Currant Buns and Pop Guns - The Big Bang

[Age]

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.

And what would you like to propose 'infinite' means, HERE?

The universe could be finite in size but have no boundary.

Will you START to explain HOW this could even be logically possible?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[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.

And what would you like to propose 'infinite' means, HERE?

The universe could be finite in size but have no boundary.

Will you START to explain HOW this could even be logically possible?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Logic dictates that dimensions be inherently circular, so the universe should "loop around".

[uwot]

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'.

Age, if you allow a magnet to align itself, it will do so north to south. According to your theory, the force that aligns a magnet is the same one that keeps it on the ground. Good luck explaining that.

[Age]

That's not even what "infinite" means here.

And what would you like to propose 'infinite' means, HERE?

The universe could be finite in size but have no boundary.

Will you START to explain HOW this could even be logically possible?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Logic dictates that dimensions be inherently circular, so the universe should "loop around".

WHERE, EXACTLY, do you propose the Universe, Itself, even could, or SHOULD, start to so-call “loop around"?

Also, under what sort of 'logic' dictates that dimensions be INHERENTLY circular?

Also, in the INFINITE Universe there is NOTHING to suggest that It is NOT ACTUALLY circular AT ALL, anyway.

This can be and will be SHOWN, later on 'down the track'.

[Age]

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'.

Age, if you allow a magnet to align itself, it will do so north to south. According to your theory, the force that aligns a magnet is the same one that keeps it on the ground. Good luck explaining that.

1. ONCE AGAIN I do NOT have a 'theory'.

2. I have NEVER even remotely said that the force that aligns a magnet is the same one that keeps it on the ground, let alone suggested it.

Have you EVER considered just ASKING the "other" for CLARIFICATION, BEFORE JUMPING to ASSUMPTIONS or CONCLUSIONS?

If you START, then you will be LESS Wrong than you are now and have been.

[Atla]

WHERE, EXACTLY, do you propose the Universe, Itself, even could, or SHOULD, start to so-call “loop around"?

Everything is part of the circularity

Also, under what sort of 'logic' dictates that dimensions be INHERENTLY circular?

Logic without the point-to-point linearity of human thinking

This can be and will be SHOWN, later on 'down the track'.

You don't know that, you are lying as usual.

[uwot]

Age, if you allow a magnet to align itself, it will do so north to south. According to your theory, the force that aligns a magnet is the same one that keeps it on the ground. Good luck explaining that.

1. ONCE AGAIN I do NOT have a 'theory'.

Well then Age, someone has hacked your account and posted this load of cobblers:

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.

I mean, that is a theory, and a piss poor one at that.

2. I have NEVER even remotely said that the force that aligns a magnet is the same one that keeps it on the ground, let alone suggested it.

So now we have a mystery, because someone wrote the above. Can you think of any halfwit with access to your account who might have written that nonsense?

Have you EVER considered just ASKING the "other" for CLARIFICATION, BEFORE JUMPING to ASSUMPTIONS or CONCLUSIONS?

The problem is Age, that I don't know whether I'm talking to the actual Age who knows everything, or the imposter who posts silly bollocks.

If you START, then you will be LESS Wrong than you are now and have been.

Would the real Age please stand up?

[Age]

WHERE, EXACTLY, do you propose the Universe, Itself, even could, or SHOULD, start to so-call “loop around"?

Everything is part of the circularity

Also, under what sort of 'logic' dictates that dimensions be INHERENTLY circular?

Logic without the point-to-point linearity of human thinking

This can be and will be SHOWN, later on 'down the track'.

You don't know that, you are lying as usual.

Okay.

[Age]

Age, if you allow a magnet to align itself, it will do so north to south. According to your theory, the force that aligns a magnet is the same one that keeps it on the ground. Good luck explaining that.

1. ONCE AGAIN I do NOT have a 'theory'.

Well then Age, someone has hacked your account and posted this load of cobblers:

Could you REALLY NOT comprehend what I MEANT here, are you JUST 'trying to' DEFLECT, or are you trying to do something else here?

What I have SAID, and CLAIMED, here is IRREFUTABLE. And, if ANY one would like to CHALLENGE me on the ACTUAL WORDS that I have USED, and what I have ACTUALLY MEANT, then please let us continue.

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.

I mean, that is a theory, and a piss poor one at that.

If that is what you want to think or BELIEVE, then so be it.

But what I have said is something that can be EXPLAINED, and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, I will add.

2. I have NEVER even remotely said that the force that aligns a magnet is the same one that keeps it on the ground, let alone suggested it.

So now we have a mystery, because someone wrote the above.

AND, the someone who wrote the above has NEVER SAID, CLAIMED, NOR MEANT, what you are SAYING and ASSUMING it MEANS. As can be CLEARLY PROVED True by the VERY WORDS WRITTEN and USED above.

Now, if you STILL want to CLAIM that someone, above, wrote; "the force that aligns a magnet is the same one that keeps it on the ground", and it was NOT you, then PROVIDE ACTUAL PROOF that someone ELSE, besides you, wrote those ACTUAL WORDS.

If you do NOT, then we have FURTHER PROOF of how your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS are lead you completely ASTRAY here.

Can you think of any halfwit with access to your account who might have written that nonsense?

Are you a so-called "halfwit" who is STILL NOT YET CAPABLE of OBTAINING CLARIFICATION BEFORE you MAKE UP, and JUMP to, these MOST ABSURD and RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTIONS and CLAIMS?

Have you EVER considered just ASKING the "other" for CLARIFICATION, BEFORE JUMPING to ASSUMPTIONS or CONCLUSIONS?

The problem is Age, that I don't know whether I'm talking to the actual Age who knows everything, or the imposter who posts silly bollocks.

ONCE AGAIN your ASSUMING has led you completely and utterly ASTRAY and has FAILED you ABSOLUTELY.

If you START, then you will be LESS Wrong than you are now and have been.

Would the real Age please stand up?

This just ANOTHER ATTEMPT at DESTRACTING AWAY from the Fact that you can NOT refute what I have been SAYING, and MEANING, here.

LOOK, ALL the 'data' points to the Fact that the Universe IS infinite AND eternal, and there is NOT an ACTUAL shred of 'data' that points otherwise.

[uwot]

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.

I mean, that is a theory, and a piss poor one at that.

If that is what you want to think or BELIEVE, then so be it.

Great. Let's leave it at that then.

[Age]

I mean, that is a theory, and a piss poor one at that.

If that is what you want to think or BELIEVE, then so be it.

Great. Let's leave it at that then.

ANOTHER ONE who wants to make CLAIMS but RUNS AWAY when CHALLENGED.

So, as SHOWN and PROVED, ONCE AGAIN, there is NO ACTUAL 'data' that supports the PRESUMED or BELIEVED idea or 'theory' that the Universe BEGAN and/or IS EXPANDING.

Actually ALL the 'data' SHOWS that ACTUALLY the Universe IS infinite AND eternal, and in Fact the Universe could NOT be ANY other way. This is because of EXACTLY what the Universe is fundamentally made up of and how the Universe actually works.

Your INABILITY to CHALLENGE me or COUNTER me further AFFIRMS my CLAIMS here.

So, as you WANT let us leave you with what you think or BELIEVE is true. You are OBVIOUSLY NOT OPEN to ANY thing else.

[uwot]

So, as SHOWN and PROVED, ONCE AGAIN, there is NO ACTUAL 'data' that supports the PRESUMED or BELIEVED idea or 'theory' that the Universe BEGAN and/or IS EXPANDING.

Age, you mad old sausage, it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

[Age]

So, as SHOWN and PROVED, ONCE AGAIN, there is NO ACTUAL 'data' that supports the PRESUMED or BELIEVED idea or 'theory' that the Universe BEGAN and/or IS EXPANDING.

Age, you mad old sausage, it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

Talk about ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of how the Mind and the brain works and how BELIEFS can completely CLOSE people OFF to LEARNING MORE or ANEW.

This one here is STILL NOT ABLE to SEE that it INTERPRETATIONS, and NOT 'data', that is, laughably, "supporting" its BELIEFS here.

This behavior is the EXACT SAME as the one that was occurring within those that BELIEVED that the earth was flat or at the center of the Universe.

What they "SAW" they INTERPRETED was 'data' for what they were ALREADY BELIEVING was true. Which is EXACTLY what the one known as "uwot" is doing.

In short this behavior is called CONFIRMATION BIAS, and what "uwot" is doing here is a prime example of one inflicted with this DISTORTED thinking.

When the word 'Universe' is defined as TOTALITY, Everything, or ALL-THERE-IS, then there is NO ACTUAL 'data' that supports the 'theory' or BELIEF that Everything BEGAN, (from NO thing), or that Everything IS EXPANDING, (getting bigger).

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in that little video and STORY that backs up and supports the idea that Everything could BEGIN, or could EXPAND, let alone DID and DOES.

In fact the OPPOSITE is true.AL 'data' SHOWS EXACTLY HOW and WHY the Universe IS infinite and eternal.

[uwot]

This one here is STILL NOT ABLE to SEE that it INTERPRETATIONS, and NOT 'data', that is, laughably, "supporting" its BELIEFS here.

You are confused, it is data that supports interpretations. Whether anyone believes an interpretation is irrelevant; any competent scientist accepts, often grudgingly, that if the data doesn't support a belief, it's time to give up the belief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

[Age]

This one here is STILL NOT ABLE to SEE that it INTERPRETATIONS, and NOT 'data', that is, laughably, "supporting" its BELIEFS here.

You are confused, it is data that supports interpretations.

I NEVER said ANY thing contrary.

IF you READ the ACTUAL WORDS THAT I USED and WROTE here you could SEE that I NEVER said that the 'data' does NOT support the INTERPRETATIONS.

I will REALLY suggest ONCE AGAIN that you CONCENTRATE ONLY on the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY and USE instead of on what you ASSUME I am SAYING. That way you will NOT be as Wrong as OFTEN as you have been here.

Whether anyone believes an interpretation is irrelevant; any competent scientist accepts, often grudgingly, that if the data doesn't support a belief, it's time to give up the belief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

LOL the sun revolving around the earth can STILL be 'observed'. So, it could be 'argued', that the 'data' still supports the INTERPRETATION, and the BELIEF, that the sun revolves around the earth. But, OBVIOUSLY, the Truth IS VERY DIFFERENT. The Fact is the 'data' does NOT support what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, AT ALL. The INTERPRETATION, or the BELIEF, maybe, in a way "supported" by the "data', but the 'data, does NOT ACTUALLY support the CLAIM. Just like the 'data' does NOT ACTUALLY support the CLAIM, nor BELIEF, that the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING. As I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT, for quite a while now.

If one WANTS to SEE the 'data' as 'supporting' their BELIEF or INTERPRETATION, then so be it. But just SEEING or SAYING that the 'data' does, does NOT mean that 'it' ACTUALLY DOES.

The 'observed' 'big bang', and the inability for SOME to SEE prior to this little event, could, in a way, be perceived as 'evidence' and 'support' for the INTERPRETATION that this MEANS that the Universe BEGAN, but, when LOOKED AT, and INTO, FULLY, then what this 'observed occurance' and the ACTUAL 'data' SHOWS is how the Universe is ACTUALLY infinite and eternal.

Just like how when the 'observed occurance' of the sun revolving around the earth, WHEN LOOKED AT, and INTO, FULLY, REVEALS and SHOWS a Truly DIFFERENT, and INTUITIVELY VERY DIFFERENT, Picture.

The 'data' WILL ALWAYS REMAIN THE SAME. But what 'it' ACTUALLY and REALLY REVEALS can be VERY DIFFERENT from what people first ENVISIONED and IMAGINED it does.