The Instigator
morgan2252
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
MacGruber
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

The Universe is NOT Infinite

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
morgan2252
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,847 times Debate No: 28285
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

morgan2252

Pro

The first round is for acceptance, second round is for the initial argument, third round is for rebuttal, and the fourth round is for conclusion. Please accept!
MacGruber

Con

I accept. As it is generally a consensus among the scientific community that the universe is an infinitely large thing, the Burden of Proof will rest with Pro. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
morgan2252

Pro

We know that a bottomless pit can't exist. We know that a box can't have an infinite length. We cannot draw a line that goes on forever. It simply isn't possible. Everything has to have a beginning and an end.

Why then, should it be different with time and space? Time is a dimension. So, we must think of it that way. For the same reasons infinity cannot exist in the reasons above, time and space will not go on forever.

Also, the span of space is the same way. If something has a beginning, it must have an end.

The theory of the "big bang" doesn't come from nowhere. Because of a thing called the "Doppler effect," when things move toward you, they appear slightly blue, and when they move away, they look slightly red. When scientists look at planets through telescopes, they notice a red shift, meaning the universe is expanding. So, when they trace the space bodies in the opposite direction that they're moving, scientists find that everything comes from one point. Hence the theory of the big bang. While many are still debating on what caused the so called "big bang," the fact is, the universe had an origin, or beginning.

Everything that has a beginning must have an end. It's evident that our universe has a beginning, and therefore, it has an end, too.

Sources:
(1) Into the Universe with Steven Hawking
(2) How the Universe Works
(3) http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

MacGruber

Con

As humans, we have a hard time grasping the concept of infinity, as it is an abstract. Infinity never ends, as is given by the definition. The Universe, according to the most accepted theory of origin -- The Big Bang -- is increasing at a constant, infinite rate (the speed of light, which cannot be surpassed as defined by General Relativity[1]). This expansion can never be surpassed by any known thing within our universe's physical laws.

INFINITE SIZE

As we will never reach the edge of expansion in our universe, we must can known through our assumed logic that the Universe is infinitely big. If the end is never observed, we may not say that the Universe is a set size. With this assumed logic (assumed logic, because we can never truly know anything for certain, as all 'fact' is based on one primary assumption), we can say that the Universe is infinite and will continue to be as such. The speed of light is a constant, at 299,792,458 meters per second. [2] The Universe will expand at this rate for the remaining existence of space and time as we know it.

INFINITE TIME

There is no way to know exactly how old the Universe is, how long it's been around. We assume it is 13.7 billion years old, and that at the velocity of expansion it is currently experiencing it is 93 billion light years in diameter. [3] However; since none of this is observable, we cannot say with solid assumed logic that it is this size, this age, and is NOT infinite.

In Conclusion we now see that without complete observable proof, we can use assumed logic (again, we know nothing for certain!) to determine that the Universe is infinite in size.

Thank you. Vote CON!

SOURCES:

[1] Penrose, R (2004). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Vintage Books. pp. 410–1. "... the most accurate standard for the metre is conveniently defined so that there are exactly 299,792,458 of them to the distance travelled by light in a standard second, giving a value for the metre that very accurately matches the now inadequately precise standard metre rule in Paris."


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] Itzhak Bars; John Terning (November 2009). Extra Dimensions in Space and Time. Springer. pp. 27


Debate Round No. 2
morgan2252

Pro

Infinite Space
My opponent says, "If the end is never observed, we may not say that the Universe is a set size." However, if the end is never observed, who's to say it isn't a set size. My opponent says this is all based off of "assumed logic," but, if I may ask, what is that logic? And if the universe is indeed expanding, the part where it expands would still be a boundary. And that expansion cannot go on forever. Eventually, the explosion from the big bang would have to run out of energy. In that case, the expansion would stop.

Infinite Time
Time can end in two ways: the big freeze or the big crunch. In both cases, the universe stops expanding, as I mentioned above. With the big crunch, gravity pulls everything together, back to one point, as in the big bang. In the big freeze, the universe keeps expanding until it runs out of energy. Then it stops. In that case, all of the energy left in the universe is used up, until there is nothing left except things that simply exist. There would be no light, no heat, nor any movement.

Some may make the case that in the big freeze, time still exists. However, according to the Oxford American Dictionary, the definition of time says,

"The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, or future."

In the big freeze, there is definitely a progress of existence, since everything still exists. However, it only exists, and no events occur. There would be no progress of events in the present or future. Therefore, there would be no time.


And Just for Fun…
My opponent suggests that since the universe is expanding at the speed of light, we won't be able to see the edge of the universe if there is one. This does make sense, since nothing can go faster than the speed of light. However, in 1935, Einstein and Nathan Rosen realized that general relativity allows the existence of “bridges,” or shortcuts, between time and space. Today, these are known as wormholes. In that case, you could go through that shortcut faster than if you were going at the speed of light without that shortcut. Wormholes may sound like science fiction, (remember, black holes used to be considered science fiction until the discovery of quasars and other studies) but recent calculations show that humans may be able to make wormholes work, and for more than an instant of time. So, we may indeed be able to see if there is an end to the universe.

Sources:
(1) http://www.pbs.org...
(2) http://www.windows2universe.org...
(3) http://www.universetoday.com...
(4) The Oxford American Dictionary
MacGruber

Con

MacGruber forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
morgan2252

Pro

Because the fourth round is solely for concluding, and con's forfeit gives me nothing to rebut against anyway, that is what I will do.

Conclusion

In the end, saying that the universe is infinite because we cannot get to the end if there is one is illogical, considering that humans may, indeed, be able to travel into deep space and toward the boundary.

And if the universe is expanding, as many say, the universe would still not be considered infinite. Think of it; infinity already goes on forever and cannot get any bigger. An expanding universe is another way of saying that our universe is getting bigger all the time. In this case, it cannot be infinite. And, the universe will not expand forever, as I explained in my last post. It eventually has to run out of energy.

And, in trillions of years, time will have to end, too. Whether it ends with the "big freeze" or "big crunch," time will still cease. (Refer to my last post.) And, once again, time is a dimension. We definitely cannot draw a line that goes on forever, because the span of space does not go on forever. Time is the same way.

But one big question remains- what is it like outside the boundary? Whether that area is shrouded in dark matter or time and space stops altogether there, I believe that, one day, by embracing wormholes and other advanced technology, we may be able to find the answer.

Please vote Pro!

MacGruber

Con

I concede, due to lack of time to truly debate this topic.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
yes indeed the universe is not finite.
after 7 skies there is only GOD.
only GOD can hold infinity.
any thing else is finite.
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
Sorry, my internet was out for a few days, and I had no access to another computer. I concede.
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
Like... 9 p.m. Eastern Time
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
I'll post tonight.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
MacGruber:

For "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking," the episode was called, "The Story of Everything." For "How the Universe Works," the episode was called, "Big Bang."

As you may have guessed, these are both documentary videos, so it is very difficult to cite the exact quotations. However, in one of the videos, Stephen Hawking explained how the Doppler effect works by using an example of how a car would very slightly blue when it goes toward you, and red when it goes away. I cited another source that has a link to the web if you would like to learn more about the Doppler shift. It is reliable, on the NASA website, and is answered by an astrophysicist.

In the same video, Stephen Hawking explained that, like I said, time is a dimension, so we must think of it that way. In turn, he explained that time cannot go on forever. As superburrito explained below, our universe will either end with the "big freeze" (where the universe expands, runs out of energy, then ends a cold and dark place) or the "big crunch" (the opposite of the big bang; gravity pulls everything together, causing the universe to, once again, go back to a single point).

The other video explained how scientists came up with the theory of the big bang and the age of the universe by tracing everything back to one point.

superburrito:

You said, "Your theory is purely philosophical." Yes. That is why this debate is categorized in "Philosophy."
Posted by superburrito 4 years ago
superburrito
Your theory is purely philosophical. You provide no support for your arguments. You say: "If something has a beginning, it must have an end." It may be so for everything you know, but our human mind cannot comprehend everything in the universe. Sure there may have been a starting point in the universe, but that doesn't mean there has to be an end. I do not want to bash on you, but who are you to say the universe has no end? The brightest astronomers don't have an answer to this question. Our universe may have an end, yes, but we know it is expanding, "the big freeze" vs "the big crunch".
you also say that: "We cannot draw a line that goes on forever. It simply isn't possible. Everything has to have a beginning and an end." Lets say we somehow magically had a pencil that has the ability to write in space itself. You move in one direction and you start somewhere and go in a straight line. The only thing limiting you from continuing this line is time itself. You do not have enough time in your life to do so. It may have a start and an end, I'm not here to argue that, but I'm arguing your support. No "real" support, no "real" argument.
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
Would you cite the exact episode from which these sources came? As well as use in-text citations?
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
I mean to say that there is no way space can go on forever, as many claim. I believe that there is a boundary at which the universe ends.
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
I wonder if you mean by our grasp as humans (like...we'll never find the end of it in a proveable way), or that it can be speculated on as to whether or not we believe there is a set size.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
morgan2252MacGruberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit & Concession
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
morgan2252MacGruberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
morgan2252MacGruberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: con conceded. Pro did not source properly.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
morgan2252MacGruberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: con conceded.
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 4 years ago
tBoonePickens
morgan2252MacGruberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never really made a proper case and conceded.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 4 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
morgan2252MacGruberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.