The infinite space of the Universe

Einstein supported a finite universe. This is logical - else we would have no cnstant measurements of any kind. Space is also finite and post-universe. We know there was a beginning, aka BB, and when a single point existed - there was no space around it, but emerged later, as expansion occured.Because a finite entity cannot contain anything infinite, all within the universe did not exist before the BB, including space, energy, matter, particles, heat, expansionism, forces, etc, etc.Thus there is no scientific alternative to creationism and monotheism. I have always been a firm believer that science would be the best venue to prove this.

quote:

---

Matter is not "expelled". It is not an explosion of matter. It is an "explosion" of space (and time).

---

Space is matter, and matter comes from a gas [gasous state], which is resultant from pre-sun light essence [aka dark matter - which appeared before matter]. It is exactly like what happens with the reverse proceedure of states: matter turns to gas. [in 1990 the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) provided the evidence for this special spectrum. COBE confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that everything, all the matter that galaxies are now made of, was once a compressed gas, hotter than the Sun's core.]From above, we see that there is pre-sun heat waves [a form of radiation], which is in fact a pre-sun light, aka 'afterglow'. [The expansion has cooled and diluted the radiation, and stretched its wavelength. But this primordial heat, the afterglow of creation is still around.]We see from this, that two factors in Genesis, the first cosmological view of the universe origins, does make scientific vindication, because it says LIGHT was the first primodial force [meaning this predates stars/Gen 1/3], and acted as a triggering effect which caused matter and its inflation [expansion]; and that of entropy [formless becoming formed/Gen 1/2].It is primodial light, which produced matter and thereby space and the galaxies by cooling and clumping actions. [The primeval light then shifted into the infrared part of the spectrum, and the Universe literally became dark, until the first stars formed, lighting it again/ BBC - 404: Not Found ]The other process which appears vindicated in Genesis appears how different kinds of galaxies are formed, eg. spiral, elliptical, different colors and ingredients, etc. This is the same process as occurs with the seed factor bearing its offspring [A seed follows its own kind, bearing in it all the ingredients for speciation and multiplication/Gen]. Why should it be any different, considering the earth and life are part of a larger process repeating its process from up to down, and from first to last?Dark matter acted as gravitational "seeds" for the density variations to grow. [THE GENESIS SEED FACTOR?]'One of the biggest breakthroughs came in the early 1980s, when cosmologists theorized the so-called inflationary universe. During the first instants after the Big Bang, says the theory, the newborn universe underwent an episode of extremely rapid expansion, called inflation. Astronomers believe inflation radically changed the landscape of the infant cosmos. Before inflation, the density of the universe was uniform, like the surface of a lake on a windless day. [AN EXTERNAL IMPACT IS INFERRED HERE W/O ALTERNATIVES]. After inflation, the density was uneven, with ripples and waves like a sea in a storm.
Another ingredient in the early universe, dark matter, helped amplify these ripples into more pronounced lumps and clumps. Those density variations are still visible today as fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the "echo" of the Big Bang that is the earliest radiation astronomers can see. [THIS IS A FORM OF PRE-SUN LIGHT ESSENCE]Dark matter, a mysterious form of matter unlike familiar atoms and subatomic particles, came into being almost immediately after the Big Bang, long before ordinary matter formed. Dark matter acted as gravitational "seeds" for the density variations to grow. [THE GENESIS SEED FACTOR]Because these areas of higher density had stronger gravity than their surroundings [THIS IS THE SEPERATION FACTORS STATED IN GENESIS - NAMELY THE CRITICAL SEPERATION OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS], they attracted more matter, and eventually, grew to become became the seeds of galaxies. Today, galaxies are surrounded by dark matter halos, which are thought to be ten times larger and more massive than the galaxies' visible portions. [THE 'HALOS' SIGNIFY THE PRE-STAR LIGHT, AKA COSMIC RADIATION/DARK MATTER, WHICH LATER BECAME VISION FRIENDLY WITH THE ADDITIVE OF PHOTONS; THUS AT ONE TIME, THE EARTH EXISTED BUT THE SUN'S LUMINOSITY HAD NOT YET OCCURED/GEN].While the BBT is the most accepted, there are factors in genesis which can add and expand to it, and also shed light on factors which cannot be otherwise determined. Basically, IMO, the light represents a carrier instrument; the seed represents a program. This process can be seen everywhere one looks within this planet, and it emulates a larger scenario. There is ultimate science in Genesis, which is missed by the uninitiated who lump all such writings as theology - they forget that no theology aside from the OT has anything whatsoever to say on these matters!

quote:

---

How then could the mass be expelled? Wouldn't the gravitational field be so massive there's no way the universe could expand from it?

---

Light predates matter, thereby mass and energy. Matter is a cooling and heating variation result triggered by a program [seed] within light waves. The gravitational fields are later occurences, dependent upon mass. Mass expulsion is similar or same as omega particles escaping the electron belts, which forms new particles with different attributes. IOW, light predates mass, space, matter, gravitation and all electrons and sub-atomic entities. The emitting of these new particles cannot be random, because of the varied results - namely, these appear a purposeful result, as opposed random, each result being represented by specific and critical variations of light effects.

Energy is mass, which emerged later. Light essence is devoid of photons.

No energy w/o mass.Taking this further, we can say the universe did not get activated by mass energy - because both mass and energy are post-uni products. Further, correct me if I'm wrong on the basis of my own path of reasoning only, at one time there was no mass, or alternatively, there was only one spec of mass [original BB spec].This means, either the energy came from within that spec - or there was an external triggering: no other alternatives remain. I choose the later, external triggering, because otherwise, we face the situation of mass and matter being infinite [no original source point], that it self-created its own program to foster a host of other universal programs, engineerings and products.Admittedly, we can say the same of an external factor - but this makes more sense than the former. IOW, if we find a car on Jupiter, we can surmise it came of its own - or there was a car maker. We do not have to abandon logic from science, because of a paranoia.

My view of this question, which remains yet outside the realm of our minds' fathoming, is one must agree that at one time - nothing existed. But what the heck does that actually mean?This definition of nothing is ever enigmatic, unfathomable, brick-wall concluding; the only other answer is, there was a Creator ['In the beginning God'/opening preamble in the first cosmological document]. Notice how it does not make any sense in the absence of that premise - and this applies with the foremost state of art science and minds: everything ends in a brick wall, or becomes cyclical - evidence it is the wrong path. IOW, there is no other definition of nothingness aside from that Genesis premise - try to name one?In the final conclusion, unless a new knowledge from now descends - there is only one possibility: Creationism and Monotheism. This is from an absolute scientific and logical view, devoid of religious theology. Else why even include it in a science thread? I am open to any scientific or logical alternative. 'In the beginning God' - is the only premise which defines nothingness and infinity, and science is its best vindicator.The only correct definition of infinity is also seen exclusively and first in the same source. Infinity = no changes ['I am the Lord I have not CHANGED']; because whatever changes something is transcendent of that which is changed. We see from here that time is also finite, because it is subject to change - agreed to by leading scientists [Hawking's BHT].Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

'SOMETHING' is a post-uni premise. God would not be something, because if we could fathom God, then we would not need this debating. Logic says, God must be - at least - transcendent of his creation, and we cannot pretend to fathom outside of creation.Which God does not apply or matter either, as long as it is ONE only God - this is not theology but logic vested, because ultimately the buck must stop at and with ONE. Else it all goes cyclical forever.You have countered my position, but you forgot something: you have not presented an alternative?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You are fathoming God. I believe people of faith have always done this. Atheists haven't done it...

---

That is a sub-conscious strain, but we know nothing about God in reality.

quote:

---

You have countered my position, but you forgot something: you have not presented an alternative?

​

An alternative to what? Your ability to postulate anything you want?

---

A scientific alternative to Creationism & Monotheism, in a finite universe. Many try to get around this by presenting an infinite realm, or a back door to that premise, via space, time, energy etc being infinite.

quote:

---

Time is a concept while space has a very material existence.

---

I don't see it that way. Time is as much a product as is matter. The time factor does appear to be a precedent and independent force, as opposed a retrospective measurement by man's devices.We 'discovered' the laws of gravity, but we never invented it - here, there is a discernable, purposefull [purpose driven] equation which predates mankind. It also appears, for example, a 9 month pregnancy is an aprox time period out of man's control; it is also pre-determined, and all we did was recognise it.The time periods for all things are varied, different and critical: the universe and all of its workings and products would not be around but for those critical time constraints - making time a force of its own and thus a product of the universe same as energy, mass and space. All of these are intergrated and recipient to each other.

Time cannot be a concept of man. A 9 month pregnancy and the earth's rotation periods, was not a concept but a predating construct. Rather than a stray, random measurement, time is an affirmation of a program in action, and that program is purposeful and pre-existant of the contructs it measures. This makes time a real entity, intergrated with the products.

quote:

---

if space is completly void of matter and particles, then it cannot exist

---

Correct, and a good reasoning to dismiss space as an entity when it is non-existent; I see this as a back-door to bring in an infinite aspect to the finite universe. My point here is, that nothingness is outside of our mind's fathoming, and none should resort to it. Nothingness represents a realm where none of the post universe products exist, and there is no way we can identify with it - there is no space, matter or vision, so there is nothing to connect to.

quote:

---

According to General Relativity time can be physically bent by mass.

---

This signifies time is an entity like space and light. Because time appears to be intergrated with the universe workings, it appears more than a human construct. IOW, the period of the earth's rotation is not that devised my man, and is not alterable - it is a constant.

Time is intergrated with the universe workings; a wrist watch is not so.

Well, when changes of states occur, there is a loss in each change - else we can have perpetual energy for naught. If we keep altering mass to energy, or vice verse, at some point this process will cease yielding energy and/or mass.From here one can then say, it becomes indestructable particles of matter in the universe, thus never fully destroyed - but this is a premise common for all things, and would also negate death. The point here is, there is no resemblence anymore to either energy or mass anymore after all loss has been effected by change of states.

It appears so from the subjective sub-plot position. It may be viewed differently if we had access to the big picture and consider the whole gamut of things, which is beyond our caperbilities. When we see things retrospectively, it can make sense. Beware what you wish for - it may come true and be not what you really aspired to.