uwot wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:11 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:38 pmWhy 'what' is not so?
Not gonna waste a lot of time on this Age: "the theory that the Universe began and/or is expanding."
Okay great, the less time you waste the far better it is for me.
You think the "evidence" that the Universe began and/or is expanding is compelling, and you are still waiting to hear my argument for why the Universe did not begin and/or is not expanding, so let us begin. If you really do not want to waste a lot of time, then I suggest you just providing what actual real
evidence says that the Universe began and/or is expanding, then that will be the end of this. If
evidence is provided, then that is the end of story.
Evidence can not be refuted. But if so called "evidence" is only compelling and not actual and real proof, then one could wonder if the so called "evidence" is actually real
evidence at all.
By the way I am still unsure if the "evidence" that you think is 'compelling' is for either the Universe beginning, is expanding, or both.
But anyway;
There is no actual
evidence that the Universe began nor is expanding.
If there is nothing actually showing that the Universe began nor is expanding, then, to me, there is nothing compelling enough to view either way, let alone think, assume, or believe.
Therefore, I just remain OPEN until there is actual
evidence.
You may not call that an argument, which it is not. This is just what I do.
By the way, to me, there is far more showing an eternal and infinite Universe than there is of a finite and limited Universe.
Even this week it was noted that they found a star, which is said to be older than the Universe, Itself. That, of course, is against a figure given to the Universe's supposed and assumed age, which would make some wonder when are human beings ever going to understand?
Anyway, to me, there is nothing showing how the Universe could begin, nor could expand, but there is plenty showing how the Universe could easily exist eternally. Even if ALL physicality was compressed infinitely together, and then expanded, and compressed again, and expanded again, and again and again, an infinite number of times, or even if It expanded just once or no times at all, then there is nothing even remotely showing how the Universe and ALL-THERE-IS could have come from no thing.
The Universe includes ALL of the physicality and ALL of the nothing. The Universe obviously could not exist with just one of these, (and have thought and Consciousness as well. The Universe could exist with just one of these but then there would not be thought and Consciousness, so for argument sake the Universe MUST exist with both no things and physical things.
Nothing is just bounded by physicality only and physicality is just bounded by nothing only, but BOTH co-exist to form the Universe, the way It is. There is NO boundary to both of these when they are together as One, because even if the Universe was say, "the size of earth" for example, and the only way to visibly see the "outer limits" was by the physical objects at that "outer edge", then the 'nothing', or space, that separates these physical objects has no distance beyond the physical, besides being limited by physicality, or physical objects. That nothing, or space, beyond the furthest physical objects goes on forever. That nothing, or space, is also a part of the Universe or ALL-THERE-IS. Therefore, even IF the furthest objects were expanding outwards, which is quite possible, the Universe, Itself, could not expand any further, because there is no "outer" limit to nothing, or space.
So, although physical objects could quite easily be expanding away from each other, the Universe, Itself, because of what It is fundamentally made up of could not expand.
Again, nothing or space is only limited by physical objects or physicality, and if there was found to be physical objects further out than had been seen before, just like the objects that are seemingly always been found further out, 'than we had observed and seen before', then obviously those objects are still included in the category of 'Universe', or the 'ALL-THERE-IS' category.
Also, the fact that light diminishes over distance means that human beings, in the relative near future, will never be able to see how far the furthest stars/physical objects actually are anyway. There could be trillions upon trillions of stars/objects above what some human beings imagine there is now and further afield than some human beings could imagine now. So, to say that the Universe is expanding based solely upon only on what some human beings can see and observe now is to make up assumptions/theories based on the most narrow and limited view and perspective of things.
The fact that some human beings even KNOW that the Universe is much larger than what they can observe, yet they still want to insist that they KNOW the Universe is expanding, to me, seems even more ludicrous. Even if there is actual and real
evidence that shows objects are moving away/expanding from each other that in no way even suggests, let alone infers, that the Universe, Itself, is or could be expanding. The only way say the Universe could be or is expanding is to change the definition of the word 'Universe', and unfortunately this is exactly what some human beings do, to try to "justify" their own already held beliefs and assumptions.
Even IF matter was infinitely compressed into any size object and started expanding, let us say 13.8 or so billion years ago, then there is nothing that even remotely suggests that the is the whole of the Universe. For what is known, this occurrence could just be a minuscule part, within the whole of the Total Universe. That infinite compression of matter into "singularity" talked about, which is said to have expanded about 13.8 billion years ago, could just be the end of a black hole, and when it began to expand, with a relatively big bang, then that bang/expansion could have just shut off and closed that (black) hole from whence it came from, just forming an off-shoot, or another bubble, within Totality, or the Universe, Itself.
From what I observe, there is plenty showing an infinite and eternal Universe and nothing showing a finite and eternal Universe. But that is not to say the latter is not true. For all I know the Universe could very well be finite and limited, beginning and expanding.
Again, i can not say one is more 'compelling' than another nor that I think one is more true than another. I am also not arguing for one way nor another. I am just expressing my views from what I observe, and I like to remain always OPEN so that I just observe how things are. That is; I can only tell you how I view things and not tell you how things really are. Only you know how things really are and only you can tell your self how
that IS.
If you start telling your self that one is more 'compelling' than another, and then you start thinking, assuming, and/or believing that that one is more true than another is, then that is,
what it IS. I can not and I do not even want to persuade you, make you, nor force you to think any thing or any way that you do not want to, freely and solely yourself.
