The infinite space of the Universe

quote:

---

I don't need a god but life and the universe don't make a millionth of a percent sense. Their existence just don't make ANY sense, whatsoever. Everything is so pointless, yet everything is real and existing, it's frightening...

​

This is a human perspective, to the Universe YOU don't make sense. There's a great book written by the Dalai Lama called, "The Universe in a single Atom", it may be a good read for you.

---

Actually, that is not just a human perspective [duh!as opposed what else!?]. It is actually an accurate and honest perspective. The universe and life does not make sense: we see ultimate engineering works and constructs every place we look, with no purpose in sight. Logically, the question of WHY transcends and prempts the HOW factor. Consider which issue comes first when you build a house, is it not the WHY?It is also un-natural we don't panic about death looming, but become panic stricken if our car is stolen. This appears only explainable by a certain enzyme or wiring contained in the life program, which actually stops us from panicing about what we cannot control: it denotes an intelligence, rather than anything else we can imagine. Significantly, while science does not attend the WHY factor, which is a correct path else it would not be science - this issue is only dealth with in the OT.Namely, this ultimate and logical question was asked by Moses - it would be the only question any red blooded scientist would ask had he had such an opportunity. Humans cannot be satisfied without seeking the WHY factor. But I won't deviate to the adam and eve metaphor here. The WHY factor is outside of science, but not outside what we want to know.

quote:

---

2 cars don't make a baby car period!

---

But reproduction of cars is not debatable, nor that the car maker makes cars. Reproduction of cars happen.

quote:

---

When you say creator can you be more specific? What kind of a creator? Theistic? Metaphoric?

---

No, I cannot. Nor is there any requirement to do so. A car does not have to answer this question in order to prove a car maker.

quote:

---

All there is is the HOW, the WHO is imagined. Life is a continuous process at work never stopping.

---

The WHO is not imagined but real and indispensible. Life is not a continuous process - it started very recently, and did not exist at one time. This makes the WHO DONE IT not an voidable factor in the equation. Its like a pink car suddenly appearing in your bedroom this morning, and here you cannot connect the dots to billions of light years and subatomic BB particles.

quote:

---

I don't think you are understanding my position, I don't think you have a logical premise therefore im not required to replace it with anything.

---

On the other hand, you don't have a logical premise of your own, and there is also nothing to understand in it. Nothing [NATURE]is not logical too. And your standing in it. You are selecting what you like as having a source maker - which is a fractured fairy tale, as opposed a science.

INFINITY OF SPACE.By far the more interesting question is, what if space, and all the universe content, IS finite. Here, we end up with a brick wall, but we call this 'nature'. What's so 'natural' about it?

quote:

---

If the space is infinite we'll be hitting a wall in our quest for knowledge

---

Someone's reading my posts. For sure this is the last remnant cornering anti-creationists to that brick wall. In a runaway desperation from the finite premise, they are inventing illogical, unscientific new slants. IMHO< space is the final frontier, and should be/must be the proof the universe could not have emerged of itself. It is also the real reason today's neo athiest [illogical] science clings to this desperation: because they know that when push comes to shove, they are confronted with this brick wall, which negates their conclusions of ToE's conclusions, and other major premises such as speciation and adaptation: how can there be adaptation from nothingness? Here's one of them:

quote:

---

as we don't know what infinite is, since we have never seen anything that is infinte. If space is finite, we'll have to ask what's outside of it? Nothingness? Cannot be as nothingness does not exist.

---

Firstly, let's get one thing straight. This notion is in opposition to humanity's leading scientific minds: Einstein, Newton and Hawkings all subscribe to a finity of the unive, including time being finite. That we cannot imagine 'nothingness' is not an anomoly, and here's why:Secondly, the antithesis of 'thing' is no-thing. And 'thing' represents anything which is universe contained. If we could fathom no-thing, we would have to be capable of reconising something the universe has never contained. Understandably, the human eye and senses were not given this facility because it was not required! We humans may be the superior being, but we are still very limited - we have to invent clever means of seeing basic forces [radiation, radio waves, etc], and we cannot even see relatively small distances in space-time. How would we even recognise no-thing, when this represents no matter, energy, forces, particles, heat or time? What instrumentation would we use? The only posibilities here of 'nothing' is that it is made of things which are not universe contained, or that it actually does exist and is a paradign beyond our senses. Simply saying nothingness cannot exist is not coherent or evidence of its negation.Thirdly, from a science and maths view, a finite entity cannot contain an infinite component: 1 cannot contain 2; a pineapple cannot house our galaxy. IOW, if space, as with time and matter, is seen or percieved in the universe, it is proof space is not infinite. Space was not infinte 10 seconds ago - it is expanding. You cannot add or subtract $5 from an infinite amount of $'s - that only proves it was not infinite 10 secs ago.

quote:

---

But being 3d beings we cannot see anything that might be more-dimensional(outside our 3d universe) nor can we even begin to grasp the idea of 5 or 6 dimensional space and what it's supposed to be.

---

The issue is not related or limited to what we cannot see. Today, even dimensions such as the non-corporeal [ghosts, spirituals, polterguist, non-matter, dark mater, black holes, halos, aspirations, thoughts, etc] can be detected, via imprints, indents, remnants and after-effects of particles. Nominating other potential dimensions does not render space being infinite any credibility, and even if there were such dimensions, this does not impact what is already post-uni or within the uni. You have to say, coherently & scientifically, what we cannot see or ercieve, does not exist.Thus, if we see that space is finite and a post BB occurence, we have no choice [save for 'denial'], but to accept a total and unconditional FINITE universe, along with all its components, including all that we cannot see or percieve. And subsequently, all theories must conform with this premise. When we erred previously, prior to the spectrum shift discovery, we had some basis for considering a infinite space, because then we held the universe as infinite. That notion has been foiled, negated and put to rest. Now, a new science will emerge - and one which has been getting ever closer to genesis, creationism and monotheism. And if your alarmed at such a premise - you are finally on the right track.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This is proof there has never been a true/real revelation since the OT - excepting of individual discoveries in science, philosophy and other faculties. A messiah's primal job is to give the purpose of creation. I believe this answer [revelation] will come from science, which replaced ancient, but once real, occultism and prophesy.

quote:

---

life and the universe could just exist for absolutely no reason.

---

There is nothing in the universe which is superfluous - else it would not have existed or evolved. We may not know the reason a pineapple has nutrition or why we have appendics - but there is surely a purposeful and critical factor here.

quote:

---

Exactly, car makers make cars. With out them cars don't get made. Humans make baby humans, with out them you get no humans. I think we both agree up to this point. The part we split at is in your introduction of a creator for all of life(to include the Universe and everything in it, lets not split hairs here). Ok. Then where did the creator come from?

---

But we do not know where anything comes from? The origins of all things remain an enigma. Your premise is a void and mute one.

quote:

---

If you say the creator is evident because we see things created, then the creator is subject to the same standard. Who created the creator?

---

This obvious question was taken up by Moses, and the answer given him is the only scientific definition of INFINITE:'I am the Lord I have not changed'.This says the creator is infinite, and anything subject to change is finite. Are you now asking me to define INFINITE as your only claims?

quote:

---

Cars are made by humans right? Humans are made by the 'creator' right? Then just take that question one further.

---

The 'further' from this point is, there must be a creator for all things - same as with cars. PERIOD.

quote:

---

No, I cannot. Nor is there any requirement to do so. A car does not have to answer this question in order to prove a car maker.

​

All that does is removes you from having to be specific.

---

Correct. And this is not an unscientific or wrong answer - its the only right one.

quote:

---

There is natural creation(i.e. sexual reproduction), and then artificial creation(i.e. car manufacturers), the 2 are not the same nor do they have the same origins.

---

Yes, these two ARE the same thing. The modes vary, not the basic aspect of creating. We are emulating and acting in the creator's image: Creating.

quote:

---

Particles to matter, matter to stars, stars to planets, planets to earth, earth to living organisms, single cell to multi cell etc...

---

Particles are created entities and post uni, with equal status as cars.

quote:

---

This process has been continuos and has required no intervening. Or at least there is no evidence that anything intervened. And a lack of understanding of how these things came to be will lead people to just accept a creator because its a much simpler answer.

---

There is no evidence anything intervened? How so? - if you have an initial BB particle, and it was activated/expanded/exploded, and there was nothing else around [no other particles, forces, energy, etc] - the only option remaining here is that of an external impact. Can you now see why neo science absolutely abhores the notion of finite, and why they absolutely posit that space is infinite - and that they get away with this totally unscientific and illogical premise by resting their case on the enigma of what we cannot prove or disprove?!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A straight line and a curve are fundamentally the same thing, only their trajectories are different; and these are interchangeable. I would say, the trajectories of a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

This depends what one's preamble is - a finite or infinite universe. If the former, fossils cannot have existed pre- or independent of this universe.

Trajecteries are inter-changeable. Take a soft clay circle and un-curve it to a straight line. And valla!For some reason, a curved [circular/spiral] form is more condusive in nature, probably because of equal impacting forces such as gravity and other unseen forces, which impact equally from all directions. If one goes under-water and blows from the mouth - he will create a circular wave, even if he blows in a straight trajector, because of equally surrounding pressures. Dolphins do this.

I see both gravity and all curves as effects, rather than forces in their own right.Eg. Gravity is caused when a mass indents the space bed, creating waves. Its like a person jumping on a trampoline, which causes waves, and these waves can dislodge a glass of water standing on another part of the trampoline. Because there is a relationship between the mass and the waves created, we are able to make predictable [spacetime] measurements, which are not variable in the small picture, and thus appear as constants.The mysterious part is far from this immediate scenario. It is strange that the mass is always intergrated with the surrounding space, to result in space bodies with satelite moons and planets, which at all times become constant designs in the universe, such as solar systems and galaxies, in critical inter-dependent positions. It appears the space bodies like moons and planets have a sort of mind and understanding: a moon outside Jupiter is always oscilating to and fro from the host planet, at a critical manuvouring pace - with to close an orbit the moon gets sucked in; too far and it gets lost in space.It appears purposeful, though not in the same way of an organic life form. Such a construct requires a host of forces working in unison, and if it was only random - then we would see different non-uniform designs, instead of the stark uniformity.

quote:

---

We know where lots of things come from, including the notion of an intelligent designer.

---

We know nothing whatsoever about the origin of anything whatsoever. Everything ends in a brick wall. This is why Genesis begins with the second alphabet, and says go forth. The second alphabet, 'B' or bet/beta, is shaped like a square, with only one side open - that of going forward. All other sides are barred. There is nothing wrong with our minds - the origin, the 'A' factor, is barred. This is vindicated.

quote:

---

Who is Moses? When did he exist? What credentials does he have to make this claim and prove that he got it from the actual source?

---

Credentials:1. Moses is the most revered and believed human who ever existed. The laws derived via Moses is what makes the world turn today - exclusively. Not a single law accepted by the world is not contained in the 613 OT laws.2. Moses is believed in by more humans than any other figure in humanity: 2 B christians, 1.2 B muslims, 15 M Jews. That is a greater sum than for any other figurehead. I would include atheists as well - they abide by the OT's moral, ethical, judiciary laws also.

quote:

---

'I am the Lord I have not changed'.

​

Well thats convinient, here I'll give it a try, "I am Oni and I have not changed", boy thast was easy. What do you think, are you convinced?

---

You have here mis-represented the applicable factor, namely that it is the aspect of 'change' which determines infinity. Never mind the names for a mo - instead, address the factor that change negates infinity, rendering it finite. And this premise is what comes from the OT, and is non-negotiable.

quote:

---

This is an opinion. If you can't prove the creator and explain his back story(without using a single religions doctrine of course), then your opinion becomes void of evidence and as such is rejected, as have all theological explanations been rejected.

---

Again, you are mis-repping the applicable criteria. Never mind the aspect of any religion, but consider what criteria is nominated in the OT of the Creator and Creation: Monotheism [One God] and Ex Nihilo [something from nothing], respectively. The ex nihilo is non-negotiable: at one time there were no tools or products to use.

quote:

---

I know you'll argue that the laws of the Universe are intelligently designed but, this is only your obseved interpretation of the Universe.

---

.Its not only my observed interpretation, but pervasive and manifest. You are thereby negating science itself when you say so.

quote:

---

The actual events leading up to what we can define as order were chaotic

---

Entropy is first introduced in genesis, namely the second verse, that first the created products were w/o form, then they were given form. This is seen in the seperation of the elements, light from darkness, day from night, land from water, male from female, positive from negative. These are deceptively simple verses, and made that way to apply to all generations of man. Order from dis-order is nothing other than critical seperations.

quote:

---

Hindsight says its intelligently designed however, the moments after T=O and till about 4 billion years ago were a chaotic mess, in respects to organic life(that we know of). As such the idea of a designer would only point to an incompetent designer. Of course the future of the Universe also points to an incompetent designer(if of course we mean a designer who values humans as His greatest achievement).

---

Not at all. The metaphor of 'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS' applies. In fact, you are not supporting science but negating it when you posit such ideas. The introduction of life was reliant on billions of critical factors which anticipated life. Here, your talking 100% Genesis - aka science.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Mass is the clumping effect of matter, namely its concentrations and compactions, resultant from variances in temps and densities. What this also says, is that the mass which was clumped, was existent somewhere, or in a potential form.Consider the making of a wooden table from a tree. The wood of the tree is altered, after the tree is grown to size. But this is not sufficient. One also needs a foundation to put the table upon. Else the table nor the wood cutter would not exist - having nowhere to stand. So the wood cutter understands this, and caters to a foundation where he will rest the table.The issue of space being catered to is logical, but the confusing part is what actually is space, what is it made of, or what is space when it is void of any matter. Here, the first factor is that space cannot be the same as matter - else matter would not be distinquishable. Yet matter only comes from within space, and matter cannot be seen as matter without a space bed. We cannot say that matter exists and space does not, or that space has no meaning - because it critically alligns with space, to such a critical degree that it does this alligning without negating matter.The critical issue here is, not that space is matter [mass] in another form, or vice versa. IMHO, the most critical issue here is, does matter exist solely by this clumping action, or did this occur by an external impact? IOW, mass it not merely the clumping of space and elements, but the result of an external triggering - this has no alternative even when we say that there was a potential program embedded within space or within the first BB particile: the first action of expansion, which is a dynamic state and varied from its previous non-dynamic state - would still require an external triggering. I reject the notion of space being nothingness, because it is not superfluous - it performs a critical, purposeful requirement as a matrix - without negating anything within it: this challenges the notion of nothingness and a random occurence. We cannot say a floor which houses a table is an unconnected item, when it is in fact indispensible.The better question relating to space is: did light predate space? I ask this because light is a primodial factor; has a transcendent velosity not equalled by space; it is ageless [thus older than space or mass]; massless [requiring no space foundation]; and the only item which can be a candidate for the triggering factor, acting as an external impact. Its like an explosion of a bomb - the denonator is light, via an external impact.

quote:

---

Is mass a property of space or does mass occupy space?

---

I think there is always much to say of what is percieved as nothingness - because this defies logic. It is an enigma first and foremost, and thus an unknown factor. All we can do is surmise via examples and analogies, based on accumulated logical and scientific criteria.I think the analogy of a floor bed is a legitimate premise for containing the space bodies, because else the space bodies could not exist - same as a table and a floor, and that these have to be of different attributes - else again none of them can exist. Here, the issue is: what is mass?Mass = particles of physical matter; according to its densities in variable degrees. Eg. oxygen, water, wood and iron are all mass in variable densities. H2O and Atoms are basically physical matter. When we ask what is space, we are really asking, is space matter - or the absence of matter? We ask this because we cannot grasp space and house it in a bottle - because we have no choice: the space is always pervasive, indicating its prevalence is not an option.This begs the question, if space is not matter, then what is it? And we end up in a quagmire, because all we can say here is that space is nothingness - which is not a valid description. There is no such thing as nothingness anywhere - so this answer is out. Some 300 years ago, we would call radio waves, which we could not detect, as nothingness - but this is matter, in a rarer density of its particles clumping.So yes, I would say that space is matter - by virtue of no other alternative available; that space has a purpose and critical attributes - being inert to allow matter to be contained without its negation. IMHO< space is the ultimate rarified matter [aka: mass], perhaps made of the basic, smallest, particles, thus being immeasurable, undeterminable and non-identifiable - but not nothingness. Its base make-up would be far smaller than quarks, and thereby almost non- physical or at the treshold of what is corporeal and non-corporeal.The bottom line is that space cannot be nothingness - as per the floor bed analogy for a table; nor can we say space is superfluous and serves no purpose. Space is mass holding mass.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Furthermore, it gives the horrific impression that space stops at the boundary of your matter blob, and then starts again on the other side.

---

Consider how a war ship transfers its heavy tanks across the water onto the shore. The ship lays down solid physical plaforms [transit flooring], which enables the tanks to drive on the water. So space, as per ToE and all developments in nature, can lay down more space to house heavier matter, when needed, in an anticipatory mode. Interestingly, this marks a treshold between newly created space - and what was there before that space was created.This enigma of what was there before the space, applies equally to what was there before the BB, or before any mass existed. This answer has to be that whatever existed before the space, cannot be anything which is universe contained - otherwise we violate the finite factor of the universe. This means, where space does not yet exist, there is no matter, energy, forces or any other uni-contained elements. By the process of elimination, we must conclude there is an external, triggering factor here, and one which is not subject to the universe factors - because this scenario applies pre-BB, thus pre-universe. The external trigger factor applies even when one includes parallel and other universes.