PSI Blog 20220913 Why it is Impossible
for the Universe to be Finite
While they are shocking for most cosmologists, the Webb
photos of elderly galaxies existing over 13 billion light years distant are not
the only indications the universe is not finite.
Here I list five reasons the universe cannot be finite.
First we need to get some definitions straight. Today’s
cosmogonists imagine a finite, expanding 4-D universe of limited extent, while
we assume the universe is 3-D with unlimited extent. In a previous essay on “Time is
Motion,” I dispensed with Einstein’s
objectification. If you still think time is the fourth dimension, you may
wish to stop reading now.
This list cannot be completely comprehensive because the
listing itself would be infinite. Nonetheless, the explanatory success of Infinite
Universe Theory is demonstrated in this short list as it is in all my work in
scientific philosophy. Be reminded it is impossible to know for sure whether
the universe is finite or infinite. We can only assume one or the other. Here
is the form of infinity that underlies The Ten Assumptions of Science,
neomechanics, and Infinite Universe Theory:
The Eighth
Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both
in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).
Now, on to some of the reasons the universe cannot be
finite—
1. The
formation of anything in the universe requires ingredients from the
environment.
Everything in the infinite universe consists of ingredients derived from the environment (Photo by Thomas Le on Unsplash).
As I pointed out in "The Scientific Worldview,"
what happens to a portion of the universe depends equally on what is inside it
and what is outside it. Thus, you cannot build a wooden house without the
lumber to build it with. The relationship between the wooden house and the forest
is undeniable. So it is with everything else. There is nothing in the universe
that does not consist of ingredients. Similarly, when we imagine a finite
universe, we are forced to either imagine it is surrounded by nothing or that
it is a self-contained 4D ball. In either case this imagined universe has no
environment to supply its ingredients. This is a major conundrum for
cosmogonists, who have called upon the supernatural directly, or its
modern-day, magical substitute, “Dark Energy,” to create their finite universe
out of nothing.
2. The
First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be neither created nor
destroyed.
Actually, “energy,” whether dark or otherwise, does not
exist. “Energy,” like momentum and force, is a mere calculation describing the
motion of matter. We use the calculation and the word to describe what happens
when the motion of air molecules impacts turbine blades to produce the motion
of turbines to produce the motion of electrons that supply our electricity. The
First Law of Thermodynamics is more properly written like we do in our claim it
is the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion
of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). If cosmologists actually assumed
the First Law of Thermodynamics was correct, they would have to give up notions
of the Fifth
Assumption of Religion, creation (Matter and motion can be created out of
nothing). If they properly assumed conservation, they also would have to give up notions of
energy as matterless motion. They would realize energy was just a
calculation. They wouldn’t be stupefied like the celebrated regressive
physicist Richard
Feynman who once admitted:
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we
have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in
little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way."
Cosmogonists have not
changed their minds since.
3. The
Second Law of Thermodynamics has a complement.
You may have heard about the “Heat Death of the Universe,”
which is still being bandied about by certain cosmogonists. This is based on a misuse
of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) by those who assume the universe is
finite. The SLT correctly states that all isolated systems eventually undergo
increases in entropy or disorder. In simpler terms, that means the ingredients
(contents) within something eventually will diverge from that something. An
isolated house eventually will fall down, with its various parts being
scattered about. The same happens the minute we are born: we lose hair, teeth,
stature, and what not as we age, with our constituents diverging into the
environment.
But the SLT describes only half of what actually occurs in
the Infinite Universe. Just look around you. For every system falling apart
there seems to be another coming together. For every dying plant or animal
another arises to take its place. In Infinite Universe Theory we generalize
this observation as a complement to the SLT. It is the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and
convergence from other things). In the Infinite Universe every departure from
an “isolated system” becomes an arrival for another.
4. Newton’s
gift to Einstein
The SLT and complementarity
fit precisely with Einstein’s famous reiteration that all things in the
universe are in motion with respect to other things. Deep down, the SLT is
really just a reiteration of what I call the “Law of the Universe,” Newton’s
First Law of Motion. The formation of any “isolated system” amounts to a mere
hesitation for bodies described by that law. It states that a body in motion
stays in motion unless it collides with something. Unfortunately, Newton’s use
of the word “unless” is a tipoff that he assumed finity.
That was further indicated by his idealistic suggestion motion could occur
perpetually through what he termed “absolute space.” I have made this a bit
clearer by calling what I think he meant as “perfectly empty space.”
Now, although Newton’s First Law has otherwise been
tremendously useful, there is no evidence for either perpetual motion or
perfectly empty space anywhere in the universe. In light of my assumption of infinity,
I modified the First Law,
changing the speculative “unless” to the “until” suggested by the data. Of
particular note is the fact Einstein followed closely in Newton’s footsteps, as
did most physicists, assuming finity, as implied
by the “unless.”
Newton actually led the way to the Big Bang Theory, claiming
light was a particle. Einstein did too despite all the evidence for the wave
nature of light and Sagnac’s experimental proof of the existence of the aether. In
his acclaimed “revolutionary” Special Relativity Theory denying the existence
of aether Einstein imagined light to be a massless particle containing perfectly
empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. Without this set
of ad hoc assumptions, which I call his “Untired Light Theory,” the Big Bang
Theory would have been dead in the water. Without it, the cosmological redshift
would not have been interpreted as evidence for an expanding, finite universe.
5. The
absence of perfectly empty space proves nonexistence is impossible.
The Infinite Universe can do much, but it cannot produce perfectly
empty space. That is because perfectly empty space is purely imaginary, as I
explained fully in "Religious
Roots of Relativity." In short, it is one end of the “perfectly empty
space-perfectly solid matter continuum.” Both ends of that continuum are
idealizations we use to describe the reality between. Again, those end-point idealizations
cannot possibly exist. Thus, logically, if perfectly empty space (nothingness)
cannot exist in the observed universe, we must assume it cannot exist in any portion of the universe we cannot observe. The upshot is that there is no point at which reality in the form of
matter in motion ceases to exist, only to be replaced by imaginary perfectly
empty space. The universe exists everywhere for all time. A finite
universe is impossible. The data are compatible only with an Infinite
Universe.
To read this on Medium click on:
https://medium.com/@glennborchardt/5ed03385f86a?source=friends_link&sk=eaa1b56009e40bfbf6881a9b71024b1d
