The infinite space of the Universe

There are two ways of making a probability conclusion. One is to see where things are pointing to - and the other is to see where they are pointing from. The issue of transitory and accumulative increments have no effect here, and here's why.Now anyone can claim a conclusion scenario by making reasonable, scientific assessments where a process is heading, and there is really no means to prove them wrong - its like the climate fiasco, whereby no one's going to be around to say they were wrong.But where is everything pointing from? The issue here is pivotal, and generally never addressed, or made to appear like something else than what the piture is realling saying - thus we find space is touted as either infinite, always prevailed, etc.The pivotal and impacting question is, whatever we say was the first entity, whether this be space, a particle, the BB or whatever one chooses, it also means, by subsequence, nothing else existed at that juncture. Then something happened - that first entity heaved, expanded, heated, burst, exploded, formed other things, or whatever. Now remember, this last fact is based on the premise there was one entity and nothing else but that one entity.This means that first, primal entity had nothing inside it which was seperate or independent of that entity - else it was not the first entity, and we also will negate the premise of there not being anything else. By subsequence, we have to conclude there was an external factor impacting on that first entity to make it become activated. But wait - this also contradicts the premise there was nothing else - so how can we allow an external factor? IMHO, it is the latter factor which subscribes and allows only a Creator resultant universe. It appears totally reasonable here, that a complexity has to have at its foundation a greater complexity and one able to produce that complexity.If I am in error, then I will be very enlightened with any other alternative being applicable? IMHO, if there is logic in science now - then it means it is most probable that there was logic at the beginning also.

What is the life span of a black hole - I have encountered contradicting answers here? Also, black holes are post-uni effects, and appear compressed graveyards of mass.

quote:

---

I find this intriguing as there is a preponderance of people who accept that the universe is expanding. A red shift from distant galaxies can be caused by our galaxy shrinking.

---

That is a reasonable and intelligent counter. But are you also saying, based on the possibility you raise, that the universe is NOT expanding?I cannot see space as nothingness. Here, space is a THING - it has attributes, such as a recipient factor of mass, namely in its containment facility. Space is a bed, akin to a matrix. Space's reciprocal attributes are seen in its descretionary factors concerning sound and light; it is denser than sound but not of light - which negates the nothingness premise.

quote:

---

That is because we are used to thinking of things in terms of their physical or temporal space.

---

Nothingness is perhaps the ultimate affront for the human mind, science and all other avenues of the imagination. Since this issue is transcendent of science, I can say the closest coherence of this subject may yet be from a faculty called 'Theoretical Kabalah', which is varied from the issue of today's Practical Kabalah, which is more occult oriented with beads, color threads and Madona.The theoretical science of Kabalah, and this is a pre-science faculty, is to provide metaphors and analogies to comprehend the unknowable, which is a reversal system of today's science, which uses academic equations to explain physical phenomena.The ancient kabalists backtracked the issue of nothingness, and asked the question, what was the first entity, aside from the creator? One may conclude this answer was light, as this is first mentioned in genesis. But they went further, and concluded the first entity was an act [action/will/thought]. The answer here was, the first act was that of GIVING/IMPARTING. This does make sense, as nothing can happen without this factor. Science may call this an exchange or some other term. The next, obvious question has to be: giving/imparting to whom and giving what? This is where the analogy comes to the rescue, because none can imagine it, and here the analogy of a 'vessel' is used. IOW, the recipient was a vessel, created from a 'contraction', which becomes a reciever/container of that which was given. This is the very first act: Giver and Recipient. this also alligns with man being made in the image of the creator, which applies to everything, even with science, when everything is backtracked.The analogy of light [or a ray of light], is then used to signify that which was given, and a program [will/thought/seed] was embedded in that ray of light. This alligns with genesis, namely light being primodial, and the act of continuation being via the seed which contains a program [DNA]. Now, we have a second phase, namely a giver, a reciever and a product.Phase three is that the attributes of the giver was imparted and now contained in the vessel, namely, the vessel acquired the attribute of 'giving'. The vessel also started to 'give' - for the first instant. This can be seen akin to the Big Bang - the vessel burst forth, subsequent to its newly acquired attribute of giving, with a program which anticipated all what became the universe.There is a brilliant transit stage between the vessel 'giving' and a burst/explosion factor also described. Items such as wisdom, understanding and knowledge - no less enigmatic than nothingness, are catered to. These items did not just come of their own, but were resultant from a program in the original, primal ray of light. Ten realms or emanations, aka Sefirot, are listed here. The first three realms are Wisdom, Understanding and Knowledge. Wisdom contains the attributes of positive/male/past inclinations; Understanding is female and future inclined [the reason a female is given the task of life and its future security thoughts]; the sum of wisdom + undertdnaing = knowledge. The female can bypass wisdom and go directly to knowledge - the reason a woman need not indulge in too much philosophy or prayers, because she has this inherent understanding in a greater decree than the male [the reason even a great prophet like Abraham was told, 'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT']. At this stage, no physicality, life, male, female as we know it - existed yet; these are analogies listed with what we can percieve only via such analogies.So when we talk of nothingness, in reality, there is much happening in that realm. This fully alligns with the premise, a complexity has to have a greater complexity as its foundation. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

My point is that time is an independent entity, and not dependent upon man's measures. If we measured according to our own inventions, it may work to some basic level, but will eventually become contradicted. The correct measurement of time, applicable to our own known unuverse limits, is best seen in the solar/lunar/earthly alligned measurements, altghough earlier, sand clocks and sun shadow gadgets sufficed for a limited time.IOW, time is an entity like space, energy, etc.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Just because we cannot fathom what is out there (if anything) does not make any idea "god."

---

Actually, it does. Maybe not of any theological God, but surely, by absence and logic factors, a Creator scenario has no alternative. One cannot reject on the basis of no proof here, because a proof itself becomes a negating factor, as we see from the nothingness example.Its like finding a car on Jupiter and concluding there must be a car maker.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The same goes for a naturally fuctioning Universe that reproduces and is self sustaining.

---

Equally, there is no such thing as nature or naturally functioning universe - this is a belief, and not represented in any logical contruct of science. In fact, the universal structures expose a deep and complex process, and all its structures are intergrated.One can address a lock on Jupiter as a natural, random occurence, but not so if an exactly fitting key to that lock is found - this affirms an intergration, and an intergration negates a natural [random] action.

quote:

---

yes, i'd think someone made it but, if I found plant, or a bug, or algae on Jupiter I would NOT conclude there must be a plant maker, or a bug maker, or an algae maker...I would conclude that it went through a natural process of evolution and try to find out how.

---

That conclusion is wrong - logically and scientifically. If a car has a maker, than any other complex construct must be equally validated - unless anti-thetical proof is put forward. Evolution is also not a natural [?] process - it shows a complex engineering every instant, inherent of intergration, cross-reciprocity and its conclusion being anticipatedn in its processes: there is nothing 'natural' about it, and if this term is applied, it can only be applied for an evolution designers and maker.Evolution is a process after the fact of already occuring products in place, which were not resultant from that process; the same applies to 'space'. One cannot point to a car manual and conclude it as a natural process; the same applies to a pineapple. If one archives the events and processes of both a car and a pineapple, the latter would list in the trillions of actions, all in intergration, directed to a specific conclusion and no other: there is nothing 'natural' here. We use the term nature to keep science as science, and not get bogged down by theologies. And science relates to the B to Z limits only - we have no science input of originals. Evolution is a car manual.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Is space resultant from 'nature' or is nature resultant from space? Do sub-atomic particles have a sort of inherent mind where to go and what to do, or do the universal products result from jitterbugging particles over infinite periods?I see the proof of that premise being vested in why such earthly, complex life is not seen anywhere else in the known universe. Are there different variations of particles whose traits differ from earth, and did all of the earthly particles become swept to just this sector of our solar systems by some form of random radiation wnds? In science, elements have constant and determinable traits and values - they do not function by and of theselves to produce a product, but require comprehensive intergration and reciprocity impacts. What's natural about it?

quote:

---

Exactly how much of the Universe have you visited. I'm guessing none

---

How about an actual survey of the universe, via telescopic observations, space missions, views of apollo of 2 billion miles from earth, and no life imprints on this planet for a period of 4.5 Billions years, and some 15 Billion years for the known universe? I believe that good science says a sruvey is a legitimate means for making scientific conclusions.

quote:

---

Rust: The effort of true genius.

---

That is an effect of a pre-determined set of traits embedded in elements. Pineapples also have a use-by date.

quote:

---

An actual survey of the Universe would be nice. Problem is there isn’t one with the resolution required to take notice of extra-solar system elephants less then a few thousand miles across?

---

That there is NO sign of life is a reasonable, scientific conclusion, and not dependent on resolution limitations. There is also no sign of life from the pov none out there have reached us. Signs of life are not limited to one or two, but millions if this was potentially plausable. At this current state of art phase, there is no life out there, and if this is the case, or is accepted as such, it poses an anomoly for 80% of the ToE factors, secially survival of the fittest [who says this is limited to surviving only earthly conditions!], and the factors of adaptation.

quote:

---

Apollo didn’t make it one five-thousandth of that 2 billion miles you have granted it; yet, 2 billion miles is, for universal purposes, still in our own neck of the woods?

---

Sorry. I should have said 'VOYAGER'. Hello?

quote:

---

And we don’t have any way of knowing if the Universe has or hasn’t been teaming with life stretching back to the first billion years of its existence.

---

The time factor does not impact, where evolution is an *on-going* process. Its called proper maths?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

We dont know the shape of the universe, namely if it is spherical. A straight line will return to its starting source point only where the trajectors are curved upon its self. However, because the inflation [expansion] is said to be hormonegious, namely equally in all directions, it is reasonable to assume a spherical result. However, the distances forbids any conclusion of this factor. yes/no?

Try this. You and your coffee mug are part of a program embedded inside the primal BB particle, al biet many trillion times smaller, in prototype mode. Imagine this particle as the entire universe.Imagine it expanded to its current size, and with it, in proportional relevance, you have now expanded trillion fold to a full grown human, and like you, all other components have also grown and come of age. But you are still embedded within that expanded particle, only your design has changed from a nano size to the current size, and all of this expansion and graduation are part of a program which was contained in that original primal particle.This is a theory which well accomodates the BBT, while still retaining in tact all of science and logic, but dismissing the non-science of IT JUST HAPPENED OF ITSELF.IOW, the universe could not have grown to such complexity in the absence of a pre-determined program which caters to the resultant complexity. We see complex maths and science every instant of the universe - which signifies the antithesis of IT JUST HAPPENED [RANDOMLY]. How does one prove such a premise?One way, is to devise a formula which caters to growth from the micro to the macro realm, so that the macro space-time is in equivalent relation to the micro. Namely, it is plausable that the micro realm is just as vast as the macro - in relative terms. The distance of the earth's diameter may yet be smaller than the diameter of a single cell within a human - in relative terms; equally, the distance of the universe may yet be smaller than the distances within a single atom down to its furtherest boundaries - in relative terms. A relevant question here would be, is the universe expanding only in the macro realm, or also in the micro realms? Why would only one end expand, and how come we equally cannot fathom a boundary in the micro - because a 100 years ago, we thought the atom was the smallest particle; 30 years ago, we thought the quark is the smallest; today, sceintists are pulling at their shock of white hairs in frustration of both vastness - the micro and the macro. Once such a forula is devised, and a linear measuring index is achieved, spanning the micro to macro in a continuous span - we can better determine our position and status in the universe, where we came from and where we are heading.

quote:

---

Cars dont reproduce, this is not an arguement for your position at all. Its ridiculous to compare an automobile to a living organism.

---

Why so? Cars do reproduce. The operative factor here is that cars don't just happen of themselves - nothing which exhibits and displays a complexity does that, or can be accepted as doing that - even where there is no proof of a complex car maker or any other complex structure: there is really no such thing as 'nature' - nor is there anything natural about complexities emerging from non- or less complex. That is the ridiculous factor here, not mine.If you examine your premise - there is nothing which negates science and logic more than that premise. Your science stops abruptly at a certain treshold, and becomes less than sci-fi, witchraft and socery.The correct conclusion is yes, but we cannot prove it. One step further than that says, if we could prove it, that proof would be less transcendent the the universe. Here, the lack of proof and the enigma of not knowing is the only proof which is credible.We have to acknowledge, we are trust in a diobolical situation, on many levels. We don't know what we are, where we came from, why, how, or where we're going - or if there is a place to go - or to not go. That the primary 'A' factor is so fastidiously barred, to all, including theologists and scientists, does not infer or suggest there is nothing - just the reverse.We know nothing of the most basic factor of all: our origins. Its un-natural. And this means, designed that way - intentional and purposeful, blatantly obvious. Try to hide some fact from everyone, who are desperate to find out: its imposiible, and far more demanding a feat that not hiding it. Imagine telling a cop you don't know where your from - will he think you a brilliant scientist!?

quote:

---

The assumption that light or any imaginary or real "straight" object would circle back on itself completely ignores the chaos theory.

---

Your concluding back to front. Light's attributes are specific and it exists because it can prevail the forces of chaos and entropy - else it would never have emerged. Theories are a later perspective of a status quo or of an operating construct. Eg. ToE comes after a process is already in action mode - else what whoud ToE theorise about?However, I think light travels on its own trajectories, and its bending or curving is due to our subjective position and vista. If you take a water hose and direct the water in a straight line - we will see a different angle if we are on a different angle. Water retracting in different mediums also exhibit this trait - the light is not bending when passing through water, or when around mass bodies in space. The matrix which contains us, space, is changing due to dents made by the body mass of stars - as in a trampoline.

quote:

---

The operative factor is that if you'd like to compare a natural process like reproduction to what auto manufacturers do in an assembly line then ok, whatever.

---

There's no such thing as nature or natural - technically. These are terms we use for the inexplicable only, same as with a belief premise. The act of a car's reproduction manifests reproduction, same as a life offspring. The seed factor applies in both instances, wherein the car making instruction is a seed, same as the dna in a life form is the seed. There is an emulation here.

quote:

---

What are you saying that you want to just answer these questions with 'God did it'?

---

The issue of HOW and WHO DONE IT - are two totally seperate issues. Discovering the HOW does not prove or disprove the WHO DONE IT. If for example, we have a car making instruction manual, this has no impact on the WHO DONE IT. Science denotes the HOW. With regard the creator premise, your question is a moot one, because it is not as though you have an alternative scenario.In fact you are ridiculing and rejecting a logical premise, while putting nothing to replace it. I nominate the creator premise subsequent to an absolute vacancy in any possible alternatives, and conclude, very scientifically and logically - Creation and Monotheism are indispensible scenarios. When we discover a HOW, we are discovering a process at work only [Eg. Evolution], and when we try to delve any further to come to the exciting part - we find a brick wall - and what we call NATURE is that brick wall - and there is nothing natural about this - it is just a brick wall and an enigma.