Quote:
|
My point was that it is not possible to prove that the universe is infinite in size, you can only prove it is finite.
|
Suppose you had a theory that indicates that space is infinite, and has other corroborating things it also indicates. That is pretty strong evidence.
Remember, science 'facts' are statements that are disprovable and have proven hard to disprove. No statement in science (unless you include mathematics in science) are "proved" in the strict sense. Trial by fire is the rule: if the statement survives tough challenges, you gain confidence in it.
Eventually, you end up with as much confidence in a statement as you should have when using Newton's laws to work out the path of a baseball.
Quote:
|
Your statement at the top about space never being a point needs clarification; if we view space-time as being created in the Big Bang then space could certainly have been a point. With the observed expansion of space-time there is no indication that it is expanding "into" anything at all.
|
Why could it not have come into being infinite in 4 dimensions (space x 3 and time x 1)? If the current extent of space is indeed infinite, then no amount of inflation could have inflated a point to infinite space.
Alot of current theories claim that space-time is infinite in at least one dimension (time), it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to assume that it is infinite in 4, especially with the current knowledge that the universe is not folded up within the observable radius.
My point is simply that saying "space started as a point that defined all that is" is overly strong. That is one of the theories.
Others include spacetime being an inflation of a relatively small area (from plank-area to something as huge as an atom or even more), the brane-collision model, just something that happens within blackholes, or many other quite decent theories.