A spiral mathematically needs two exponent values acting upon a line, namely; pi of a circle being drawn + the amount of continued pushing against that circle being drawn ~ such that the circle increases/decreases relative to that exponent to form a spiral. The exercise here is to reduce down to minimal function, because if we don’t we usually/always find there is something simpler working beneath.
Absolute uniformity, “perfect homogeneity”, is physically impossible. It doesn’t matter of what you are considering.
A physical absolute straight line, totally lacking in variation, can never exist, no matter how long. Nor can a curve with the exact same angle of curvature throughout. If there is an angle that can be varied, it will vary.
The seemingly straight physical line sways in every possible direction at one point or another as it extends. It is considered straight only because the average swaying toward each possible angle is subtle and sums to almost zero. By definition, a straight line never folds back on itself, else it isn’t “a straight line”.
No physical curved line could ever find its way back to it’s own origin because that would require absolute perfect precision in curvature and absolute perfection cannot physically exist, whether in straightness or curvature. And that means that perfect spirals cannot exist either - nor perfect spheres, nor perfect … any … geometric shape.
The universe is not a great ball, does not curve back on itself, and is NOT “expanding”.
That depends on the mutual affectance density - the “frequency” of the light (actually the density) and the density of the matter.
If you spammed a bunch of lines, and the lines were only a mile long, there is a slight probability they would warp back to the origin, if the curvature was a random angle between 0 and 2 per mile/360.
But as big as the universe is…the probability approaches zero. You would have to spam an infinite amount of lines…and there is no such thing as spamming an infinite amount of lines, except in magnet flux maybe.
James how do you explain why scientist say the universe is expanding and they say galaxies are drifting apart.
There is absolutely zero probability that they would return to the exact same point. It is physically impossible (despite the cartoon reality of the imagination).
They originally speculated that the red-shifted light spectrum that they could measure from the stars was due to the Doppler effect (the light source moving). That idea led to the idea of a Big Bang (originally just a joke). And the BB idea led to religious promotion. So even though they more than proved that the universe is not actually expanding at all and the red-shift is due to the blue-dispersal (empty space acts as a very subtle prism leaving only the red to be seen as coming from the source), they still promote the idea of BB, expansion, and heat-death to the dumbed down masses. None of their promotions are true.
james
Well that’s the very thing physicists discovered about background radiation, that makes them think the universe began as infinite, or is infinite. I think trixie is right in that it is not visible light, but it is straight. I should add that the straight line is equally a hypothetical, to denote a uniform ‘shape’ to infinity prior to the curve. I agree it is not really possible to absolutely denote shape to infinity even as say a grid [to avoid volume issues], after all, any shape we put forwards will be a finite one in our minds.
Infinity is perhaps its own shape, and only that?
There is observable local expansion though! I agree that it evades curiously, being given shape. well we have one thing which is an infinite shape, and another thing which is universe shaped, so a product of universe is logically not going to denote how it gets from infinite to finite. hence the need for metaphor, and for mathematical/ontological accuracy.
infinty is best represented as a sphere. Why sphere? Sphere represents uniform expansion in all directions and dimensions. Mtheorie-ers, people who believe in 11 dimension, represent infinity as a torus, because they believe spheres have n-numbers of dimensions (torus are spheres with extra dimensions.)
Science has become a religion, they will ban you if you dont agree with bigbang or einstein theory. If you say one word out of line you are punished, so everyone keeps their opinions to themselves. Science is also been infected by feminist hubris and fascism, a noble prize winner quit his science job after making a mild sexist joke.
If it is a non zero point and a non zero thickness line, the probability is higher than zero that it will collide with itself.
If you believe that about science, then why do you attack my alternate philosophies.
Why a sphere? That is as finite an object as any and doesn’t even fill space.
I think the inference here and over many threads, has been that no shape fits infinity or a space et al, perfectly. It is unique and can only have its own shape [-lessness].
Funny how infinite light turns out to be dark. 
_
A sphere denotes infinity, always has. O=infinity. Then they made the OO symbol indicating a torus (a sphere with extra dimensions. Why because a sphere cannot be a zero point entity it is not fictitious. Lines and points are fictious, they do not exist. What we call "lines’ are really finite planes or cylinders with a low thickness.
Cylinders do not represent infinity, because one of the concept of infinity is that it has an infinite time to round itself out, this causes symetry and roundnes, cubes are not round, cyliinders are not fully symetric. Spheres are symetric on all dimensions. Cube is artifice, symbol of man and math. Trees, are non infinite spheres, lighting is a tree, tree is crawling, reaching, trying to become a sphere, trying to become infinite, man’s neurons are reaching, clawing, trying to be infinite but always falling short of filling the sphere.
Disagreeing with alternative theories is not the same as banning you from science discussions for making alternate theories. that is what the mainstream science does. Why do I disagree? Because I find them silly.
I dont see how this theory helps shed light on the origins of the universe, you are making up abstractions that cannot be measured. The only thing in reality similar to this discussion is magnet flux lines and you haven’t even talked about them yet.
Doesnt make any sense and I don’t get the reference to what you are saying. I saw a vid of light in slow motion but it didnt make any sense either. If photons do not reach the camera you cannot see them. Therefore you cannot see the photons as they are in slow motion, but only a reflection of the photons. The video was show in a coca cola bottle so I cannot even begin to analyze it scientifically. They couldn’t even do me the courtesy of using a regular shaped cylinder!
That is like saying, "A bomb exploded, therefore the universe has expanded!! 
"
A geodesic is a straight line in space which becomes bent due to the effect of general relativity
Not really. Relativity ontology is incoherent (aka “untrue”). And that wouldn’t matter anyway.
The definition of a “straight line” requires that it NOT curve. So if whatever line you are talking about curves for whatever reason you have accepted, it isn’t a “straight line”. And in order to get a straight line, you must bend your curved line in the reverse direction of its curve.
But my point was that infinite precision cannot exist in the physical universe. And that means that no physical shape can ever be a perfect geometric shape; straight line, circle, square, sphere, whatever…
You presumably mean natural shapes rather than artificial ones as well which are
designed to be as geometrically perfect as possible like snooker balls for example
There are no physical/natural shapes that can be perfectly defined. It is the defining process that forbids thoughts to perfectly match physical reality.
I take your point, that the universe exploding locally does not effect an infinite universe [or any universe that explosion occurs in], any more than a bomb in a field in france does not affect a farmer in china.
Things is, that explosion contained all matter/energy, so there was nothing else for it to be exploding it. It even contains its own ‘space’. Expansion then denotes that the entire mass in the universe is expanding!
Then it wasn’t “local”, was it.
all + in-the-singular-explosion + is-expanding = localised [energy pattern or information]. This is of the observable universe, and energy being conserved naturally means that there can only be ‘x’ amount of energy in the system. Ergo the observable + unknown value, would equal the whole amount of energy/mass in said system.
The universe may be infinite in origins or otherwise belong to an infinite reality, but the universe we see through the telescope is not an infinite one.
That is like saying that the Earth is flat “locally” merely because it was thought to be flat due to simple minded appearances.
That is not true. Who told you that?
… unless by “x” you mean “infinite”.
It is true that telescopes cannot see infinitely. That is one reason that science alone cannot testify to the size of the universe. It takes proper logic, philosophy, in order to prove what is beyond sight.
I think we must ask ourselves…who created the aether to exist? And if God, who created God?
How far must the aether span? I dont believe much of the bb myself, I believe in pulsing heart theory, galaxies entropy then swirl into a vortex and reform over and over.
THere is a deep spiritual emptiness when you ponder the utter meaninglessness of a vast universe filled with aether, but no reason for it being there. Aether is real, but who put it there. And if it was God, then who created God?
james
No if there were very large forces in the universe some reaching infinite power, they would nock the universe we can see off its blocks. It could be limited because as you suggest in the other thread on infinite universes, some things have their own limits, but that would also make the limits relative to one another local!
Maybe you can get a given set of relative things ~ a finite universe, and then you get another set and we can stretch that out across infinity. So each would have its own limits, and yet equally be an infinite universe [just a centred one]. ?
I don’t know how the limits are arrived at though!? There can be a myriad of attachments and patterns ~ fractals etc, which would denote a single infinite universe [the main point here].
If we could denote limits then there could be any number of universes, but if that has no limits then some would be denumerably massive and blow the others ways, and have peculiar characteristics incongruous with others.
_