The universe is finite.

[6] Bruce was a dear friend and I'm glad to see his lectures cited here. Luckily, Bruce's lectures also give us a common ground to argue from. For a fair and quality discourse, I assume Ajab will advocate a consistent and stable position. Thus, I assume Ajab agrees to the information contained in his sources. Ajab should not be allowed to change his advocacy in the final round and argue that his sources are wrong or false. Ajab should be held to his position that the universe is expanding and that cosmic microwave background (CMB) exists. Please do not allow Ajab to argue contradictory or inconsistent positions in the final round (especially since I would be unable to respond). Defining the resolution - the burden of proofThe debate title is the following: "The universe is finite. " It isn't "The universe must be finite. " To be safe, I'll argue both. However, for the purposes of fairness and quality discourse, Ajab should not be allowed to change the debate topic after accepting the debate. Rewriting a debate topic after acceptance is unfair and thus lowers the quality of discourse (by forcing me to argue this mundane point). There is a big difference between the words "must be" and "is. " Proving something "is" requires a much lower burden than proving something "must be. " Under Ajab's rewrite, Ajab claims he "only need to show of a possible scenario, or a reason why the Universe may be infinite. " However, under the debate topic as originally written and accepted by Ajab, Ajab must show more than a "possible scenario. " Ajab must offer evidence about the universe as we know it (not some "possible scenario"). Under the original debate title, showing the universe "could be" infinite is not enough. At the very least, Ajab must show that the universe is probably infinite. The burden under the original debate topic is much higher for Ajab than under Ajab's rewrite. Please hold Ajab to the higher burden embodied in the debate topic as written, for the purpose of promoting fair and quality discourse. Please don't let Ajab rewrite the debate title after accepting the debate. Ajab also continues to claim that a "reasonable doubt" standard applies. As I explained in the previous round, that standard is for criminal trials and this isn't a criminal trial. If anything, this is much closer to a civil trial or an administrative hearing, where the standard applied is a "preponderance" or "clear and convincing" standard. Both those standards are much lower than a "reasonable doubt" standard. Please do not apply a "reasonable doubt" standard here and instead apply the lower "preponderance" or "clear and convincing" standad. The resolution requires more than proving the universe "could be" infinite -- don't let Ajab impose an unfair burden of proof. RebuttalAjab does not argue that the universe "is" infinite. Ajab's argument is limited to the claim that the universe "could be" infinite. So under the debate challenge I offered and Ajab accepted, Ajab cannot win this debate, because Ajab had to offer evidence that the universe is probably infinite, not just evidence that the universe "could be" infinite. Because Ajab doesn't argue that the universe "is" infinite, Ajab can only win this debate if you accept his rewrite (which you shouldn't, as explained above). Ajab's argument is limited to the claim that starlight doesn't brighten our sky at night because the starlight has become cosmic microwave background (CMB). According to Ajab, that means I haven't met the "necessarily finite" burden, because there is an explanation for our inability to see the starlight from an infinite number of stars. In other words, the universe "could be" infinite if starlight has become CMB. The universe "could be" infinite if starlight were CMB, but Ajab is wrong that starlight can become CMB. Starlight cannot become CMB. [7]What is CMB and where does it come from? Professor Bruce Winstein (cited by Ajab) explains: "The [CMB] radiation we see today came from an era when the Universe was hot. When it had a temperature T > 13ev, protons, electrons and photons were the main constituents of a plasma in equilibrium; the expansion of the universe cooled the plasma to where hydrogen atoms formed (called the era of recombination, even though the atomic constituents had never been combined prior). " Professor Winstein continues: "The photons that we see today were then emitted when the universe was some 1100 times smaller than today, from a 'surface' with a thickness of about 20%, about 380 thousand years after the Big-Bang. " [6]This means that CMB comes from a time when there were no stars, planets, or galaxies. CMB offers evidence of a time when there weren't even any atoms. There was only a hot plasma. CMB is a window into the past. CMB is the light that goes furthest back in time and distance that we can observe. Ajab admits the existence of CMB, and the existence of CMB proves that the universe as we know it -- defined in R1 as including stars, planets, and galaxies -- did not always exist. At some point, the world was just a plasma, so the universe (as defined in R1) is not infinitely old. Ajab's [2], [4], and [5] also state that CMB comes from a time before stars and galaxies had formed, which further proves that Ajab's claim that starlight becomes CMB is false. [2] says: "At that time, stars and galaxies had not yet formed. The Universe consisted of a hot soup of electrons and atomic nuclei. " [5] says CMB has "a thermal, black body spectrum," which a "steady state model" can't "reproduce" (which means CMB doesn't come from starlight). [4] says: "The cosmic microwave background has a redshift of z = 1089, corresponding to an age of approximately 379,000 years after the Big Bang and a comoving distance of more than 46 billion light years. The yet-to-be-observed first light from the oldest Population III stars, not long after atoms first formed and the CMB ceased to be absorbed almost completely, may have redshifts in the range of 20 < z < 100. " Ajab's [4] puts things into perspective: The oldest starlight hasn't even reached our planet yet. Ajab cited these sources for his claims about CMB, so don't let him argue otherwise in the final round. Don't trust Ajab's claimsAjab dooms his credibility by misinterpreting and misapplying scientific results. Ajab claims that starlight from a long time ago can become CMB, but CMB refers to light from the creation of atoms during recombination. Starlight cannot become CMB. [7] Don't trust Ajab's claims about science unless they are explicitly stated in a source, because Ajab misinterpreted what CMB is, and then misapplied it to starlight. Ajab also says "the expansion of space originated before Time," but that statement is utter nonsense. The expansion of space implies the existence of time. Note Ajab's absence of a source for this claim. He's making stuff up out of thin air. Please don't trust Ajab unless his claim is explicitly stated in a source. ConclusionI defined universe in R1 as the universe we see in the sky ("including planets, stars, galaxies"). CMB proves that "universe" is finite (CMB proves the big bang (creation of the world), and a time prior to the formation of stars). That the sky at night isn't dazzling from starlight proves there aren't an infinite number of stars emitting light for an infinite amount of time. Ajab's rebuttal fails because he distorted the science in his sources. Please hold Ajab to his positions from R2 - don't let him make new arguments, or take contradictory/inconsistent positions, in the final round. I won't have a chance to respond to Ajab's claims next round. If he introduces new arguments, or takes a position inconsistent with his R2 claims, I won't have a chance to prove his science wrong again. Remember, Ajab's science claims aren't trustworthy, so prefer mine to his. Thanks for reading! Vote Pro. [7] . http://www.astro.ucla.edu...