Einstein on the train

[Age]

"Not really"? Were you there at those times?

No, bit I did my Master's dissertation on medieval cosmology, so I've got a pretty good idea of what philosophers and scientists actually wrote and believed.

Was that BEFORE or AFTER their BELIEFS changed?

Also, I asked you if you wanted to look at and discuss some things about what some person wrote, which you quoted. You said; Should be a laugh-let's do it. Yet I pointed out some things and asked you four questions, but NO response whatsoever in regards to those questions. I also asked if you wanted me to point out MORE FLAWS or questionable comments in that quote, but again NO response to that at all.

By the way I just noticed a flaw in what I wrote to you, but you did NOT question me nor challenge me in regards to this. Why is this so?

[Scott Mayers]

I don't care if you 'think' I don't understand your concern but am being 'fair' to presume you make sense by charity.

I do NOT understand this. WHY would you even want to PRESUME I make sense by charity or any other means.

Either what I say makes sense to you or it does NOT.

"Charity" in arguments or debates means that when your opponent is arguing some point(s) that have more than one possible interpretation, assume the best of the person's arguments FIRST, rather than the worst. Of course this may not apply when competing or, if as a lawyer, advocating for some position with the onus on the opponent lawyer to notice. In regular discussions like this, I try to assume one is rational until otherwise said.

But....

IF you think I mean that there is an expanding spacial Universe, then what you think I mean is totally WRONG.

To me the Universe can NOT expand because It is infinite. Therefore I MEAN the Universe can NOT expand, spatially nor any other way. Surely that was NEVER that hard to understand.

...proves that the problem you have is in not understanding what you read of others. I expressed that you meant this possibility with extreme clarity and you still just told me here just the opposite.

What do you 'think' my VIEW is; The Universe is expanding, or, is NOT expanding?

Clear that up for us here now, then we can LOOK AT it, and then discuss this.

You hold an old "Static Universe":

A static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "infinite" or "static infinite" universe, is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting. Such a universe does not have so-called spatial curvature; that is to say that it is 'flat' or Euclidean. A static infinite universe was first proposed by Thomas Digges (1546 .. 1595) .[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe]

The image I presented precisely demonstrates the problem you perceive as argued by alternate theories to the Big Bang.

The image you presented might precisely demonstrate "the problem" as argued by alternate theories to the big bang. But I do NOT see any "problem" at all here, regarding this.

What "problem" do you 'think' that I "perceive?

There is NO "problem" I SEE regarding the Universe, Itself.

To me if some thing has NOT been argued validly and soundly, then it really has NOT been argued at all. As such an 'alternative theory' is NOT really argued, that is; until it is unfalsifiable, of which "a theory" then just becomes thee Truth.

By the way I much prefer to just LOOK AT the Truth instead of at "theories".

Progressing and moving on happens much quicker, simpler, and easier that way.

"Truth" rather than "theory" presumes everyone interprets everything by default in some common way. For observations, this is rational IF you are never allowed to impose meaning from inferences from elsewhere. But this is not the usual case. Rather, we often assume some 'logic' along with our own personal background experiences and, similar to what I presumed with you, give 'charity' to Nature as fitting to our own interpretation with a bias.

You can't assume the interpretation of reality as though it were universally obvious.

My preference is for a 'steady state' version

My preference is for thee Real and True version, only.

Then how do you determine this amongst others with varying perspectives? On what 'authority' are we to trust if we differ on explaining the CONNECTIONS of our observations?

which allows for expansion

I do NOT see an expansion.

HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

I understood you did not believe in an expansion. I happen to. But, as regards my last comment, you are imposing some assumption when you ask how an infinite universe expands as though this possibility to you is impossible without an explanation. While you may think this 'common sense', it is only as 'common sense' as one who might default to presume the Earth as flat without noting other contradictory evidence. It suggests that you are missing those contradictory evidences for yourself as a possibility. It may also be the case you know something unique that you think is shared by others. For instance, if you had some normal capacity to see in a room of blind people, you might be assuming the rest 'see' as you do without realizing they were blind, right?

[I'll split this thread up for ease of reading and to be sure I don't lose my post for timing out.]

[Scott Mayers]

HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

Now if YOU were to try to give charity to others like myself assuming this, can you not try to assume the potential? I think you could if you were more willing to invest in the depth involved. If you are just lacking a sufficient PRACTICAL reason to question this, something that appears to be possible, then you have to ask why you are investing so much effort on this thread other than to say that you don't understand the NEED to write another book on the topic and leave it at that. But you are not satisfied with the responses.

All that matters about the book is that others find it valuable to them for the purposes of the author. Will aimed for a book he thought would interest those liking the way he presented the case for physics that might encourage them to question further. It certainly arouses something in you at least about its content and thus serves some meaning here.

So now let me try an explanation of how you can have an infinite universe that expands. FIRST off, if you agree that at any point in time we have a finite state of existence, you should be able to at least agree that there is some 'finite' part within this sea of infinite space. Expansion, then, from just our finite space, matter, and time, would be about adding MORE but not necessarily a constant amount of these things.

Your next question might be, how can you get something from nothing, right? But you already assumed an infinite space as rational. The concept of infinity is itself not 'finite' by definition. What evidence do we have of our own personal experience that qualifies as proof that an infinite universe exists when we ourselves are 'finite'? If you divide even any 'finite' space, this too can be divided by an infinity without having some 'fixed' unit concept of zero (or nothing) that we treat as real. Thus, if 'expansion' is exponential, it can come from an infinitely divided portion of space going backwards but also not ever reaching zero, in an infinite way. That is, if you accept "infinity" as real, so is "infinitesimal" (something smaller and smaller infinitely but never zero).

So while you may not agree to the possibility of an infinitesimal smaller space, you'd be selectively biased to assume an infinite one in a hypocritical way. This is not to insult but to point out that you can reason as you do about what is ever larger but never ending as equal in the opposite way as smaller but being an actual 'nothing'. This is the Steady State interpretation that you don't need to agree to but points out another alternative to the Big Bang that assumes a finite origin.

My support of your view differs only in that I argue that IF we are EXPANDING, then there is still a rationality to an infinite origin as well as an infinite end. What you appear to be thinking (again, NOT irrational) is that expansion is just NOT a NECESSARY condition and appears to be odd to interpret from ANY evidence possible. You are rightly acting as Einstein would when questioning the 'weirdness' of quantum mechanic interpretations rather than stop ourselves and ask, "why POSIT some weirdness exists rather than assume that there IS some normal reasoning but we just don't presently have enough evidence for?"

All I am saying is that you can be correct for a similar reason I hold against the Big Bang interpretation. Why presume the interpretation of any evidence certainly points to some 'origin' rather than to assume that our observations and capacity to rationalize itself is more likely the flaw? We seem to have a 'flat world' upon simple observations. So when one proposes that the world is a sphere, others of the past rationally argued similarly: why assume any possible evidence of a spherical Earth exists when that explanation is more weird to assume than not?

Of course, our ignorance of seeing how such a theory could 'fit' to our local experience at first is reasonable in the same way we are asking questions about the Cosmos as a whole. We want a 'practical' commonsense explanation related to what we observe with priority. But if we just refuse to hear new evidence that might demonstrate why or how others determined the world is different than we expect, we at least have to gamble that it is possible in light of the similar way we once thought the Earth was by common sense flat. It still IS 'common sense' that it APPEARS 'flat' from our particular experience. What matters is to question how the appearance suggests what is real from ALL available perspectives. If you just close your eyes, this is fine too. But you then can't beg that others summarily provide an easy audible explanation that suffices to explain what others see.

[I'll again end this post without finishing the other questions. This time it is because the subject of your questioning is now delving into my own 'theorizing' beyond the thread's purpose. We might be better having a thread on "Steady State" theory. This happens to be one criticism I do hold against most general introductory lessons on astrophysics. ]

[Scott Mayers]

but then requires matter and energy to be constantly created.

WHERE is the "required" matter and energy being "constantly created" FROM, EXACTLY?

This question requires asking why is anything 'finite' itself? Can you prove that you DIDN'T come from nothing? If who you are now is 'defined', you have to also ask how you know you were not always existing? You might say that you always existed but lack your own self-explanation for why because you could have just 'forgot' those times. Maybe the finite limits of us force us to dump off memories of what we were before? Either way, we only INDUCE that we are born for recognizing we aren't the only ones existing in our present perception.

If matter and energy ALWAYS existed, you again have to ask whether this is also a fixed quantity or infinite. Why arbitrarily select one or the other? If it were finite, why does some special measure of matter and energy exist over some other of the infinite other possible measures? If it were infinite in quantity, then is it not also true that an infinity PLUS ONE still equals infinity? In other words, if there are an infinity of anything, there has to be an infinity of infinities of everything too. Time might be just our perception of nature not being able to FIX any quantity as 'infinite'.

Your view disagrees with steady change of space and matter

I am NOT sure whether my view disagrees with 'steady change of space of matter' or not.

What does 'steady change of space and matter' ACTUALLY mean, or entail?

The "steady" in "Steady State" comes from the Cosmological principle, an assumption agreed upon for most physics that we cannot judge different times or places as having different laws of physics because we would have no ground to start on in light of the infinite different religious or mythical possibilities that can't be out-ruled if we permit physics itself to be different in different places and times. The Steady State version included TIME where the others had only assumed PLACE. So, for instance, the Big Bang permits the possibility of a time when the physics of reality were not as they are now. This is necessary for an 'origin' type theory, just as we might accept evolution of humans to have derived from a different prior state of being some other kind of animal in the past.

Steady State theorists had to rephrase the original "Cosmological Principle" that only specified place (or time) to become the "Perfect Cosmological Principle", as place AND time. That is, we should assume ONLY a physics that is constant as from our PERSPECTIVE in all times as well as space, because we can't 'know' what state of physics could be as 'different' when there could be an infinite such possibilities.

but because you think the quantity of space and matter/energy is constant,

But I NEVER thought that at all.

I, however, might think that if, and when, I were to think about this. But until then I NEVER thought the quantity of space and matter/energy is constant at all.

Okay, we are getting somewhere. I anticipated this about you already. You COULD understand something IF you invested the time and energy into the depths involved. That was my point about the deep versus shallow analogy. If you've only lived in some place with waters that were never very deep, you could not make sense of others who claim to be from different places where the waters they claim ARE deep. You want a practical reason why, for instance, one might say we all should wear life jackets when in the water, when you only lack experience THAT there is even any deeper waters. This is fair.

and is called the "STATIC" universe interpretation.

Fair enough. Not sure what any of this has to do with me.

What I SEE is a DYNAMIC Universe.

I already explained this since now. But to clarify, "static", means that expansion is not occurring. Even if there is an infinite space, the Big Bang theory proposes a change from nothing to something, which is itself an infinite dynamic jump from absolutely nothing to ANYthing. The presumption before the Big Bang theory or the Steady State, was that there could be an infinite OR finite universe but that they all assumed it to have a fixed and real 'state', such as being a UNI-verse (and where the derivation of 'static' comes from).

My illustration just incidentally provides one possible reason for your own doubt about the Big Bang.

But WHO says I have any doubt about the big bang?

WHERE in my writings did you come to assume, think, or believe that I have my own doubt about the big bang?

I do NOT doubt that a bang, of some particular size, about whatever time frame ago, happened. I also do NOT doubt that this "bang", which is suggested to be a relatively "big" bang, occurred at all. I have NO reason to doubt this. A so called "big bang" does NOT interfere at all with what I see as being an infinite, eternal Universe.

Okay, now I admit confusion here. You assert doubt about expansion. Expansion is absolutely NECESSARY for the Big Bang theory at least. That is you cannot have a 'beginning' of everything from nothing without whatever size, finite OR infinite, without having space and energy either gradually getting bigger than nothing (an acceleration) or some religious magical belief. The "Bang" in the theory was coined as an insult to the nature of assuming a SUDDEN infinite growth from an absolute state of zero space and time to ANY space and time. Even the tiniest infinitesimal size greater than zero requires an acceleration of the quantity of space, matter, and time. Otherwise, no movement exists.

How are you rationalizing a finite origins in time but not space, matter, and energy? Are you not being hypocritical here? Note that matter and energy REQUIRE time. So if time can originate for you, so must matter and energy. Then all you have left is the space to question. But this IS what Will's book assumed to which you complain about. The 'space' in the Big Bang theory requires an instantaneous BANG of nothing to something. We permit this locally when we accelerate from a RELATIVE place in time and space. But the ABSOLUTE origin theory begs problems and why we have this controversy at all. If a Big Bang occurred, AND we are only permitted to speak about the universe we are in, then we cannot assume the Big Bang version because it demands a sudden, historical time 'when' things began. We cannot judge THAT an origin exist and why defaulting to an infinity of time both forwards and backwards is required. Any 'finite' limitation just begs worse how something can come from nothing. But this was your reasoning for asking how space or matter can come from nothing.

Thus you run into the same problems as with the other theorists. What Will shows in his book should appeal to you as he demonstrates at least possible rationale for how this can work in a Big Bang interpretation. And he does it better than most I've come across, ...especially for an introductory book with lots of illustrations.

In essence, we AGREE that something is conserved about space and matter.

Do "we"?

I have NEVER even considered any thing in regards to conservation about space and matter previously. So, HOW would you, and do you, KNOW "we" AGREE that something is conserved about space and matter?

Then either hush up or invest in the time necessary to go deeper into the matter. You can't criticize 'theory' in general as though the truth should come instantaneously. If it isn't instantaneously understood, then you still can't expect some particular 'finite' explanation of physics in under a 100 pages.

If you are wanting to prove your own case by example, my illustration should give you justice.

But I do NOT even understand your own illustration.

Your illustration might or might NOT give so called "justice" to what I view. But I just view what I view. If that view is right or wrong is another matter.

If the Universe is NOT infinite and eternal, and NOT dynamic and constantly-changing, then I will remain OPEN to SEEING that. Until then the view that I have now SEES an infinite-eternal Universe in constant-change.

If you would like to explain your illustration, then feel free. But my view stands on its own. What I SEE does NOT need an "illustration" to give it justice. That is what is wrong with ALL "illustrations", they can NOT capture the real and True actual picture of things. Only that view can be SEEN from direct observation.

And 'science' is about communicating the COLLECTIVE subjective observations, not the subjective observations each of us makes on our own. That the subjective observation is essential doesn't suffice to speak on 'theory' because theories are the explanations, a communication between people, about observations, in a systematic process. We can't 'observe' directly anything that deductively assures us what is certain beyond our literal temporary consciousness. Does what you observe not also disappear the moment you stop looking at it? The 'explanations' we call theories are only less rational if you also avoid judging subjective memories of your 'observations' because they are no longer 'true' when not ACTUALLY being observations at the time they are mere memories.

The illustration was showing that if you 'finitely' treat the universe as a fixed container, the infinite 'expansion' of space with respect to finite matter, is equivalent to the infinite 'contraction' of all matter with respect to space. If space grows but matter does not, then this is the same as matter shrinking while space staying constant.

[Scott Mayers]

If space and matter is constant,

What does 'space and matter is constant' actually mean to you?

Besides the fact that I have NOT yet seen this, to even consider this, I do NOT even know what this means yet, from your perspective.

I don't treat these as 'constant'. Matter and Space is treated as fixed by the Big Bang Theory. This is considered a 'constant'. Rather, to the Steady State interpretation of my own interpretation, matter, space, and time are 'constant' with respect to acceleration. That is, the DENSITY or quantity of energy per unit space is constant. So new space is equivalent to new energy in the same rate: that matter/volume of space is constant, not that a fixed amount of matter exists while space is treated variable or 'growing'.

then the average DENSITY is at least the same everywhere and so that image I provided only shows WHY the Big Bang version is contradictory.

What does the 'average DENSITY' mean, to you?

The "average" DENSITY of WHAT, EXACTLY?

HOW do you propose the big bang "version" is contradictory? Contradictory to 'WHAT', exactly? WHY do you propose the big bang "version" is contradictory?

And, what do you mean big bang "version" anyway? What other "versions" are there?

I just SEE the parts of the so called "big bang", which could be true, and how they could fit in perfectly with what the actual and real Truth IS.

Already explained above. But again, the Steady State version means that for all times the physical laws are CONSTANT or are OF a constant in change. For 'evolved' realities, these are still constant by some means for our 'consistent' reality.

Even if totality has some capacity for ALL possibilities, the 'constant' of reality as a whole to be infinitely changing would be a 'constant of change' in some way.

It agrees with your position as rational, even if it may be wrong too.

If "it" here applies to "that" image, which is YOUR illustration, then because I do NOT understand "that" image, then "it" may or may NOT agree with my position as "rational". I would have NO clue of knowing that at all. Until I know and understand what the image implies, then knowing if it is a good representation of the actual real Truth I would never know.

If, however, "it" applies to some thing else, then so be it.

Look at the image again:

A paradox of Expansion.41...png

The description is as follows:

Since matter and energy are interchangeable, treat the red shading as 'energy' which is considered 'constant', not 'constant-changing' in a finite quantity in the Big Bang theory. The “T=-0” is the absolute time and place where absolutely nothing exists, the actual 'singularity' that is pointed to in time as that 14 Billion years ago when all of everything popped into existence.

The “T=0” is the assumed jump to contain that fixed amount of matter/energy. The Big Bang theory conflates the two points, separates them but leaves a question mark in between the time when it was absolutely nothing to the time is contained ONLY matter/energy but no space.

The times afterward, like T=1, and on, are treated 'constant', again as the Big Bang interpretation presumes. They DON'T presume space itself as constant and would argue that it is a 'nothing' and so is permitted to do so. But this contradicts that matter is something that 'occupies' space. If there were no space, then there is no matter. Then if energy is treated as all that existed at T=0, then this requires physics itself to have no matter at that point, something that contradicts our local experience of physics. That it assumes matter 'evolving' from something called, “energy” doesn't solve the problem of this fixed quantity AS pure energy either. Since energy is a measure of change through time, time requires to be as the 'space' of energy as it was to matter and then have to ask where this time as some 'thing' came from.

Since time requires matter for us to understand, we lack any means to interpret a time nor place 'when' things originated. As such, the Big Bang is contradictory to the concept of any 'observation' whether subjective or not.

The first times of T=-0 and T=0 are the same 'size' in energy plus matter, except that the first one illustrates all it as energy (via Big Bang theory) and the second singularity as the 'time' when matter is separated from this. The T=1 time is when space first 'pops' into sudden existence with prior energy/matter or 'grows' out of this magical point.

As time goes on, the percentage of matter/energy to space shrinks as illustrated in time T=3. Thus, the interpretation by the Big Bang theory is that in time, as space continues to expand, the matter and energy would spread out into space until there are no galaxies or stars and presumes a COLD end of all of reality that opposes their HOT origin.

[The rest of what you wrote is either inclusive to what I'd already explained thus far in the other responses and so needs no further explanation until I see what you understood of what I said so far.]

[Age]

I don't care if you 'think' I don't understand your concern but am being 'fair' to presume you make sense by charity.

I do NOT understand this. WHY would you even want to PRESUME I make sense by charity or any other means.

Either what I say makes sense to you or it does NOT.

"Charity" in arguments or debates means that when your opponent is arguing some point(s) that have more than one possible interpretation, assume the best of the person's arguments FIRST, rather than the worst.

But I am NOT arguing NOR debating any thing here.

I am just expressing my VIEW. If my VIEW is WRONG, then just say WHY it is WRONG.

Of course this may not apply when competing or, if as a lawyer, advocating for some position with the onus on the opponent lawyer to notice. In regular discussions like this, I try to assume one is rational until otherwise said.

What do you mean by "TRY TO"? Either you ASSUME or you do NOT.

HOW can one even "TRY TO" assume?

Do you ASSUME I am rational or not?

Also, WHY even ASSUME any thing? WHY NOT just remain OPEN instead?

I found if you remain OPEN, then you can and will discover, and/or learn, and thus have and KNOW, the answer very quickly, compared to ASSUMING, which could be a WRONG assumption anyway.

But....



...proves that the problem you have is in not understanding what you read of others. I expressed that you meant this possibility with extreme clarity and you still just told me here just the opposite.

What do you 'think' my VIEW is; The Universe is expanding, or, is NOT expanding?

Clear that up for us here now, then we can LOOK AT it, and then discuss this.

You hold an old "Static Universe":

A static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "infinite" or "static infinite" universe, is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting. Such a universe does not have so-called spatial curvature; that is to say that it is 'flat' or Euclidean. A static infinite universe was first proposed by Thomas Digges (1546 .. 1595) .[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe]

WHY did you use the 'old' word here? Has this view been surpassed or it is just a, relatively, "old" view, or for some other reason?

I do NOT SEE a "static Universe", so I do NOT HAVE a "static Universe" VIEW, let alone "hold" any "static Universe".

My VIEW is space DOES expand, and contract.

What does 'spatial curvature' have to do with my VIEW?

What does 'spatial curvature' mean to you?

I have NO idea what 'flat' nor 'euclidean' means in relation to the Universe. 'Flat' is certainly NOT how I SEE the Universe.

The image you presented might precisely demonstrate "the problem" as argued by alternate theories to the big bang. But I do NOT see any "problem" at all here, regarding this.

What "problem" do you 'think' that I "perceive?

There is NO "problem" I SEE regarding the Universe, Itself.

To me if some thing has NOT been argued validly and soundly, then it really has NOT been argued at all. As such an 'alternative theory' is NOT really argued, that is; until it is unfalsifiable, of which "a theory" then just becomes thee Truth.

By the way I much prefer to just LOOK AT the Truth instead of at "theories".

Progressing and moving on happens much quicker, simpler, and easier that way.

"Truth" rather than "theory" presumes everyone interprets everything by default in some common way.

If that is what 'Truth' "presumes", then this fits in even MORE with my VIEW.

For observations, this is rational IF you are never allowed to impose meaning from inferences from elsewhere.

I do NOT see why.

But this is not the usual case. Rather, we often assume some 'logic' along with our own personal background experiences and, similar to what I presumed with you, give 'charity' to Nature as fitting to our own interpretation with a bias.

'you' can ASSUME as many things as you like. But I do NOT like to ASSUME any thing. If, however, assumptions do slip in some times, and if the assumptions are noticed by "others", before "me", then, hopefully, these assumptions are pointed out, to the readers.

You can't assume the interpretation of reality as though it were universally obvious.

I COULD but I DO NOT. Any one CAN assume any thing, if they so wish to.

Besides the fact that I do NOT "ASSUME" the interpretation of reality as though it were universally obvious, I would suggest to "you" that although human beings make up interpretations of reality, they are still ONLY "interpretations". Reality IS, on most accounts, DIFFERENT than the interpretation, model, and theory.

'Reality' IS what It IS.

Also, Reality IS, by definition, universally OBVIOUS. This will become to be SEEN and KNOWN.

Even very young children can SEE this, that is; until they are forced to SEE things, through adults brain induced distorted ways.

My preference is for thee Real and True version, only.

Then how do you determine this amongst others with varying perspectives?

Firstly, by STOP 'looking at' "versions", "theories", and "models".
Secondly, by just LOOKING AT what IS, instead, from a completely OPEN and Honest perspective.

What you SEE, from this perspective, is what you get, which is thee real Truth.

On what 'authority' are we to trust if we differ on explaining the CONNECTIONS of our observations?

AGREEMENT IS thee 'authority'.

The ONLY thing human beings "differ" on, is the definition of words used AND the meaning behind those "different" definitions. Sort that out through peaceful clarifying discussions, then CLEAR and PRECISE communication occurs. If this is happening peacefully, then the unexpected consequence, of PEACE, starts taking shape in the "world".

I do NOT see an expansion.

HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

I understood you did not believe in an expansion.

But I do NOT not believe in an expansion.

From what I SEE there is NOT an expansion, of an infinite Universe. This is the VIEW that I have, for OBVIOUS reasons.

I happen to.

What do you 'happen to'?

Do you 'happen to' BELIEVE that an infinite Universe is expanding? Or that a finite Universe is expanding?

Does ALL of whatever you BELIEVE expand? Or does some of it contract also?

What EXACTLY do you BELIEVE is expanding?

But, as regards my last comment, you are imposing some assumption when you ask how an infinite universe expands as though this possibility to you is impossible without an explanation.

Is that WHAT I am really doing?

Could it be POSSIBLE that I am genuinely CURIOUS as how to some thing, which is infinite in size, COULD expand?

If that is POSSIBLE, then I would LOVE to KNOW HOW?

While you may think this 'common sense', it is only as 'common sense' as one who might default to presume the Earth as flat without noting other contradictory evidence.

WHAT has actually lead you to JUMP to such a conclusion?

If the Universe is infinite, then just EXPLAIN HOW It could expand.

Also, 'WHAT' "other" 'contradictory EVIDENCE is there that the Universe is NOT infinite?

By the way I do NOT "default" AND I do NOT "default to presume" ANY thing.

I just express what I SEE. If that VIEW is WRONG, then just explain WHY.

It suggests that you are missing those contradictory evidences for yourself as a possibility.

If there are 'contradictory evidences', as you suggest there are and which you say I am missing, then just write them down here. THEN I could NOT miss them.

It may also be the case you know something unique that you think is shared by others.

That, unique 'thing', which is shared by ALL, is nothing really exciting nor out of the ordinary at all. It is also nothing to be scared nor fearful at all either. It is just NOT yet known consciously. It is, however, ALREADY KNOWN, unconsciously.

For instance, if you had some normal capacity to see in a room of blind people, you might be assuming the rest 'see' as you do without realizing they were blind, right?

That MIGHT BE the case IF, and ONLY IF, I was to ASSUME such a thing. But, obviously, IF I do NOT assume such a thing, so that is NOT right. I would be remaining OPEN, to SEE for myself, if the "others" were blind or NOT.

'Seeing' CAN mean understanding, also.

Things CAN be SEEN/UNDERSTOOD by ALL human beings, even those with eyes that can NOT see.

I do NOT assume that human beings can 'see'. I KNOW ALL human beings CAN 'see', understand. I also KNOW the eyes on some human bodies can and do NOT 'see', have vision.

I also understand that if a human being is blind in capacity to 'see' visually some thing with the eyes, or is blind in NOT YET being able to 'see' understand some thing with the brain conceptually, then through clear, concise, and consistent communication things can be explained in way so that they ARE understood OR SEEN, by ALL human beings, visually and/or mentally impaired.

[I'll split this thread up for ease of reading and to be sure I don't lose my post for timing out.]

Fair enough.

[Age]

HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

Now if YOU were to try to give charity to others like myself assuming this, can you not try to assume the potential?

I have trouble understanding your first 15 words here, let alone the next eight, and then look at how many more to go.

What does "if I were to TRY TO give charity to others" mean?

Either I GIVE charity or I do NOT. I do NOT know how to JUST 'TRY TO' give charity, without actually NOT doing it.

Now, if I were to GIVE charity to you, I would NEED to KNOW are you 'arguing/debating some thing' here or is this just a 'regular discussion' we are having? Because if I just read your last post correctly,
If it is the former, then according to you, if I see more than one possible interpretation, then I am meant to assume the best of your arguments FIRST, rather than the worst. Now, if I was to do this what EXACTLY do I judge the "best" from the "worst" on? ALL I can really judge ANY thing on is the thoughts within this body, and to these thoughts the "best" might NOT be the "best", from the thoughts within that body, and vice-versa. The "worst" I see might be the "best" you see. Also, WHY 'ASSUME' any thing? WHY NOT just remain OPEN to ALL of your arguments instead? That is what I prefer to do anyway.

If it is the latter, however, and we are just having a regular discussion, then if I read your last post correctly, then I try to assume you are rational until otherwise said or shown otherwise, is this correct? (I will not ask again about TRY TO and ASSUMING).

Also, what do the last two words"assuming this", of the first 15 words, actually refer to exactly? If this refers to me ASSUMING HOW an infinite Universe could expand, then I COULD ASSUME how such a thing COULD happen. BUT, I do NOT like to ASSUME any thing. Also, 'for the life of me', I can NOT imagine how some thing of infinite size COULD get any bigger. Maybe you could explain HOW this COULD be possible?

Now for the next eight words of yours. If 'assume the potential' means ASSUME the potential of an infinite Universe, then besides the fact that I do NOT like to ASSUME any thing, I still can NOT see any POTENTIAL of an infinite size thing getting bigger. WHERE could ANY "potential" BE, for an infinite sized thing to get bigger?

I think you could if you were more willing to invest in the depth involved.

Would it NOT just be EASIER to just EXPLAIN HOW an infinite sized thing COULD get bigger, instead of making up ASSUMPTIONS like these?

So, it APPEARS to me that you WANT me to invest all my effort into ASSUMING and/or IMAGINING what you can SEE. Why NOT just TELL us what you SEE?

By the way what depth is involved here, and how much of what exactly do I have to invest in this depth?

My VIEW is the infinite Universe can NOT expand/get bigger.

Is your VIEW an infinite Universe CAN expand/get bigger?

If yes, then HOW?

How much MORE can I invest in the depth involved here?

If you are just lacking a sufficient PRACTICAL reason to question this, something that appears to be possible, then you have to ask why you are investing so much effort on this thread other than to say that you don't understand the NEED to write another book on the topic and leave it at that.

Question 'WHAT', EXACTLY?

I have questioned you about HOW an infinite Universe COULD expand. Either you have an answer and respond, or you do NOT have an answer.

If the "something" that appears to be possible is an expanding infinite Universe, then just EXPLAIN HOW this is possible.

The answer to the question why I am investing SOME effort on this thread is because some one asked for comments and feedback. Also, NOT SURE WHY you want to start talking about my purposes for, and/or "effort" I put into, writing in this thread.

There is MORE than just "I do NOT understand the NEED to write another book on the topic" and leave it at that.

I am here, in the forum, to learn how to communicate BETTER. The reason I am doing this MIGHT BE actually to write an other book?

But you are not satisfied with the responses.

WHO says I am NOT satisfied with the responses?

Also, am I SUPPOSED to be satisfied with ALL the responses?

All that matters about the book is that others find it valuable to them for the purposes of the author.

Without clarification, agreed.

Will aimed for a book he thought would interest those liking the way he presented the case for physics that might encourage them to question further.

Without clarification, agreed.

It certainly arouses something in you at least about its content and thus serves some meaning here.

Would you like to KNOW the part that aroused some thing in me the most?

If yes, then it was when the author wrote, in this forum, any comments/criticisms will be gratefully received

See, if I write, any comments/criticisms will be gratefully received, then what I MEAN IS; ANY comments/criticisms WILL BE gratefully received, which on a deeper level means; ALL comments/criticisms received WILL BE appreciated FULLY. The reason WHY they will ALL be fully appreciated is because they ALL will help me to communicate BETTER.

So now let me try an explanation of how you can have an infinite universe that expands. FIRST off, if you agree that at any point in time we have a finite state of existence,

I agree that there COULD BE. BUT, what EVIDENCE is there for this?

And, what exactly do you mean by 'finite state of existence'?

you should be able to at least agree that there is some 'finite' part within this sea of infinite space.

WHY "should" I be able to at least agree to this? When you explain what you mean by 'finite' part within infinite space, then we will SEE if I DO or do NOT agree to this.

So, what exactly is a 'finite part'? And, what exactly is 'infinite space'?

Expansion, then, from just our finite space, matter, and time, would be about adding MORE but not necessarily a constant amount of these things.

You are going to have to do a lot BETTER at EXPLAINING, before I begin to agree to any thing like this.

What exactly is 'just our finite space'? What do you mean by 'just', 'our', 'finite space', and 'space', itself?

Also, what exactly do you mean by 'time' as well?

All of these things CAN BE explained in great detail, BUT if people are going to ASSUME that they are some thing, then WHAT they are and HOW they work, can NOT be explained in great detail.

Your next question might be, how can you get something from nothing, right?

Nothing of the sort. BUT, since you asked it. What is the answer?

But you already assumed an infinite space as rational.

NO I NEVER. You JUMPED to that conclusion, for specific reasons only 'you' KNOW. The one and only fundamental reason WHY you jumped to such an illogical and WRONG conclusion, I KNOW, but the individual specific reasons only you know.

The concept of infinity is itself not 'finite' by definition.

Did you REALLY think it was necessary to explain this?

What evidence do we have of our own personal experience that qualifies as proof that an infinite universe exists when we ourselves are 'finite'?

If by 'we' "you" are referring to human beings, then what do "you" human beings, which are born and/or come into existence have to do with an infinite Universe.

I have expressed this previously, one of the reasons WHY human beings think/believe that the Universe BEGAN is because they, themselves, BEGAN.

If you divide even any 'finite' space, this too can be divided by an infinity without having some 'fixed' unit concept of zero (or nothing) that we treat as real.

If this is what CAN be done and what "you" do, then that is okay with me. BUT, what does this prove?

Thus, if 'expansion' is exponential, it can come from an infinitely divided portion of space going backwards but also not ever reaching zero, in an infinite way. That is, if you accept "infinity" as real, so is "infinitesimal" (something smaller and smaller infinitely but never zero).

What does 'infinitely divided portion of space' LOOK LIKE?

What EXACTLY is in an 'infinitely divided portion of space'?

How about defining 'space' first (if you did not do it before when I asked for clarification), then, define a 'portion of that', and then, define 'infinitely divided of those two?

So while you may not agree to the possibility of an infinitesimal smaller space,

Again WHAT ASSUMPTION lead to you JUMPING to this conclusion?

you'd be selectively biased to assume an infinite one in a hypocritical way.

Another totally illogical and WRONG conclusion, based on WHAT assumption EXACTLY, I would LOVE to KNOW.

This is not to insult but to point out that you can reason as you do about what is ever larger but never ending as equal in the opposite way as smaller but being an actual 'nothing'.

You are losing me.

To me, absolutely EVERY thing is VERY SIMPLE and EASY. I SEE matter and space. These two co-exist. And, to put it in terms that "you" understand; These two things have co-existed, ALWAYS.

This is the Steady State interpretation that you don't need to agree to but points out another alternative to the Big Bang that assumes a finite origin.

Who cares?

When I LOOK, I SEE an INFINITE Universe. There is, OBVIOUSLY, NO finite "origin", from this perspective.

If some human beings ASSUME there is an "origin" to the Universe, then so be it. All I ask is what are they basing this ASSUMPTION on, EXACTLY?

And, as I say, IF any one WANTS to SEE the Truth of things, then just LOOK AT what IS, instead of making up ASSUMPTIONS/THEORIES/ET CETERA, and then LOOKING to 'see' if they are correct or not. The trouble with the latter is people have a tendency to BELIEVE what is NOT even true in the beginning, and then doing all they can to MAKE the ASSUMPTION/BELIEF true.

My support of your view differs only in that I argue that IF we are EXPANDING, then there is still a rationality to an infinite origin as well as an infinite end.

If that is the model/theory/assumption that you WANT to have and/or hold onto, then that is okay with me. You are FREE to do whatever you so wish.

If you CHOOSE TO and WANT TO argue that the Universe is finite spatially and EXPANDING, but is eternal, then go ahead. I really do NOT care, but I will just ask HOW did the expansion BEGIN, and WHERE is the "limit" of the expansion at, when this is written?

What you appear to be thinking (again, NOT irrational) is that expansion is just NOT a NECESSARY condition and appears to be odd to interpret from ANY evidence possible.

Whether the NECESSITY word even comes into the equation in relation to "expansion" or not is of NO importance to me, in what we are discussing here. The word NECESSITY only becomes involved with the 'WHY is the Universe the way it is' equation, which is a completely other matter, but, which by the way, is just as simply and easily answered and KNOWN as every thing here in this discussion is. But like I said that is another matter, for later on. For now, I SEE an infinite Universe, which IS always-infinite.

You are rightly acting as Einstein would when questioning the 'weirdness' of quantum mechanic interpretations rather than stop ourselves and ask, "why POSIT some weirdness exists rather than assume that there IS some normal reasoning but we just don't presently have enough evidence for?"

I do NOT know what some person did or did NOT do, and IF I "act" like that or not. But, to me, there is NO "weirdness" to the Universe, Itself, which I can see anyway. I can see why there is "weirdness" in human beings and their "interpretations", but these are different things.

It is roughly said; general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible. I do NOT see any incompatibility here. However, I do NOT see any incompatibility with nature and nurture, evolution and creation, nor any of the other so called incompatible things within the Universe. I can, however, SEE WHERE the "separation" lies and WHY it is there. I also SEE the Universe is made up of two opposing things, composite together in EQUILIBRIUM, which SHOWS HOW, and WHY, the Universe IS and works the way It does.

All I am saying is that you can be correct for a similar reason I hold against the Big Bang interpretation.

And what exactly is that similar reason?

Why presume the interpretation of any evidence certainly points to some 'origin' rather than to assume that our observations and capacity to rationalize itself is more likely the flaw?

I will NOT answer this question because to me it is to convoluted.

But I will ask; WHY 'presume' any thing at all?

Also, WHAT 'EVIDENCE' points to some 'origin'?

Provide that EVIDENCE, if there is any, so we can take a good hard LOOK AT it.

We seem to have a 'flat world' upon simple observations.

But from my SIMPLE observation there certainly is NO flatness anywhere. On the contrary.

So when one proposes that the world is a sphere, others of the past rationally argued similarly: why assume any possible evidence of a spherical Earth exists when that explanation is more weird to assume than not?

How certain are you that "others" of the "past" 'argued similarly' to what you propose here?

And please do NOT assume, nor even think, that I would "argue" in any such way as you have been proposing here throughout.

Of course, our ignorance of seeing how such a theory could 'fit' to our local experience at first is reasonable in the same way we are asking questions about the Cosmos as a whole.

The ignorance of human beings might explain what you are talking about and the questions human beings ask about the cosmos as a whole also, but WHAT questions exactly about the cosmos are you human beings asking?

I can only really express my VIEW of things.

We want a 'practical' commonsense explanation related to what we observe with priority.

Why do human beings WANT this? And, what is the 'urgency'?

If human beings Truly WANT what you say here, then 'WHAT' is it EXACTLY that you OBSERVE, which you WANT a 'practical' commonsense explanation FOR?

I have already EXPLAINED that the Universe is composed of the two opposite things of matter and space, which are in the Equilibrium of constant-change. At least two things are needed to create any thing and EVERY thing evolves. The Universe continually evolves creating EVERY thing, which is when LOOK AT together is Everything, as One, obviously.

When EVERY thing is Unified as One, then Everything is SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN (in a sense).

Some might refer to this as the GUT or Grand Unified Theory, and, the TOE or Theory Of Everything, but, to me, WHY make up "theories" when what IS can be clearly SEEN, with and from the Truly OPEN Mind.

But if we just refuse to hear new evidence that might demonstrate why or how others determined the world is different than we expect, we at least have to gamble that it is possible in light of the similar way we once thought the Earth was by common sense flat. It still IS 'common sense' that it APPEARS 'flat' from our particular experience.

If you human beings SEE a 'flat' earth, then I would suggest LOOKING a bit further a field, then just what your eyes can see.

By the 'common sense', to me, applies to ALL the senses, and NOT just some.

What matters is to question how the appearance suggests what is real from ALL available perspectives. If you just close your eyes, this is fine too.

Is this what you THINK and/or BELIEVE I am doing?

But you then can't beg that others summarily provide an easy audible explanation that suffices to explain what others see.

Why NOT?

If they really KNOW what they are "talking about", then WHY can they NOT just provide a easy explanation?

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND that "others" may NOT understand an easy audible or written explanation of what one SEES, but that does NOT take away the FACT that an easy explanation can be given.

The REASON WHY easy explanations are NOT some times understood is because the human brain CAN complicate, confuse, and make hard 'THAT', which REALLY IS just very SIMPLE and EASY.

[I'll again end this post without finishing the other questions. This time it is because the subject of your questioning is now delving into my own 'theorizing' beyond the thread's purpose. We might be better having a thread on "Steady State" theory.

Great. Let me know when you start it.

By the way are you REALLY answering my simple, straightforward questioning? For example, this WHOLE post of yours here was based upon the ONE question, which you quoted: HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway? I have YET to see an simple and straightforward answer to this question.

You mentioned HOW a finite point could expand, which really is very obvious anyway. But HOW could a infinite Universe expand?

This happens to be one criticism I do hold against most general introductory lessons on astrophysics. ]

What is 'one' criticism that you hold against most general introductory lessons on astrophysics?

[uwot]

Was that BEFORE or AFTER their BELIEFS changed?

Contrary to the nonsense you have made up, there was no moment when everyone changed their mind about the position of the Earth. What you say here:

Until the earth was NOT the center of the Universe was BELIEVED to be true, the exact opposite was being said and insisted by ALL "scientists".

is not true. As I pointed out there were "scientists" who did not believe that the Ptolemaic model of the universe is true. I even gave you a list of some of the most prominent examples:

Scientists and philosophers were aware of different models, those of Philolaus, Aristarchus, Martianus Capella, Tycho Brahe and of course Copernicus being examples.

It is a matter of historical record that Philolaus, Aristarchus and Copernicus did not believe the Earth is the centre of the universe, so to insist that "ALL "scientists"" believed that the Earth is the centre of the universe is utterly pointless.

Also, I asked you if you wanted to look at and discuss some things about what some person wrote, which you quoted. You said; Should be a laugh-let's do it. Yet I pointed out some things and asked you four questions, but NO response whatsoever in regards to those questions. I also asked if you wanted me to point out MORE FLAWS or questionable comments in that quote, but again NO response to that at all.

By the way I just noticed a flaw in what I wrote to you, but you did NOT question me nor challenge me in regards to this. Why is this so?

Age, you are someone who just makes stuff up without doing any research. When it is pointed out to you that the stuff you make up is complete nonsense, with examples, it goes straight over your head and you carry on arguing the exact same complete nonsense which has been demonstrated to be complete nonsense.
If you can't understand that historical facts do not support your beliefs, you are really going to struggle with physics.

[Age]

but then requires matter and energy to be constantly created.

WHERE is the "required" matter and energy being "constantly created" FROM, EXACTLY?

This question requires asking why is anything 'finite' itself?

Does it really?

To me, this second question does NOT appear to be required when answering the first question at all. But, then again, Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

The answer to the second question is EVERY, besides the Universe Itself HAS to be created. So, WHY 'any thing' (besides the Universe) 'finite' itself IS because it HAS to be.

Can you prove that you DIDN'T come from nothing?

Do you even KNOW what the 'I', the 'i', and the 'you' is yet?

Explain what 'you' think 'you' is? If yes, then lets SEE if 'you' came from 'nothing' or not.

If who you are now is 'defined', you have to also ask how you know you were not always existing?

Because the 'you' comes into existence, and relatively speaking lasts forever more, whereas thee 'I' ALWAYS EXIST. So, that is HOW 'I' know 'you' were NOT always existing. When the questions who/what is the 'you'?, and, Who/What is the 'I'? are answered correctly and properly, then HOW the 'you' has NOT always existed is KNOWN as well.

You might say that you always existed but lack your own self-explanation for why because you could have just 'forgot' those times.

A 'you' MIGHT say that. That this is just "another" 'you' ASSUMING and/or PRESUMING some thing or other.

Maybe the finite limits of us force us to dump off memories of what we were before?

Maybe or maybe NOT, but is this leading to WHERE matter and energy is being constantly created FROM, EXACTLY?

Either way, we only INDUCE that we are born for recognizing we aren't the only ones existing in our present perception.

When 'you' say "we", who/what are 'you' referring to EXACTLY?

And, is that what ALL of the "we" INDUCE, or only SOME of them?

If matter and energy ALWAYS existed, you again have to ask whether this is also a fixed quantity or infinite.

WHY would 'you' have to ask that? I certainly have NOT.

Why arbitrarily select one or the other? If it were finite, why does some special measure of matter and energy exist over some other of the infinite other possible measures? If it were infinite in quantity, then is it not also true that an infinity PLUS ONE still equals infinity?[/quote]

What is the "it" that 'you' are referring to here?

In other words, if there are an infinity of anything, there has to be an infinity of infinities of everything too.

But there is ONLY an infinite One. That One is the Universe Itself. EVERY thing is finite.

Time might be just our perception of nature not being able to FIX any quantity as 'infinite'.

If 'time' was some actual thing, in the beginning, I do NOT see how 'time' could actually DO any thing.

Also, 'infinite', to me, is NOT any thing that needs FIXING, nor REPLACING. 'Infinite' just IS.

Your view disagrees with steady change of space and matter

I am NOT sure whether my view disagrees with 'steady change of space of matter' or not.

What does 'steady change of space and matter' ACTUALLY mean, or entail?

The "steady" in "Steady State" comes from the Cosmological principle, an assumption agreed upon for most physics that we cannot judge different times or places as having different laws of physics because we would have no ground to start on in light of the infinite different religious or mythical possibilities that can't be out-ruled if we permit physics itself to be different in different places and times. The Steady State version included TIME where the others had only assumed PLACE. So, for instance, the Big Bang permits the possibility of a time when the physics of reality were not as they are now. This is necessary for an 'origin' type theory, just as we might accept evolution of humans to have derived from a different prior state of being some other kind of animal in the past.

This just gives me more EVIDENCE to just keep LOOKING AT what IS, and SEE the Truth of things, from that perspective, rather than TRYING TO SEE things from human made up assumptions, models, and theories.

Steady State theorists had to rephrase the original "Cosmological Principle" that only specified place (or time) to become the "Perfect Cosmological Principle", as place AND time. That is, we should assume ONLY a physics that is constant as from our PERSPECTIVE in all times as well as space, because we can't 'know' what state of physics could be as 'different' when there could be an infinite such possibilities.

The Truth is there is ONLY a NOW anyway. So, to me, it would be completely foolish to TRY TO LOOK FROM, any other perspective, anyway.

but because you think the quantity of space and matter/energy is constant,

But I NEVER thought that at all.

I, however, might think that if, and when, I were to think about this. But until then I NEVER thought the quantity of space and matter/energy is constant at all.

Okay, we are getting somewhere. I anticipated this about you already. You COULD understand something IF you invested the time and energy into the depths involved. That was my point about the deep versus shallow analogy. If you've only lived in some place with waters that were never very deep, you could not make sense of others who claim to be from different places where the waters they claim ARE deep.

But I COULD very SIMPLY and EASILY make sense of "others" who claim such things.

I CAN and DO very SIMPLY and EASILY make sense of ALL things, WHEN, and IF, I remain completely OPEN.

If, however, I was to PRESUME, ASSUME, and/or BELIEVE certain things, then that would make it very COMPLEX and HARD to make sense of 'things', which "others" say.

If, however, you WANT me to think about IF space and matter/energy is constant, then I will, okay I thought about it. Space and matter/energy COULD very EASILY be constant, in the infinite Universe, which I SEE.

You want a practical reason why, for instance, one might say we all should wear life jackets when in the water, when you only lack experience THAT there is even any deeper waters. This is fair.

This is NOT even remotely close to the Truth of things. If it is "fair" or NOT, is of NO matter nor real concern to me.

If you say the water is deep and that you WANT to wear a life jacket, then go ahead. But if you were to say, "we ALL "should" wear life jackets", then I will question WHY "should" we ALL wear life jackets? No matter how deep the water is SOME of us LIKE to just swim WITHOUT life jackets.

Your ASSUMPTION about me 'lacking experience of some thing', therefore I have NO understanding of that thing and therefore I am ASSUMING some thing else is SO FAR of the Truth that it is becoming laughable now.

Fair enough. Not sure what any of this has to do with me.

What I SEE is a DYNAMIC Universe.

I already explained this since now. But to clarify, "static", means that expansion is not occurring.

Okay. But please refrain from TRYING TO put "words in my mouth" as they say.

Things will only become confusing, from YOUR perspective, and to the readers.

I would NOT call the infinite Universe I SEE "STATIC", as that could to easily infer/imply some thing else.

The infinite Universe I SEE is a VERY dynamic, changing Thing.

Even if there is an infinite space,

This is just so illogical, to me.

HOW COULD there BE 'infinite space'?

Are you at all able to EXPLAIN this.

I will help you out here. I can VERY EASILY SEE HOW there COULD BE 'infinite space' IF, and ONLY IF, space was ALL-THERE-IS. But, OBVIOUSLY, there is MORE to ONLY space. OBVIOUSLY, there is matter. Unless, of course, you disagree and can SHOW how there is NO matter but ONLY 'infinite space'.

the Big Bang theory proposes a change from nothing to something, which is itself an infinite dynamic jump from absolutely nothing to ANYthing.

Let me SEE if I am reading 'you' correctly.

Are you saying that a 'change from nothing to something' is an 'infinite dynamic jump from absolutely nothing to ANYthing'?

If yes, then I would say this goes WITHOUT saying.
If no, then what are you saying?

Also, the 'big bang' does NOT propose any thing. Only human beings propose things. And, IF human beings propose that some thing can come from no thing, then I will ask HOW could this occur?

The presumption before the Big Bang theory or the Steady State, was that there could be an infinite OR finite universe but that they all assumed it to have a fixed and real 'state', such as being a UNI-verse (and where the derivation of 'static' comes from).

On the excitement level and care factor I am on about a zero at the moment.

You can keep telling me all the things human beings have said and done, for as long as human beings have been existing on earth, but I really do NOT care.

Now, I SEE, in terms "you" might understand, an "infinite, eternal" Universe. IF, from your perspective, this VIEW is NOT the Truth of things, then TELL us WHY my VIEW is WRONG.

But WHO says I have any doubt about the big bang?

WHERE in my writings did you come to assume, think, or believe that I have my own doubt about the big bang?

I do NOT doubt that a bang, of some particular size, about whatever time frame ago, happened. I also do NOT doubt that this "bang", which is suggested to be a relatively "big" bang, occurred at all. I have NO reason to doubt this. A so called "big bang" does NOT interfere at all with what I see as being an infinite, eternal Universe.

Okay, now I admit confusion here.

Great. NOW we can really move along.

You assert doubt about expansion.

WHEN do you perceive I did this?

Just because I do NOT yet SEE some thing, that does NOT infer, from my perspective anyway, that I doubt it at all.

If one is to say the Universe is expanding, then I just ask them to EXPLAIN and/or SHOW HOW this could happen.

Expansion is absolutely NECESSARY for the Big Bang theory at least.

Yes very TRUE. But so what?

Expansion in the big bang theory really does NOT have much at all to do with what I have been talking about.

If you EVER Truly WANTED to UNDERSTAND what I have been saying, instead of continually ASSUMING what I am talking about, then you MIGHT NOT be as confused as you are now.

That is you cannot have a 'beginning' of everything from nothing without whatever size, finite OR infinite, without having space and energy either gradually getting bigger than nothing (an acceleration) or some religious magical belief.

But just because A bang happened "previously", what has this got to with 'beginning', 'everything from nothing', 'finite', 'getting bigger' in relation to the Universe, Itself?

There are bangs happening "all the time", for lack of better terminology, are they also 'beginnings', 'everything from nothing', 'finite', 'getting bigger' in relation to the Universe, Itself, also? What happens if, and when, a bang happens that was bigger than the one human beings talk about? Is that going to be SEEN as the 'beginning', et cetera ALSO, to another race of "intelligent" beings, if, and when, they come about?

Some times I really WONDER WHEN will human beings Truly OPEN up and LOOK AT things FULLY, instead of just from their own tiny little perspective of things.

The "Bang" in the theory was coined as an insult to the nature of assuming a SUDDEN infinite growth from an absolute state of zero space and time to ANY space and time. Even the tiniest infinitesimal size greater than zero requires an acceleration of the quantity of space, matter, and time. Otherwise, no movement exists.

And the legend of 'in the beginning' continues.

As long as human beings continue to hold that ASSUMPTION and BELIEVE that 'in the beginning' is TRUE, then human beings will keep on making up and "coining" phrases and terms, which keep on supporting those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that they dearly love to HOLD ONTO. Human beings will also keep inventing up and creating those "tools", which they continually make and use, in order to SEE things, which, inevitably and coincidentally, on most occasions, SHOW what they PRESUMED is the Truth anyway. Those "tools" they created back up and confirm their biased views. Another example of this just happened in the past few days of when this is written.

How are you rationalizing a finite origins in time but not space, matter, and energy?

How are you ASSUMING and JUMPING to such a ridiculous conclusion?

WHERE have I rationalized a FINITE ORIGIN? In case you have NOT hear me, I say: There is NO origin nor finiteness to the Universe, Itself.

Are you not being hypocritical here?

Could you be ASSUMING some thing that is NOT even here?

If yes, then WHAT are you BASING that ASSUMING on?
If no, then so be it.

Note that matter and energy REQUIRE time.

Okay, if you say so. It is now noted.

Does so called "time" require matter and energy also?

If I recall correctly you said some thing about expansion from some point, but time going on forever. PLEASE correct me if you did NOT say some thing like this.

So if time can originate for you, so must matter and energy.

But "time" can NOT originate for me.

Then all you have left is the space to question.

But I have NOTHING to question. However, could you be going down some path now, which is getting harder and harder to come back from.

Remember, I have continually stated: The Universe is eternal and infinite.

But this IS what Will's book assumed to which you complain about.

I do NOT think I necessarily complained about the writings within that book, themselves, but rather more about the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS being held by the author, behind the writings.

The 'space' in the Big Bang theory requires an instantaneous BANG of nothing to something.

An INSTANT query lies here now. Even for the most simplest, but curious, of child.

How can some thing come from no thing?

While you are at it, how can some thing come from even one thing?

We permit this locally when we accelerate from a RELATIVE place in time and space.

So, and again correct me if I am NOT reading you correctly here, but you say; The 'space' in the big bang theory requires an instantaneous BANG of nothing to something, AND, We permit this locally when we accelerate from a RELATIVE place in time and space.

Now, 'RELATIVE' is in relation to WHAT EXACTLY, considering there was nothing, AT START of acceleration?

What is the difference between 'space' in the first sentence compared to 'space' in the second sentence?

How could there be 'time' and 'space', from a RELATIVE 'place' of nothing?

But the ABSOLUTE origin theory begs problems and why we have this controversy at all.

WHAT controversy. To me, there is NO controversy, besides OF COURSE ALL of the UNNECESSARY ones that you human beings make up and create.

If a Big Bang occurred, AND we are only permitted to speak about the universe we are in, then we cannot assume the Big Bang version because it demands a sudden, historical time 'when' things began. We cannot judge THAT an origin exist and why defaulting to an infinity of time both forwards and backwards is required. Any 'finite' limitation just begs worse how something can come from nothing. But this was your reasoning for asking how space or matter can come from nothing.

But that was NOT AT ALL my "reasoning" for asking how space or matter can come from nothing.

My reasoning for asking that is BECAUSE some human beings SAY that space and/or matter come from nothing.

If space and/or matter came from nothing, then I would like to know HOW. Curiosity led me to this reasoning.

Thus you run into the same problems as with the other theorists. What Will shows in his book should appeal to you as he demonstrates at least possible rationale for how this can work in a Big Bang interpretation.[/quote]

Once again, as I have already pointed out to the author the BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS behind the writings, which are within that author, that this, to me, LOOKS like just another attempt at TRYING TO back up and support one's OWN already HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

"Possible rationale" for how some thing supposedly works does NOT appeal to me, especially compared to HOW some thing Really and Truly WORKS.

And he does it better than most I've come across, ...especially for an introductory book with lots of illustrations.

If that is what you see and think, then great.

I am pretty sure that the author would gratefully appreciate hearing these words, here.

In essence, we AGREE that something is conserved about space and matter.

Do "we"?

I have NEVER even considered any thing in regards to conservation about space and matter previously. So, HOW would you, and do you, KNOW "we" AGREE that something is conserved about space and matter?

Then either hush up or invest in the time necessary to go deeper into the matter.

Are you suggesting that either I agree with you, or, just shut up?

Because to go deeper into the so called "matter" what you want to discuss, you could just take me deeper by ANSWERING my clarifying QUESTIONS.

By the way, the "matter" of which you talk about here could be some thing of NOTHING to really matter about anyway. For example "conserved space and matter" does NOT have much at all to do with whether the Universe is infinite or finite.

You can't criticize 'theory' in general as though the truth should come instantaneously.

If Truth DOES come ALMOST instantaneously, (if I recall correctly, and I hope, I have NEVER suggested things are KNOWN instantaneously, but rather almost instantaneously), anyway, WHY can I NOT criticize 'theory' when I SEE and KNOW differently?

If it isn't instantaneously understood, then you still can't expect some particular 'finite' explanation of physics in under a 100 pages.[/quote]

And some people wonder WHY I do NOT just explain things in great detail here, in this forum.

I do NOT expect some particular 'finite' explanation of physics from any one here. I JUST question what some people say here. I do this to clarify just how much they REALLY KNOW about what they are saying.

I say I can very EASILY and SIMPLY explain ALL of this, but HOW to do this in a way that is very EASILY and SIMPLY understood by people, is another thing.

I have only just, "relatively speaking", SEEN what I have, and LEARNING how to EXPLAIN this, in great or minute detail so that it CAN be understood by a species, which have so far, up to when this is written, so easily made up very convincing ASSUMPTIONS, as well as HOLDING ONTO very strong BELIEFS, that it takes some "time" to LEARN how to BETTER (easily and simply) communicate with them.

If what any one says here disagrees with what I SEE, then I ask clarifying questions in case what I SEE is WRONG or partly wrong.

If you are wanting to prove your own case by example, my illustration should give you justice.

But I do NOT even understand your own illustration.

Your illustration might or might NOT give so called "justice" to what I view. But I just view what I view. If that view is right or wrong is another matter.

If the Universe is NOT infinite and eternal, and NOT dynamic and constantly-changing, then I will remain OPEN to SEEING that. Until then the view that I have now SEES an infinite-eternal Universe in constant-change.

If you would like to explain your illustration, then feel free. But my view stands on its own. What I SEE does NOT need an "illustration" to give it justice. That is what is wrong with ALL "illustrations", they can NOT capture the real and True actual picture of things. Only that view can be SEEN from direct observation.

And 'science' is about communicating the COLLECTIVE subjective observations, not the subjective observations each of us makes on our own.

Is there one COLLECTIVE subjective observation, which ALL agree with, at the moment of when this is written?

If yes, then great. What is 'that' EXACTLY?
If no, then just maybe "one's" so called "subjective" observation might SHOW ALL the "others" some thing that was missed or has just NOT been SEEN before?

It was after all "one's" own "subjective" views, which allegedly CHANGED ALL the "others" views about WHERE the sun and the earth ARE in relation to the Universe, Itself.

That the subjective observation is essential doesn't suffice to speak on 'theory' because theories are the explanations,

Explanation coming from and about the actual and Real Truth? Or, explanations coming from ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what COULD BE the actual and Real Truth?

The answer to that "should" be OBVIOUS, as the actual and Real Truth speaks for Itself.

a communication between people, about observations, in a systematic process.

And that "systematic process" is taking one VERY long, tedious, and drawn out time to come about.

Just LEARN how to come together peacefully, find and discover WHAT IT IS that you ALL AGREE on, then just move onto the next stage of Life, and start creating WHAT IT IS that you ALL Truly WANT anyway.

We can't 'observe' directly anything that deductively assures us what is certain beyond our literal temporary consciousness.

Sounds like more complex, convoluted excuses for NOT knowing how to SEE/UNDERSTAND what IS, after all, JUST Truly just SIMPLE and EASY to SEE and UNDERSTAND.

Does what you observe not also disappear the moment you stop looking at it?

This could be said to be true, with and from the physical eyes.

Do human beings NEED physical eyes to SEE and UNDERSTAND the Nature of the Universe Itself?

The 'explanations' we call theories are only less rational if you also avoid judging subjective memories of your 'observations' because they are no longer 'true' when not ACTUALLY being observations at the time they are mere memories.

Does TRYING TO make, that, what is essential SIMPLE and EASY, hard and complex really worth doing?

The illustration was showing that if you 'finitely' treat the universe as a fixed container, the infinite 'expansion' of space with respect to finite matter, is equivalent to the infinite 'contraction' of all matter with respect to space. If space grows but matter does not, then this is the same as matter shrinking while space staying constant.

All well and good.

But WHY 'finitely' "treat" 'THAT' what IS OBVIOUSLY, and some might say 'de-finitely', INFINITE, in the first place?

If you did NOT do what you proposed here 'in the beginning', then you would NOT have to LOOK FOR things to support and back up such a, literally, narrowed view of things.

[Age]

If space and matter is constant,

What does 'space and matter is constant' actually mean to you?

Besides the fact that I have NOT yet seen this, to even consider this, I do NOT even know what this means yet, from your perspective.

I don't treat these as 'constant'. Matter and Space is treated as fixed by the Big Bang Theory. This is considered a 'constant'. Rather, to the Steady State interpretation of my own interpretation, matter, space, and time are 'constant' with respect to acceleration. That is, the DENSITY or quantity of energy per unit space is constant. So new space is equivalent to new energy in the same rate: that matter/volume of space is constant, not that a fixed amount of matter exists while space is treated variable or 'growing'.

Okay.

then the average DENSITY is at least the same everywhere and so that image I provided only shows WHY the Big Bang version is contradictory.

What does the 'average DENSITY' mean, to you?

The "average" DENSITY of WHAT, EXACTLY?

HOW do you propose the big bang "version" is contradictory? Contradictory to 'WHAT', exactly? WHY do you propose the big bang "version" is contradictory?

And, what do you mean big bang "version" anyway? What other "versions" are there?

I just SEE the parts of the so called "big bang", which could be true, and how they could fit in perfectly with what the actual and real Truth IS.

Already explained above. But again, the Steady State version means that for all times the physical laws are CONSTANT or are OF a constant in change. For 'evolved' realities, these are still constant by some means for our 'consistent' reality.

Okay.

Even if totality has some capacity for ALL possibilities, the 'constant' of reality as a whole to be infinitely changing would be a 'constant of change' in some way.

It agrees with your position as rational, even if it may be wrong too.

If "it" here applies to "that" image, which is YOUR illustration, then because I do NOT understand "that" image, then "it" may or may NOT agree with my position as "rational". I would have NO clue of knowing that at all. Until I know and understand what the image implies, then knowing if it is a good representation of the actual real Truth I would never know.

If, however, "it" applies to some thing else, then so be it.

Look at the image again:

A paradox of Expansion.41...png

The description is as follows:

Since matter and energy are interchangeable, treat the red shading as 'energy' which is considered 'constant', not 'constant-changing' in a finite quantity in the Big Bang theory.

I do NOT recall EVER saying 'constant-changing'. If I have, then I apologize profusely. What I do recall saying is, 'constantly-changing' or in 'constant-change'.

'Steady state' versions, 'big bang' theories, 'constants', from your perspective above, et cetera, which you talk about really do NOT have much to do with what I am talking about when I say 'constant-change', except other than talking about the Universe, Itself.

The “T=-0” is the absolute time and place where absolutely nothing exists,

Is this 'time and place' where 'absolutely nothing exists' a True FACT, OR, just an ASSUMPTION, theory, et cetera, which some might believe is true?

the actual 'singularity' that is pointed to in time as that 14 Billion years ago when all of everything popped into existence.

Is this 'when all of everything popped into existence' also a True FACT, OR, just an ASSUMPTION, theory, et cetera, which some might believe is true?

The “T=0” is the assumed jump to contain that fixed amount of matter/energy. The Big Bang theory conflates the two points, separates them but leaves a question mark in between the time when it was absolutely nothing to the time is contained ONLY matter/energy but no space.

WAS there an actual "time" when "it" was 'absolutely nothing'? Is 'absolute nothing' an actual True FACT, OR, just an ASSUMPTION, which some might believe is true?

The times afterward, like T=1, and on, are treated 'constant', again as the Big Bang interpretation presumes. They DON'T presume space itself as constant and would argue that it is a 'nothing' and so is permitted to do so. But this contradicts that matter is something that 'occupies' space. If there were no space, then there is no matter. Then if energy is treated as all that existed at T=0, then this requires physics itself to have no matter at that point, something that contradicts our local experience of physics. That it assumes matter 'evolving' from something called, “energy” doesn't solve the problem of this fixed quantity AS pure energy either. Since energy is a measure of change through time, time requires to be as the 'space' of energy as it was to matter and then have to ask where this time as some 'thing' came from.

There appears to be some contradictions and problems here. But totally understandable with ALL the ASSUMPTIONS being made here.

Since time requires matter for us to understand, we lack any means to interpret a time nor place 'when' things originated.

This 'lack of any means to interpret' might just be because there was NO origin, of the Universe Itself.

As such, the Big Bang is contradictory to the concept of any 'observation' whether subjective or not.

A big bang is NOT contradictory to the concept of any 'observation' subjective or not. BUT, I agree that the big bang theory is contradictory to the concept of any 'observation' subjective or not.

The first times of T=-0 and T=0 are the same 'size' in energy plus matter, except that the first one illustrates all it as energy (via Big Bang theory) and the second singularity as the 'time' when matter is separated from this. The T=1 time is when space first 'pops' into sudden existence with prior energy/matter or 'grows' out of this magical point.

I think calling this point "magical" might not help your explanation, but anyway, an infinite compression of matter could expand, and then space as you call it, 'pops' into sudden existence. But this is only because there is now a distance between physical objects. However, if there was NO space surrounding the infinite compression of matter PRIOR to the start of expansion, of that singular piece of compressed matter, then that piece of matter could NOT expand, obviously.

This, of course, is IF 'singularity' is being defined as an 'infinite compression of matter'. If, however, 'singularity' is being defined differently, then that is another story.

As time goes on, the percentage of matter/energy to space shrinks as illustrated in time T=3. Thus, the interpretation by the Big Bang theory is that in time, as space continues to expand, the matter and energy would spread out into space until there are no galaxies or stars and presumes a COLD end of all of reality that opposes their HOT origin.

Okay.

[The rest of what you wrote is either inclusive to what I'd already explained thus far in the other responses and so needs no further explanation until I see what you understood of what I said so far.]

What I UNDERSTAND so far is there are seemingly a lot of contradictions and confusion between all of these ASSUMPTIONS, theories, models, et cetera being made up along the way.

I also UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHERE ALL of this confusion and contradictions are coming FROM.

Further to this understanding I also UNDERSTAND what I SEE and CAN explain it in a way that SHOWS how it ALL fits together like a puzzle to produce a CLEAR and BIG picture of the Truth of things. That is; IF any one is Truly interested.

[Age]

Was that BEFORE or AFTER their BELIEFS changed?

Contrary to the nonsense you have made up,

WHAT exactly do you BELIEVE I "made up"?

there was no moment when everyone changed their mind about the position of the Earth.

Of course NOT.

WHY would you ASSUME such a stupid thing?

What you say here:

Until the earth was NOT the center of the Universe was BELIEVED to be true, the exact opposite was being said and insisted by ALL "scientists".

is not true.

Are you absolutely SURE this is NOT true?

As I pointed out there were "scientists" who did not believe that the Ptolemaic model of the universe is true.

Which is WHAT I said also.

You really are MISSING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and/or MISCONSTRUING what I am saying.

BEFORE people BELIEVED that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe what do you IMAGINE they BELIEVED and/or were saying/insisting?

Why are you only LOOKING AT this as ONE moment, and as every one as ONE?

I even gave you a list of some of the most prominent examples:

"most prominent" are just emotive words to influence that they were some thing MORE than "others" were?

Scientists and philosophers were aware of different models, those of Philolaus, Aristarchus, Martianus Capella, Tycho Brahe and of course Copernicus being examples.

It is a matter of historical record that Philolaus, Aristarchus and Copernicus did not believe the Earth is the centre of the universe, so to insist that "ALL "scientists"" believed that the Earth is the centre of the universe is utterly pointless.

You are so far OFF TRACK here.

OBVIOUSLY, BEFORE people BELIEVED some thing they BELIEVED/THOUGHT some thing else. How could you misinterpret this? Unless, of course, I intended to MAKE you ASSUME some thing, really very ridiculous.

Also, I asked you if you wanted to look at and discuss some things about what some person wrote, which you quoted. You said; Should be a laugh-let's do it. Yet I pointed out some things and asked you four questions, but NO response whatsoever in regards to those questions. I also asked if you wanted me to point out MORE FLAWS or questionable comments in that quote, but again NO response to that at all.

By the way I just noticed a flaw in what I wrote to you, but you did NOT question me nor challenge me in regards to this. Why is this so?

Age, you are someone who just makes stuff up without doing any research.

NO, I do NOT just make stuff up. I also rarely do any research at all. If I was to do "research", then I would just be RE-REPEATING things, like what you write.

I just gain VIEWS, from what I SEE, and then I express those VIEWS. I usually also ask for feedback, comments, criticism, questioning, and/or challenging in regards to my VIEWS. Unfortunately thought this rarely happens.

When it is pointed out to you that the stuff you make up is complete nonsense, with examples, it goes straight over your head and you carry on arguing the exact same complete nonsense which has been demonstrated to be complete nonsense.

1. I do NOT make stuff up.
2. Just because you say my VIEWS are complete nonsense does NOT mean that they are. The earth NOT being the center of the Universe was once also 'complete nonsense', which, from what you write, you would be one of those who was the most loudest in saying that that is complete nonsense.
3. You may have provided examples but they did NOT prove anything that you are saying. They were, IN FACT, mostly had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to even do with what I am actually saying.
4. Asking you clarifying questions in regards to your so called "examples" proves that they did NOT go "straight over my head", as you call it.
5. I also did NOT carry on "arguing". You will KNOW when I provide an argument.
6. IF what I say is complete nonsense, TO YOU, then just say WHY it appears as complete nonsense. Quoting some human being with some views, which have NOTHING to do with what I am saying does NOT prove that what I am saying is complete nonsense. If the Truth be KNOWN you still do NOT even KNOW what I am talking about yet. You are so far off track and so far behind what I am saying AND talking about.
7. Again, you have NOT demonstrated that what I am saying is complete nonsense at all, YET.

I would even go as far to say you do NOT understand what I have been saying so you could NOT even repeat what I have been saying.

Did you MISS my REPLY. I asked you clarifying questions about what you called "demonstrated to be complete nonsense".

For example you say there is NO space. I asked you to clarify this, but, unfortunately, you are completely UNABLE to. Your ONLY response is to say that you have demonstrated that what I have said is nonsense. To me, proposing that there is NO space is nonsense.

I could just as easily say that what you have said is COMPLETE and UTTER nonsense ALSO. The difference between 'you' and 'I' is I asked you HOW what you say COULD BE. You have proved so far that you are absolutely UNABLE to explain anything to what I ask you to clarify.

I, on the other hand, CAN explain ALL I say. Yet I rarely get QUESTIONED nor CHALLENGED. I usually only get told some thing like that what I say is "complete nonsense" without ANY ACTUAL support to demonstrate this. Also, if you THINK/BELIEVE that you can reply, with SOME thing, and just THINK/BELIEVE that that is 'demonstrated evidence', then you have a lot to learn about expressing AND THEN listening to what the "other" has to say/ask in reply.

If you want to continue to ASSUME and BELIEVE that the Universe "began", then keep doing it. But the REASON WHY you can NOT explain yourself IS OBVIOUS.

If you can't understand that historical facts do not support your beliefs, you are really going to struggle with physics.

Tell me ONE 'BELIEF' I have.

And then tell me, 'WHAT' actual fact does NOT support that what exists is matter AND space.

Disprove the FACT, which I say; You, uwot, are incapable of explaining yourself when I ask you clarifying questions, by answering and explaining this question.

If you want to insist that the Universe does NOT contain matter or space, then explain how could the Universe NOT contain matter or space?

[uwot]

WHAT exactly do you BELIEVE I "made up"?

This:

Until the earth was NOT the center of the Universe was BELIEVED to be true, the exact opposite was being said and insisted by ALL "scientists".

Which, as I have pointed out, is not true.

Are you absolutely SURE this is NOT true?

Yes I am absolutely SURE it is NOT true.

As I pointed out there were "scientists" who did not believe that the Ptolemaic model of the universe is true.

Which is WHAT I said also.

No, what you said was:

Until the earth was NOT the center of the Universe was BELIEVED to be true, the exact opposite was being said and insisted by ALL "scientists".

You really are MISSING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and/or MISCONSTRUING what I am saying.

The tortured syntax aside, I think what you are claiming is evident.

BEFORE people BELIEVED that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe what do you IMAGINE they BELIEVED and/or were saying/insisting?

The difference between you and I is that there are some things I don't have to imagine, because I have done the research. You apparently think this is a mistake:

If I was to do "research", then I would just be RE-REPEATING things, like what you write.

If ever you were to read a scientific paper, you would appreciate the primary importance of describing the results of experiments and the secondary role given to the interpretation of the results. That pretty much was what I said here:

I really don't think that an introductory cartoon strip is the place for a torturous dissection of epistemological minutiae. I made it as clear as I could in the introduction that there is a difference between what actually happens (you might not like my use of the term, but that's what I call facts) and the models we create in order to explain those things that actually happen.

Note that was written nearly 3 weeks ago and there is no sign of progress.

If you want to insist that the Universe does NOT contain matter or space, then explain how could the Universe NOT contain matter or space?

Much as I think I am flogging a dead horse, that is explained in the chapter 'The whirlpool and the wave-A story about what the universe is made of. Please read it and then tell me what you don't understand. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

[attofishpi]

I still think there is at least a Bravo Oscar in order.

[Scott Mayers]

HOW could an infinite Universe expand anyway?

Now if YOU were to try to give charity to others like myself assuming this, can you not try to assume the potential?

I have trouble understanding your first 15 words here, let alone the next eight, and then look at how many more to go.

What does "if I were to TRY TO give charity to others" mean?

Either I GIVE charity or I do NOT. I do NOT know how to JUST 'TRY TO' give charity, without actually NOT doing it.

Now, if I were to GIVE charity to you, I would NEED to KNOW are you 'arguing/debating some thing' here or is this just a 'regular discussion' we are having? Because if I just read your last post correctly,
If it is the former, then according to you, if I see more than one possible interpretation, then I am meant to assume the best of your arguments FIRST, rather than the worst. Now, if I was to do this what EXACTLY do I judge the "best" from the "worst" on? ALL I can really judge ANY thing on is the thoughts within this body, and to these thoughts the "best" might NOT be the "best", from the thoughts within that body, and vice-versa. The "worst" I see might be the "best" you see. Also, WHY 'ASSUME' any thing? WHY NOT just remain OPEN to ALL of your arguments instead? That is what I prefer to do anyway.

If it is the latter, however, and we are just having a regular discussion, then if I read your last post correctly, then I try to assume you are rational until otherwise said or shown otherwise, is this correct? (I will not ask again about TRY TO and ASSUMING).

Also, what do the last two words"assuming this", of the first 15 words, actually refer to exactly? If this refers to me ASSUMING HOW an infinite Universe could expand, then I COULD ASSUME how such a thing COULD happen. BUT, I do NOT like to ASSUME any thing. Also, 'for the life of me', I can NOT imagine how some thing of infinite size COULD get any bigger. Maybe you could explain HOW this COULD be possible?

Now for the next eight words of yours. If 'assume the potential' means ASSUME the potential of an infinite Universe, then besides the fact that I do NOT like to ASSUME any thing, I still can NOT see any POTENTIAL of an infinite size thing getting bigger. WHERE could ANY "potential" BE, for an infinite sized thing to get bigger?

To answer you, I need you to try the following puzzle. If you opt out, I'm opting out from further response without any prejudice against you. My hands are tied if I can't get you to share a certain experience in this 'experiment' about the problem.

(1) How many Real numbers (mathematically) are there between 0 and 1?
... How many Real numbers are there between 1 and 2?
... repeat this process replacing each new question with whatever last number, L, you have in the formula:
....How many Real numbers are there between (L + 1) and (L + 2)?

(2) How many Real numbers are there when you add these together? Is that number the same or different? If the same, then express how you think you can find the same quantity of numbers between any arbitrarily selected pair of numbers? If different, what is the difference?

[Scott Mayers]

(@ Age) In case you weren't aware, the "Real" numbers were named such AFTER they discovered that there are other numbers we call 'imaginary'. Originally, all numbers were just natural ones (1, 2, 3, ...) then they included fractions which are properly called 'rational' from the term 'ratio' which just compares two natural numbers. They notice that all the natural numbers could be expressed as x/y where x and y are 'natural'. Then when it was discovered that the square roots of numbers, like "√2", has no way to express itself as a fraction of two natural numbers. Thus we come to an 'irrational' conclusion and why then they added all these to a larger group just called 'real' for recognizing that though they cannot represent all numbers, they are nevertheless real, even though many are 'irrational'.

Next, the "Whole" numbers are the Natural numbers plus zero, (0, 1, 2, ....); The Integers are all Whole numbers plus the Negative numbers, (...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...) and collectively all numbers are 'real' when including the rational and irrational. The last addition to the number types came about to respond to the square root of negative numbers. Then they just call "i" the number that means, "square root of negative one" and use this with any real number to make up the whole set of all numbers, now called "complex".

I only added this as a quick summary note in case you were unaware that the "Real" numbers I asked in the last post have the property such that between any two Real numbers, there are an infinity of numbers. If you already understand this then ignore.

Do you see the connection to your question? Do you see that your own common sense belief about 'not assuming' is still only an 'assumption' no matter how you try to escape it?

[Please ignore the trivial inaccurate order of the history of numbers. Rational numbers, for instance, are also a part of the negative numbers, but I skipped over that. All that's important to recognize is that underlined principle about the Real numbers and why it is incidentally called, 'real', as it implies some presumption of 'fake' numbers. ...something that throws off a lot of students as weirdly superfluous to say before learning THAT there was discovered a new number they couldn't express before. The 'real' numbers suffice to map to real world measures until you enter into multiple dimensions.]