Recent content by zeffur7

14=2+1/3x 14=7/3x 14*3/7=x 14/7*3=x 2*3=x 6=x

Wrong. It point to the definition of infinite. That in itself is useful. By 'zeffer7' I imagine you errored. The words that I used to define 'infinite' are accepted terms for defining 'infinite"--they are quite easily found in any high quality dictionary. "Infinity" is unproven and...

Another, and perhaps easier way to consider infinity is simply the following: 1. Infinity = the state or quality of being infinite. 2. Infinite = not finite, boundless, unlimited, indefinite, immeasurably/exceedlingly great. e.g.: the dimensions of the universe/multiverse.

In other words, it would be finite. :)

The "had to be that way" was referring to my visualization methodology as it being able to be used to plot the world lines of the visible objects in our observable universe back to the origin (i.e. location of the singularity) of where all those objects came from before they are where they are...

If the big bang reverses at some point & then become the big crunch (i.e. a singularity), what say ye of the min & max of that system, if it were true?

We also know that that expansion is accelerating.

I'm sorry you and Drakkith became frustrated. I think you wrote well why this can be a frustrating topic to discuss "this really is a very complicated theory which people have spent the best part of a century trying to figure out. And maybe they are wrong, and perhaps there are one or two holes...

I must admit this thread has drifted quite far from my original post. Sorry for that. Like most people, when I receive information that is apparently illogical and I haven't yet read anything that provides me with a good explanation for how it could be reasonable, I tend to have doubts and...

Oh.. I don't... perhaps a reference to something like this: http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf That would have saved us all a lot of time, wouldn't you agree? One thing you might want to consider.. when you tell a person something is true, and you support...

I'm curious to know the "why". Is the explanation reasonable or is it based on incomplete mathematical models, illogical explanations of what 'expansion' means, and competing theories that contradict each other? From what I read there is so much debate about the BBT that it seems hard to...

We currently have no way of determining what is outside the largest virtual box--even though, from what I have read, the universe is supposedly much larger than our observable universe. Until we can peer beyond the "wall of light" aka "?surface of last scattering?" we really won't know much...

For for the sake of simplicity, let's use the current observable universe as our largest virtual box. If we made marks on the walls of the box where all of the visible objects are located, then we would consider the first box in our model completed. The 2nd box in our model would be 1 billion...

The BBT rhetoric states that the universe is expanding. I take that to mean that space is expanding and all the visible things within it are moved to distant locations in space as the universe expands. At the same time those visible objects supposedly don't expand in volume, but they do have...

I'm digging your vibe, wo?/man :) I'd like to see everyone's thoughts on the subject, as long as that have a modicum of sense with them.