Currant Buns and Pop Guns - The Big Bang

[uwot]

Now, if we can come to AN AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE that the word 'Universe' could mean, or refer to; TOTALITY, ALL-THERE-IS, or just plain old Everything, then we can keep moving along here.

I'm happy with that definition, let's go!

[Age]

Now, if we can come to AN AGREEMENT and an ACCEPTANCE that the word 'Universe' could mean, or refer to; TOTALITY, ALL-THERE-IS, or just plain old Everything, then we can keep moving along here.

I'm happy with that definition, let's go!

GREAT.

So, the Universe consists of EVERY thing, which must include ALL matter and ALL of the empty space AS WELL.

Now, this could only mean that the Universe is infinite, in size. And, when we LOOK, then no matter what is envisioned could be a physical end or boundary, then that end or boundary would HAVE TO BE infinitely thick,or if not,then it would have to have some thing on.l the "other side" of it. Either that some thing IS and HAS TO BE a PART OF the Universe. So, the Universe IS INFINITE.

The Universe also HAS TO BE ETERNAL because;

SOME thing can NOT come from NO thing.

What existed, AND expanded, at the so-called 'big bang' has to be physical, with an area of empty space around it. (This area has to be , AGAIN, INFINITE, because of above). But what existed at the 'big bang' HAD TO BE just the Universe in that current shape, way, and form, and this HAS TO BE going on ETERNALLY.

It IS IMPOSSIBLE to be ANY other way. (More on this later).

Now for the redshift 'data', we AGREE that that 'data' is VERIFYING expansion of matter, and/or the space or distance between matter. But what is observed by human beings, at distance from them, is NOT what is happening, at the actual moment of observation. The greater the distance observed the further back that what is being observed actually happened. So, the further the distance in spatial length, and thus in temporal length, then the more or faster the rate of 'expansion' will be, and what is being observed, and thus 'seen', at 'that time'.

But, what is actually happening and occurring 'right now' at the actual moment of observation, 'out there', could be a completely different thing, and in fact would necessarily HAVE TO BE a completely different thing. In fact, the objects being observed may NOT even exist AT ALL, at the actual moment of observation.

Now, as blueshift 'shows', or VERIFIES, objects closer together are moving towards each other, and there is nothing to suggest that this is NOT the case in absolutely EVERY part of the Universe, at the moment of observation.

It would be TOTALLY EXPECTED that objects closer to what is called the 'big bang' would be EXPANDING away from each other. This is just what naturally happens and occurs with explosions or expansions, but this does NOT necessarily mean this will happen forever. See, after some time once matter starts coming together and thus starts becoming more dense, then these forming objects obtain more attraction, or gravity, and thus bringing more objects in closer, or in relative equilibrium. (This equilibrium exists because of magnetism. But this can be discussed later.)

As rightly pointed out previously the spinning of objects create red and blue shift, which will appear when an object is revolving around its axis as well as when an object is revolving around a sun for example and so is coming towards an observer on a planet, as well as moving away from that planet, around an 'axis' with a star at the centre.

The reason why only very few galaxies are blue shifted,nrelative to an instrument, compared to red shifted, when it could be argued that an equal amount of galaxies should be coming towards the instrument as well as moving away from that instrument considering that all planets, stars, and/or galaxies most likely end up revolving around some attracting force like a planet, a sun, or a black hole, is because, again, what is being observed was what was happening closer to the 'big bang'. So, the further the galaxy the more it should be red shifted. Which would VERIFY a 'bang' of some size caused or created an 'expansion' of matter. But there HAD to be 'matter', in the first place, to expand for there to be expansion of matter. AND, there had to bean are of 'space' for that 'matter' to expand OUT, or INTO.

Now,it might be the case that ALL matter expands, and then contracts, over and over, again and again but in EACH and EVERY scenario and moment the Unise is ALWAYS consisting of 'matter' AND (an area of empty) 'space' WHERE 'matter' can move about freely.

Even if ALL matter was condensed into one infinitely compressed singular piece of 'matter' there HAS to be empty 'space' around it, and as we agreed and accepted here, the Universe consists of EVERY 'thing', which IS something. Just like 'matter' is some 'thing' so to is an area of no 'thing' IS something.

The Universe being absolutely EVERY 'thing' together as the One Everything, then this means that the Universe HAS TO BE infinite and eternal.

Even if there was an a piece of infinitely compressed matter before the ,'big bang', then it could NOT have come from NOWHERE NOR from NOTHING, so it HAD TO BE eternal. But there could NOT be a single piece of infinitely compressed matter because it would NEED SOME 'thing' to make it change in shape or form to expand. So, what this means is that BOTH (physical) 'matter' AND (an area of) 'empty space' have ALWAYS EXISTED, together.

Movement or CHANGE can NOT JUST BEGIN. It JAS TO ALWAYS BE.

And, the very reason WHY human beings can NOT 'observe' nor 'see' BEFORE the 'big bang' is because if one HAD NOT YET SEEN what was existing BEFORE A 'bang' 'explosion', or 'expansion', then they would NOT KNOW, FOR SURE, how the 'pieces' FITTED TOGETHER, EXACTLY. BUT this in NO way infers there was NO such 'thing', generally known as 'time'. Infact, what is referred to as 'time' HAD TO ALWAYS EXIST, ALSO.

[uwot]

So, the Universe consists of EVERY thing, which must include ALL matter and ALL of the empty space AS WELL.

Well, that's making something out of nothing. If nothing is part of the universe, given that there will always be something or nothing, a universe which includes nothing would certainly qualify as eternal.

Now, this could only mean that the Universe is infinite, in size.

Well yeah, it's hard to create a boundary where nothing exists.

And, when we LOOK, then no matter what is envisioned could be a physical end or boundary, then that end or boundary would HAVE TO BE infinitely thick,or if not,then it would have to have some thing on.l the "other side" of it. Either that some thing IS and HAS TO BE a PART OF the Universe. So, the Universe IS INFINITE.

But it could be infinitely thick nothing.

The Universe also HAS TO BE ETERNAL because;

SOME thing can NOT come from NO thing.

It's intuitively compelling, but we have never encountered any nothing, so we don't know what it is capable of.

What existed, AND expanded, at the so-called 'big bang' has to be physical, with an area of empty space around it. (This area has to be , AGAIN, INFINITE, because of above). But what existed at the 'big bang' HAD TO BE just the Universe in that current shape, way, and form, and this HAS TO BE going on ETERNALLY.

It IS IMPOSSIBLE to be ANY other way. (More on this later).

Most religions take a different view.

Now for the redshift 'data', we AGREE that that 'data' is VERIFYING expansion of matter, and/or the space or distance between matter. But what is observed by human beings, at distance from them, is NOT what is happening, at the actual moment of observation. The greater the distance observed the further back that what is being observed actually happened. So, the further the distance in spatial length, and thus in temporal length, then the more or faster the rate of 'expansion' will be, and what is being observed, and thus 'seen', at 'that time'.

The redshift is the same in every direction. Your argument would only be true if we were at, or near the centre of the universe. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely.

But, what is actually happening and occurring 'right now' at the actual moment of observation, 'out there', could be a completely different thing, and in fact would necessarily HAVE TO BE a completely different thing. In fact, the objects being observed may NOT even exist AT ALL, at the actual moment of observation.

That's true; even your image of the sun is eight minutes old.

Now, as blueshift 'shows', or VERIFIES, objects closer together are moving towards each other...

Not all of them. Some relatively close galaxies are moving apart. It all depends on masses, velocities, trajectories and local conditions.

...and there is nothing to suggest that this is NOT the case in absolutely EVERY part of the Universe, at the moment of observation.

Yes, we see galaxies that are merging in every direction and at all distances.

It would be TOTALLY EXPECTED that objects closer to what is called the 'big bang' would be EXPANDING away from each other. This is just what naturally happens and occurs with explosions or expansions, but this does NOT necessarily mean this will happen forever. See, after some time once matter starts coming together and thus starts becoming more dense, then these forming objects obtain more attraction, or gravity, and thus bringing more objects in closer, or in relative equilibrium.

Except that since the 1990's it has been generally accepted that careful observation and analysis shows that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

(This equilibrium exists because of magnetism. But this can be discussed later.)

I think you're going out on a limb with that one.

[Age]

So, the Universe consists of EVERY thing, which must include ALL matter and ALL of the empty space AS WELL.

Well, that's making something out of nothing. If nothing is part of the universe, given that there will always be something or nothing, a universe which includes nothing would certainly qualify as eternal.

WHERE are you getting the ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF from that the Universe WILL ALWAYS BE something OR nothing?

Is it NOT POSSIBLE, in your world "uwot", that the Universe consists of BOTH 'matter' AND 'nothing', ( which is just the empty space between 'matter')?

Are you able to explain what your view is on what the Universe is ACTUALLY made up, ESSENTIALLY, at the most basic fundamental level?

Now, this could only mean that the Universe is infinite, in size.

Well yeah, it's hard to create a boundary where nothing exists.

And, it is just as IMPOSSIBLE to create an ACTUAL boundary to the Universe where things exist. Unless, OF COURSE, you have some knowledge and insight of just HOW there could be one, and would you then ENLIGHTEN us to 'that' knowledge?

But, it is POSSIBLE for 'you', human beings, to IMAGINE there Is some sort of "boundary", SOMEWHERE.

But it could be infinitely thick nothing.

AND, As I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN the Universe consists of NO THING AS WELL AS SOME THING. So, a LAUGHABLE envisioned infinitely thick NOTHING is STILL the Universe.

And this IS even besides the OBVIOUS Fact that there an infinitely thick nothing does NOT exist.

It's intuitively compelling, but we have never encountered any nothing, so we don't know what it is capable of.

LOL and as as long as there are 'you', consciously aware creatures, existing there will NEVER be just NOTHING, ONLY.

Also, the Fact that there is a 'you', now, MEANS, IRREFUTABLY, that there has ALWAYS BEEN SOME thing.

This is VERIFIED by the Fact that SOME thing can NOT come from NO thing, and the very Fact that absolutely EVERY thing comes from at least two other things, coming together.

By the way, you HAVE encountered A 'nothing'. In fact you are existing because of the nothing that is existing between 'matter'. For example some people might even say there is a certain amount of 'nothing' within a table, and there is 'matter', ALSO.

What existed, AND expanded, at the so-called 'big bang' has to be physical, with an area of empty space around it. (This area has to be , AGAIN, INFINITE, because of above). But what existed at the 'big bang' HAD TO BE just the Universe in that current shape, way, and form, and this HAS TO BE going on ETERNALLY.

It IS IMPOSSIBLE to be ANY other way. (More on this later).

Most religions take a different view.

WHO CARES?

Either A view can be backed up and supported, or it can NOT.

So, if ANY view is DIFFERENT from the one I expressed above, then JUST back it up and support it.

Or, if ANY one wants me to back up and support my view here, or ANYWHERE, then just tell me what EXACTLY 'it' is that they BELIEVE and WANT from me.

Now for the redshift 'data', we AGREE that that 'data' is VERIFYING expansion of matter, and/or the space or distance between matter. But what is observed by human beings, at distance from them, is NOT what is happening, at the actual moment of observation. The greater the distance observed the further back that what is being observed actually happened. So, the further the distance in spatial length, and thus in temporal length, then the more or faster the rate of 'expansion' will be, and what is being observed, and thus 'seen', at 'that time'.

The redshift is the same in every direction. Your argument would only be true if we were at, or near the centre of the universe. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely.

Is there A CENTER of the Universe?

If yes, then WHERE is 'it', EXACTLY?

How and where would the 'center' of eternity or infinity BE, EXACTLY?

Also, WHY would want I said above be ONLY true if the instrument obtaining redshift 'data' was at the centre of the Universe?

And let us NOT FORGET that it is said the Universe is such and such years old. Is it EVER mentioned that when you LOOK IN one direction the 'data' shows the Universe's age is DIFFERENT from when ANOTHER direction is LOOKED AT?

If no, then this could imply that the instrument is AT or CLOSE ENOUGH to some so-called 'center if the Universe'. Or, it could just mean that the instrument just does NOT have the ability to SEE ANY FURTHER, YET.

For surely there is MORE 'matter' to be OBSERVED and LOOKED AT out past what is currently OBSERVED and SEEN, in the days when this is being written, correct?

But, what is actually happening and occurring 'right now' at the actual moment of observation, 'out there', could be a completely different thing, and in fact would necessarily HAVE TO BE a completely different thing. In fact, the objects being observed may NOT even exist AT ALL, at the actual moment of observation.

That's true; even your image of the sun is eight minutes old.

So, what this MEANS IS that the 'rate of expansion', being seen and observed, is ACTUALLY the 'rate of expansion' MUCH CLOSER to the 'big bang', itself, and NOT necessarily ANY thing close to what is happening 'now', in the days when this was being written and when the observations and 'data' were taken.

Now, as blueshift 'shows', or VERIFIES, objects closer together are moving towards each other...

Not all of them.

Are you here saying that NOT ALL objects closer together are moving towards each other, or are you here saying that NOT ALL blue shifted objects are moving closer together?

ALSO, the way I wrote the above could be very misleading, and so needs CORRECTING.

What I should have said was blue shifted objects are moving towards the observer/instrument, and the reason WHY it is far more closer objects that are moving closer to the instrument/observer is because they are being looked at in far closer relation to the 'current now' of the observer, which is further afar from what was happening closer to the 'big bang':

Some relatively close galaxies are moving apart. It all depends on masses, velocities, trajectories and local conditions.

YES, VERY True.

...and there is nothing to suggest that this is NOT the case in absolutely EVERY part of the Universe, at the moment of observation.

Yes, we see galaxies that are merging in every direction and at all distances.

And this is because of, as you said above, masses, velocities, trajectories and conditions. I do not like the 'local' word as it is way to relative, to have ANY actual meaning without first clarification.

It would be TOTALLY EXPECTED that objects closer to what is called the 'big bang' would be EXPANDING away from each other. This is just what naturally happens and occurs with explosions or expansions, but this does NOT necessarily mean this will happen forever. See, after some time once matter starts coming together and thus starts becoming more dense, then these forming objects obtain more attraction, or gravity, and thus bringing more objects in closer, or in relative equilibrium.

Except that since the 1990's it has been generally accepted that careful observation and analysis shows that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

AGAIN, this phenomenon is OBSERVED because what is being LOOK AT, at further distances, is just what WAS happening and occurring closer to when the 'big bang' happened and occurred, and NOT necessarily what is happening and occurring at the moment of 'now'.

If the expansion was faster the closer one gets to the point of the 'big bang', then the 'acceleration of expansion' will also increase with the ability to continually see further afield. AND, the further afield that we are able to SEE, with each new technology and instrument, the faster expansion will be increasing, or 'accelerating'. Therefore, the expansion of objects, with each new and further afield better observing instrument, the 'expansion' WILL BE and IS accelerating.

BUT, the 'accelerating expansion' in NO way infers that this is the WHOLE universe expanding AT ALL For all one KNOWS there could be a WHOLE MORE to just some 'bang', and the following hitherto when this was being written.

And, what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS I am just endeavouring to LEARN how to SHARE here.

I think you're going out on a limb with that one.

Okay. You are absolutely FREE to think absolutely ANY thing you like here.

But, anyway, have I provided you yet with one reason to think that it might be the case that the Universe could be infinite and eternal? Or, do you still have absolutely NO reason AT ALL to consider that the Universe might actually be infinite and eternal?

[uwot]

Is it NOT POSSIBLE, in your world "uwot", that the Universe consists of BOTH 'matter' AND 'nothing', ( which is just the empty space between 'matter')?

What you are suggesting is ancient Greek atomism of matter and void espoused by Leucippus and Democritus. If the space between matter were empty, there would be no strong and weak nuclear force, no electromagnetism and no gravity. If there is 'nothing' in the sense you mean, it is somewhere that no force is felt and nothing can be seen. If such a place exists, it is a very long way away.

Are you able to explain what your view is on what the Universe is ACTUALLY made up, ESSENTIALLY, at the most basic fundamental level?

Well, the explanation I find most compelling is quantum field theory. It's all in the book: https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... -guns.html

But, anyway, have I provided you yet with one reason to think that it might be the case that the Universe could be infinite and eternal? Or, do you still have absolutely NO reason AT ALL to consider that the Universe might actually be infinite and eternal?

There are better reasons than yours to think so. There are versions of quantum field theory according to which the visible universe is a chain reaction in infinite and eternal quantum fields. Brane theory and block universe also spring to mind. No one knows which, if any of those theories is correct, but anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that your theory of matter and void is wrong.

[Age]

Is it NOT POSSIBLE, in your world "uwot", that the Universe consists of BOTH 'matter' AND 'nothing', ( which is just the empty space between 'matter')?

What you are suggesting is ancient Greek atomism of matter and void espoused by Leucippus and Democritus. If the space between matter were empty, there would be no strong and weak nuclear force, no electromagnetism and no gravity. If there is 'nothing' in the sense you mean, it is somewhere that no force is felt and nothing can be seen. If such a place exists, it is a very long way away.

What I mean is that the space between 'matter' has to be OBVIOUSLY devoid of 'matter'. And in that sense that space, or distance, could be referred to as 'nothing'. As in the sense that there is NO physical thing. Or, do you consider or see the strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity as being physical things?

Are you able to explain what your view is on what the Universe is ACTUALLY made up, ESSENTIALLY, at the most basic fundamental level?

Well, the explanation I find most compelling is quantum field theory. It's all in the book: https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... -guns.html

If you can NOT just be completely OPEN nor Honest here, then do NOT expect "others" to SEE what you see.

Also, what you find compelling is just plain Wrong.

But, anyway, have I provided you yet with one reason to think that it might be the case that the Universe could be infinite and eternal? Or, do you still have absolutely NO reason AT ALL to consider that the Universe might actually be infinite and eternal?

There are better reasons than yours to think so. There are versions of quantum field theory according to which the visible universe is a chain reaction in infinite and eternal quantum fields.

But ONLY LOOKING AT a small part of the Universe will NEVER provide you with thee ACTUAL True Right, and Correct FULL Picture of the Universe.

Brane theory and block universe also spring to mind. No one knows which, if any of those theories is correct, but anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that your theory of matter and void is wrong.

LOL

But you have YET to even LOOK AT and HEAR what I have to say.

Oh and by the way ONCE AGAIN 'it' is NOT a 'theory'.

In case you have FORGOTTEN, I DO NOT DO 'theory'.

[uwot]

What I mean is that the space between 'matter' has to be OBVIOUSLY devoid of 'matter'.

What is matter made of?

In case you have FORGOTTEN, I DO NOT DO 'theory'.

OK then. What is matter really made of?

[Age]

What I mean is that the space between 'matter' has to be OBVIOUSLY devoid of 'matter'.

What is matter made of?

'Matter' is, ESSENTIALLY, at the most basic fundamental level of the Universe, the physical substance made up itself.

In case you have FORGOTTEN, I DO NOT DO 'theory'.

OK then. What is matter really made of?

Physicality', or itself.

One could keep looking, at the subatomic level, and keep searching for what physical matter is made up, but what is, and will always be, found is just smaller particles of (physical) matter.

And, what is, and will always be, found, as well, is a distance, or space, between matter, itself.

BOTH is what is needed, and allows, the Universe to function, or work, the way does.

[uwot]

'Matter' is, ESSENTIALLY, at the most basic fundamental level of the Universe, the physical substance made up itself.

So matter is made of matter.

In case you have FORGOTTEN, I DO NOT DO 'theory'.

OK then. What is matter really made of?

Physicality', or itself.

So matter is made of matter. You really don't do theory.

One could keep looking, at the subatomic level, and keep searching for what physical matter is made up, but what is, and will always be, found is just smaller particles of (physical) matter.

So it's turtles all the way down.*

And, what is, and will always be, found, as well, is a distance, or space, between matter, itself.

BOTH is what is needed, and allows, the Universe to function, or work, the way does.

How does the space between smaller and smaller "particles of (physical) matter" allow them to stick together?

*The following anecdote is told of William James. [...] After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, James was accosted by a little old lady.
"Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it's wrong. I've got a better theory," said the little old lady.
"And what is that, madam?" inquired James politely.
"That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle."
Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.
"If your theory is correct, madam," he asked, "what does this turtle stand on?"
"You're a very clever man, Mr. James, and that's a very good question," replied the little old lady, "but I have an answer to it. And it's this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him."
"But what does this second turtle stand on?" persisted James patiently.
To this, the little old lady crowed triumphantly,
"It's no use, Mr. James—it's turtles all the way down." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[Age]

'Matter' is, ESSENTIALLY, at the most basic fundamental level of the Universe, the physical substance made up itself.

So matter is made of matter.

Yes it REALLY IS.

OK then. What is matter really made of?

Physicality', or itself.

So matter is made of matter. You really don't do theory.

Yes you are Right again. I REALLY do NOT do 'theory'.

Instead what I do DO is LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct. As SHOWN throughout this forum.

One could keep looking, at the subatomic level, and keep searching for what physical matter is made up, but what is, and will always be, found is just smaller particles of (physical) matter.

So it's turtles all the way down.*

If you want to SAY and BELIEVE SO, but that has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with what I have SAID and CLAIMED here.

And, what is, and will always be, found, as well, is a distance, or space, between matter, itself.

BOTH is what is needed, and allows, the Universe to function, or work, the way does.

How does the space between smaller and smaller "particles of (physical) matter" allow them to stick together?

Magnetism.

Which is the EXACT SAME way bigger and bigger 'objects of (physical) matter', so-call, 'stick together'. Like for example in solar systems and in galaxies.

The magnetism is in the 'particles' or 'objects', themselves, and it is the 'space' between, and around, the 'particles' or 'objecta', which is what allows 'them' to 'stick together', 'come closer together', or 'drift apart', FREELY.

Does this answer your question here for you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

*The following anecdote is told of William James. [...] After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, James was accosted by a little old lady.
"Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it's wrong. I've got a better theory," said the little old lady.
"And what is that, madam?" inquired James politely.
"That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle."
Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.
"If your theory is correct, madam," he asked, "what does this turtle stand on?"
"You're a very clever man, Mr. James, and that's a very good question," replied the little old lady, "but I have an answer to it. And it's this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him."
"But what does this second turtle stand on?" persisted James patiently.
To this, the little old lady crowed triumphantly,
"It's no use, Mr. James—it's turtles all the way down." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

The ' turtles all the way "down" ' saying fits perfectly with your, "What is 'it' REALLY made of?" QUESTIONING. Because NO matter what is found you will ALWAYS QUESTION, "But what is 'it' really made of?

Physical matter is at the most basic fundamental level.of the Universe. That, AND the space or distance between and around matter, itself.

[uwot]

So matter is made of matter.

Yes it REALLY IS.

That is utterly banal. Who do you think is any the wiser hearing that matter is made of matter?

I REALLY do NOT do 'theory'.

Instead what I do DO is LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct. As SHOWN throughout this forum.

The things you say that aren't banal aren't true. Here for example:

How does the space between smaller and smaller "particles of (physical) matter" allow them to stick together?

Magnetism.
Which is the EXACT SAME way bigger and bigger 'objects of (physical) matter', so-call, 'stick together'. Like for example in solar systems and in galaxies.

That is nonsense. You clearly haven't noticed that magnetism is polar. As a matter of convention, we call these poles North and South and if you ever bother to do an experiment, you would discover that while like repels like, opposites attract. If you were stuck to the planet Earth by magnetism, it would be because your feet and the Earth below them are opposite poles. This fact conjures up the splendid image of you doing a handstand and being ejected into outer space. You might prefer a simpler experiment: get a magnet and a paper clip and find out for yourself how easily the magnetism of a small piece of iron overcomes the magnetism of an entire planet.

The magnetism is in the 'particles' or 'objects', themselves, and it is the 'space' between, and around, the 'particles' or 'objecta', which is what allows 'them' to 'stick together', 'come closer together', or 'drift apart', FREELY.

Does this answer your question here for you?
If no, then WHY NOT?

Well, it's riddled with flaws. The biggest being that it is demonstrably false.

[Age]

So matter is made of matter.

Yes it REALLY IS.

That is utterly banal. Who do you think is any the wiser hearing that matter is made of matter?

Who was under the PRESUMPTION that ANY one would become 'wiser' here?

I REALLY do NOT do 'theory'.

Instead what I do DO is LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct. As SHOWN throughout this forum.

The things you say that aren't banal aren't true. Here for example:

How does the space between smaller and smaller "particles of (physical) matter" allow them to stick together?

Magnetism.
Which is the EXACT SAME way bigger and bigger 'objects of (physical) matter', so-call, 'stick together'. Like for example in solar systems and in galaxies.

That is nonsense.

REALLY?

You clearly haven't noticed that magnetism is polar. As a matter of convention, we call these poles North and South and if you ever bother to do an experiment, you would discover that while like repels like, opposites attract. If you were stuck to the planet Earth by magnetism, it would be because your feet and the Earth below them are opposite poles.

You REALLY have NOT YET gained that KNOW-HOW to just CLARIFY, BEFORE you JUMP to ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS.

It is BECAUSE magnetism is polar that is WHY what I have been saying is IRREFUTABLE.

This fact conjures up the splendid image of you doing a handstand and being ejected into outer space. You might prefer a simpler experiment: get a magnet and a paper clip and find out for yourself how easily the magnetism of a small piece of iron overcomes the magnetism of an entire planet.

AND, you MIGHT become 'wiser' someday, and STOP making Wrong AND False ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING to just as Wrong AND False CONCLUSIONS. But so far you have shown NO sign that this WILL ever happen.

The magnetism is in the 'particles' or 'objects', themselves, and it is the 'space' between, and around, the 'particles' or 'objecta', which is what allows 'them' to 'stick together', 'come closer together', or 'drift apart', FREELY.

Does this answer your question here for you?
If no, then WHY NOT?

Well, it's riddled with flaws. The biggest being that it is demonstrably false.

LOL

Demonstrate it then. And, if you can NOT, then just TELL the audience here ALL of the ALLEGED and SUPPOSED 'flaws'. So far ALL of YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and CLAIMS here have been Wrong AND False.

So, what you are 'trying to' dispute or refute here has been absolutely NOWHERE even close to what I have been SAYING and MEANING.

[uwot]

It is BECAUSE magnetism is polar that is WHY what I have been saying is IRREFUTABLE.

Why does magnetism being polar make what you are saying irrefutable?

[Age]

It is BECAUSE magnetism is polar that is WHY what I have been saying is IRREFUTABLE.

Why does magnetism being polar make what you are saying irrefutable?

Because it is the polar opposites of magnetism in matter/objects HOW objects/matter spin, which in turn creates them to be drifting away, coming closer, or 'being stuck' in relative equilibrium with each other. Of course taking into account 'expansion' after the so-called 'big bang'.

[Atla]

So, the Universe consists of EVERY thing, which must include ALL matter and ALL of the empty space AS WELL.

Now, this could only mean that the Universe is infinite, in size. And, when we LOOK, then no matter what is envisioned could be a physical end or boundary, then that end or boundary would HAVE TO BE infinitely thick,or if not,then it would have to have some thing on.l the "other side" of it. Either that some thing IS and HAS TO BE a PART OF the Universe. So, the Universe IS INFINITE.

That's not even what "infinite" means here. The universe could be finite in size but have no boundary.