Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: The Expansionary Illusion

  1. #1 The Expansionary Illusion 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Greetings.

    Axiom: "Space" is constant, a universally external relationship. That is to say, it doesn't reside in the universe; the universe resides in it.

    From this premise it follows, not only that the apparent expansion of space between groups of celestial objects is actually indicative of contraction among these "groups"; but further that this contraction is commensurately distributed among the "objects" therein.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The Expansionary Illusion 
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by neatchi
    Greetings.

    Axiom: "Space" is constant, a universally external relationship. That is to say, it doesn't reside in the universe; the universe resides in it.

    From this premise it follows, not only that the apparent expansion of space between groups of celestial objects is actually indicative of contraction among these "groups"; but further that this contraction is commensurately distributed among the "objects" therein.
    So how do you account for redshift ?


    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,510
    Easier question : defend your axiom.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Ghost,

    Redshift supports my thesis in very much the same way it's used in support of the idea that space is expanding. Both theories attempt to explain this optical phenomenon; the latter by virtue of expansion (of space); and the former by virtue of contraction (of groups residing in space).

    Analogy: think of a box containing two rapidly deflating balloons. As the balloons deflate and occupy less of the box's internal area (an area that remains relatively constant), the space between the balloons seems to increase. The truth, however, is that the deflated balloons simply don't occupy as much of the available space (or constant area) inside the box. It is thusly not the area that increases between the balloons; it's rather the availability for occupation that increases as the respective diameters of the balloons are decreasing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    You mean our perception is scale is getting smaller? IE. a ruler that was 12" long (in some kind of theoretical "absolute" inches) a hundred years ago will have shrunk to being only like 10" long (in absolute inches) today?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Kojax,

    Commensurate distribution is a vital aspect of my theory. Because all things within a given group are contracting commensurately, the contraction is virtually undetectable from within the group. In reality (at least according to my theory), what were 12 inches yesterday in relation to the group in which humanity resides, aren't the same twelve inches today, because all things in the group (including the area that qualifies as an 'inch') have contracted at paces suited to their surroundings.

    It is only by looking outside (via redshift observations) that the rates of contraction can be measured.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by neatchi
    Kojax,

    Commensurate distribution is a vital aspect of my theory. Because all things within a given group are contracting commensurately, the contraction is virtually undetectable from within the group. In reality (at least according to my theory), what were 12 inches yesterday in relation to the group in which humanity resides, aren't the same twelve inches today, because all things in the group (including the area that qualifies as an 'inch') have contracted at paces suited to their surroundings.

    It is only by looking outside (via redshift observations) that the rates of contraction can be measured.
    How exactly do you define a "group"? What defifnes the boundaries between one group and another?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by neatchi

    Analogy: think of a box containing two rapidly deflating balloons. As the balloons deflate and occupy less of the box's internal area (an area that remains relatively constant), the space between the balloons seems to increase. The truth, however, is that the deflated balloons simply don't occupy as much of the available space (or constant area) inside the box. It is thusly not the area that increases between the balloons; it's rather the availability for occupation that increases as the respective diameters of the balloons are decreasing.
    So you are proposing we are all(the the matter between the space) like Alice in wonderland as she drinks the shrink potion? - for want of a better analogy.


    Axiom: "Space" is constant, a universally external relationship. That is to say, it doesn't reside in the universe; the universe resides in it.
    ....Dont you see the contradiction in that and what we have gleened about the big bang being the creation of space(aswell as time)?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    By definition there is nothing outside universe (it's just semantic)

    Now the word space is less rigid semantically speaking.


    The red shift proved that the universe is indeed expanding. The reverse would be blue shift.
    In your model the balloons are deflating. It would mean that the galaxy are getting smallers and smallers. By direct observation there is no clue that the galaxies are getting smallers and smallers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Apologies for the delayed responses. My "real-life" work schedule is pretty grueling these days. :?

    Neutrino,

    As far as the definition of "group" is concerned, I'll simply defer to the OED.

    • noun treated as sing. or pl. 1 a number of people or things located, gathered, or classed together. ...
    This definition is broadly applicable...as it should be. After all, there are readily identifiable 'groups' across the micro/macro spectrum, from groups of quanta to galactic super clusters.

    Now then, obviously, because of the sheer strength of gravity, proximity has great bearing on the issue at hand. For example, within our 'local group' of galaxies on its own descent into the heart of the Virgo super cluster, our beloved Milky Way is on a more imminent collision course with Andromeda. This means, that despite the commensurate contraction of colliding galaxies, the gravity between them remains strong enough to close the gap -- a gap that would appear to be widening if not for the gravitational pull. So, in line with my theory, given proximity, gravity can be counteractive to (and stronger than) the effects of contraction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Ghost and Powerdoc,

    I've gotta run, but briefly: you're only seeing a portion of my model, which is actually cyclical--rotating or oscillating between expansion and contraction. In other words, I don't believe that the universe has always been contracting. :wink:

    More later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerdoc
    The red shift proved that the universe is indeed expanding. The reverse would be blue shift.
    In your model the balloons are deflating. It would mean that the galaxy are getting smallers and smallers. By direct observation there is no clue that the galaxies are getting smallers and smallers.
    I think he's saying that the wavelenth is the same size, but we think it's smaller. Like, more recently emitted light will have a wavelength scaled to our perception of distance now. Light emitted a hundred years ago will have a wavelength appropriate to our perception of distance then.

    Remember, when we look out further into the universe, we're going back in time.

    Anyway....... it's not that I necessarily agree. Everything shrinking is just as crazy to me as the idea that everything is expanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    I think he's saying that the wavelenth is the same size, but we think it's smaller. Like, more recently emitted light will have a wavelength scaled to our perception of distance now. Light emitted a hundred years ago will have a wavelength appropriate to our perception of distance then.

    Remember, when we look out further into the universe, we're going back in time.

    Anyway....... it's not that I necessarily agree. Everything shrinking is just as crazy to me as the idea that everything is expanding.
    No I believe he is saying we are shrinkinking like raisins so the space between clusters is still get larger and therefore we are still dee the redshift consistently with his premise.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 BUT WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED "SPACE"!? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by neatchi

    Analogy: think of a box containing two rapidly deflating balloons. As the balloons deflate and occupy less of the box's internal area (an area that remains relatively constant), the space between the balloons seems to increase. The truth, however, is that the deflated balloons simply don't occupy as much of the available space (or constant area) inside the box. It is thusly not the area that increases between the balloons; it's rather the availability for occupation that increases as the respective diameters of the balloons are decreasing.
    Fascinating insight, one which I've not seen elsewhere, and one required in the current brick walls tresholds.

    Can you define your understanding of space? I find space perhaps the ultimate enigma, more so than light, energy and matter itself. What really is space - specially so with your premise that the universe (matter?) is part of space - so space is not exactly particles of matter, but independent of it - seeing it predates it? For comparison purposes, please, everyone too, give your definition of space!
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    wirral, england
    Posts
    59
    i thought gravity was a weak force, our planets circle our sun because of the dent it makes in space time. the stars and their solar systems all form our gallaxy, which in turn circles our own dormant supermassive black hole. all these point to mass (to me anyway) and not gravity. there is that many galaxies out there all acting upon each other, with their different densities they will collide and form bigger and new gallaxies. i see chance changing the universe more than gravity..........but i probably havent fully understood this conversation. :?
    be nice im new
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Nikolas_Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    33
    doesnt the fact that while some obejects exhibit red shift while others (like Andrmeda and some quasars) exhibit blue shift, rule out all electromagnetic frequency's capabilities of telling whether expansion or contracion is taking place?

    is it possible that one balloon (going back to neatchi's analogy) is expanding, while the other is deflating? Yet possibly one at a rate much quicker than the other to keep the total free area from being uniform?
    Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
    --Henry Louis Mencken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolas_Miller
    doesnt the fact that while some obejects exhibit red shift while others (like Andrmeda and some quasars) exhibit blue shift, rule out all electromagnetic frequency's capabilities of telling whether expansion or contracion is taking place?
    No! closer galaxies can display either doppler effect, due to them being confined by gravity at cluster level and below. Beyond the local group and certainly the supergroup everything is redshifted in line with the Hubble constant.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: The Expansionary Illusion 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by neatchi
    Greetings.

    Axiom: "Space" is constant, a universally external relationship. That is to say, it doesn't reside in the universe; the universe resides in it.
    Let's imagine that what we see today was a fusion, of 2D space to 4D spacetime with the release of alot of photons, that looked like a big bang, and ever since the bang, everything has moved away from epicentrum. Do you believe that to be plausible, and perhaps even that we will continue fusion until we are one, because read my sig?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    *inhales deeply*

    Ahh…fresh air, fresh coffee, and a fresh Saturday morning: the alchemical elixir of the mind. :-D

    Ghost: So you are proposing we are all(the the matter between the space) like Alice in wonderland as she drinks the shrink potion? - for want of a better analogy.
    Yes, and I believe that the available evidence supports this.

    Ghost:....Dont you see the contradiction in that and what we have gleened about the big bang being the creation of space(aswell as time)?
    Again yes, but then I don’t adhere to any common understanding regarding 'spacetime' -- in my opinion, an erroneous conflation of two necessarily distinct concepts.

    As for the BB, I see it as a turning point; not a beginning of time, but the continuation thereof by virtue of a different impetus. In my view, expansion and contraction are the cyclical motors eternally driving time and motion, and these "motors" are rotated (or shifted) periodically.

    Space, on the other hand, though itself unaffected by these shifts, defines the parameters of the universe’s potential to expand or contract. Once the potential for occupation (of space) is fully actualized on a universal scale, the universe (and by extension, time itself) must keep moving and therefore reverts to the dormant motor in order to do so.

    In line with my model, ‘time’ and ‘space’ are not intertwined; ‘time’ and ‘motion’ are. It’s the latter combination that serves as the fabric of the Universal Tapestry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    On to semantics…

    Powerdoc: By definition there is nothing outside universe (it's just semantic) Now the word space is less rigid semantically speaking.
    I believe that nothing exists in outer relation to the universe, except space.

    On my view, the whole of the cosmos is the material of time in motion (never completely static), grouped, bunched, or otherwise clustered in a single, definable, and non-material area called "space".

    Powerdoc: The red shift proved that the universe is indeed expanding. The reverse would be blue shift.
    Sorry, but redshift does not “prove” that the universe is currently expanding. If it can be said to prove anything, it’s simply that groups beyond the reaches of each other’s gravitational pulls are apparently moving away from each other. Not unlike my own, the theory that space is expanding is only one feasible explanation for this observed phenomenon.

    Powerdoc: In your model the balloons are deflating. It would mean that the galaxy are getting smallers and smallers. By direct observation there is no clue that the galaxies are getting smallers and smallers.
    Don't you mean: no clue…other than the very same evidence that supports the theory of expanding space?

    *grins*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Implications of delayed perception:

    Kojax: …more recently emitted light will have a wavelength scaled to our perception of distance now. Light emitted a hundred years ago will have a wavelength appropriate to our perception of distance then.
    True.

    In order to get an accurate measurement on the rates of contraction between distant groups, the wavelengths we perceive ‘in real time’ (that is, in the present) must be adjusted to account for the amount of time it took them to reach us, and distance would play a crucial role in this determination. The closer the source of redshifted light; the smaller the adjustment.

    The beauty of commensurate distribution though, is that in spite of reality (whether expanding or contracting), the appearance of a foot (or that of any given increment of measurement) remains constant to us: the perceivers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Briefly on 'space' and the 'matter' residing therein:

    IamJoseph:…What really is space - specially so with your premise that the universe (matter?) is part of space - so space is not exactly particles of matter, but independent of it - seeing it predates it?
    First, as I see things, the universe (yes, all matter that exists) is not a “part of space”; nor vice versa. The two (matter and the non-material space that defines its numerous boundaries) co-exist in relation to one another. Second and more importantly, neither “predates” the other, as the co-existent relationship is an eternal one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    On the physical nature of the cosmos:

    Beats666: i thought gravity was a weak force, our planets circle our sun because of the dent it makes in space time. the stars and their solar systems all form our gallaxy, which in turn circles our own dormant supermassive black hole. all these point to mass (to me anyway) and not gravity. there is that many galaxies out there all acting upon each other, with their different densities they will collide and form bigger and new gallaxies. i see chance changing the universe more than gravity..........but i probably havent fully understood this conversation.
    Well, please don't feel badly. After all, your understanding is right in line with the prevailing thought of the day. Grasping my theory requires a departure from certain commonly accepted premises, most notably the idea that space and time are physically combinable.

    According to my theory, gravity (the fruition of mass and/or density) can be extremely powerful, particularly in densely populated pockets (of space), where groups (of matter comprised of time in motion) are close enough together to counter the effects of the universal impetus: namely expansion or contraction, depending on which driving force is presently at play.

    And now to drop the bomb. I believe, that in the expansionary phase of this eternally on-going process, the mirror image (so to speak) of 'gravity' has the opposite effect it currently has. That’s right, I said it: when the universe is expanding (i.e. directly following the next BB-like event), the masses are naturally repulsive instead of attractive! How's that for an idea that flies in the face of common understanding?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    On the constancy of space:

    Nikolas_Miller: …is it possible that one balloon (going back to neatchi's analogy) is expanding, while the other is deflating? Yet possibly one at a rate much quicker than the other to keep the total free area from being uniform?
    I don’t believe so, primarily because I feel that the laws governing the evolution of the universe (through its various phases) are consistently enforced across the board.

    In my opinion, what pushes the whole to shift in an instant, is the uniformity (or constancy) of area/space. When there’s simply no room left for expansion, I believe the universe is faced with two options: immediate and universal stasis, or continuation of motion by some other means. And since we’re still moving, I think it's safe to assume that the latter path was taken to facilitate the last transformation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by neatchi
    Second and more importantly, neither “predates” the other, as the co-existent relationship is an eternal one.
    The eternal/infinite premise removes it from science, at least in terms of determining actual 'causation'. The contraction/expansion appears to emulate many other pivotal universal actions, such as 'living/existing' [lung action], and the re-cyclical process of matter can also fit in here [change of states]. This appears an interesting new view to further our conception of our mysterious origins.

    However, this is another representation of percieved or estimated 'actions' of the universe's primodial products and engineering structures. Not to be confused with causation, as this is still vested in the later 'process' sector. The infinity factor negates causation, leaving only process factors; the latter process factor is within general scientific advancements - the former, when it happens, will represent a paradigm shift for mankind, and it can only occur when the infinity premise is scientifically and verifiably negated.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Finally, on the issue of existential singularity:

    LeavingQuietly: Let's imagine that what we see today was a fusion, of 2D space to 4D spacetime with the release of alot of photons, that looked like a big bang, and ever since the bang, everything has moved away from epicentrum. Do you believe that to be plausible, and perhaps even that we will continue fusion until we are one, because read my sig?
    There’s no need for fusion or song lyrics, friend. In a very real sense, we (as in: the entirety of the universe) are one...at war with the "Self". *winks*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by neatchi
    Finally, on the issue of existential singularity:

    LeavingQuietly: Let's imagine that what we see today was a fusion, of 2D space to 4D spacetime with the release of alot of photons, that looked like a big bang, and ever since the bang, everything has moved away from epicentrum. Do you believe that to be plausible, and perhaps even that we will continue fusion until we are one, because read my sig?
    There’s no need for fusion or songs lyrics, friend. In a very real sense, we (as in: the entirety of the universe) are one...at war with the Self.
    When you experience you become experienced, experience is something, hence all decay theories are upside down, because we are defined as what experience. The universe is not falling appart. NOT.

    Right, winks. Was it a song lyric, that too? *takes 2 omega 3 capsules*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145

    I don’t believe so, primarily because I feel that the laws governing the evolution of the universe (through its various phases) are consistently enforced across the board. .
    This says evolution is a universal constant, pervasive in all spacetimes, and impacts all life and matter. One must allow that evolution, though widely accepted, is still a 'theory', and that it does not appear a universal constant. The life we see on this planet, as well as the life-giving terrain and environment here, appears more a specific than generic universal phenomenon, and the exception of any rule.

    This is independent of the time impact [earth is not the oldest space body in its vicinity], and its conditions and gass mix is not unique - the two pivotal evolutionary factors, namely Adaptation and NS within harsh environments, do not display universal conformity.

    It may be that specific programs are embedded within matter, as yet undetectable, and what we call evolution may be trajectories of extension subsequent to such inherent programs. It is a counter to one of the controversial factors of evolution, namely that of a Random resulting in a Complexity The MV theory postulates that the cores of stars pop out from behind/underneath space, signifying their outcome may not be the result of an evolutionary premise - at least not as its causation factor.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    The uncaused cause: a universal process, "God", or both?

    IamJoseph: The eternal/infinite premise removes it from science, at least in terms of determining actual 'causation'.
    Really? How so?

    Whether one adheres to a dualistic, mystical premise involving some power/being outside or beyond the universe (e.g. your God), or a monistic, self-contained premise (such as mine), the need to posit some mode or agent of eternal existence remains intact. Some theorize that the universe had a beginning and therefore must have been created or “caused” by some eternally existent agent (usually their “God”) that preceded it. Others (like me) employ the razor and attempt to describe physically feasible modes for an eternally existent universe. Neither position has been proven true, and opinions vary as to which is the more tenable stance.


    IamJoseph:…The contraction/expansion appears to emulate many other pivotal universal actions, such as 'living/existing' [lung action], and the re-cyclical process of matter can also fit in here [change of states]. This appears an interesting new view to further our conception of our mysterious origins. [emphasis Merrick’s]
    “Origin” is a loaded word, and I suspect that you know it, Joe. :wink:

    While it’s perfectly reasonable to ponder the “origins” of various species here on Earth, especially given the fossil record, there’s no valid reason to extrapolate the logical need for an origin of the universe.

    IamJoseph: …The infinity factor negates causation, leaving only process factors; the latter process factor is within general scientific advancements - the former, when it happens, will represent a paradigm shift for mankind, and it can only occur when the infinity premise is scientifically and verifiably negated.
    I don’t agree that “the infinity factor negates causation” wholesale. In other words: I can easily imagine that an infinite (or eternally ongoing and therefore uncaused) process gives rise to a multitude of apparently autonomous objects with clearly defined beginnings and endings, and as far as I can tell, there’s no logical flaw in doing so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by neatchi
    Kojax,

    Commensurate distribution is a vital aspect of my theory. Because all things within a given group are contracting commensurately, the contraction is virtually undetectable from within the group. In reality (at least according to my theory), what were 12 inches yesterday in relation to the group in which humanity resides, aren't the same twelve inches today, because all things in the group (including the area that qualifies as an 'inch') have contracted at paces suited to their surroundings.

    It is only by looking outside (via redshift observations) that the rates of contraction can be measured.
    Than what about the speed of the light. the difference between the value in atmosphere and its value in space outside should be increasing day by day.
    God is one and only.

    God knows the best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by neatchi

    Whether one adheres to a dualistic, mystical premise involving some power/being outside or beyond the universe (e.g. your God), or a monistic, self-contained premise (such as mine), the need to posit some mode or agent of eternal existence remains intact.
    Correct. Bottom line is there must be an infinity, and monotheism is thus both a theologically and scientifically sound premise in allignment, regardless how the infinite entity/source is defined, determined or believed.

    Some theorize that the universe had a beginning and therefore must have been created or “caused” by some eternally existent agent (usually their “God”) that preceded it. Others (like me) employ the razor and attempt to describe physically feasible modes for an eternally existent universe. Neither position has been proven true, and opinions vary as to which is the more tenable stance.
    Infinity is not provable, as with the creator factor, thus I am amazed science oriented folk make such a self-contradicting demand as the operative factor. Only a sound premise applies here; and horror of horrors, science and maths do not apply, nor history [time] - these are vested *THIS* side of the universe - to measure nuts and bolts only. Analogy: an embryo's placenta is no use to a car mechanic; nor a car jack to an embryo in its womb. The tools needed to determine or define infinity is not within us, nor is infinity definable by any measure of weights or rulers; it is limited to a sound premise being internally [bereft of science & maths] percievable only.

    The vehement dislocation between atheism and theism is thus a human delinquency, and has more to do with political harbourings than theology and science. There is no greater allignment in the universe than Infinity and Monotheism, and only the human mind can make that allignment, which is the highest scientific thought possible. My God - or my Infinity - is not greater than yours - else it was neither God or Infinity.



    “Origin” is a loaded word, and I suspect that you know it, Joe. :wink:

    While it’s perfectly reasonable to ponder the “origins” of various species here on Earth, especially given the fossil record, there’s no valid reason to extrapolate the logical need for an origin of the universe.
    The 'load' is an effect of the deliquency. There is every need to determine origin and causation, and the human mind will never/ can never cease climbing this mountain. This is true even when the tools are not available; I suspect we cannot acquire this voluntarilly - and there are two legit views, for example, about penicilin being discovered by 'accident' - exactly when it occured; humanity would not have survived without this random 'accident'; the universe and life is too critically dependent on such accidents. This is also tied up with the notion a complexity is the result of a random - justified by self-generating accumulative process - which is still random at the base - and which negates all maths and science! On the one hand we look for order [elegant equations] in all actions - while also condoning random - contradictingly.


    I don’t agree that “the infinity factor negates causation” wholesale. In other words: I can easily imagine that an infinite (or eternally ongoing and therefore uncaused) process gives rise to a multitude of apparently autonomous objects with clearly defined beginnings and endings, and as far as I can tell, there’s no logical flaw in doing so.
    It is a pivotal factor, and most reject it for fear it condones theism, not because it is not absolutely pragmatic with no alternative. It requires a sober and honest 'precept to precept' thread of thought. I say, infinity and causation [origin] are mutually exclusive paradigms; the former denotes no beginning [no causastion; origin]; and no end [thus no conclusion]. All we are left with is the twilight zone factor - what is in-between these transit parametres. For the same reason, Monotheism is also negated, along with causation and origins - and with no proof, and more importantly - in contradiction of a sound premise.

    IMHO, there is no random anywhere in the universe, and no actual zero [nothingness] - meaning nothing is superflous. The allowance of random, via escapist routes such as unproven, unseen and unsound depictions of self-generating process - is not science but desired escapism. Atheists & Secularists today are far more talibanically dogmatic than any religionist: this phenomenon has now reversed itself. Here are my two prime reasons for the negation of the fulcrum pillars of random and infinity, respectively:

    1. A random does not produce a complexity - not even via slow [billions of years], unseen, micro based self-generating process - which is the same thing. Why? Because it is based on a third-party impact - not on the nominated entities examined. If one accepts in the preamble that all actions are 'intergrated' - this says that the particularised actions of a particle are NOT [cannot be!] resultant from its own particularised attributes, and these actions cannot perform any tasks in the absence of an intergrated scenario. Its like a lock and key duality of pre-designated, intergrated counterparts: each becomes redundent without the other; and similarly, the designation of any particle performing a self-generating task is one of the great errors in our science direction: it is born out of the same delinquency we allocate to theism.

    Its a glitch in the system. What Darwin did is - he found a key which fits into a lock - deeming this the ultimate answer to life, thereby the justification by 'looking' for other imprints which allign with this scenario. IOW: the 'intergration' factor was totally disregarded here! Intergration signifies a hovering, external impact - which is transcendent of the attributes in the entities. The key does not make the lock work - a hovering factor does. The time factor and the key does not control the lock: a hovering, transcendent impact applies.

    2. Infinity. Yes, this is not discardable from the equation, but fundamental in the preamble. BUT! The critical factor here is - the infinity is *outside* the universe - not limited to within it [lock & key analogy]. There is no alternative to this. This is also the reason we cannot identify, measure or relate to this premise voluntarilly: the tools of science and maths only apply *THIS* side of the universe - else that was not infinity to begin with. This is best seen that the universe is expanding, some may theorise there is both contraction and expansion. These negate infinity: can one add $5 to an infinite number of $'s? - if yes, it was not infinite to begin with. Can we say, the $ begat infinity by self-generating accumulation of each $? Nope! One would have to ask, where did the propelling of that self-generating factor come from - if from elsewhere of its own source - than again, there is a transcendent factor here - meaning again, there was no infinity in the nominated entities, thus no causation or origin.

    Then one can say - if we see all around us, phenomenons such as expansion and growth, why can it not be that everything is self-generating, even with random at its starting base? A: because we do NOT see anything which is self-generating; look closer and we see some other impacting factor, be it another entity or a force. We do not find independent locks and keys, only critical intergration wherever we look: the key to your house is never seen on Jupiter millions of years ago.

    So when I deliberate, I see fundamental glitches in the conclusions, as opposed the transit workings knowledge, of many current sciences we have come to accept. We know nothing about the origin and cause of *ANYTHING* - and we cannot know this voluntarilly: we do not have the tools to understand how science and maths became activated - leave aside understanding a beginning without it. The infinity factor must thus be transcendent of the universe, not a part of it, making actual causation and origin outside factors too. Science and maths are tools for THIS side of the universe - vindicated as such. And we have to see that our prowess in understanding is excellent [the best in the universe!] - but that this is vested within the universe only, and that this universe is finite, and we yet have no tools or spaceship to fathom outside it - wherein the infinite hovers.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somerset, Ohio
    Posts
    37
    Corrupted distances:

    basim: Than what about the speed of the light. the difference between the value in atmosphere and its value in space outside should be increasing day by day.
    By “looking outside”, I mean outside of the ‘local group’ in which our galaxy resides (an area distorted by gravity, remember)…and even beyond the clutches of the super cluster pulling the local group inward.

    But you've inadvertently raised an interesting point. Because, despite appearances, the area that qualifies as a ‘mile’ is decreasing with each passing second, the estimated speed of light (around 186k mps) is a standard that’s corrupted by contraction at the outset. So, in line with my theory, without factoring in the speed of contraction, measurements of distance (inches, feet, yards, miles, etc.) are intrinsically unreliable.

    ...measurements of time and motion, on the other hand…(?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    question, if everything "shrinks" at the same rate proportional, what would be the difference, a mile would still be a mile since the inch shrunk at the same rate so as the mile.
    I didn't read the last 1 1/2 pages so my answer could lie in these bounds, I hadn't the time for it.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •