# Universe Expansion

I fail to see why identical things aren't allowed to exist?

It still might cause rebirth, however.

It still might cause rebirth, however.
What exactly do you mean by rebirth?

The same thing over again.
So, your argument is that two the same things aren't allowed to exist, because that would cause two the same things to exist? That's circular reasoning.

The same thing over again.
How is it possible I could be reborn? "I" have the experiences (both mental and physical) of a man more than a half century old.
Even if my DNA occurred exactly the same somewhere/when else in the universe, it can't be me.

So, your argument is that two the same things aren't allowed to exist, because that would cause two the same things to exist? That's circular reasoning.

There can only be one Love. I do not understand why they would be reborn only that the possibility is there because things are finite, like shapes, colors, or directions. The circle goes round as the same thing forever like the same thing occurring forever.

Last edited:
How is it possible I could be reborn?

Even if my DNA occurred exactly the same somewhere/when else in the universe, it can't be me.

I believe that there are only so many things and if the universe has always been so have we.

Why can't it be you?

Why can't it be you?

No two snowflakes are the same (I know, I checked)

The number of "things" in the Universe is as close to infinite as you can get and the Universe is really really big

No two things can be the same simply because they are constructed from different atoms

No two snowflakes are the same (I know, I checked)

The number of "things" in the Universe is as close to infinite as you can get and the Universe is really really big

No two things can be the same simply because they are constructed from different atoms

How are they constructed?

There can only be one Love.
Why? And what does this have to do with similar things in general being allowed or not?

I do not understand why they would be reborn only that the possibility is there because things are finite, like shapes, colors, or directions.
You've just answered your own question: if there are only a finite number of possible objects, and there are an infinite number of object, some will necessarily have to be the same.

The circle goes round as the same thing forever like the same thing occurring forever.
That's only true if there are also only a finite number of interactions possible between objects.

Why? And what does this have to do with similar things in general being allowed or not?

They wouldn't just be similar. Apple's are infinite, but types of fruits are finite.

They wouldn't just be similar. Apple's are infinite,
There's only a finite amount of apples on Earth. And if you're talking about possible apples: please provide proof that there are infinite possible different apples.

but types of fruits are finite.

And this still doesn't prove that there's only one "Love", or what that has to do with similar things in general being allowed or not.

Why? And what does this have to do with similar things in general being allowed or not?

They may be merley similar or they may be the same exact person and nature, we don't know either way.

There's only a finite amount of apples on Earth. And if you're talking about possible apples: please provide proof that there are infinite possible different apples.

And this still doesn't prove that there's only one "Love", or what that has to do with similar things in general being allowed or not.

The finity of shapes, colors and other things suggest a capacity over nature including the human race. Not just because they would look the same but because of a relativity.

They may be merley similar or they may be the same exact person and nature, we don't know either way.
Why would we be able to tell?

The finity of shapes, colors and other things suggest a capacity over nature including the human race.
You have not demonstrated the finity of any of those. And even if so, why would it suggest a capacity over nature? Also, what does that even mean?

Not just because they would look the same but because of a relativity.
What relativity are you talking about?

And you've accidentally forgotten to provide proof for your claim that there are infinite apples?

How are they constructed?

Falling moisture freezes into six sided crystals

Falling moisture freezes into six sided crystals
and since this thread is on universal expansion, expansion of the universe, from the small, flaky water to the big, the universe;- It is modelled as six sided too, kind of, The radius of expansion projected around the perimeter, check the ALMA topic on alternative theories.
Nature uses the same structures over and over again.

Why would we be able to tell?
This forum used to be half decent. Now it's full of sneering quacks and trolls whose physics knowledge is scant, and who go round giving kids a hard time instead of helping them to learn. Meanwhile JamesR bans me from posting in the science forums. Because my posts are knowledgeable and laden with bona-fide references. Because I know more physics than him. What a charlatan. I will look out for you elsewhere, NotEinstein.

This forum used to be half decent. Now it's full of sneering quacks and trolls whose physics knowledge is scant, and who go round giving kids a hard time instead of helping them to learn. Meanwhile JamesR bans me from posting in the science forums. Because my posts are knowledgeable and laden with bona-fide references. Because I know more physics than him. What a charlatan. I will look out for you elsewhere, NotEinstein.
Um...

I just wanted to quote that to be honest. Gotta' be impulsive...

:EDIT:

I mean quote that so he couldn't edit it. And, yes a hint of me feels so stupid right now.

This forum used to be half decent. Now it's full of sneering quacks and trolls whose physics knowledge is scant,
I don't disagree with you there.

and who go round giving kids a hard time instead of helping them to learn.
Another problem is that some "kids" seem to be beyond help.

Meanwhile JamesR bans me from posting in the science forums.
I have nothing to do with that, but have you honestly self-reflected on that? I've so far had no problems with James R or any of the staff here.

Because my posts are knowledgeable and laden with bona-fide references.
May I suggest that if that's true, then perhaps the problem isn't with the content, but with the manner in which it is presented?

Because I know more physics than him. What a charlatan.