > AG, you’re just deflecting with insults because you don’t like being > called out. Changing your opinion is fine, but pretending your original > argument was reasonable all along isn’t. You keep shifting positions while > acting like you were always on solid ground. If you actually changed your > mind, then stop trying to justify your earlier mistake and move on. > > Quentin > > > You're hopelessly confused. I changed my mind due to *your* comments. > Later, I explained why I prefer my model to yours, and it involved what I > conceive as a singularity added to the BB, of a universe coming into being > with spatial infinity. That's all there is to. I just told you why I prefer > my model to yours. I never pretended my original model was reasonable all > along. I am allowed to have certain preferences. I can't waste more time > responding to your juvenile, hostile accusations, so you can have the last > word. AG > > > Le jeu. 13 févr. 2025, 08:52, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. > > 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 [email protected]. > > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a2c479c5-2d20-47b2-ae71-7877ff2c5b04n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a2c479c5-2d20-47b2-ae71-7877ff2c5b04n%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/ee92ce41-7625-45a0-a1ae-0a42a6059121n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee92ce41-7625-45a0-a1ae-0a42a6059121n%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/9217c461-81d2-4943-b156-5081e6e05d27n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9217c461-81d2-4943-b156-5081e6e05d27n%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/CAMW2kArwBbwui9Wyf4j%3DCZZ4b8apERUE%2BdZsmUnKYqmqX%2BEHRg%40mail.gmail.com.
