: : : *of course you know that endless doesn't mean infinite.

: : Feel free to explain in your own words.

: Imagine a circle. That circle goes on forever(it's endless), BUT it isn't infinite because when you would break it and transform it to line, that line would have finite lenght. : That's 1+1 dimension(s). : Now transform that to space. Now we have 3d+1d and time. Therefore endless but not infinite. : Why do I have a feeling that you already knew this :O)

Your reasoning is correct, but you are using the wrong object. You assume that the univers has a " border", and from that you derive it can't be infinit. So actually you are saying: "Any object with "borders/limits" isn't infinit. I do agree that this must be true. What I am missing is how this apply to the universe. Where is the proof that the Universe ends somewhere?

: : It has to be equal (see original posting).

: It's very paradoxal. So if Big bang occured that automaticaly suggests that it never happend? Correct.

: But, perhaps, there were always "something" (unequal amount of matter and antimatter). : That matter may be "pulsing": Big Bang, Big Shrink and so on forever. Without begining and end.

: Tell me what you think.

: Tomislav

I'm not convinced about the Bang/Shrink theory. It implies that there allways was something, and allways will be something. But if that is true, why has that something be a cycle of Bangs and Shrinks and not the universe as is? Futhermore, Banging and Shrinking isn't possible in an infinit universe.

• Re: Big Shink, Re:Re:Endless, but not infinite - Tomislav_Strelar/">Tomislav Strelar - September 28, 1998 - 08:54 UTC
  • Re: Big Shink, Re:Re:Endless, but not infinite - Science=Religion/">Science=Religion - September 28, 1998 - 15:08 UTC
    • Re: Big Shink, Re:Re:Endless, but not infinite - Tomislav_Strelar/">Tomislav Strelar - September 30, 1998 - 12:31 UTC
  • Outside of the expanding universe - Les - September 29, 1998 - 12:08 UTC
  • blackholes - garrick - December 1, 1999 - 22:51 UTC