Strange

Exactly. We don't have evidence of design of other things (things not designed by us). Then you should probably find a non-science forum where they hang out and ask them. There doesn't seem much point asking on a science forum what the basis of some aspect of religious literalism is. As far as I know it boils down to "the bible says so" and "it looks designed". Neither of which are very good arguments. It isn't clear that there is a line. As even you (who invented it) cannot say what this line is, I see no reason to accept that it exists. Define this line, and then maybe you could start a scientific discussion about whether there is evidence that it exists or not.

What is the nature of this line? What differentiates the things above it from below it? The materials they are made of? Their function? Their size? Your line seems to be completely ad-hoc: on one side are things that arise naturally, on the other are things designed by humans. How does that help answer your question? There isn't a line which will tell you if something is designed or not. Just a line you have invented where you will put on one side things that you have evidence for design. Of course, if you could actually define this line, then it might answer your question. Quite. Laptops are a result of purely natural events, materials and forces.

If you are not interested in a designer, that makes the whole question rather pointless. But if you want to abstract away from the actual designer, then you need to provide evidence that a specific artefact was designed. There is no magic line dividing designed things from non-designed things. (Like there is no simple dividing line between living and non-living.) That is why the Creationist/ID argument that "it looks designed" or "it is so complex it must be designed" are just stupid. The only way of establishing if something was designed, is to have evidence of that design process. But as we have evidence that all the things that Creationists like to claim "must be designed" can arise by natural means, there is no real need for design. As such, any evidence has a very high barrier to acceptance. Why?

I guess so. If you could work out a way of finding evidence for a designer (although, if there is, it is not particularly intelligent). And "it looks designed" is not evidence. Without evidence, it fails the Occam's Razor test. I don't think there is any such line. This is nothing to do with complexity. For example, the human brain, even a human cell, is more complex than a laptop. That doesn't require it to be designed. We know a laptop is designed because we can observe the design process. We can talk to designers and watch the manufacturing process.

How can "mass and motion" be a single quantity? Do you mean momentum? And how can that be equal to "expanding space"? You can't equate completely different things. We know that is not true, from observation. Expansion is a scaling effect and therefore the rate of separation of any two points is proportional to how far apart they are. If they are far enough apart then they will be sepating at the speed of light. If they are further apart then they will be moving apart at more than the speed of light. If every point were expanding at the speed of light, then that would result in exponential expansion and all the distant galaxies would have disappeared long ago.

You can choose any point you like as the centre of the universe. It really doesn't matter. But you would probably better of choosing a point that is useful for the measurements you need to do.

There is no centre of the universe. However, we are at the centre of the observable universe, so an Earth centred frame of reference is used for a lot of applications. And, on cosmological scales, the comoving coordinates are used. Thery are perhaps the nearest thing to what you suggest. But you wouldn't use either of those to navigate to your friend's house.

I’m not sure you know what a frame of reference is. How can it be “more accurate” to say you are moving at an infinite number of different speeds in an infinite number of different directions at the same time?

It was specifically a picture of what was not around it. We have had pictures of what is around black holes for a long time; that is how we know they are black holes and not something else. We have no "direct" evidence of electrons or photons. We only know them from their effects on other things. And as we only know about everything in the universe because of electrons and photons, we therefore have no "direct" evident of anything. So everything is in your "dark family". By the way, one of the rules of the Speculations forum is to have some support for your idea in the form of mathematics or evidence. I haven't seen any yet, so I will be suggesting this thread is closed. As you are unable to provide any math to support your fictional science, you should consider changing your user name.

Never means never! (As some British PM nearly said.)

They are not in "the same family". And you may have missed the news, but a bunch of scientists took a picture of a black hole. Doesn't get much more "direct" than that.

It could be infinitely old. It could be the result of a "big bounce" (the collapse of an earlier universe). There are many other speculative ideas (eternal inflation, ekpyrosis, etc).

The Big Bang theory is a description of how the universe evolved from a hot, dense, homogeneous state to what we see now. We don't know how it got to that state. There is no evidence for, and no information about, a hypothetical beginning. There are speculations about a beginning, but just as many which involve no beginning.

Another good point.

All good points. That is certainly true if you consider gravity a force (a la Newton). And if you take the GR interpretation, then you get relative motion with no force on the objects (which is the point I was making, albeit not very explicitly).

It is not just impractical, it is meaningless. You can already use an infinite number of frames of reference (with something having zero momentum in each one). You would be saying that you, for example, are moving at an infinite number of different speeds in an infinite number of different directions. All at the same time. How is that useful? So I have no idea what you are suggesting or why. No it doesn't. And never does.

But which one would you use? If there are an infinite number of frames of reference, all irrelative motion to one another. How can you "reference them all at once"? What does that even mean?

No, there isn't. (Well, there is. The trouble is there are an infinite number of them.)

True, it is just not a very accurate interpretation. Apart from the practical impossibility of defining such a frame, there are an infinite number of such frames of reference because, as I said, two things can be moving relative to one a another (even if they started off stationary relative to one another) even if no force is applied to them. And, even if you could find some frame of reference that has never had a force extorted on it, how useful would it be? What if it was moving at 99.99% of the speed of light relative to Earth? Could we make any use such a frame of reference? But it doesn't mater, because there is not such frame of reference. It implies there is an absolute zero of momentum, kinetic energy and velocity. All of which can only be defined relative to something else.

! Moderator Note As this turned out to be more of a question than proposing a theory, I have moved it to a more appropriate forum. I would suggest finding some books, videos or online articles on the subject of "quantum gravity" as they often have some of the most cutting edge (and speculative) ideas about the origin or otherwise of the universe. Also, at the other end of time, the astrophysicist Katie Mack is writing a book about possible ways the universe will end. (She has also written about this online if you want to search for it)

Ahmedtorah banned as a sock puppet of Ahmed Torah RichardFWhite has been banned as a sockpuppet of previously banned members MeredithLesly, BlueSpike, Frank_Baker and LisaLiel

! Moderator Note This breaks several rules, and is not a suitable topic for a science forum

But it just becomes smaller. It never becomes infinite. I mean, it is an interesting point that you can iterate infinitely on finite objects (and even tile an infinite plane with non-repeating patterns using a finite number of tiles) but it is not really related to the topic of the thread.

Infinite can mean no beginning or no end, or both. There are several versions of the Big Bang model where there is no beginning - that the universe is infinitely old. One of the simplest is the "big bounce", where the universe is expanding following an earlier collapse. There are also several types of eternal inflation. And at least one model that attempts to combine quantum theory with the Big Bang model which results in a universe that is infinitely old.

What does "infinite in reverse" mean? The idea that the universe is expanding and that it started as a dense point go together, and were both proposed by the same person. After all, if it expanding, then it must have been smaller and denser in the past. Lemaitre, who first came up with the idea, called this initial hot, dense state "the cosmic egg"!