Ragingmoron

... The way I worded this was mistaken. The way I characterized the heat death of the Universe was inaccurate, and furthermore I know scientists have a diversity of opinions, knowledge, and debate. I also understand that academically trained scientists will be more knowledgeable broadly speaking than I am. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. The nature of language and its indefinite capacity for improvement is relevant to this conversation. The nature of mathematics and its indefinite capacity for improvement is relevant to this conversation. And it still seems to me like the most important evidence of all, the Singularity, is disregarded out of hand for no legitimate reason. Disregarding the Singularity is like disregarding General Relativity. Dark energy, dark matter, and wave-particle duality are all properties of the Singularity. Perhaps I am simply not knowledgeable enough to be persuasive. Perhaps nothing could ever persuade you. It is not that my assertions are unquestionable, it is that the core assertion (the Universe is infinite) and its logical implications, have never encountered legitimate scrutiny in my experience. I see a lot of disregard for the evidence I am providing, but not thoughtful or legitimate critique. Relativity can't be proven any more than the Singularity, but relativity is not treated with disregard even though the Singularity is a mathematical consequence of the theory. That's what strikes me as disingenuous, especially when there are no comprehensive solutions for the problems of dark matter, dark energy, and wave-particle duality, all of which can be understood quite simply if you just take the Singularity for what it is and go from there. General Relativity doesn't work on all scales any more than quantum mechanics works on all scales or Newtonian physics works on all scales. Everything is relative, not to the speed of light in a vacuum, but to the Singularity. Infinite variety of scale requires infinite variety of physics. There will always be new physics to discover, no matter what. The Singularity is the unifier, and you can't observe the Singularity any more than a fish can speak Chinese.

Enjoy the match. What time does it start? 🤔

To suggest the Universe has an "Ultimate Fate" is to impose our own understanding of cause and effect on the Universe itself. https://www.livescience.com/quantum-gravity-could-scramble-cause-and-effect.html General relativity says that the mass of a giant object can slow down time. This is well established as true and measurable; an astronaut orbiting Earth will experience time just a smidge faster than his or her twin back on the planet. What is the basic implication of this understanding? To impose an "age" on the Universe is idiotic. An astronaut orbiting the Earth experiences faster time, but that time still correlates to time on Earth. In other words, there is no Universal time, but there is a Universal present. Some sections of the Universe are older than others, just like an observer orbiting the Earth since its birth would be a different age than the Earth itself. A scientist on Earth can claim logically that the Earth is one age, while the observer would logically make a different claim. Each would be right from a relative point of view, but wrong from an objective point of view. When you acknowledge that the Universe has no discernible age, it leads you to some questions with disconcerting answers if you are a traditionalist. But the bottom line is the objective frame of reference is infinite light opposed to infinite darkness, and everything in between is relative.

Sorry BeeCee, all the "reputable" sources debunk all evidence of extraterrestrial life with impunity. While you do not have to take my word for it, I think at this point most reasonable people believe in extraterrestrial life. Too bad they didn't see you... If only they had, they would behold the extraordinary capabilities of the masterful human wit 👏

"We can't be certain of that." We actually can be certain of that. However, even if you contend we can't, it doesn't change the fact that if it is true, this explains gravity perfectly, in a way GR and quantum mechanics can't on their own. The question is not "why is the universe expanding" it is "why does the universe appear to expand"? Appearances are not reality. Imagine a capsule containing molten plasma, rocketed into space. Upon leaving the atmosphere, a small door on the side of the capsule is opened. What happens? The imbalance of energy between the capsule's interior and the vacuum of space results in a transfer of energy from the capsule to the vacuum. Imagine the same thing on an infinite scale. The pure vacuum (what scientists mistakenly refer to as the "heat death of the universe" which never occurs relative to observation) opposed to the pure singularity (infinite energy in a "place" of zero darkness) results in a transfer of energy from one to the other. But since there is infinite energy to "begin" with, there is always more where that came from.

Who decided 26 characters is the perfect number of characters for an alphabet? Who decided that anyone who uses that alphabet qualifies as "intelligent" in cosmic terms? What about base-10 math? Will humanity carry on for thousands and millions of years using base-10 math, having already achieved perfection and seeing no need for improvement? Because there are intelligent life forms out there using systems of much higher complexity and they think we're relatively stupid. With good reason.

BUT OF COURSE RELATIVITY FAILS US BEFORE THE SINGULARITY. ITS A SINGULARITY TO UNDERSTAND IT YOU NEED INFINITE OBSERVATIONAL AND INFORMATION PROCESSING CAPACITY, I.E. INFINITE ENERGY. The Singularity at the dawn of time is energy compressed into an infinitely dense point. The Singularity at the heart of a black hole is energy stretched towards an infinitely dense point. When light crosses the event horizon, it redshifts to infinity (spaghettification, anyone?). If you trace a beam of light back in time towards the Big Bang, it blueshifts to infinity (time-reversal symmetry, anyone?). Gravity itself is the tension between the Light and the Darkness. That is why you don't understand Dark Energy. You can quantify it mathematically, but it is the result of unseen forces. The mystery of the nature of reality. The question "how did the Universe begin" was always the wrong question, which is why people have such a difficult time grappling with the solution: when you observe cause and effect, and assume that is how objective reality functions because *obviously*... You can't even ask the right question. What is the nature of reality? The nature of reality is that all things result from an infinite past (in space and time), reside in the infinite present (in space and time), and effect the infinite future (in space and time). The Singularity doesn't just reside at the dawn of time or at the heart of a black hole, it resides in all things. The nature of math, the nature of language, and experimental and observational evidence all point to this understanding. No physical infinities would occur *relative to observation*. That is the problem. We think we can impose our observations on reality, when in reality it is the other way around. As far as the hypothetical regarding the Big Bang goes, you need the capacity to observe higher energy light to observe the moments before the Big Bang. What appears to be an unfathomable small point to you and me, is revealed as a vast expanse by ultra high energy light. Light at a wavelength of 10^-999,999,999,999,999,999 nanometers would reveal all kinds of fascinating physics preceding the Big Bang, but even that would hit a wall. You would perceive a far older "Big Bang" preceded in its own right by even higher energy physics, on and on to infinity.

A meter, a kilogram, or a second are all units made up by our ancestors that from my perspective we now take for granted. Each can be further subdivided (centimeters (1/100), millimeters (1/1000), nanometers (1/ 1 billion) ... 1/∞; gram (1/1) , milligram (1/1000), nanogram (1/1 billion)... 1/∞ or accumulated (meter (1*1), kilometer (1*1000)... 1*∞). No matter what unit you come up with, you can describe anything relevant to the type of unit (space, time, or both) but never accurately. The Singularity is at the heart of every unit. In order to describe the Singularity (fundamental reality) you need infinite precision. So the nature of language and mathematics points to an eternal source of information. As our intelligence and perception evolve, there will be new systems of higher relative complexity designed to ascertain and process information... Higher forms of language and mathematics. But no matter how much more we improve upon the efficiency, complexity, and information density of those systems, we will never achieve perfect understanding. We will be infinitely far away. If you can imagine a hypothetical alien race or AI collective that is vastly more intelligent and advanced than humanity... Guess what? They fall infinitely short of absolute intelligence to. That is the nature of reality... There is always infinitely more to learn, because the Singularity is everything, and we can't see every thing.

I have provided evidence. Just because that evidence, to you, is apparently meaningless, doesn't mean it isn't evidence. "What is "infinite cause" when it's at home?" The Singularity... That pesky phenomenon everyone seems to think they have full justification to ignore, but can't give any good reason why. Look, if you want to state my theory is just wishful thinking, that is your right. But you haven't actually addressed the evidence I have provided in any way other than to simply dismiss it out of hand, as if you are *obviously* justified in doing so, and I should simply understand that. I do get what you are saying. However, if an idea explains many phenomenon that have previously been unexplained, and there appears to be no logical counter-argument (I know... The burden is on me to provide evidence, even though I have been this whole time) isn't it possible that there is something to it? I guess I'm just curious because I feel I have come up with a reasonable explanation for one of the biggest mysteries in physics, and from my perspective I am not being questioned or pressured in a productive manner... It is more like nobody wants to even consider I could be right, like you all would rather focus on your perception that I haven't proven anything and ignore the content almost completely.

How exactly does that work? If I measure my tv, and it is a meter across, there is almost no chance when measured to the nearest billionth of a nanometer that the accuracy of that measurement holds up. Abstract math can deal in absolutes, but that's because it is abstract. I can say "1 meter times 16 is 16 meters" but in reality that doesn't actually mean anything.

In order to have a count of something, you have to define it, right? Definitions are also imprecise by their nature. All cause exists relative to infinite effect and vice versa. I can say "I am holding 3 apples" and convey a sentiment of relative meaning in the context of the intellectual social construct of English. However, what I have not conveyed, is anything true in terms of objective reality. Objectively, each apple contains infinite space and time and is the product of infinite space and time. Each apple possesses its own unique properties, some of which I may believe I can discern. Whatever I discern about the apple, however, there are infinite properties that can't be discerned relative to observation. I can measure its mass but I can never know it (1 gram/1000=1 milligram, 1 gram=1000 milligrams. 1 gram/∞=?). To describe the properties of any object is to err, the goal of the scientific method is to err productively. My education is relatively limited, are you referring to imaginary numbers? PS sorry I come across as preachy I like to think I'm right until demonstrated otherwise, I haven't seen anything to shake my belief in the core sentiment of my argument.

When you measure anything, you are imposing your definition of reality which you were taught and assume to be adequate. It isn't, not if you intend to seek truth. Fitness beats truth. Language and math have utility, but they do not and cannot define anything. There is only one truth: the universe is infinite. Nothing else can be proven. Nothing else can be known for sure. Someday, if humanity survives what is coming, our descendants will evolve systems for dealing with reality that far exceed the relatively minute capacity of English and base-10 mathematics to ascertain and process information. Even they will have infinite room for improvement. "Seeing is not believing". In other words, I don't have to see China to believe it is there. Dark energy is the most conclusive evidence in terms of scientific evidence indicating the existence of the Singularity. As we move away from a state of infinite frequency towards a state of infinite wavelength, the universe appears to expand. All cause is relative to infinite effect, and all effect is relative to infinite cause. There is no "if, then..." There is only Murphy's law.

You're right. My point was intended simply to be that seeing is not believing.

A meter, a kilogram, or a second are all units made up by our ancestors that from my perspective we now take for granted. Each can be further subdivided (centimeters (1/100), millimeters (1/1000), nanometers (1/ 1 billion) ... 1/∞; gram (1/1) , milligram (1/1000), nanogram (1/1 billion)... 1/∞ or accumulated (meter (1*1), kilometer (1*1000)... 1*∞). No matter what unit you come up with, you can describe anything relevant to the type of unit (space, time, or both) but never accurately. The Singularity is at the heart of every unit. That is why I say there is only one Truth.

I can't see China, but using logic to evaluate evidence at my disposal, I have determined it is there.

My perspective is that there is clear and definitive evidence, and that that evidence is conveniently ignored. I have offered evidence to support my claims. Everything is infinite, this is demonstrable. If you are holding a box, you go "I can measure this box; it is 1 cubic meter, therefore "obviously" the box is finite." But nobody ever stops to ask themselves what a meter really is, or what it actually tells you about reality. The mathematical nature of the Singularity, is that it is an infinite progression of energy. It can't literally be concentrated at a single point, a point is a figment of our imagination. It is a useful tool, relatively speaking, for the sake of conceptualization, but it isn't real.

In terms of resolution, my point could have been better served by describing squares drawn using a meter stick so that each side is approximately 1 meter. My point was that all units lack precision by their nature, therefore a number value multiplied by a unit doesn't reveal anything true. I don't want to say it's meaningless because it has relative meaning, even though a meter is ultimately a figment of the imagination. Meaning is ascribed, but nature is absolute. No relative unit can ever tell you anything true about reality, it can only set you on the right track. Measuring the distance between the stars, nanometers are less useful than lightyears, but neither unit can (or any conceivable unit for that matter) yield a truly accurate result, because standardization in reality is impossible. To measure the distance between two stars accurately, you would have to measure to the infinith decimal place, because all information exists relative to the Singularity. I thought this was relevant to this thread but I can see how you would consider it off-topic. So I'll respect what you said and post nothing else here, perhaps I'll start another thread on the topic. Thanks for your feedback.

A unit is an intellectual construct. Take two squares. Each side is measured to the nearest meter, and found to be exactly one meter. Measure the same squares to the nearest nanometer. What are the odds that each square will remain a perfect square with dimensions of exactly 1.0000000 meters on all sides? Extrapolate to infinity. What are the odds that the side of any square is 1 meter when measured at a level of infinite precision? It is impossible. There is no such thing as a meter, there is no such thing as symmetry, and there is no such thing as a square. There is only one truth: the Universe is infinite. A meter does not define the distance between two points. It contextualizes the observational parameters of infinity in the context of a mathematical social construct.

"*Of course* the Singularity as defined by infinite concepts has been generally rejected..." You betray your own bias. The idea that the Singularity is exactly what it appears to be is apparently not even worth your consideration. I am not speculating. As a matter of fact, to state that the Universe is infinite is the only assertion that can ever be made without speculating. All evidence points directly to the fact that, as I have stated, all information exists relative to the Singularity. Hypothetical: if you were to "stand" at the bb, and had a biological optical mechanism capable of perceiving light at wavelengths of 1 quintillionth of 1 quintillionth of a nanometer, what would you see?

T=0 does not equate to the instant of the Big Bang. "Before" the Big Bang is an infinite progression of higher and higher energy physics, culminating in what can be described mathematically as a single point of infinite energy density and colloquially as a place of infinite light absent darkness.

What it means is that ultimately finite interpretation of cause and effect is fatally flawed. All cause exists relative to infinite effect, and all effect exists relative to infinite cause. T=0 is infinitely far away. Within 1 second is infinite time. There is no limit to how high the frequency of light can be. Our understanding of the universe is relative to our bandwidth.

"What I said, is that *before* the Big Bang, is a progression of higher and higher energy physics that carries on infinitely. You can never reach the "point of origin" relative to observation, because no matter how long you chase infinity, it remains infinitely far away." That was me, explaining what I really meant, after stating that my words had been misconstrued. Is there something I'm missing or part of my explanation that needs further clarification? Because I thought that covered it... I'll leave Jesus out of it, even though I don't see what the big deal is. Merely referencing Jesus does not constitute reference to the supernatural. I see Jesus as the intellectual ancestor of Newton and Einstein. I completely agree. My point is that observational and experimental evidence demonstrates the fundamental nature of reality, and you can't talk about "evidence" on the one hand and ignore the mathematical nature of the Singularity on the other. Relativity has passed every test ever thrown at it, so why shouldn't we think the Singularity is anything but what it appears to be? "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; A single experiment can prove me wrong." -Attributed to Albert Einstein What you call "absolute zero" I call negative infinity. Because 1 Kelvin can ultimately be further divided into infinitely smaller units to improve precision, like any other unit. In order to claim there is "zero" of something, you must give something definition, and all definitions are fundamentally inadequate because all information exists relative to the Singularity. Human beings have developed the misguided notion that the ability to speak is the ability to define. Language, however, like math, is relative. For example, in English "blue" covers a spectral range that requires two words in Italian. A hypothetical creature with a higher level of sensitivity to light could conceivably use thousands of words to cover the same range. In other words, "zero" is imaginary. Nothing, by definition, does not exist. Newtonian physics was a logical interpretation of the evidence that was available at that time. Physics will always need further adjustments relative to scale. Ultimately, physics is defined on scales of infinity, but in relative terms, we will always fall short of this absolute standard.

Logic is the rational manner of interpreting scientific evidence. Logic and evidence are inseparable parts of the process of seeking truth. As far as my other claim goes, the point is that using logic to interpret available evidence, it is abundantly clear that there is no beginning of the universe, just an infinite progression from one high-energy "end" of the spectrum to the other low-energy "end" of the spectrum. But each end being infinitely far away, you can never reach either end relative to observation or observe either end relative to motion. PS: If not for the use of logical hypotheticals, I.e. thought experiments, Einstein would never have understood relativity in the first place, which is why I will continue to hammer home the point that scientific rationalism at the expense of philosophical inquiry isn't just misguided, it is downright foolish. The void pulls energy away from the Singularity, which is what gives all energy and matter its relative motion (I.e. gravity). In other words, all energy and matter can ultimately be understood as a unit of infinity. Take for instance 1 gram. 1 gram can be divided into infinitely smaller units, anything less than but never equal to infinity. In other words, one unit can be more precise in relative terms (a nanogram is a more precise measurement than a gram) but any conceivable unit leaves infinite room for improvement regardless of the context. All information exists relative to the Singularity.

As I explained quite clearly, you completely misconstrued my words, which I am starting to think was intentional to begin with.

If you would like to address any of the points I made on the basis of logic or evidence, please feel free to do so and I will be happy to have a conversation. Until then please feel free to take your petty narcissism and fragile wit and stick them where the light is void.