Before the Beginning of Time - Hawkings

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Er, no. I should not have said that the potential energy is 'infinite' at an infinite distance, I should have said "maximum". That was obviously a very sloppy and oversimplified statement on my part. Sorry about that.

You might be interested to know that it is generally taken to be zero at infinite distance, and correspondingly negative approaching a planet. Where only the vicinity of a planet surface is relevant, the zero point is taken to be the surface. It's all relative.

... the kinetic energy at the point of impact will always be positive.

Well obviously - unless you know a source of negative mass...

In effect, the distance between the objects ends up being a form of potential energy.

No, as I explained, that's just wrong. Distance is not 'effectively energy' at all. It is a measure of length only.

You seriously need Physics 101, Michael - it's no wonder you have such problems with cosmology.

 

[Michael]

You might be interested to know that it is generally taken to be zero at infinite distance, and correspondingly negative approaching a planet. Where only the vicinity of a planet surface is relevant, the zero point is taken to be the surface. It's all relative.

Ya, and Olber's paradox is generally taken to be valid too, but fails to deal with simple things like the inverse square laws of light and the limits of human eyesight. The problem with that 'generalization' is that it doesn't deal with the potential of the objects attracting one another and the kinetic energy that ensues without trying to treat a geometric feature as "energy". I understand how it's treated, I just don't happen to agree with that concept anymore than I buy the Olber's paradox claim.

Well obviously - unless you know a source of negative mass...

I don't, which is why I see no point in treating a geometric feature as a form of "negative" energy.

No, as I explained, that's just wrong. Distance is not 'effectively energy' at all. It is a measure of length only.

That distance between the objects represents "work done" if we start by putting the two objects together. That distance took energy and work to separate the objects, but that energy is still conserved. That distance represents the acceleration potential of the two objects accelerating toward each other so in that sense it can be treated as a form of potential energy which is ultimately converted back in to kinetic energy when the objects slam back together again. It's therefore not necessary to treat gravity as a form of negative energy. It's an arbitrary choice to do so.

You seriously need Physics 101, Michael - it's no wonder you have such problems with cosmology.

That might not be so ironic had you not said the same thing as it relates to your Olber's paradox fiasco. Apparently any time that someone questions your 'bad dogma', you automatically "assume" that it's their problem rather than a problem with your dogma. Meanwhile you all failed to offer any other logical way to explain your 200 billion missing stars and your 100 thousand missing galaxies in the night sky. Olber's paradox is just bad dogma, and so is treating gravity as "negative energy" in GR.

I do understand how gravity is conventionally "treated" in physics, but I've also seen that generalized concept abused horribly by folks like Krauss who then try to claim the the universe has a 'net zero' amount of energy in it, while completely and utterly ignoring the use of energy over time, and the energy it would take to expand everything apart from a single object.

I simply see that position as an oversimplified way of treating the problem, albeit a mathematically sound way (usually), but I also recognize that there's a more straight forward way of looking at the problem that doesn't allow the concept to be abused to the point of absurdity.

Newton's definition of gravity and QM definitions of gravity do assume that gravity is a form of energy, but GR explains gravity as a geometric feature, like a hill or valley, not as an energy exchange between carrier particles. They are fundamentally different ways of describing gravity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ya, and Olber's paradox is generally taken to be valid too, but fails to deal with simple things like the inverse square laws of light and the limits of human eyesight. The problem with that 'generalization' is that it doesn't deal with the potential of the objects attracting one another and the kinetic energy that ensues without trying to treat a geometric feature as "energy". I understand how it's treated, I just don't happen to agree with that concept anymore than I buy the Olber's paradox claim.

I don't, which is why I see no point in treating a geometric feature as a form of "negative" energy.

That distance between the objects represents "work done" if we start by putting the two objects together. That distance took energy and work to separate the objects, but that energy is still conserved. That distance represents the acceleration potential of the two objects accelerating toward each other so in that sense it can be treated as a form of potential energy which is ultimately converted back in to kinetic energy when the objects slam back together again. It's therefore not necessary to treat gravity as a form of negative energy. It's an arbitrary choice to do so.

That might not be so ironic had you not said the same thing as it relates to your Olber's paradox fiasco. Apparently any time that someone questions your 'bad dogma', you automatically "assume" that it's their problem rather than a problem with your dogma. Meanwhile you all failed to offer any other logical way to explain your 200 billion missing stars and your 100 thousand missing galaxies in the night sky. Olber's paradox is just bad dogma, and so is treating gravity as "negative energy" in GR.

I do understand how gravity is conventionally "treated" in physics, but I've also seen that generalized concept abused horribly by folks like Krauss who then try to claim the the universe has a 'net zero' amount of energy in it, while completely and utterly ignoring the use of energy over time, and the energy it would take to expand everything apart from a single object.

I simply see that position as an oversimplified way of treating the problem, albeit a mathematically sound way (usually), but I also recognize that there's a more straight forward way of looking at the problem that doesn't allow the concept to be abused to the point of absurdity.

Newton's definition of gravity and QM definitions of gravity do assume that gravity is a form of energy, but GR explains gravity as a geometric feature, like a hill or valley, not as an energy exchange between carrier particles. They are fundamentally different ways of describing gravity.

Yeah, right. Your posts demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge (or understanding) of basic physics, but still you think you know better than the textbooks and people who are highly qualified and spend their careers doing it. This is exactly what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is about.

 

[Colter]

Time is a creation, a consequence of Gods purpose for the material universe beyond the eternal Isle of paradise.

 

[SelfSim]

This is the only part of the post I can respond to as the rest is incoherent......

Its quite amazing (to me) that you could find any coherency in the part you responded to!

Michael's Δr=1AU argument is completely incoherent babble as far as I can see because of this:

It also doesn’t matter if there are empty shells as in a static Universe the integration range is based on the overlap condition.
In the simplest terms it means you continue summing the shells until the overlap criteria is met.

... which then leads to a question that only some incoherent loony would lead us towards:

... then you need to explain how the Sun is visible at night.

(I'm totally agreeing with your logic here by the way sjastro, and the question for Michael to answer arises because of his completely screwy reasoning ).

 

[sjastro]

No, that post doesn't mention the inverse square law or the limitations of human eyesight, so it does *not* explain why you're missing 200 billion stars.



First you erroneously claimed that surface brightness was preserved, until you came up 200 billions stars short of a valid claim. Then you *completely* botched a very simple explanation/experiment related to the inverse square law with some absurd suggestion that moving the middle screen was somehow going to change the surface brightness on the lit part of the far wall which could *never* happen. Then you try to pass off some meaningless and unrelated math as the reason you came up 200 billion stars short. All of that ridiculous nonsense must have been deleted from your memory while you persist in engaging in pure personal attacks. You're simply unbelievable.



LOL! Pure projection at it's finest.



I've explained that to you a ton of times now. Your whole shell game was based upon the claim that the night sky should be as bright as the sun, and that even though each shell would be further away, it would have more stars in it, which offsets the distance. I pointed out that this is an invalid claim because the the sun is located at 1AU, and there aren't 4 more stars at 2AU, or 9 more stars after than in the 3AU shell. In fact the next AU shell that has any actual additional stars is located 268,770 shells away, and your whole argument came up more than 72 trillion stars short in that shell too!

There's no AU shell that comes anywhere near as close to being as bright as the sun in our back yard, so your claim that the night sky should be as bright as our sun is absolutely, positively *absurd*.



The basis for your shell claim wasn't valid to start with, and it ignores the inverse square laws to boot.



Sure, Mr. surface brightness is preserved.



I never said that the sun should light up the night sky. That was your claim.



No, it does not. That's another perfect example of you trying to stick words in my mouth. You don't understand the ridiculous consequences of trying to ignore the inverse square laws in your shell argument. You don't understand the limitation of human eyesight with respect to your argument. I doubt that you even understand that Olber solved his own paradox!

You can dispense with the argument by repetition fallacy and the puerile attempts of attacking the maths by putting your money where your mouth is.

Now that I have made it perfectly clear about the references/citations required, along with your “Olbers’ paradox is refuted by the inverse square law”, it’s up to you to support your claims.
You need to provide the evidence from a recognized peer review source.

(1) If you refuse it is a confession there is no evidence which proves you are wrong.
(2) If you try to change the subject, it is also a confession which proves you are wrong.
(3) If you find there is no evidence it proves you are wrong.

 

[SelfSim]

... The basis for your shell claim wasn't valid to start with, and it ignores the inverse square laws to boot.

A complete and utter outright misrepresentation and its repetition constitutes a deliberate lie.

See the video posted by sjastro at about the 6:00 minute mark.

The formula for the light intensity from the shell is on his whiteboard:

Intensity proportional to (4*pi*R^2*ΔR*N)/R^2

the reason for the denominator, R^2, is to deliberately take into account the intensity drop-off as per the inverse square law, which is explicitly stated in the video.

And you claim to not misrepresent mainstream science? (Ie: yet another Michael lie).

 

[Michael]

A complete and utter outright misrepresentation and its repetition constitutes a deliberate lie.

The deliberate "lie" is your blatant and obvious bait and switch routine with respect to the size of R and delta R. If you're going to claim that the whole night sky should be as bright as the sun, then the only valid size for R and delta R with respect to the inverse square law is 1AU. Instead of using 1AU as your shell size, you pull a blatant bait and switch routine and try to make R a massively large number and thereby violate all of the tenets of the inverse square law!

See the video posted by sjastro at about the 6:00 minute mark.

The formula for the light intensity from the shell is on his whiteboard:

Intensity proportional to (4*pi*R^2*ΔR*N)/R^2

the reason for the denominator, R^2, is to deliberately take into account the intensity drop-off as per the inverse square law, which is explicitly stated in the video.

N is precisely *zero* for the next 268,770 AU size shells. When we eventually get to the next shell that contains any stars, it contains a grand total of 1 extra star, not 72+ trillion stars as would be required to stay consistent with the inverse square law! What a blatant and flagrant violation of the inverse square laws of light! Give me a break.

And you claim to not misrepresent mainstream science? (Ie: yet another Michael lie).

The only one who's not telling the truth is you as the night sky and your missing 200 billion stars, and 100,000 missing galaxies clearly demonstrates. Your "surface area brightness is preserved" nonsense was demonstrated to be false too as those same missing stars and galaxies clearly demonstrate. Your claim that only expansion models predict redshift is false. Your implicit assumption that there's no influence due to scattering is false. Olber even *solved* his own so called "paradox" with ordinary dust and absorption/scattering so your whole claim that it's still a 'paradox" is false! Nothing about your claim is remotely valid.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oy Vey. Lawyers......

Thing is, it's a glaringly obvious error - someone with even a secondary school understanding of physics wouldn't make that error; and if it was typo (albeit an odd one), they'd correct it as soon as it was pointed out.

That didn't happen; QED.

 

[Michael]

You can dispense with the argument by repetition fallacy and the puerile attempts of attacking the maths by putting your money where your mouth is.

Fine. I'll do some research for you after work, but in the meantime, here's a paper that solves this so called "paradox" based on it's own arguments. Suffice to say I'm not the first one to "solve" this so called "paradox'. Olber did so himself in fact.

[astro-ph/9909340] An optical solution of Olbers' paradox

What's your problem with his solution?

 

[Michael]

Thing is, it's a glaringly obvious error - someone with even a secondary school understanding of physics wouldn't make that error; and if it was typo (albeit an odd one), they'd correct it as soon as it was pointed out.

That didn't happen; QED.

Oh, but it did happen. Only someone who intentionally ignored everything else I ever said on this topic would attempt to take that one subsection of a sentence out of context with the rest of the discussion and try to make a federal case out of it.

I'm still waiting to see the before and after pictures of your feet boys.

Get real. Potential energy increases towards maximum with increasing distance, it doesn't decrease toward zero, as my simple rock experiment will quickly demonstrate.

 

[sjastro]

Fine. I'll do some research for you after work, but in the meantime, here's a paper that solves this so called "paradox" based on it's own arguments. Suffice to say I'm not the first one to "solve" this so called "paradox'. Olber did so himself in fact.

[astro-ph/9909340] An optical solution of Olbers' paradox

What's your problem with his solution?

What a knucklehead post.
It's based on its own arguments by changing the inverse square law not yours so whats the point.
If I didn't find a problem with the solution then your argument must be incorrect so ultimately you must hope I find his solution to be wrong!!!!!!

Given this paper has no relevance to the thread I will read it in my own good time.

 

[SelfSim]

The deliberate "lie" is your blatant and obvious bait and switch routine with respect to the size of R and delta R. If you're going to claim that the whole night sky should be as bright as the sun, then ..

You've got this all backwards (and typical of a programmer whose life logical is limited to 'if/then/else' statements, where the conditions are not known to the programmer inside his/her box.. but may be known by others).
The statement is the logical outcome of the shell model and its going in assumption (abt the video 4:23 mark), stated as: 'the point is that ΔR is very much smaller than R'. The logical 'truth' of the model is underwritten by the irrefutable logic of math therorem proofs, of which you are totally blind and in denial about. End of story.

... the only valid size for R and delta R with respect to the inverse square law is 1AU. Instead of using 1AU as your shell size, you pull a blatant bait and switch routine and try to make R a massively large number and thereby violate all of the tenets of the inverse square law!

Have you even bothered to stop your mouth (and fingers) to consider that R and ΔR are in fact, related, (ie: not independently assignable), in the model? (Where ΔR<<R still applies as the constraint).

N is precisely *zero* for the next 268,770 AU size shells.

N is a variable .. of arbitrarily assigned value, (where in this case, is not assigned any particular value), of galaxies per unit volume in a universe with an isotropic, homogeneous distribution of galaxies. Why are you talking about stars?
As R increases to infinity in a static infinite universe, (and/or ΔR, within its stated constraint): so too does the intensity of light but independently of your inverse square law term R^2 .. it has been cancelled out! The distances between the galaxies then decreases with increasing R, resulting in infinite intensity. End of story.

When we eventually get to the next shell that contains any stars, it contains a grand total of 1 extra star, not 72+ trillion stars as would be required to stay consistent with the inverse square law!

The model refers to galaxies .. not stars .. end of story.

What a blatant and flagrant violation of the inverse square laws of light! Give me a break.

The inverse square law is included in the R^2 denominator and gets cancelled out. End of story.

The only one who's not telling the truth is you as the night sky and your missing 200 billion stars, and 100,000 missing galaxies clearly demonstrates. Your "surface area brightness is preserved" nonsense was demonstrated to be false too as those same missing stars and galaxies clearly demonstrate. Your claim that only expansion models predict redshift is false. Your implicit assumption that there's no influence due to scattering is false. Olber even *solved* his own so called "paradox" with ordinary dust and absorption/scattering so your whole claim that it's still a 'paradox" is false! Nothing about your claim is remotely valid.

A tantrum is your concluding response?

We must be getting somewhere!

Pfft!

 

[Michael]

What a knucklehead post.
It's based on its own arguments not yours so whats the point.

The point is I'm not the first person to *solve* this so called "paradox", in fact Obler did it himself so your claim that I"m somehow "special" in that respect is pure nonsense just like your claim about surface brightness being immune to the inverse square laws, and your total *howler* of errors related to that inverse square law experiment I tried to discuss with you.

If I didn't find a problem with the solution then your argument must be incorrect so ultimately you must hope I find his solution to be wrong!!!!!!

Frankly I don't care what you find, I'm simply noting that your strawman arguments about my skepticism of that claim being unique to me is totally bogus.

Given this paper has no relevance to the thread I will read it in my own good time.

It does have relevance in the sense that it's related to this topic, and it's another *solution* that you probably won't deal with and will likely just ignore just like you ignored your *blatant* problem with your choice of shell sizes.

 

[Michael]

You've got this all backwards (and typical of a programmer whose life logical is limited to 'if/then/else' statements, where the conditions are not known to the programmer inside his/her box.. but may be known by others).

No, I have it right which is typical of a programmer who has to make sure that the software actually works correctly. Your software is buggy as hell.

The statement is the logical outcome of the shell model and its going in assumption (abt the video 4:23 mark), stated as: 'the point is that ΔR is very much smaller than R'.

That's the biggest bug in the software! First you try to compare the brightness of the night sky to the sun, and you claim to want to include the inverse square law in your code. The *only logical* choice of R and delta R in that scenario is 1AU, otherwise you're not comparing the brightness of any shell or series of shells to the brightness of sun! Furthermore you're asserting that the number of stars in each shell should be increasing proportionally to distance to offset the loss of light due to the changing distance (delta r), but that's not actually even happening nor is that even possible! The next 268,770 1AU shells contain *no additional light sources at all*. Not only is the software buggy, the logic of the argument is hopelessly *wrong*. There are no additional stars in the next 268,770 shells, not even one!

The logical 'truth' of the model is underwritten by the irrefutable logic of math therorem proofs, of which you are totally blind and in denial about. End of story.

Your logic is *absolutely refutable* and your math 'proofs' prove exactly nothing due to all the bugs in you logic. The only prove that your premise is flawed and your math is equally flawed due to your choice of inappropriate R values, and *unrelated* (to the brightness of the sun) values which you're comparing.

Have you even bothered to stop your mouth (and fingers) to consider that R and ΔR are in fact, related, (ie: not independently assignable), in the model?

Yes! In fact they *must be* related to the sun since that is the level of brightness that you're claiming to be comparing your model to. That's exactly why your software is buggy in fact! You chose completely inappropriate R values compared to the sun so you blatantly violated the inverse square law to start with.

N is a variable .. of arbitrarily assigned value, (where in this case, is not assigned any particular value),

It's absolutely *not* arbitrary if you're comparing the brightness of shells to the brightness of the sun and you're claiming to obey the inverse square laws. That's your second obvious bug. N *must be* increasing by a square law in each shell, or your model is toast.

of galaxies per unit volume in a universe with an isotropic, homogeneous distribution of galaxies. Why are you talking about stars?

You're the one that "baited" us with a star by comparing the brightness of the night sky to the brightness of our star, and then you pulled a blatant *switch* routine by comparing it to *distant galaxies* when no galaxy in the universe is nearly as bright as our own star! That's your *third* big bug.

As R increases to infinity in a static infinite universe, (and/or ΔR, within its stated constraint): so too does the intensity of light

No it doesn't increase to infinity unless N increase proportionally to distance, dust has no effect on light, and no other possibilities exist to explain photon redshift other than expansion, otherwise it's a gigantic fail! In this case N doesn't increase proportionally, dust *does* have an effect on light, and *many* other possible explanations for redshift have been proposed so your software is *full* of bad assumptions and bugs galore!

but independently of your inverse square law term R^2 .. it has been cancelled out!

No, because N did *not* increase by the square law as required in your claim.

The distances between the galaxies then decreases with increasing R, resulting in infinite intensity. End of story.

That's a bait and switch device by using a *star* at one AU and then pulling a blatant switch routine by discussing galaxies and large R values.

The model refers to galaxies .. not stars .. end of story.

False. The model *originally* refers to brightness of our *star* not other galaxies. Put an end to the bait and switch routine.

The inverse square law is included in the R^2 denominator and gets cancelled out. End of story.

Not it's not because you baited us with a 1AU light source and then you *switched* to a massive R value that has no correlation to the original light source that you selected. Major bug in your code!

A tantrum is your concluding response?

We must be getting somewhere!

Pfft!

I think we'll never get anywhere because your code has so many bugs it's not even workable. Your baited us with a 1AU star as a light source, then *switched* to massive R's and delta R's that are unrelated to the distance of your original compared light source, thereby ignoring/violating the inverse square law. You ignored scattering effects in your code. You ignored the limitations of human eyesight in your code. You *assumed* that no other explanation of redshift is possible in a static universe too. Those are all *major* bugs in your code. There are *lots* of bugs in your code, not just a single bug. You won't even admit to the *obvious* bug related to your blatant bait and switch routine related to appropriate R values, let alone the more subtle bugs in your code.

 

[sjastro]

The point is I'm not the first person to *solve* this so called "paradox", in fact Obler did it himself so your claim that I"m somehow "special" in that respect is pure nonsense just like your claim about surface brightness being immune to the inverse square laws, and your total *howler* of errors related to that inverse square law experiment I tried to discuss with you.

Amongst your problems is handling simple logic.
These howlers I have supposedly made would be manifested in a flood of supportive evidence for your take on Olbers' paradox.
Given the total sum is zero at this stage you have put the cart before the horse.

Frankly I don't care what you find, I'm simply noting that your strawman arguments about my skepticism of that claim being unique to me is totally bogus.

It does have relevance in the sense that it's related to this topic, and it's another *solution* that you probably won't deal with and will likely just ignore just like you ignored your *blatant* problem with your choice of shell sizes.

Oh I see so the validity of the solutions themselves are of secondary importance, more important are a set of discordant solutions.

Let me give you a word of warning.
If you try to con me why by flooding this thread with links and expect me to sift through in order to find your supportive evidence you will be very much mistaken and I will consider it an admission of failure.

With each link you provide you will have to show.
(1) Olbers' paradox is violated by the inverse square law.
(2) Surface brightness is dependent on distance in a static Universe.
(3) How (1) and (2) lead to R=Δr=1AU.

Any deviation from this format such as the exclusion of any of the above points from a link will be considered an admission of failure.

 

[SelfSim]

No, I have it right which is typical of a programmer who has to make sure that the software actually works correctly. Your software is buggy as hell.

How would you know when your tests are invalid?

That's the biggest bug in the software! First you try to compare the brightness of the night sky to the sun, and you claim to want to include the inverse square law in your code.

No .. as I said previously, there is no:
- 'First(ly) you try to compare the brightness of the night sky to the sun';
and secondly;
- the effect of the inverse square law results in the appearance of the R^2 term in the denominator.

The *only logical* choice of R and delta R in that scenario is 1AU, otherwise you're not comparing the brightness of any shell or series of shells to the brightness of sun!

No .. *unflawed* logic leads back to the assumption as stated in the video (at about the 4:23 mark), that:
'the point is that Δr is very much smaller than R'.

Furthermore you're asserting that the number of stars in each shell should be increasing proportionally to distance to offset the loss of light due to the changing distance (delta r),

No .. the R^2 demoninator cancels out in the bigger picture of the intensity coming from a shell. The intensity from a given shell is independent from the R^2 term. Nothing to do with: 'the loss of light due to the changing distance (delta r)'.

... but that's not actually even happening nor is that even possible! The next 268,770 1AU shells contain *no additional light sources at all*. Not only is the software buggy, the logic of the argument is hopelessly *wrong*. There are no additional stars in the next 268,770 shells, not even one!

Your understanding of the reasoning and the math is what's wrong here ...

Can't you read what's on the whiteboard and hear what he is saying?

Your logic is *absolutely refutable* and your math 'proofs' prove exactly nothing due to all the bugs in you logic. The only prove that your premise is flawed and your math is equally flawed due to your choice of inappropriate R values, and *unrelated* (to the brightness of the sun) values which you're comparing.

Then why does not a single logically thinking, math and physics-minded soul agree with you?

Where's your empirical test of yourself and what you say in all of this, Mr 'Empirical Physics'?

Yet another Michael delusion is one plausible conclusion.

Yes! In fact they *must be* related to the sun since that is the level of brightness that you're claiming to be comparing your model to. That's exactly why your software is buggy in fact! You chose completely inappropriate R values compared to the sun so you blatantly violated the inverse square law to start with.

Go back to your programming and give up trying to understand .. I'm sure you'll be happier living inside your own 'shell' of obviously considerable Δr.

It's absolutely *not* arbitrary if you're comparing the brightness of shells to the brightness of the sun and you're claiming to obey the inverse square laws. That's your second obvious bug. N *must be* increasing by a square law in each shell, or your model is toast.

Nope ... your R^2 term has cancelled out before any considerations of the summed intensity from more than one shell.

The rest of your post is drivel.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I didn't realize there could be a before...

Gerold Schroeder looks at this from the perspective of Science and the Kabbalah.

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

The first three words in the Hebrew Bible tells us that in the Beginning of Creation was God. We know that God is not only outside of time, He is also outside of creation itself. This tends to get into quantum physics because classic physics only works with time. If you do not have time then the laws of physics are going to be different. Einstein tells us that everything is relative. He did not like quantum physics because then the laws are no longer relative and they talk about singularity before time began.

Jung when he was talking about his Near Death Experience says that this could not have been a product of his imagination: "How can I imagine that I exist simultaneously the day before yesterday, today, and the day after tomorrow? There would be things which would not yet have begun, other things which would be indubitably present, and others again which would already be finished and yet all this would be one." Carl G. Jung's Near-Death Experience

 

[joshua 1 9]

Really? So when the gravitational force is zero the potential energy is infinite? Can you explain how that works?

Atheism can not understand infinity because they are finite. They have a beginning and an end. Infinity does not have a beginning and end. God is the alpha and the omega, He knows the end from the beginning. You can not have a beginning without and end. You can not have an end without a beginning.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Atheism can not understand infinity because they are finite. They have a beginning and an end. Infinity does not have a beginning and end. God is the alpha and the omega, He knows the end from the beginning. You can not have a beginning without and end. You can not have an end without a beginning.

If you don't understand the question and its context, it's probably better to ask or say nothing.