: 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?

: 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.

I am very sure that "Banging and Shrinking" is possibe, and that space is finite (please read my 5D Spacetime post for more details about this).

What you are saying is that Big Bang never occured, yet it's a most accepted theory among the scientists.

It all comes to this: Big Bang occured => the universe is finite Big Bang never occured => the universe is infinite.

Infinity is just a theoretical assumption used for algebra and Euclidean geometry, and I belive that nothing in reality is infinite.

Now you may say: what about time. Time exists only with space, therefore it's finite too.

Tomislav

• 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