infamouse

The English language could be compressed at any point to maximize utility, we literally don't care. Seriously, you can compress a 500 page book to 250 pages... sorry, what am I saying? The latin alphabet is the epitome of perfection. This conversation is sooooo intelligent. No. Mandatory conformity at the expense of legitimate intellectual development is not intelligence. Contending that contemporary language can't be structurally improved is like saying caveman grunts were fine, but since we bothered to advance I must now insist Islam is superior. Call me whatever you want. I could create a superior language with ease... it doesn't matter. You would rather be happy as squirrels. I am not criticizing science, just the illusion of it. I'm not demanding perfection, I AM INSISTING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND WE ARE BOUND TO LIVE AND DIE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. Such is the nature of the Singularity. A single "point" of infinite energy expands into an infinite "expanse" of infinite energy, and we all observers are caught between. What an unfathomable (obvious?) mystery(answer?) that thermodynamic arrow of time I mean Dark Energy...

The problem with taxation is that the public and private sectors are each extraordinarily corrupt. Communism works no better than capitalism when human beings enter the picture. As far as your scientific question goes, I don't have 14 doctorates therefore I can't meet the illustrious standards required by the Medieval Roman Catholic Cardinals... sorry, I mean ScienceForum moderators... required to offer an opinion on this subject. On a completely unrelated note with zero logical implications, kilonovas are an interesting phenomenon, wouldn't you say?

Time is universal. The clock is an artifice. He might not want to say it but I will: you are stupid, and belligerently arrogant. You are the one who needs to update your understanding of relativity, which in turn should improve your capacity to contribute productively to a conversation as opposed to imposing your imagined intellectual superiority.

EVERYTHING is relative. The ONLY reason GR "fails us" is that taking it at face value refutes so-called common sense. Yet actual common sense renders everything clear and every thing muddled by uncertainty. What is an apple? Why doesn't a pear qualify for such a prestigious club? What is an inch? Why do all the metric cool kids cast it aside? Why is my totally valid BeeCee unit (1/100000^9876543^6543298^4^671132 of 14/11 of 3.14159 astronomical units) *generally* considered to be *relatively* irrelevant? 🤷‍♂️ Indisputably, for example, as it turns out all black holes possess unique mass (see infinite precision principle). As with all other words (and/or caveman grunts) the term "singularity" is subjective. When I say all manifestations of *the* Singularity in physics represent a unified (dare I say "Singular") phenomenon, I think I make my meaning relatively clear. The Singularity indicates infinite cause relative to infinite effect in all circumstances. When a tsunami forms, it alters the molecular distribution of the entire ocean long before it reaches shore. Turns out the central insight of General Relativity is that every thing is generally relative.

There is only one Truth: The Universe is infinite. Everything else is speculation relative to observation. What are the odds that a measurement made to the nearest inch will be exactly 1 inch when measured to the nearest quintillionth of a quadrillionth of an inch? Negligible, in terms of the scientific burden of proof. As this methodology can be applied endlessly to any system of measurement regardless of the context, I have conclusively and scientifically proven that every single thread in this forum belongs to the category "Speculation". #math

No, I don't have a paper ready to publish succeeding General Relativity. It isn't necessary. Once you account for the Singularity, it becomes clear that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are compatible. Wave-Particle duality and Black Holes are each manifestations of the Singularity in the context of relative observation. Modern physics isn't deficient, just the physicists. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Entanglement are all manifestations of the Singularity as well. I can say with 100% certainty that all measurements and descriptions leave infinite room for improvement in all circumstances, and that nothing else can ever be stated with 100% certainty regardless of the circumstances.

Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin. Use whatever unit you want, you can never accurately measure temperature of any point in space at any given moment in time. The units themselves are arbitrary, constructed within the relative confines of an arbitrarily constructed infinitely imperfect human language and numerical system. I can invent a new unit called a Swansonot, described as 1/18th of 3/8trillionths of 11.713456432456789 Kelvin, and use this new unit to describe the temperature of any object I like. Much more precise than the nearest Degree Fahrenheit, wouldn't you say? Yet infinitely short of absolute precision. A new unit called a Jumbalaya measures 1/7th of 1 Swansonot, more precise you see; but only relatively speaking. We can no more measure the universe with perfect accuracy in English than a caveman could with a well articulated elaborate series of gestures and grunts. Such is the nature of the Singularity: EVERYTHING is relative in comparison.

First: I don't agree with the perspective that GR fails us, I think our perspective fails us. Rather than think of a Singularity as an "infinitely dense point" we should be thinking about the progression of physics *between us and infinity*. If you chart the energy density of a black hole from the Event Horizon to as close as you can get to the Singularity on a line graph, you will see a line that steadily increases towards a vertical angle until it appears to be almost perfectly vertical. However, if you change the units you are using to describe smaller scales, you can chart a graph that shows the energy distribution relative to smaller and smaller scales. For example, imagine a primordial black hole with a radius of about a meter. Create a line graph charting its energy density distribution to the nearest centimeter from the event horizon to the Singularity. Now, create a graph charting it to the nearest nanometer. Now, to the nearest 1 trillionth of a nanometer... there is no limit to the number of line graphs you can chart, each more precise than the last. For the sake of argument, imagine you could shrink down to the size of 10^-1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nanometers and make observations from within the black hole. What appears to be infinitely dense from beyond, is infinitely vast from within. What I believe is the overlooked central message of relativity, is that physics exist relative to the scale on which it is observed, in terms of the Singularity. Second: Agreed. However, a Gravitational Wave is not the same as Gravitational Warping. A Gravitational Wave travels at a finite speed, but every object warps spacetime in perpetuity. If a star goes supernova, all that mass and energy continues to warp spacetime, but the distribution changes. In other words, E=MC^2, matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, all matter and energy warps spacetime persistently, altering the trajectory of all other matter and energy concurrently. Only its relative distribution changes at any given moment. Third: I agree, I simply take this understanding to its logical conclusion, that on scales of infinity the Geometry of Spacetime is the Geometry of the Singularity itself. As I come to a point of re-prioritizing education in my life, I plan to revisit mathematics and chemistry first, then progress to physics. At the moment I have been reading some books about physics but I am hoping my library will have access to some textbooks so I can educate myself on the specifics. Thanks for the info!

First: Regarding the specifically referenced point, I believe I made myself quite clear and demonstrated my point conclusively, so I guess we can agree to disagree. Second: My point is, even though General Relativity tells us exactly what is at the heart of a Black Hole and what comes before the Big Bang, scientists seem to ignore it because it can't be observed and the idea itself is difficult to work with. I forgot an important point in my last reply to you, which is that when Schwarzchild used GR to describe a black hole in 1916, Einstein immediately recognized the mathematical significance of his finding, but did not believe that black holes would occur in nature. Einstein himself would argue the fact that just because wormholes are mathematically possible within the constraints of general relativity does not mean they would be bound to occur, or that we could readily observe them. Wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement are both perfectly congruent with Relativity, Einstein simply didn't recognize that at the heart of his model was the Singularity itself, connecting all things at all times persistently without violating the cosmic speed limit. The Singularity is the source of all gravity and indeed, reality itself. I felt like you were belittling my perspective intentionally, although I can see now I took it personally unnecessarily. I should have just addressed your actual point if I was going to bother to respond to you, so that's my bad. I am continuing to clarify my points here, as relevant to any conversations at hand.

First: I think I have demonstrated that although scientists claim you can only believe what is observed, they are unwilling or unable to take that line of thought to its logical conclusion. You have not provided any significant counterargument on this point. Second: Thanks for the explanation there. Nobody had yet addressed that point, I guess it was poorly made. Third: "Also while GR predicts a singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, most all physicists and cosmologists reject such infinites." I have never seen anyone provide a logical basis for rejecting such infinities. It seems to me, and perhaps I simply don't know any better, that scientists reject the idea because it seems counter intuitive. What seemingly does not occur to physicists, is that the *intrinsically limited tools* of language and math we use to describe physics in and of themselves reveal the nature of reality. You will never have a perfect description of reality because language is finite, not infinite. The very fact that any mathematical or language-based description leaves infinite room for improvement in all circumstances demonstrates that the Universe is infinite. That is the point I was trying to make with the infinite precision and mandatory asymmetry principle I described in my first post. "Plus of course the important point that GR fails us at the quantum/Planck region anyway so logically, we are unable to assume anything, other then the likelyhood that infinite spacetime curvature and densities do not exist, which means that at or below that quantum/Planck level, matter/energy resides in an unknown state, probably a state similar to when space and time evolved from the BB and at around t+10-35th seconds. We could even hypothesize a surface of sorts." We understand that time is relative, that there is or appears to be a Singularity before the Big Bang. Now, we can all agree I think, that if you survived a voyage towards a black hole, intense gravity would cause you to experience a much faster relative progression of time. An outside observer would never see you cross the event horizon, yet you would pass on into the relative future. So what's the issue here? The Singularity propels us from the past and pulls us into the future. That is what a straightforward interpretation of Relativity tells us: That physics on all scales answers ultimately to the Singularity. The Planck Length, is no different than an event horizon. You are free to feel I am being belligerent, but I have yet to see any convincing explanation for why this is not so. Setting aside whether or not you think this is or can be proven, again, isn't that what a straightforward interpretation of Relativity tells us *if* you are not automatically precluding the idea of infinite spacetime curvature and density? Admittedly, I consider myself a creature of logic, not mathematics. I was hamstrung a bit in school by going from Algebra 1 taught by an incompetent teacher who barely got us halfway through the material, to Algebra 2 taught by the biggest hardass in our entire school, the only class I ever came close to failing. I never progressed any further, but I am looking to revisit this area of my education in the near future. I happen to think philosophy is the natural basis of all science, but I appreciate the point you are making. To tell you the truth Studiot, your initial post comparing me to a twelve year old rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sorry for being petty.

You are mischaracterizing my intent here. If someone makes it clear in their response to me that they didn't understand my point (whether it is my lack of perfect communication or simply their failure to understand) I am going to take the opportunity to clarify.

You do understand that any accurate theory is initially born of speculation followed by discussion to weed out errors, right (that is the philosophical aspect of science)? I don't understand what your deal is, we are just having a conversation here. First, I am perfectly calm. I don't feel the need to qualify that statement. I will try to continue to moderate my speech to be as clear as possible. Second, I understand that redshift occurs due to expansion of space, I am trying to describe the mechanism by which this occurs, i.e. Dark Energy. Third, "at any given moment, I can not be certain that anything exists. Even my own hands as I type, I am seeing in the relative past. I know they were there a fraction of a second ago, and can *logically deduce* that they are still there presently, but at any given moment anything you see, you are seeing in the past, because light moves at a finite speed." What I am saying here, is that if we can only believe what we observe, then we can never believe that anything exists at any given moment, as our observations in any context are observations of the past, not the present. Fourth, I would like to return to a point I made in one of my original posts: Isn't believing the Universe could be finite a bit like believing the Earth could be flat? If you travel far enough will you hit a magical wall or fall off the edge of the Universe? Imagine looking at a black hole, and measuring its radius. I contend there is an infinite Universe within that black hole governed by the Singularity, if we are to believe what General Relativity indicates. "Dark Energy" within that universe, can be described by the radius observed externally. From within that Universe, this will be viewed as a Singularity at the dawn of time, expanding exponentially in accordance with the externally observed properties. This is why we observe the accelerating expansion of space-time in our universe, and because time is relative this expansion occurs unevenly. Dark Matter on the other hand, is all of the matter in an infinite Universe exerting proportional gravity in any given context relative to proximity and mass. In other words, a Sun-like star a trillion light-years away exerts a much smaller relative effect on our observational sphere compared to our own Sun. The effect does exist however, because gravity is persistent. The Sun warps space-time, altering the gravitational composition of the Solar System, the Milky Way, on and on in an infinite causal chain. The effect of a star a trillion-trillion light-years away is so minuscule as to be barely measurable directly, but the cumulative effect of all matter beyond observation in an infinite universe is what we know as Dark Matter. And thanks for the arxiv link, I am checking that out. I understand that a reasonable person could struggle to see how the ideas I am sharing here are connected or even necessarily compatible. I would love to work out the details and learn where I am going wrong. I am admittedly a novice in this subject and am taking the time to learn. If I come across otherwise I sincerely apologize. I simply believe that even a novice has a right to an opinion, and I believe I am onto something important. Perhaps time will prove me wrong.

R=(2MG/c^2)^∞ I know that is an oversimplification. Schwarzchild's radius describes the conditions necessary for a perfectly static black hole with no spin and no charge. What I am arguing, is that the properties of a black hole viewed externally, can be described internally as the physics of an infinite Universe. The mass, spin, and charge of any given black hole define the behavior of all matter and energy within. Therefore the physics of our universe can be used to describe the characteristics that exist beyond the Big Bang, the first observable moment of time, and the externally observed radius of our "black hole" universe describes Dark Energy. You start with an observed radius and expand exponentially to infinity. Every infinite universe spawns an infinity of black holes in turn due to the fundamental laws of physics on scales of infinity, resulting in an infinite continuum. Every reality in this continuum (which I would argue is really all one Universe, but that is a separate point) is shaped by its own unique physics and the choices of any perceptive lifeforms in turn. Contrary to the multiverse interpretation, the universe does not branch off infinitely with every choice. Every particle exists in an infinite "superstate" of every configuration possible in accordance with the laws of physics, constrained in observational terms by the very act of observation itself. Observation and choice are inseparably intertwined. To observe *is* to choose. At any given moment, I have to choose: choose to think or not to think, to move or not to move, eat or not to eat. Even choosing to do nothing to the fullest extent of my capabilities is a choice borne necessarily of observation. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, and if I am not making myself clear that is hardly your problem. I think I am, but I would think that, wouldn't I?

I mostly agree with your point, however I would counter that scientists can be some of the most overly sensitive and egotistical people out there. I would also add, that while you are right that people have a tendency to take corrections personally, it doesn't seem to me like you respect the fact that their perspective may lead them to feel legitimately antagonized. Not to stray off into politics, but as an example the primary reason for Trump's support and the corresponding anti-scientific sentiment is that people feel like they are being condescended to and antagonized. Your perspective doesn't seem to allow those who are poorly educated or less than supremely skilled in language into the conversation, so they go have conversations of their own. Someone I used to work with literally had a 2nd grade education... they aren't going to jump right into a strictly scientific forum and feel comfortable, so they find acceptance elsewhere.

I am just asking questions and stating my opinions, you are the one who is all up in arms. Don't project onto me, I am not claiming victimhood. You are really angry for some reason, if you don't want to have this conversation just go away. Here is what I am trying to say: light redshifts as it moves through space, forward in time, right? It loses energy as time progresses. If you follow a single beam of light infinitely into the future, it will reach a place of infinitely low energy. Now, follow that same light backwards in time. It will blueshift as it moves through space, backwards in time. Follow that beam of light infinitely into the past, it will reach a place of infinitely high energy. You could never *actually* do either of these things, relative to observation. But the place of infinitely high energy really does exist, and the place of infinitely low energy really does exist. 2 infinite ends of the spacetime spectrum, and Dark Energy is the tension between them. And for the record I don't think I can do the math. Conceptually however I am quite sure I am on to something, and I feel like must of the points I make don't get addressed, maybe because people think I am an idiot or simply don't understand what I am trying to say. It seems to me however, that the biggest problem in physics today is the failure to truly grasp concepts of infinity. Space is infinite, time is infinite, the infinite past already exists and the infinite future already exists, yet at any given moment we still have the capacity to shape space and time in the present. If we can only "know" what we observe, here is what that ultimately implies: at any given moment, I can not be certain that anything exists. Even my own hands as I type, I am seeing in the relative past. I know they were there a fraction of a second ago, and can *logically deduce* that they are still there presently, but at any given moment anything you see, you are seeing in the past, because light moves at a finite speed. Therefore, according to mainstream scientific perspective, we can not know that the Universe is infinite, and we can not know at any given moment whether anything actually exists at all. Scientists talk a lot about proof yet seemingly ignore the logical implications of their own theories and conceptions.

Your brain does require your senses to form, if not necessarily to function. I.e., if you lose all your senses, your brain will still function, although you will be completely useless. You can speak, but will never know if you have been heard. If you hold a pencil, you will never know. You could be lying down, standing up, floating in a gravity free environment, you would never know. You will not be able to eat, because you will never know if there is food in the area or have any way of accessing it. If you were born without your senses, you would never be able to learn anything. What would you have feelings about? No sight, sound, taste, touch, or smell. Nothing could ever be known to you. A baby doesn't cry for no reason. They cry because they feel hunger, or pain, or sickness, or because they want their mother. None of these reasons are valid without sensory input. "Evidence" and "logic" are two sides of the same coin. The evidence I am citing, is the entire body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, drawn to its logical conclusion in the context of this argument. I am not perfect, so feel free to help me out. Is there any logical argument to be made that you can be depressed or happy or have any other emotion despite never having perceived a single element of reality? "Actually, you were pointing that out about this site here, and the members in THIS community taking the time to respond to you... not society at large." You actually just proved my point. You insist you know what I "meant". Unless we have all memorized a dictionary, language is an imprecise method of communication. I said what I meant, and you perceived what you wanted to. No interest in what I was saying, you have simply decided you know better than me what I was trying to convey, and use this to attack a falsified version of my perspective. I don't think I have evaded any questions here. I am trying to answer them, and to clarify. I take your point, although I think you are projecting a bit when you claim I have taken this personally. Frankly, the evidence I have comes from the conversations I have had with tons of people who believe in things like magic, ghosts, mysticism, shamanism, witchcraft, etc. There is no scientific evidence that ghosts exist, for example, however there is no scientific evidence they don't. Rather than belittling people's perspective, I try to focus on what I regard as an incontrovertible fact: any phenomena that appears to be supernatural consists of an objective physical process, even if we have absolutely no way of explaining it. We may never be able to explain it, yet it is nevertheless explainable. It may well be that at some point in the future, there will be a scientific basis for understanding a phenomena similar or directly related to the idea of "ghosts". Whether or not I think this is likely is irrelevant. For all I know, it could very well be so.

I am not publishing a paper. I have no problem trying to be clear and clarify my points where necessary. I am not insisting on my mistakes or flaws being forgiven or ignored, I am pointing out that in our society, people have a tendency to overreact and/or insist they know what a person *meant* by their words. Nobody is EVER perfectly precise, we all contradict ourselves, word things poorly, and possess evolving opinions. The reason the less educated don't want to get involved in science, is that nobody can ever meet your false standard of reality.

Allow me to clarify: what I am saying, is perception comes first. You can't feel or conceptualize without perception. Even if all your senses were blighted at this very moment, and you were plunged into a world of darkness without sound, sight, taste, touch, or smell, any feelings or conceptualizations you maintain would be based on prior perceptions. So while I grant that you could perceive my words the way that you have, that is not what I meant. You have actually exemplified a major problem we have in our society today: rather than attempt to understand what someone is trying to say, we insist on attacking every little perceived flaw in their logic or language. This leads to defensiveness and unnecessary tension. This is undoubtedly a complex topic. Different processes in your brain are constantly overlapping. So my point is this: if you were born into a world of darkness, without any of your senses, you could never feel anything (in the physical or emotional sense) or conceptualize anything. Perception comes first.

I never implied otherwise. The scope of thought is limited as is the scope of feeling and perception. You can perceive something without having an overt feeling or formulating a conscious thought about it. That does not invalidate anything I said. I agree with you. Are you aware that in the timeframe you have described our brains have physically been shrinking? https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-human-brain-has-been-getting-smaller-since-the-stone-age

I'm sorry, I thought this was a place for conversation. Your title is moderator, yet you wave your hand and censor "non-mainstream scientific claims"? You have the power so you don't have to support your own position, yet I am supposed to respect what you are saying? Again, let me point out, I am not the one who brought up God, yet you flag my post anyways. The reason God came up in this thread is that the concept is directly relevant to the topic at hand, cosmology. For the record, nothing I have said crosses into the realm of philosophy, I just pointed out that philosophy and physics do overlap. You should pay some respect, science wouldn't exist without philosophy. What I am having a hard time understanding, is why nobody even wants to address the issue of whether or not a model of the Universe that is infinite could explain the problem of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. As I have stated, I believe that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are readily explained in the context of an infinite Universe. If, before the Big Bang, all matter and energy was contained in the Singularity, here is what that means: All matter and energy is condensed into a single infinitely dense "point". However, even once you hit the Planck Length, that point continues to get smaller and smaller the further back you go, ad infinitum. And no matter how far back you go, there is space between the fundamental particles and higher and higher energy physics to explain their behavior on any given scale. What is the "end point" of this process? Infinitely positive energy, compacted into a single point. However, you can never reach this point *relative to observation* no matter how far back you go in time. It will remain infinitely far away. Now, contrast this with expanding space-time. What is the endpoint of this process? Infinitely vast space, i.e. infinitely negative energy. All energy spread out over infinitely vast space. Again, you will never reach this point relative to observation, because it is infinitely far away. The space between the infinitely positive and infinitely negative energies can be described by a singularity field. The Planck length describes the limits of our observation relative to the Singularity in "ordinary space" while the Event Horizon describes the same in the gravitationally powerful context of a black hole. Dark Energy is the tension between the infinite positive energy of the relative "past" and the infinitely negative energy of the relative "future". Dark Matter is the gravity of all objects beyond our line of sight. I.e., a black hole 300 billion light-years away exerts a relative gravitational effect on the observable and infinite Universe. The further away an object is (accounting obviously for its mass as well) the less of a direct impact it will have on your measurements. The Earth is part of the Solar System, and effects its gravitational composition persistently. The Solar System is part of the Milky Way, and effects its gravitational composition persistently. The Milky Way is part of the local cluster, and effects its gravitational composition persistently.. The local cluster is part of the observable Universe, and effects its gravitational composition persistently. The observable Universe is part of the infinite Universe, and effects its gravitational composition persistently. Gravity is persistent, not transmitted. If the Sun vanished, the entire Solar System would immediately careen off into space, although we wouldn't witness the Sun's disappearance for 8 minutes and 20 seconds. I do not agree with you moving this conversation to "speculations". I appreciate you continuing to allow me to use this site, and I'm not going to make this personal. I am sure you take plenty of crap as is. I will point out, however, that this conversation is about physics. There is a reason Michio Kaku's book is called "The God Equation". There is a reason this conversation is so upsetting to so many dogmatic atheists, and a reason that physicists have ignored the obvious solution to their biggest cosmological models.

You accuse me of waving my hands, which I have not done. Allow me to clarify: We evolved from single celled organisms that perceived light but had no feelings, to complex organisms with feelings, to conscious conceptualizers of our environment and internal workings. In everyday life, every moment follows the same progression: perception, feeling, thought. IQ and standardized tests are just one metric of intelligence, hardly definitive. What I am curious about, is why humanity has been satisfied for about 2,000 years with base 10 math and the Latin alphabet. Regardless of whether or not these are seen as sufficient tools for our day to day lives (I would argue the impending collapse of our climate indicates they are not) wouldn't we want to think about improving upon these tools? What if Microsoft had stopped at Windows 98 and said "I think we figured it out. Let's move on." If 1,000 years ago, society had made the decision to utilize base-100 mathematics in formal education, we would all be the better for it. There is an issue of diminishing returns, but I believe it is a matter of normalization. Wouldn't a society that has used base-100 math for 500 years, be better equipped for thinking about mathematical concepts in general? Wouldn't their collective intellect meet a higher standard than contemporary society today? Is it not true that a rising tide lifts all boats? The issue of language does admittedly seem more complicated to me. I believe you could simplify English with a larger alphabet, using individual symbols to represent the most common words, phrases, or letter combinations. Upon developing a facility with this new language there is not question that information translated into it could be processed much more quickly, which would be a huge benefit. Imagine reading a 500 page book in half the time, or better.

I predict that using a precisely calculated slingshot maneuver, future space travelers will be able to travel to the future using a black hole as the catalyst. The implications of this is that the space obstructed from our view by the Event Horizon actually exists in the future. All time is relative, as we know. However, contrary to our standard notions of space and time, there are pockets of space in the Universe that "already" exist in the relative future. Any matter or energy that passes beyond the event horizon passes into the relative future, therefore we can not observe it, trapped as we are in the relative present on a relatively stable progression of time. I am not a scientist, I would rather have the conversation on merit. I have not thought this through perfectly nor am I claiming such. I believe the best way to work out the details of a theory or hypothesis is through argument. The pun occurred to me after I wrote it. Thanks 😜 I believe the word "deity" is only unscientific when used outside the context of science. I am not talking about mythology or religion, I am talking about a literal interpretation of the scientific evidence. As I noted to the moderator, I have not invoked any supernatural or otherwise unexplainable phenomenon, only science, which I believe is the only path to a physical understanding of God. This stance is actually common throughout history; like science, our understanding of God is always evolving and never complete. It is only in recent years that this perspective has not only fallen out of favor, but resulted in the ostracization of its promulgators.

I know physicists love to believe there is no overlap between physics and philosophy, but there is. The very fact that physicists have failed to ascertain the nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter for so long stands as testament to this fact. We were having a conversation? I said nothing about anything supernatural. I am talking about a scientific understanding of God. Please note, I was not the one to bring up God in the first place. You are not obligated to read, just as you are not obligated to understand Dark matter or Dark energy. Admittedly I am not an academic and as such have certainly not met the standard of a scientific paper. However, the endless floundering in the dark on such issues will continue indefinitely until matters of infinity are conceptually incorporated into the framework of physics. I understand your position, best of luck to you.

Firstly, I was referring to the *relative* present. I did not wish to invoke a "universal" present. Sorry I was not more specific. Secondly, space and time are not separate entities, so if space is infinite, time must be also. I would go so far as to say that it can be demonstrated quite simply that the Universe is infinite. I believe there is a faulty assumption underlying this debate that in an infinite universe, time would continue to operate on relatively similar scales. Imagine you pin down the second of creation; you determine that, to the nearest second, it is exactly 13.8 billion years old. Now, measure the beginning of the Universe to the nearest 100th of a second. What are the odds it is still exactly 13.8 Billion years? How about at the nearest trillionth of a billionth of a nanosecond? This exercise can be carried on ad infinitum. Even if you measure the "beginning" of the Universe to the nearest 10^-1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a second, you will have infinite room to improve upon the precision of your measurement. This is because physics operates ultimately on scales of infinity, the infinitesimal to the infinitely vast, and can only ever be understood in the context of a particular frame of reference. What is the speed of light in a vacuum? It is the speed of light relative to infinity. Gravity is the Singularity. Spacetime is the Singularity. It is all tied together: wave-particle duality, the thermodynamic arrow of time, redshift, blueshift, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes, are actually all manifestations of relative infinity. Gravity can be described as the path of matter through spacetime relative to the speed of light in relation to the Singularity (i.e. the speed of light in a vacuum. The Singularity is infinitely dense and infinitely vast, encompassing all observable spacetime and beyond). All matter in an infinite universe warps spacetime and concurrently alters the path of all other things. Since on a fundamental level all matter and energy resides within the Singularity, all matter and energy is its own cause and effect as well as the cause and effect of everything else. E=MC^2. Matter and energy can't be created or destroyed because they are fundamentally infinite. Observational physics is relative. Infinite physics is fundamental. If you can't think on scales of infinity you will literally never understand. An apple in your hand warps spacetime as demonstrated by Einstein, but what scientists can't seem to wrap their brain around, is that any object that warps spacetime alters the path of every other object in an infinite universe, instantly. Everything is connected. You all want an explanation of how GR and quantum mechanics are compatible, you got it. The Singularity is the unifying factor. Wave particle duality is a reflection of the effect of observation on the particle level. Perpetual observation of the interactions of light with our environment persistently impacts the trajectory of all particles and sets the parameters of relativistic physics. Quantum entanglement is a reflection of the interconnected nature of reality. The reason one particle can persistently affect another across indefinite distances, is because of the fundamental nature of gravity. All cause exists relative to infinite effect. All effect exists relative to infinite cause. Observational reality is always infinitely far away from a "singular point" of infinitely high energy/information density (the relative past), and infinitely far away from a "singular point" of infinitely low energy/information density (the relative future). This is what establishes the ultimate frame of reference for relative observation. You can never reach either "point" through the passage of time relative to observation. No matter WHAT you do, each is infinitely far away. Light is essentially stretched from infinitely high energy to infinitely low energy. This is why light redshifts in accordance with the thermodynamic arrow of time. In other words, Dark Energy is the tension between the "point" of infinitely high energy density and the "point" of infinitely low energy density. If you were to approach a black hole, you would never reach the event horizon from your relative perspective. The event horizon would recede into the distance relative to your position and motion through spacetime. From the perspective of an Earth observer, you would freeze at the event horizon, which is the Earth observer's relative moment in time. From your perspective, you would proceed into the relative future. Nothing is truly improbable or probable, and every relative calculation is always infinitely inaccurate. Every proof ever written, every word ever spoken, is infinitely inaccurate due to the relative nature of math and language as tools for conceptualization, computation, and communication of information. We know the Universe is infinite because our language and mathematical symbols are arbitrary and relative to our experience. I can make a 2 character language such as binary code, a 37 character language, or a 998,000 character language... All the way on to infinity. This is because all language exists as a tool for describing relative infinity. I can use our standard, base ten mathematics... Or I can create base 100 mathematics, or base trillion mathematics, using completely unique symbols that I can make up, all the way to infinity. This is because all math exists to describe relative infinity. The Mandatory Asymmetry Principle: Before we get to the Mandatory Asymmetry Principle, let's start with the Infinite Precision Principle. Both can be explained quite simply, using the basic geometric analogy of a square. The Infinite Precision Principle dictates this: take a square. You measure it with a ruler, you get exactly one inch per side. Great. Moving on, right? Not so fast. You decide to amp it up a bit and measure that square to the nearest 10,000th of an inch. You measure again, and this time you get 1.0001 inches. Your initial measurement appeared accurate, but a higher degree of precision found this to be untrue. The Infinite Precision Principle states this: no matter how accurate you think your measurement of the dimensions of an object are, there is always infinite room to improve upon your measurement. No matter how many times or to what degree of precision you magnify your measurements, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove your initial measurement inaccurate. The Mandatory Asymmetry Principle, when understood as it proceeds from the initially described principle, is as follows: take two sides of the square from the previous example. Let's say each side measured in initially at exactly 1 inch, then 1.0001 inches with the higher precision measurement. You amp it up again- this time the nearest billionth of an inch. This time, the measurements are as follows: A) 1.000100002 inches, B)1.000100003 inches. So at a higher level of precision, you realize you never had a perfect square to begin with, at all. The Mandatory Asymmetry Principle states this: if any given measurement of the dimensions of an object relative to observation, appears to be symmetrical, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove it is not. Key insight: there is no such thing as a perfect square, or a perfect hexagon, a perfect pyramid or a perfect sphere. Implications: every single object existing in our Infinite Universe is unique, and nothing can be measured perfectly in relative terms, ever, by anyone. For every object in the universe to be unique, the universe must be infinite. You can't measure the speed of light any more than you can measure the sides of a square. Because the only thing that is real, is infinity. Imagine the entire observable Universe is a basket with 2 apples and 4 oranges. We live in an orange, and we can't see what lies beyond the basket. Now, imagine the entire Universe is an infinite number of baskets, each with 2 apples and 4 oranges. There are infinite baskets, infinite apples, and infinite oranges. Basic logic dictates there are half as many baskets as apples, and twice as many oranges as apples. The basket is like our observational bubble. Every phenomenon we observe happens inside the basket. The ratio of apples to oranges is like our physics. We can define the physics within our basket in relative terms and convince ourselves the description is accurate. Or, we can define the physics of the infinite Universe in terms of the frequency of apples and oranges relative to infinity. God is not beholden to religious definitions. God is the supreme being, the collective of all that was is or ever will be, the manifestation of whom appears in our physics as the Singularity. Every instance of the Singularity in our physics, is a single unified phenomenon, not distinctively separate occurrences. What a genuine comprehension of the Singularity reveals, is that the underlying principle of physics is God. Not the Christian God, or Judaic God, or Islamic God... just God. The one and only. The part of my reply you quoted was not directed at you. You don't seem to understand what you are talking about.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond! I want to focus on one particular part of my original comment for the moment, and how I feel it relates to your reply: "Right now, there are objects approximately 1,000 light-years away that exist in the relative present, but nobody on Earth will see them for 1,000 years. That doesn't mean I doubt their existence." The observable Universe, if I recall correctly, is about 96 billion light-years across. Doesn't saying that our observable Universe is finite, therefore we can't know if it is infinite, imply that we also can't know if anything really exists within that sphere *at present*? The light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach us, so for all I know the Sun might not be there anymore. There might not be a single star left in the Universe for all I can say, because we are only capable of viewing them in a past state. As I got to thinking about this I thought about how expansion of the universe would cause much of that light to redshift beyond the visible spectrum before it reaches us anyways, so I appreciated your reply. If the Universe were infinite and uniform, i.e. if it were not expanding and everything was infinitely spread out, all of that light would be capable of reaching us at blinding capacity. I was specifically referencing Kaku's argument.