THoR

BUT IT IS...really...I wouldn't kid you about that. It is the connotation of nothing that needs clarification. Observe the Universe. Try to explain it. Works for me. Faith is a poor substitute for reason. May sound presumptuous with my lowly BS (of course) in math and physics, but it seems to me the hypothesis of reciprocal balance complies with Occam's Razor. It does not refute the measurements and observations, it only interprets their inferences from a different perspective. Theoretical physicists will be the first to admit dark energy/matter is just a hypothesis - and not the only explanation. It's ALL ABOUT begging the question(s) - specifically "how was the universe created" and "when did it begin". Questions with false premeses BEG to be begged. Even if all of the celestial bodies in the known universe were moving away from each other, it wouldn't necessarily imply an expanding cosmos. Given a finite number of moving objects randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume (the 'known universe' IS finite), all collisions which could occur WILL occur within a finite period of time. Many of those collisions may occur outside of the original volume, but they will still take place within a finite distance, and eventually all of the objects will be moving away from each other. The Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy is in the process of colliding with our own Milky Way as we speak. If the scholarly pundits' cosmological calculations of distance and velocity of distant bodies proves to be flawed (and there is a pretty good chance of that - they are trying to interpret differentials in light that is billions of years old) stuff they think is moving away may be on a trajectory toward us. Given X energy concentrated in the center of Y volume. As I understand SLT, that energy will eventually disburse until equilibrium is reached. Given X mass equally disbursed as a cloud in Y volume, eventually gravitational forces will coalesce the cloud into a material clump - and if critical mass is reached it will explode. Energy and mass are just conditions, two forms of the same thing according to Uncle Al. They differ significantly in nature in that mass tends to coalesce and energy tends to disburse. I agree with Uncle Al tht energy and mass are just conditions - states of being that apply to those entities that exhibit those attributes.

Found it. Unblocked. The logic that explains the phenomenon of existence is the foundation for every equation ever formulated. It was touched upon by Newton when he noted every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It just takes a slightly different perspective to see how it applies to the phenomenon of being.

Found your IP in my visitor logs and unblocked it (Greek IP sourced from this website). I've been getting hit by a lot of rogue spammers from Russia and China and have blocked a number of IP's by their first three digits. Please try again. I have no problem with those who say "I don't know" how to justify the existence of the universe. Too many credentialed scholars are touting extra dimensions, a finite universe (all that exists, not just the known universe), and multiverses as the gospel. At the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift of elemental markers indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating. This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists who have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate. The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised theory can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results. Hypothetical dark energy and matter are far-fetched speculations, not hard science. I give them a 1% chance of finding these elusive substances. If you drop a white cue ball into a tub of cranberry juice, the deeper the tub, the redder it appears - but the cue ball is NOT accelerating. If there exists some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast distances, it would explain why the red shift seems to be intensifying at greater distances instead of being constant. When dealing with distances in the billions of light years, we have no idea what subtle nuances of nature might produce startling effects and to empirically test for these nuances would take billions of years. More concisely "Cause and effect is a FUNCTION OF existence. Existence is NOT a function of cause and effect." Semantics can really get in the way, can't they? Entropy death has already been disproven empirically. Considering the universe has been around forever, if it hasn't happened yet, it ain't a'gonna happen. (t=infinity already)

Au contraire, mon frère. The VAST majority of the population has been informed by TV pseudo-scientists that nothing pre-existed the event of Big Bang. Not all (obviously) disciples of cosmology agree, but they appear to be in the minority so far as the public limelight is concerned. When it comes to vast collections of galaxies congealing into a critical mass and then inflating, I find so much to the contrary - like this debunker (one of many) - that I would give the hypothesis of Big Bang less than a 1% probability of being anywhere near correct. I see no contradiction. Exisence causes 'cause and effect'. Existence is not 'caused by' cause and effect. Energy cannot escape the universe - it has nowhere else to go. Why would we not expect there is energy throughout the cosmos, although not necessarily equally disbursed at any point in time. It may ebb and flow from one location to another, but it cannot escape. Infinity is ultimately the perfect thermos bottle. Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing - according to uncle Al (Einstein). They are readily interchangeable. Why should we presume all of it will eventually go one way or the other?

...and is about 2000 words - too long to post here, but click here if interested Sure. If the cosmos "began" it had to be "created" at some distant point in the remote past. To "create" means to cause something to occur. Existence is not an occurrence. Existence is required in order for change to occur, so cause and effect (change) is a FUNCTION OF existence (not the reverse). Time is simply the measurement of relative rates of change (vibration of a Cesium atom, rotation of a planet, etc.). Time is a function of change. Existence (of the Universe) is not a function of change (see above) hence it is not temporal in nature. Why WOULD you think the universe began? Have you ever seen something that did not exist suddenly materialize before your eyes? Because our minds deal predominately with cause and effect, we have a bias to presume cause and effect explains all. It does not. Cause and effect, itself, has a source and that source supercedes the phenomenon of change (aka time). Processes have beginnings and endings, existence is not the result of a process. The universe is eternal. In cosmological terms, entropy is a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). Heat is energy. If the universe "began" then unless it inflated at an infinite rate or for an infinite time, it would necessarily be finite. Fortunately, it didn't "begin" (see first post). What follows is from my thesis: Scholars are quick to point out that infinity doesn't exist - and they are absolutely correct. But that doesn't mean the Universe is finite. Infinity is the non-existence of a limit, and if a non-existence existed it wouldn't be a non-existence. There is obviously a finite distance between every two points in the Universe, but there is no point, however distant, where the Universe ends. Some mistakenly believe that if there is a finite distance between every pair of points then the farthest point in the cosmos must be a finite distance away. What they don't understand is that just defining two points sways the realm of their consideration from the infinite back to the finite. When dealing with infinity, there is no limit, there is no 'farthest' and there is no 'all'. The fact that no defined point of infinity exists serves only to further validate the concept. The old 'balloon' ploy is often put forth as a three-dimensional example of cosmic expansion in a four-dimensional configuration. Stroking the ego of the unwary layman for his ability to understand a hypothetical abstraction, pundits propose this as an example of how the Universe is finite but unbounded. The scholarly sleight of hand to which theorists occasionally descend is, indeed, amazing. Three independent values (XYZ coordinates) are all that is necessary to uniquely specify any point of existence within the Universe - hence there are said to be three 'dimensions' (more accurately, three axes). If the Universe were finite, then for any given point there must exist another point within a finite distance at which travel in any direction will not increase the distance between the two. If someone wants me to believe the universe is finite, then all they have to do is simply convince me that the value of at least one of the XYZ coordinates has a limit. And if anyone wishes me to believe there are more than three dimensions, then prove to me that there are locations in the cosmos which cannot be specified within those coordinates

Inflation If BigBang created the universe then existence had an origin in time. The more sophisticated cosmologists don't actually claim this, only about 95% of them do. Energy moves, but is never lost. If the universe is infinite and the infinity of space we cannot detect is similar to what we have in our neighborhood then energy may transferred and even reduced temporarily until it is received back. The universe would be similar to an infinitely large insulated system - because there is nothing for it to be insulated from. There is a more rational explanation for the phenomenon of existence, and it is really quite obvious. It's been posted on my website for decades. Only occasionally does it seem to elucidate live brain cells - and I get an email response. Most often it is dismissed out of hand as contrary to the "conventional wisdom". NO PROBLEM, an eon from now it will be common knowledge and it really has no commercial value so I am not so eager to confide this revelation as I was 40 years ago when I encountered the logic that led me to my conclusions. I have enough fun just thinking - and watching the flat earthers embarrass themselves. Don't wanna go before the Pope and explain my heresy. The enigmatism was intentional. I don't like sweets, hence the vinegar. PICKLES RULE!! You must have visited my site. While refraction over vast distances may cause some red shift (THESIS ANYONE??) I am more prone to believe that the intercedence of billions of ambient sources of light at different angles into any given ray may cause deteriorization (red shift) over billions of light years (ANOTHER THESIS ANYONE??). This is not subject to empirical testing since it would take billions of years to replicate.

In spite of astronomical observations that suggest the most remote galaxies are fleeing from us faster than the speed of light, cosmologists persist in the conclusion the Hubble Red Shift is Doppler related and the Universe is inflating. I suppose that's the conventional wisdom, but - as is so common - the conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, it flies in the face of simple logic and, in this case, it leads to the presumption the Universe began (i.e.existence is the result of cause and effect). GIVEN: In order for something to change, act or be acted upon, it must exist (any who dissent must believe in things that don't exist) IMPLICATION: Cause and effect is a "function of" existence GIVEN: No phenomenon can be the result of its own subordinate derivative CONCLUSION: Existence is the SOURCE of cause and effect and not the result of it. This means the Universe didn't "begin", not with Genesis nor with a Big Bang. And it's not going to dissolve into entropy. This is simple stuff, people. Don't be misled by scholarly pundits with names suffixed with magna cum laudinous academic labels. Their hypotheses have no clothes. Extra dimensions? Finite universe? Entropy death? Have the disciples of cosmology lost their branes? The phenomenon of existence CAN be explained, but not with a cause and effect approach. Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lays hidden in plain sight.

How many opaque particles are there in 15 Billion light years? Why would we not expect some shade? Only something that exists can change - act or be acted upon. This means cause and effect is a function of existence - a derivative of the phenomenon of being. No phenomenon can be the result of its own subordinate derivative - be the result of its own cause - so the reverse is not true. Existence is NOT the result of cause and effect. It is not temporal in nature (time is simply the measurement of change). Existence did not 'Begin'. Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers from distant galaxies being Doppler related, and it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears. At the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating. This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate. This is speculation, not hard science. Astronomers tend to presume that between any given source and observer, all light travels the same distance at the same speed. But light bends in the presence of gravity. Observe a simple prism and you will note the red wavelength bends less than violet. Forget stars and planets, how many mass-laden Hydrogen atoms are there in a billion light years? Light at lower wavelengths has a more distant trajectory from source to observer when it is repeatedly exposed to gravity and would take longer to traverse the distance. Could this 'wavelength lag' alter elemental absorption markers toward the red end of the scale? Could there not be other conditions that can alter the absorption spikes perceived from light sources billions of light years away? I have little argument with the data Big Bangers cite, but I have a BIG problem with their interpretation of that data. The sound of galloping hooves doesn't mean the Unicorns are stampeding.

All conclusions are drawn from the interpretation of observations. The conventional wisdom used to be that the world was flat. The scholars of the day misinterpreted what they observed. That continues today. There are two basic phenomenon. 1) existence 2) change Change is derived from existence (something must exist in order to change or be changed). Something can change in relative position or the relative sub-qualities of an existence can rearrange to a different state of being. Change is caused by differentials. Stimulus can be internal or external. When something changes, that change affects its neighbor. The change cascades down the chain of existence. It can be nullified by absorbtion. It can be diluted by distance in an inverse square proportion. By definition, if the universe were finite then for each point in it there would exist another point within a finite distance at which motion in any direction would not increase the distance between the two. The DEFAULT assumption should be that the cosmos is INFINITE. Any other assumption requires substantiation. Today's scholarly pundits have it bass ackwards. (see above) The universe is infinite. There is no ALL. There is no ENTIRE. There is ALWAYS more. The largest integer you can imaging divided into infinity yields a quotient of Ø. Actually that doesn't mean anything really. Just like sqrt -1 has no meaning. What is 2blue^slow X apple?

If I interpret something in nature that infers 1+1=3 it must be a matter of misinterpretation. It is my contention that the contemporary wisdom is based on misinterpretation...a.k.a. faulty reasoning. I can make a rabbit appear from a hat before your very eyes...what conclusion would you draw from that? Nature does not make mistakes, but she is a great deceiver. Sans the use of simple logic science would not exist. If the universe were finite then for any point in it there would exist another point within a finite distance at which movement in any direction would not increase the distance between the two. Do you adhere to that concept? If so, then sail ye not too far into the Universe lest thou fallest from the edge. Show me one.

So, 'i' (sqrt -1) is LOGICAL? Sorry, an equation has just performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. If this problem persists, please contact a mathematician. When the INTERPRETATION of experimental results by contemporary science flies in the face of that which is obvious to any sentient being, I tend to challenge the 'unconventional wisdom'. You interpret what you see to be a particle - like a photon - but it is also a wave...well....sort of...well...or maybe not...see what I mean. The same phenomenon can be easily explained IF instead of intuitively assuming (interpreting) you are observing a particle you understand that what you see is just the simple propagation of change (energy if you wish) through space - or whatever media in which the experiment resides. It can even mimic the property of mass. Most phenomena can be interpreted MANY ways. Only one is correct. And it is usually the one which corresponds to the precepts of simple common sense and logic. Given a finite number of moving objects randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume, eventually all collisions which could occur WILL occur - within a finite period of time. Many of those collisions may occur outside of the original volume, but they will still take place within a finite period and within a finite distance. Once all collisions have occurred, all objects will eventually reach the boundary of the initial volume and except for those very few which may be moving at exactly the same velocity in precisely parallel paths, they will all be moving away from each other. The sound of galloping hooves does NOT mean the unicorns are stampeding. The appearance that clusters of material within our tiny suburb of the cosmos seem to be fleeing some epicenter does not mean the universe, itself, is expanding. If our corner of the cosmos is surrounded by a vast depth of void and no ambient matter is currently entering our vicinity, the above scenario may well explain the phenomenon. It is also quite possible that the Universe is an infinity of enormous cosmic engines which alternately collapse and explode when they reach critical mass - forever mingling material with other adjacent engines. To think the miniscule corner of the universe we can detect with our puny technology is all there is to the cosmos is silly.

Again, why would you presume our universe "came into" existence? Just because the infinitesimal portion of the cosmos that we can detect seems to be (red shift) inflating doesn't mean infinity is getting bigger. If the area of a bomb is all you can detect, it might seem the world is fleeing some epicenter...but the assumption would be wrong. What if space itself is slightly tinted red? Beware the supernatural. In the absence of logic there can be no rational argument. When the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded then so can others - without limit. Without logic there is no science. Something must exist in order to change or be changed. That is simple logic that applies to micro, macro and beyond. Two independent existences cannot simultaneously occupy the same volume. Something cannot be in two separate locations simultaneously. To travel from point A to point B requires the traverse of ALL the points between (Wormholes...Hogwarts if this is science, Harry Potter is the next Isaac Newton) Something either exists or it does not. You can assign any properties you wish to a fantasy, but why bother?

What specifically makes you presume the phenomenon of existence is something that 'happened" - something precipitated by the process cause and effect? You are trying to claim that once upon a time there was an 'after' that had no 'before'. Sounds a bit silly. Cause and effect is a function of (derived from) existence, existence is NOT a function of cause and effect.

Something must exist before it can change or be changed. The property with which you seem so taken with is called mass. It is simply a property. The property of an existence - which can be changed. Space exists. Mass is not necessary to existence. MOST of the universe (by volume) does not have the property of mass. Citing the status quo - the conventional wisdom - doesn't make it true. QM SR and particle physics all have precepts that fly in the face of logic; however, scholarly pundits with alphabet soup after their names continue to overlook those little problems for the sake of publication. They do a great disservice to the reputation of true science.. One person's fantasy is another person's logic. Just look at religion. Nature is great at the art of deception - and who in their right mind would dare contradict hordes of scholarly pundits - especially those immersed in alphabet soup - however, their king has no clothes. And light is NEITHER a partlcle nor a wave, though it acts like both. It is simply the propagation of change from one media to another.

Oh life DOES have a purpose. Everything that exists has a purpose. Purpose is simply intent (comes from the French word for intent) and it is the intent of everything in the universe to impose its properties on the elements in its environment. And the process of action and reaction changes the state of being of each element until it is in harmony with its surroundings.

Then QM is wrong (actually you problably should revisit that writing). Existence is not a condition or state of being, it is being, itself. In order to change or be changed, something must first exist, therefore change is a function of existence, existence is not a function of change.

Life is simply a process in which naturally animated fundamental elements or entities interact with their environment...learn to 'wear the mud'. In 500 to 1000 years when particle physicists discover the animaton (secular version of a soul) they will finally realize that it isn't EITHER intelligent design OR evolution, it is BOTH. Today, they can't even find (with any certainty) a fundamental particle with the property of mass. Imagine how difficult it will be to discover a fundamental particle which does NOT have the property of mass....

The assumption that the Universe began from nothing is based on a false premise. Existence is not the product of cause and effect. Indeed, something must exist before it can change or be changed, hence it is easily seen that cause and effect is a function (product of) the phenomenon of existence - just the opposite of the creation premise. If you want to understand the principle (not process) which reconciles the phenomenon of existence with the precepts of logic, try looking at the most basic of all principles - natural balance.

Using any given point in space as the point of origin for an X,Y,Z axis, one may theoretically extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the spectrum of three-dimensional coordinates. The procedure inscribes a sphere which theoretically encompasses the Universe. By definition, the selected point is the center of that sphere - and the center of the Universe. Since the same can be done for all points in the Universe, every point in the cosmos is its center.

...

Understood, but there are ways of handling the situation without becoming an obnoxious jerk like ....

The conventional wisdom used to be the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the Universe. Every scientific breakthrough known to humanity came from individuals who questioned the status quo and challenged the conventional wisdom. Science is ill served by those who ridicule and belittle. It is an affliction of the dull minded.

Example...

I fail to see the connection. I don't contend that the body doesn't have a nervous system. It serves us well - in fact we couldn't 'DO' without it.