Why the Universe cannot be infinite.
Offline Hello, everyone. This is my first time posting a forum and I am very new to the website. Below I will be posting my opinion as to why the universe cannot be infinite. I'm not a scientist , nor philosopher, so if there are holes in the arguement please express them. I can be reached easier at my e-mail [email protected].
The universe that we can observe, the universe we know, is a real physical universe. If we possesed the means we could travel throughout it's space. We could visit various stars, see the planets, and build sandcastles on some far away moon. The universe we live in exists in our dimensions of experience. This physical universe, therefore must be governed by the laws we also observe, physics namely. Some of these (like gravity) are fairly easily observed. Planets and stars would not be able to form if matter had no gravitational force. However, time also is effectual in the universe. The same planets and stars that formed due to gravity did so according to the governing rule of time. It is my belief that if time exists anywhere in the universe than the universe cannot be infinite, as the two are contradictory. Infinty is only a conceptual idea, nothing that can be proven in this world. We have no basis of observation. Nothing in nature has "always been." If the universe is eternal (defined as always existing, never having a begining) there would spring a mathematical impossibilty, due to time. An infinite past would resulty in having an infinite number of events (creation of stars, etc.) and this would not be possible as each new event would add to the infinite. I hope I am being clear. Mathematicians can only work with infinite numbers in the conceptual realm, because it absolutley fails to work when applied to the logic of our universe. I will try to simplfy my statement above: How can someone add something new to something infinite? Doing so would show that the subject is not really eternal, due to the fact it has increased. The only answer we have is since time exists in the universe is that the universe must have a begining. Some scientists and philosophers have theorized that our universe was created by another larger "mass-producing" universe. This only makes my point larger in scope. And there are other evidences pointing towards the begining of the universe that helps to verify the claim, such as an expanding universe resulting from the Big Bang.
This also makes a second point. The idea God must have had a begining. As I wrote earlier, infinity is not observed in the natural. Therefore, if God exists He must outside the natural. Supernatural is the term we use. If God exists outside of our realm then there is no need that He be governed by the same laws that govern our physical realm. God is not governed by time, as He exists outside of time. God is transcendent of our universe. There is no need for God to have a begining if God is not essentially found inside our universe.
I hope this is clear enough to be understood. I am not the best writer and often stumble over words. These are just some of the basics from the Kalaam Cosmological Arguement. If there are any questions or objections please feel free to e-mail me or respond here (though I am more likely to respond sooner and more thourghly by e-mail.) Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matthew
- Login to post comments
The Kalam Cosmological Argument, you say? Fascinating. This is truly a new and original argument we've never encountered before!
Cosmological Arguments
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
First let me start by saying I am new to this site and have limited time this weekend, and therefore have not been able to read very many posts on this topic. I am an open-minded Christian, whose seen the RRS vs. Christians ABC debate, and had to take it with a grain of salt because the RRS clearly studies the fields of philosophy and science as they relate to and where they back up their aethistic beliefs, while neither Kirk Cameron nor Ray Comfort do. Here are two scientific evidences I have researched, which I believe contradict the notion that the universe is infinite.
1. THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES.
Prior to the 1920’s, scientists had always assumed that the universe as a whole was stationary. [Of course they acknowledged that there was movement of planets in solar systems, etc.] But in 1929 an alarming thing happened. An astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than it should. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the light is redder because the universe is growing apart; it is expanding!
When the source of incoming light is moving away from an object the light that you see is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The light of the galaxies was redder because they are moving away from us.
But here is the interesting part: Hubble not only showed that the universe is expanding, but that it is expanding the same in all directions. Scientists have concluded that the galaxies in the universe are not stationary but are expanding further and further away from each other from what appears to be some stationary point.
Imagine that I was to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon that represented galaxies and then blow up the balloon. If you were to suck the air back out, or let’s say rewind the film, go back in time—what would happen? The dots would converge, i.e. get closer to one another. The same is true with our universe. If you go back in time…
…scientists say that the stars would converge into a singular space, where they exploded into being: This explosion or beginning of the universe is often referred to as, …you know the name , “THE BIG BANG”
We call it Genesis 1:1!!
It’s incredible that the scientific evidence that helps establish Big Bang theory also helps verify what the Christian theist has always believed: That the universe actually had a beginning!!
2. THE SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.
[The first law says that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn’t change.] The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is one of the best, most established laws in all of science. In fact, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts it [p.55-The Illustrated Origins Answer Book].
It states that: the amount of useable energy in any closed system (which the universe is) is decreasing.
In other words, the useable energy in the universe is dying out like the batteries in a flashlight. Scientists acknowledge that the sun can not burn forever, and that even our galaxy itself will one day, if left to itself, burn up and die out. So we reason that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true for all closed systems, and it is, then it is true for the universe as a whole.
The universe according to the atheist is a gigantic closed system, since to them it is all there is and there is nothing outside it. This means that the universe is currently running out of useable energy. If it is running out of useable energy, then it cannot be eternal, for a finite amount of energy (no matter how large the quantity.) could never have brought the universe through an eternity of time.
Flashlight Illustration:
Let’s say you stumbled upon this flashlight and you’re curious how long it has been burning. So you do a little investigation.
Through your investigation you discover that the batteries are going down hill. They are running out of energy. You turn to a scientist standing nearby and ask him: “How long do you think the flashlight’s been burning?” Now, what if he was to tell you:
“It’s always been on. It’s been lit like this and burning like this forever.”
Hunh? Would you believe that? Of course not. There’s a problem with that isn’t there? Batteries with a finite amount of energy (seen in the fact that they are steadily running out of energy) could never have kept the light burning for an eternal amount of time. It would have run out of batteries trillions of years ago!!
So it is with the universe.
The amount of useable energy is steadily decreasing, thus proving it impossible that it has been burning for all eternity.
Thank you to anyone who was willing to read through all that!
Copy and paste much? There appears to be some plagiarism going on here.
I am afraid there is a number of holes in your argument.
First and foremost, there is infinity in nature and science. The whole of calculus has infinity as its foundation. Black holes are believed to be infinite.
Your argument doesn't compute. You state that both universe and time can not be infinite at the same time. That's a bit like saying that one straight line can not be infinite if there is another infinite straight line somewhere. A great analogy would be arguments between muslims and christians who endlessly bicker over whose deity is real and whose isn't, totally unaware of the other options such as "both", "none", or "same deity". Despite what one may think, mathematicians and physicists do have tools to work with infinity. In fact, the whole debate can be resolved by presenting the Cantor's argument which proves that it is possible for more than one infinity to exist.
When you wonder, it helps to think of infinity literally: there may be many ways to represent infinity (think points across a line vs points across a circle vs single point vs everything everywhere full of points) but its most notable attribute is that it is other than finite, and conventional mental tools designed to work with finite concepts do not apply. For example, the exercise of adding new things to the universe is futile: how do you know that the whole of the universe is not just infinite empty space in which some parts are filled with debris such as galaxies?
Your second argument is also fallacious. You are asserting that God is infinite; there is no basis for that assertion. In all reality, if evolution is to be proven wrong, it would be more likely that humans were created and evolved through finite alien intervention, in which case it is the aliens whom we should call God[s]
However, if we were to presume that God is infinite, it would still not make the case. Just because infinity is not observed in nature (which is also not true) does not mean that if God is infinite and unobservable he/she/it must be outside of the nature; and easily, an argument can be made that if God is infinite, solemn, and omnipresent, by the logic you presented above it follows that the universe belongs within that infinity but not that the universe is finite; however, God is not observable and the universe to some degree is, so we could assume that universe is infinite and the closest astronomical measure (galaxies?) is finite. It would still make more sense to call universe God than call a mysterious god God.
Atheism is not a religion for the same reason "off" is not a TV channel
I am afraid that you misinterpret Genesis and attribute to it things that can not be shown by force of reason. Genesis is one of the most known and least understood parts of the Old Testament. To adequately comprehend what it really says takes years of rabbinical study; in any case this can only be done with the closest Genesis version to original that we have: the masorethic Hebrew, something that even most of Israeli people would have difficulty with. There are several paradoxes in Genesis that are overlooked by casual scholars. Volumes are written on this, and some have argued with varying degrees of success that Genesis describes or doesn't describe the Big Bang, but it's all speculation. We don't know nearly enough neither about the Big Bang nor about the intention of the author of Genesis.
No, it does no such thing.
Usability of energy is immaterial for this argument. The law describes redistribution of energy in closed systems; it does not contradict the first law. Even if your interpretation of the law was accurate, it would still be required to assert that the universe is finite to make an argument based on it, and that assertion is not factually valid based on the science of today.
According to some atheists, yes. Then again there would be atheists that believe in multiverse; and some believe that the universe is simply infinite, or singular (e.g. if you travel in the same direction you will eventually arrive to your point of origin).
Sorry, but I really have to correct you. Even assuming that universe is finite, it will not run out of energy, as the first law states that rather clearly. The energy would be redistributed but it will not go away.
But it has been burning for all eternity from the perspective of thermodynamical laws you're trying to apply. The energy stored in the battery is drained from it by power of chemical reaction; the chemical elements that carry this energy are finite, but the energy that was consumed by them during their creation was transferred from other chemical elements and reactions. This is the first law at work.
Correct, but the energy that was spent burning the light merely left the light. It did not disappear. When you replace the batteries you get your light back. What's to prevent another big bang when the current universe gets cold? I for one don't know.
Atheism is not a religion for the same reason "off" is not a TV channel
I think what surprises me most about your reply Mike Seth, even that of Genesis 1:1, is that you use so much speculation, and unprovable data to support your beliefs.
The basic understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics clearly contradicts your belief in an eternal universe. While energy can be changed from one form to another (1st Law); if no energy enters or leaves our Universe (which it cannot because our Universe is a closed system), then the potential energy of the state will always decrease and be less than that of the original state. As the first Law states, new energy cannot be created, which would be the case using your illustration of the batteries being replaced by new batteries. The batteries in your illustration are not themselves changing from one form to another, it is an all together separate and distinct source of energy, which is not compatible with the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Now I wanted to resist the temptation to comment on this but I simply can't. I wonder how you could make the claim that it takes years of rabbinical study in order to understand The Hebrew "Masoretic Text"? The most commonly held interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is one that next to everybody would gather from reading it. The same literal, exegetical interpretation that those with years of rabbinical study under their belts would most often agree upon, is what I believe to be the correct interpretation of Genesis 1:1; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Copy and paste much? There appears to be some plagiarism going on here.
I dont know whether the universe is infinite or finite. I do not have the necessary education or equipment to hold a specific belief, I can only assess the likelihood and presume that universe is infinite. If the universe is finite, what other things beyond the universe are out there?
Why are you presuming that the universe is a closed system? Even if it is, this would only mean that the energy is reallocated (enthropy increasing). If you presume the universe is getting cold, and that it is finite both in terms of space in time, it is of course very convenient to place God outside of the universe, but there's still no evidence that it is, that there is God, and if there is then it is any particular or known God or Gods.
On the Genesis, there are two reasons. First is that Hebrew masorhetic texts can not be translated to any other language without losing significant part of their meaning. This is because the Hebrew morphology is mathematical: for instance, what a translation would call "year" is in fact not a "year" in any semantical context of the language itself. The Hebrew word "shana" - year - stems from a root that means "change". This might be a little thing that would easier to overlook, until you hit the parts where people live 900 years. Similar intricacies are omitted in translation too - for instance the relationship between the words "being", "life" and "experience" that are obvious in the masorethic texts can and will be lost in translation. Better yet, original Hebrew tenses are constructed in such a way that if we were to read the Hebrew Old Testament literally today we would be forced to interpret the events described on it as ones in the future and not in the past.
The second reason is that in Jewish mystical tradition, there are different levels of reading and comprehending the Testament. These levels are pshat (simple), remez (hint), drash (interpretation) and sod (secret). Since modern Christians have a tendency to not occupy themselves with intimate details of the Old Testament, they often misinterpret it and attribute to it things that it was not meant to say even though it says them quite literally in translation.
Atheism is not a religion for the same reason "off" is not a TV channel
Sorry I haven't been able to get on in a while.
It's so weird to me to be on this website...to hear so many scientific arguments attempting to disprove the existence of God.
I've only been what Christians call a "believer" for a few years, so I'm not some poor indoctrinated, brain washed, product of religion. So many of these arguments are based on scientific theory, which change so often how can they possibly be leaned on as substance for faith. My faith is in the Bible and what I believe is clear to understand of God, your faith is in mankind and his intelligence.
When I look at the order and intelligence of creatures and creation around me I wonder how it could all possibly the result of random chance. You should check out http://bibleprobe.com/beetle/htm. Have you ever studied the human cell in depth? Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling once said, "Just one living cell in the human body is more complex than New York City." Could the human body possibly be the effect of a random cause? Is it possible that no superior intelligence was involved? I don't know...to be honest it seems that it takes more faith to be an aethist than it does to be a Christian.
Copy and paste much? There appears to be some plagiarism going on here.
It takes no faith to be an atheist.
And we didn't come by chance, there is this thing called natural selection.
In relation to the universe there are two things I cannot believe, finite space and time. I can accept finite matter but not finite space or time. I do not know why it is, it is perhaps not so rational but I cannot seem to draw a line in my head as to where space stops, there must always be something beyond it. I don't know if it is rational or just demonstrates the feebleness of the human mind.
Atheist Books
The fact that you've only been a believer for a few years does not mean that you have not been indoctrinated.
But we're not here to argue that.
I think scientific theory has considerably more credence than the bible precisely because it has been changed over the centuries as knowledge has increased. For example, Newtonian physics was held to provide an absolute model of how the universe worked for centuries. However, we now know that this isn't the case although it still holds up pretty well for most macro level events. In contrast the bible - despite a number of clear factual errors - has been held up as an infallible scripture when it quite clearly isn't.
In other words, scientists understand and accept that theories are only as good as the evidence that supports them and, with the progress of science, that some evidence may no longer be valid. This is generally a cause for celebration as it means we've gotten one step closer to the truth (or arrived at it in a number of disciplines). Theists on the other hand cling to discredited and factually incorrect tenets and then have the nerve to criticise atheists for keeping an open and critical mind.
And whilst you're happily wondering dedicated people are actually finding out why things as they are. So far Intelligent Design is not providing any answers to these questions that aren't quickly and easily debunked by people who actually know what they're talking about.
Not since University. Fortunately we have biologists for that sort of thing. They're the ones who are actually mapping the cells, discoverigng their properties and figuring out how they developed.
As opposed to just assuming a creator made them like you are.
You can buy maps of New York City. I just thought I'd point that out.
Yes, in fact that's the most likely explanation. Of course natural selection picked things up pretty quickly afterwards.
More than possible; likely.
No, it doesn't. It takes critical thought, the ability to actually get off one's arse and do a bit of research and not to blindly accept something a discredited and error ridden book throws at you as true.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Though my belief is there are evidences to prove the Divine inspiration of the Bible, I realize that would be quickly transferred to another forum. There are many Theists, who just like some aethists, use science to prove their position.
Well I presume you would consider yourself someone who know's what they're talking about (in contrast to what you obviously view to be foolish Creationists). In all honesty, I see many of you aethists as being no different than how you view Christians, refusing to believe the other side's arguments, to the degree that you are unwilling to carefully examine the facts and reach the most logical conclusion.
For example, as I stated above (with no intelligent, accurate response), regardless of wether or not the universe is a closed system, order tends to disorder, and usable energy is running out. Open systems still have a tendency to disorder.
As Dr. John Ross of Harvard University stated:
"...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems… There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
Another evidence for the existence of God is the mathematical improbability that the complexity found in life forms could have possibly evolved. To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks. The complexity of one single cell far exceeds the inventions man. And since man hasn't even always existed, it is not possible that anything so complex could have came about with such precision, order, and intelligence.
Problems with the formation of a cell by naturalism include:
1. Laws of probability: The odds of correctly forming an average 200 amino acid protein are 1 in 10260, but statisticians state that odds over 1 in 1050 are impossible. (Bliss, Parker, Gish, Origin of Life, 1979.)
2. Laws of chemistry: All amino acids in proteins are “L” which would not occur randomly. DNA would not form in a water solution. My master’s thesis was in the area of DNA synthesis.
3. Irreducible complexity: For many biological systems to properly function, all parts must be present at the same time. (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 1998.)
You do not obtain useful information from random processes. Have you read a good book authored by a computer lately? The formation of the first cell is now recognized by many evolutionists as not possible by naturalism.
Difficulties for a cell developing into advanced life-forms:
Dr. Duane Gish, ICR biochemist, while visiting the Smithsonian Institution, was told they had no undisputed intermediate fossils.
Mutations do not increase useful genetic information.
Where does all the information in the human cell come from? If you typed the four letter alphabet for the DNA code for a bacteria, it would take 2,000 8”x11” single-space pages. However, for a human cell, the length of the code would require a million pages.
Copy and paste much? There appears to be some plagiarism going on here.
I countered most of the arguments in the above post in my response to this thread here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6846
My reply is second.
and by the way. I know EXACTLY what I am talking about.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
LOL!! Preach and run? Cowerd.
deludedgod seemed to think I wanted to spend a half hour reading his previous rebuttal, of which I still am not swayed to believe in the foolishness of the idea that a living cell could possibly be the result of random chance (Regardless of how much time is given.)
Much of what you wrote was very much unneeded in your argument, even if just to provide a platform of information for the ignorant to build from. No amount of scientific fact could in the least disprove the rationale of the Creationists argument from the perspective of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Your explaination of it (if it was even your own), gave an interpretation of the laws foreign to modern scientific understanding, and insufficient to close the argument. You may be able to fool many here who tag along because of your blabber typing of facts, but you will never sway me, a Theist by way of rational decision, until you give an answer compatible with true science. I must go now...until tomorrow.
Copy and paste much? There appears to be some plagiarism going on here.
You refuse to read his argument.
And then announce your unswayed by it.
Ladies and gentlemen, a theist.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
These odds have nothing to do with abiogenesis, they are based on a strawman of having to produce an entire string all at once. This is a strawman of what actual biochemists say about abiogenesis.
You'd know that if you actually read up on this subject.
Statisticians state that odds over 1 in 1050 are impossible?!
I assume you mean 10 to the power of....
You tell me: How can any assigned odds be IMPOSSIBLE?
Name one me statistician on earth who say this. Please. Just cite one.
I can't speak to this, but I do find it hard to believe that you're really educated on these matters, considering your previous claim about an assigned probability being 'impossible'... what college are you doing your masters at? Kent Hovind Tech?
Bad argument, refuted to death. Here's my own version.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/irreducible_complexity_reduced_to_absurdity
I've corresponded with Behe in the past, prior to his humiliation on the stand during the recent creationist case... and his arguments are no better 'in person' than they are in his book.
1) Abiogenesis and evolution are not purely random processes. If you don't even know this, you don't know the fundamentals of this discussion.
2) You're wrong anyway. See Dennet, Consciousness Explained, 1991. Random processes can increase the amount of information in a system. As for what 'useful' means, that's a human judgement.
You don't come off as someone who knows what they're talking about...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Ew ... Creative name-calling. It may make you sound cool, but it's no less irrational.
I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.
It does....
I'm not seriously holding that all theists are this irrational. As Archie Bunker might say, some of my closest friends are theists.....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Anyway, infinity is literally something without bounds. In mathematics, it's used in terms of "counting things".
In physics, infinity is rather boring since it's minimized by what physics is: the measurable and the physical. And of course, infinity can't be measured.
In philososphy and theology, infinity is thought of in terms of defining ultimate reality.
Can the universe be infinite? I don't know. Space-time isn't really infinite, but matter may be.
I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.
So, in summary, the theists here don't want to consider the answers because:
1) They're too long.
2) They're too boring (or maybe they just don't understand them).
3) Uh... like... God did it, Dude!
Bah.
Oh yes and anyone who abuses poor Dr Ross like that needs a slap because that's just willfull ignorance of how SLoT works.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
A finite universe doesn't prove God idiot.
This is correct, although why you had to use so many words to explain this is beyond me
The universe isn't infinite. because it hasn't had enough time to become infinite. (there you go 13 word's)
And the universe will end in approximately 10 to the power of 32 years. half-life of protons. ( don't forget to put the cat out )
Infinite terms used in quantum physics are just a way of plugging the hole's in the theory
like a singularity in a black hole. which doesn't actually exist. it's just a mathematical hypothesis to make maths work in the theoretical model
If a singularity actually existed, infinite mass ect we'd be consumed by it and we wouldn't be having this conversation
All fine so far there are lots of unresolved questions
Which means there's lots to be discoverd
I cannot see where worshiping a fictional god fits into this ?
Actually the universe (in the sense of everything, Sagan's cosmos) MUST be infinite, since you can't get something from nothing.
You're quite wrong about blackholes. How strong they are is directly proportional to theeir mass. If the sun collapsed into a black hole instantly, the Earth's orbit would not change.
Black holes are not a fudge of relativity, they are an unavoidable mathematical certainty given enough density.
Whether black holes actually exist or not is an open question. They may in fact collapse into infinity (an idea that does not in itself bother me), or there may be some absolute minimum beyond which no more shrinkage is possible.
You know, if you do look at Genesis 1:1. The god concept only takes credit for "the heaven" (to simple people, this was probably the same as "the sky." For the sake of argument, we'll also give them that it's the place where good souls go for cake.) and "the earth." So out of billions and billions of galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc., the Bible is really only taking credit for the one we're standing on right now.
The bible explains that the remainder of the stars and sky objects were arranged "for signs." So apparently the rest of the known universe is just there for earth navigation and/or astrological signs. (or a terrible Ace of Base song?)
Curiously the scope of what the bible talks about is only what can be clearly viewed from the naked eye on earth. (and a couple of mentions of both the pillars and the nothing it is "set" on or "hangeth" on) We see no mention of all this other stuff fundamentalists lay claim to: universe expansion, galaxies, black holes, singularities, a round earth, a sun-centered earth rotation, etc.
Right, I remember why. This story was created and passed around by PEOPLE, who had a very limited knowledge of their world at the time. (thinking that the earth had formed well AFTER the Sumerians had figured out how to make beer)
I'm afraid to start on the calculations since I have to run out for errands soon, but I'd imagine that as density increases so does Hawking radiation. Also, with infinity there's always room for Jello.
Hawking radiation remains a purely theoretical construct based on a highly debateable method of trying to fit the square peg of relativity into the round hole of quantum physics.
I'm glad the cosmos is infinite, then, since I'd hate to run out of jello space.
? you have totally baffled me with this statement. it doesn't appear to make any sense. could you please elaborate
Errr that's what I said didn't I ?
If it had a singularity.a point of infinite density infinite mass ect. then it would consume the entire universe
The fact that it doesn't disproves the singularity hypothesis ie no infinite mass density ect
Pahhhhh ! he just made that one up. and he is still trying to fix the bad maths behind it today.