The dynamical physical laws solve the problem of redshift

[Noax]

'Who' will, supposedly, see 'us' moving at some speed along the tape?

Reasonable question. An observer on the tape measure as the Hubble telescope passes him by. It is, after all, a question asked in the frame of GN-z11.

And, who are 'us', exactly?

Already answered that one.

So, do you KNOW 'the answer/s', or NOT?

Already answered that one as well.

So, are you suggesting that 'your question/s' were MEANINGLESS?

No

So, to you, BEFORE you even BEGIN to FIND OUT what I ACTUALLY MEAN, you have ALREADY CONCLUDED and ARE BELIEVING that 'answers', which APPEAR to you as contradictory, ARE ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTORY.

This assertion about me is incorrect.

But, you also do so WITHOUT EVER even just BEGINNING to SEEK OUT what I AM ACTUALLY MEANING.

A futile pursuit, but the assertion is once again wrong because I did begin to seek it out.

The Universe is infinite AND eternal.

OK. What part of it is infinite, and what do you mean by eternal?

The Fact that this can NOT be argued against

Don't be silly. Any position can be argued against, and there are many irrefutable views that are mutually contradictory, meaning that irrefutability is not at all evidence of correctness, let alone a proof.

Two words (infinite, eternal) is not a view. Just an assertion of two ill defined properties with no justification. FWIW, I don't even disagree with the two properties, but that depends on what is meant by both words.

[Age]

'Who' will, supposedly, see 'us' moving at some speed along the tape?

Reasonable question. An observer on the tape measure as the Hubble telescope passes him by. It is, after all, a question asked in the frame of GN-z11.

And, who are 'us', exactly?

Already answered that one.

Maybe you did, but you were NOT VERY CLEAR AT ALL.

Also are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that 'that' is what happens, EXACTLY?

And, are you 'trying to' to claim or assert some thing, here?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

So, do you KNOW 'the answer/s', or NOT?

Already answered that one as well.

NO you DID NOT. As can be CLEARLY SEEN above, here.

So, are you suggesting that 'your question/s' were MEANINGLESS?

No

So, what was the MEANING for asking them, exactly?

So, to you, BEFORE you even BEGIN to FIND OUT what I ACTUALLY MEAN, you have ALREADY CONCLUDED and ARE BELIEVING that 'answers', which APPEAR to you as contradictory, ARE ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTORY.

This assertion about me is incorrect.

Yet you had ALREADY PROVED what I just asserted.

But, you also do so WITHOUT EVER even just BEGINNING to SEEK OUT what I AM ACTUALLY MEANING.

A futile pursuit, but the assertion is once again wrong because I did begin to seek it out.

you NEVER BEGAN to SEEK OUT what I ACTUALLY MEANT. And, this is the REASON WHY you are, still, SO CONFUSED as to what it is that I ACTUALLY MEAN, here.

The Universe is infinite AND eternal.

OK. What part of it is infinite, and what do you mean by eternal?

FINALLY, some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards to what I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

The Universe, Itself, is infinite, spatially. There could NEVER be 'some part' that is and 'some part' that is not.

What I mean by 'eternal' is that the Universe, Itself, NEVER begins, NOR EVER ends.

The Fact that this can NOT be argued against

Don't be silly. Any position can be argued against, and there are many irrefutable views that are mutually contradictory, meaning that irrefutability is not at all evidence of correctness, let alone a proof.

MY APOLOGIES. The Fat that this can NOT be argued against 'soundly and validly', and thus refuted, in absolutely ANY WAY AT ALL, literally, MEANS that this is an ALREADY PROVED Fact.

Will you write down ANY of the supposed and alleged 'many irrefutable views', which are supposedly mutually contradictory?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And, your CLAIM that 'irrefutability is NOT at all evidence of correctness, let alone a proof, is just SILLY. So, WHY do you TELL others to not be silly, but then you go and be silly "yourself"?

Two words (infinite, eternal) is not a view.

Maybe so. But, the two sentences, 'The Universe is eternal', and, 'The Universe is infinite', are two views.

And, these two views can NOT be argued against, soundly and validly, which makes both of these views IRREFUTABLE.

Just an assertion of two ill defined properties with no justification.

AGAIN, which is, EXACTLY, how I have, purposely, presented them. See, as I ALREADY KNOW that it is an IMPOSSIBILITY to prove otherwise, as there is NO actual 'evidence' AT ALL against those two views, I 'currently' have NO need to say NOR explain ANY more, here.

If, however, some one comes along and wants to 'try to' provide ANY 'evidence' at all that could refute or contradict those two views, then I would LOVE to see ANY one 'try to'.

FWIW, I don't even disagree with the two properties, but that depends on what is meant by both words.

Okay.

But, when the infinite word is meant 'spatially', then the Universe, Itself, being infinite is size, spatially, means that It could NOT expand.

[Noax]

The Universe, Itself, is infinite, spatially.

OK, that's pretty much in line with the consensus view. There are some valid interpretations that suggest finite but unbounded space, and that view is also irrefutable

What I mean by 'eternal' is that the Universe, Itself, NEVER begins, NOR EVER ends.

I think that doesn't distinguish between the two very different usages of the word since it is true of both of them.

The first (lay definition) is time being unbounded in both directions, and I think this is the usage you're trying to convey. There are again valid models of the universe where this is true, but in this case it is not the consensus. Said model, being valid, is indeed irrefutable.

The second usage of 'eternal' is the scientific/philosophical usage: that 1) time is a part of the universe (another dimension just like space), and 2) there is no preferred moment in time. Description can be found under 'eternalism'. I don't think you mean that definition. Both it and the view that denies it are irrefutable, so calling anything irrefutable is a pretty weak claim akin to saying only 'may be the case'.

Since you're answering actual questions, I might ask about the big bang. Is it something meaningful to you? Is the idea of it wrong? The non-consensus view I spoke of gives it a different name. If it is meaningful, what did the universe look like at that time, and what did it look like say 50 billion years ago? If you're not assuming the first definition of 'eternal' above, these questions might not make sense.

The Fact that this can NOT be argued against

Don't be silly. Any position can be argued against, and there are many irrefutable views that are mutually contradictory, meaning that irrefutability is not at all evidence of correctness, let alone a proof.

MY APOLOGIES. The Fat that this can NOT be argued against 'soundly and validly'

But it can. There are valid views in agreement and in disagreement with all your assertions (and mine as well). As for soundly, that implies that one has access to the way things actually are, wich we don't as long as there are valid views in contradiction. So your idea is 'proof' and 'fact' seems to be little more than mere 'opinion', if even that. To prove a point, an good start is to refute (a scientist would use the word 'falsify') any alternative, and I've seen none of that at all from you. Just proof by putting words in caps. Shouting is always a favorite with the TV evangelists as well. Seems to work quite well for them. Plenty of snake oil sold.

Will you write down ANY of the supposed and alleged 'many irrefutable views', which are supposedly mutually contradictory?

OK, since we've already discussed it, eternalism vs presentism. Both irrefutable, but in direct contradiction with each other. I've actually opened a few topics trying to refute and/or defend both sides. Far easier to defend, even the view with which I don't agree.

If you want another example, Bohmian mechanics vs MWI. I agree with neither, but they're opposite in a lot of ways, and they've not been refuted, although both have problems in need of being resolved. Hmm... Both are very deterministic, so maybe not opposite in all aspects.

And, these two views can NOT be argued against, soundly and validly, which makes both of these views IRREFUTABLE.

No, what makes them irrefutable is their inability to be falsified. If there were no valid arguments against (and there very much are), then they would still not be proven since there may be alternatives not yet considered.

The valid alternative views are also

IMPOSSIBLE to prove otherwise

That impossibility of disproof is what makes them valid.

But, when the infinite word is meant 'spatially', then the Universe, Itself, being infinite is size, spatially, means that It could NOT expand.

Expansion of space does not refer to an increase in the size of the universe, which is indeed meaningless in a view where it doesn't have a meaningful size.

[Age]

The Universe, Itself, is infinite, spatially.

OK, that's pretty much in line with the consensus view.

What do you mean by, 'The Universe, Itself, is infinite, spatially', is 'in line' with the consensus view, exactly?

Who has, or what people have, the so-called 'consensus view', exactly?

And, what even is the 'consensus view', exactly?

There are some valid interpretations that suggest finite but unbounded space, and that view is also irrefutable

Why is 'this view', supposedly, also irrefutable?

How could two conflicting views of the EXACT SAME, ACTUAL, thing BOTH, supposedly, not be able to be refuted?

Will you explain what the words 'finite but unbounded space' actually means and/or are referring to, to you, exactly?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, 'valid interpretations' that are just SUGGESTING some thing, NEVER necessarily means that that some 'thing' is True and/or Correct.

Either some thing can be refuted or it can not be refuted.

The Universe, Itself, being infinite and eternal can NOT be refuted. And, until you or someone else EXPLAINS what the words 'finite but unbounded space' even means or is even referring to, to you or them, exactly, then 'we' are absolutely NO closer to working out if 'that' can be refuted, or can NOT be refuted. So, 'we' await your, full, explanation, here.

What I mean by 'eternal' is that the Universe, Itself, NEVER begins, NOR EVER ends.

I think that doesn't distinguish between the two very different usages of the word since it is true of both of them.

What are you even on about here, now?

So, you just 'think' that the words that I provided, above here, do not distinguish between some alleged two very different usages of the word 'eternal'. Which is all fine and good. But, REALLY, who cares what 'you just think', here, anyway?

Now, if you would like to have a DISCUSSION, then will you explain what are the 'two very different usages' of the 'eternal' word that you are aware of and are referring to, here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And, will you explain what your words, 'it is true of both of them', are even referring to, exactly?

Again, if no, then WHY NOT?

To me, I am only using one meaning of the word 'eternal' here in reference to not being temporary, Or, in very simple terms, the Universe exists always, or always exists, and/or FOREVER.

Now, if this is just to simple and to easy to comprehend and understand, then adding more UNNECESSARY things to my explanation and what I ACTUALLY MEAN is NOT helping ANY one, here.

The first (lay definition) is time being unbounded in both directions,

you older human beings in the days when this is being written can NOT even work out and agree up, and accept, just one very simple definition for the word 'time'. So, using the word 'time' in ANY definition of something else is NEVER going to HELP you people.

Also, IN BOTH DIRECTIONS of 'what', EXACTLY?

and I think this is the usage you're trying to convey.

ONCE AGAIN, for the Truly SLOW and SIMPLE ones, here. I SUGGEST THAT INSTEAD OF JUST ASSUMING/THINKING WHAT I AM TRYING TO CONVEY, HERE, you JUST ASKED ME SOME CLARIFYING QUESTION, INSTEAD.

I am NOT SURE HOW I CAN MAKE THIS ANY SIMPLER for you people, here.

And, just so you become FULLY AWARE I am NOT trying to convey 'that usage' AT ALL.

LOL you are NOT EVEN CLOSE, what what 'you thought', above here.

There are again valid models of the universe where this is true, but in this case it is not the consensus. Said model, being valid, is indeed irrefutable.

you are like MILLENNIA AWAY from WHERE I AM AT, HERE, "noax".

1. I have NO 'model'. I do NOT use 'models', just like I do NOT use 'theories' nor 'assumptions.

2. 'Consensus' of some is COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT, to me, and HERE.

3. What you claim are 'valid models' of the Universe where, some, 'this' is true, is of ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNIFICANCE to what I am TALKING ABOUT and PRESENTING, here. you appear to, still, NOT YET UNDERSTAND that what I am SAYING and PRESENTING here can NEVER be refuted by ABSOLUTELY ANY one. One day you will come to understand this Fact, hopefully.

4. Just because you THINK 'a model', is 'valid', and therefore this ALONE makes 'that model', irrefutable, is just ABSOLUTELY NONSENSE. If 'a model' can NOT be refuted, then 'it' MUST BE an ABSOLUTE ACTUAL representation of what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct. And, OBVIOUSLY, what, what you call, 'said model' IS, EXACTLY, you have NOT YET PRESENTED, FULLY.

The second usage of 'eternal' is the scientific/philosophical usage: that 1) time is a part of the universe (another dimension just like space), and 2) there is no preferred moment in time.

1. There is NO 'scientific/philosophical' usage. As 'scientific' and 'philosophical' are NOT 'things', in and of themselves, that could nor do 'use things'. ONLY you human beings USE words in particular ways.

2. Considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that the word 'Universe' can and does MEAN, Everything; ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY, then OBVIOUSLY and OF COURSE the word 'time' and what the word 'time' is meaning and/or is referring to, by you human beings, IS 'a part of the Universe'.

3. WHO CARES what you human beings 'prefer', anyway? So, even if ANY one of you human beings HAD a 'preferred moment in time', would ANY one REALLY CARE?

LOOK, to me, the word 'Universe' when defined as, Everything; ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY, and the Universe IS, spatially, infinite, and, temporally, eternal.

And, if you STILL can NOT YET fathom, comprehend, and understand this Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND, IRREFUTABLE, Fact, BECAUSE you are 'trying to' CONFUSE 'it' with some OTHER 'things', then this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 'me'.

Description can be found under 'eternalism'. I don't think you mean that definition.

you are JOKING, here, right?

LOL Saying and claiming, 'Description can be found under 'eternalism'. I don't think you mean that definition', is A PRIME EXAMPLE of what you people DO, and DID, 'back', in the days when this is, and was, being written.

1. in 'WHAT' 'source', or 'dictionary', EXACTLY, is 'the description' of 'eternalism', which you are talking about and referring to?

2. And/or, what even IS 'the description/definition' of the 'eternalism' word are you referring to and USING, here, EXACTLY, which, let 'us' not forget her that you do NOT even think I MEAN?

It is this kind of CIRCLING WHY these people, 'back then', took SO, SO LONG to just 'CATCH UP', HERE.

Both it and the view that denies it are irrefutable, so calling anything irrefutable is a pretty weak claim akin to saying only 'may be the case'.

LOL. Saying and claiming that, 'BOTH 'it', and 'some view', which supposedly denies 'it', are supposedly irrefutable', WAS, and IS, completely and utterly LOST WITH 'me', here.

LOL This one EXPECTED 'me' to LOOK UP 'some source', for 'some description', which is supposedly 'found under' 'eternalism', itself, and which let 'us' NOT forget that 'this one' does not even THINK I mean 'that definition/description', anyway, but which 'now' supposedly 'that description', and 'some view' which, supposedly, denies 'that description', BOTH, are, supposedly, 'irrefutable'.

Again, HOW COULD 'two views', of which 'one', supposedly, 'denies' 'the other', BOTH be 'irrefutable', exactly?

Until you are a LOT MORE CLEARER, CONCISE, and SUCCINCT, here, I, for One, have ABSOLUTELY NO idea NOR clue as to what 'the description' is, EXACTLY, that you are 'TRYING TO' CONVEY, here. NOR to 'what view', supposedly, DENIES 'that description', whatever 'that description' is, which you think I do NOT MEAN anyway.

Since you're answering actual questions, I might ask about the big bang.

Saying, 'you might', literally means, 'you might NOT'.

Is it something meaningful to you?

it was BECAUSE of Truly MEANINGLESS, or NONSENSICAL, questions like, 'Is it something meaningful, to you?' WHY these human beings took SO, LONG to CATCH UP.

Now, let 'us' take the 'it' word here to be referencing what is called 'the big bang'.
So, 'your question', now, is, 'Is the big bang something meaningful, to you [me]?' And, now, my reply is, your question is nonsensical, to me.

I do not know how to answer your question because I do not know what 'meaningful to you' even means, or what it is referring to, exactly?

Also, because the so-called 'big bang' is just another natural part of the Universe continually creating Itself, always, through evolution, the big bang is 'meaningful', to me, from 'this perspective', only. But, I am not sure if it was from 'this perspective' what you were actually referring to.

Is the idea of it wrong?

But the idea that matter, and 'we' do not yet know how much of matter, was 'infinitely compressed into one singular piece of matter, which then expanded', with what is called and referred to as the 'big bang', is not just 'an idea', only, but 'an observed' occurrence is it not?

Anyway, what do you actually mean by is 'the idea of the big bang', wrong?

The idea that there was 'an infinite compressed singular piece of matter', which then expanded is very, very probable and most likely just as likely to have occurred is NOT 'wrong', to me. However, that there has only ever been 'one, only, singular infinitely compressed piece of matter', and/or that there was only 'one singular piece of matter', which came from absolutely nothing, and then expanded, is 'wrong', to me.

The idea, however, there that what is called and referred to as 'the big bang' might well have been just one of countless 'other bangs' of 'infinitely compressed singular pieces of matter', expanding, is NOT 'wrong'.

In fact, 'infinitely compressed singular pieces of matter', or in other words 'singularity', is what is found at the 'end' of 'black holes', which 'one day' just end up 'expanding'.

Which, by the way, ACCOUNTS for WHERE the 'singularity', which is known as 'the big bang', and which 'expanded', 'came from'. Which also EXPLAINS HOW and WHY what is some times referred to as 'time' does NOT exist. Which also BRINGS together EVERY thing, as One, Everything. Which, in and of itself, forms, or formulates, into One Grand Unified Theory Of Everything. As can be and WILL BE SHOWN, and PROVED. But, AGAIN, only to those who are Truly OPEN, and Truly interested and curios, here.

The non-consensus view I spoke of gives it a different name.

The, supposed, and so-called, 'non-consensus view', which you spoke of, gives 'what' a, supposed, 'different view'?

And, a 'different view', from 'what', exactly?

If it is meaningful, what did the universe look like at that time, and what did it look like say 50 billion years ago?

And, if 'the big bang' is, somehow, and so-called, 'not meaningful', to me, then 'what', exactly?

Now, what the Universe 'looked like' at the 'moment' of the 'big bang' IS, EXACTLY, WHAT the Universe 'looks like' at ANY and EVERY 'given moment' throughout eternity. And HOW the Universe 'looks, EXACTLY, like', and ANY and EVERY 'given moment' is, EXACTLY, HOW, or WHAT, the Universe 'looks like' RIGHT NOW at 'this very given moment'. That is; The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'matter' AND 'space', ALONE.

These two things called 'matter' and 'space' co-exist TOGETHER, as One, RIGHT HERE-NOW in the EXACT SAME WAY that 'they have', FOREVER.

'Matter' just being a word that denotes 'the physicality' that can be seen, felt, heard, smelt, and tasted, AND the word 'space' just being a word that denotes 'the distance' between and/or around 'matter', with 'matter' just known as and by many, many different words, which themselves 'separates', conceptually only, 'matter', itself, into differently 'perceived things'.

Now, for arguments sake, if even there was just ONE, ONLY, SOLELY 'infinitely compressed singular piece of matter', [which obviously had to come from somewhere, with the MOST LIKELY 'place' just being the previous 'separated matter' just collapsing on itself, like what is claimed at the end of a black hole, while 'with the compression of the matter', 'the space' that used to be between or around 'matter itself' is being 'squeezed out'), THEN for 'the 'now' singular piece of matter' to be able to 'expand with a bang', (of some size), there obviously has to be some sort of 'space' or 'matter free area' for 'singularity' 'to expand'.

Considering the word 'Universe' means or refers to absolutely EVERY thing, the One Everything, all-there-is, or totality, THEN even IF every previous piece of matter throughout the whole of the Universe was 'infinitely compressed, (which just means by the way 'no space', or 'no distance between matter'), into just One Singular piece, ONLY, then HOW the Universe 'looked like' 'THEN' was, EXACTLY, like the Universe 'looks like' 'NOW'. That is, consisting of 'matter' AND 'space'. Even at what is called as 'the big bang', with just One single piece of 'matter' there was 'a distance' (of 'space') around 'that singularity'. Which is, EXACTLY, what the Universe 'looks like' 'NOW', except there is 'space', or 'a distance' between different 'pieces of matter', and this EXACT SAME phenomena applies at the 'sub-atomic level' as well as EVERY so-called 'level' above 'that level'. With EACH and EVERY 'piece of matter' there is ALWAYS 'a distance', or 'space', around 'them'. Even if there is 'one only', or 'many'.

The 'collection' of different pieces of, the EXACT SAME, thing, which 'we' call 'matter', or 'physical matter', which is how 'energy', exists. And, because 'matter', itself, exists FOREVER, this is HOW and WHY it is said that 'energy' is not created nor destroyed, but it is actually the 'interaction' of 'matter' with itself, HOW and WHY 'energy' exists. Also, the interaction of 'matter', with itself, which is FREELY ALLOWED, because of 'the space' or 'the distance' of 'no thing' between 'matter' HOW and WHY 'matter', itself, forms IN-TO the 'different objects and shapes', which 'we' SEE, and OBSERVE, BEFORE 'us'. It is also the 'negative' and 'positives' forces, or charges, at the 'atomic level', which are caused or created by the 'spinning', or 'moving', matter, which causes and creates the 'attraction' of matter to form, or 'create', one object, and the 'repelling' of matter, which creates, or forms, another object (of matter).

The 'interaction' of matter, with itself, is HOW 'energy' exists, and which is HOW the Universe is in a, continual, 'Creation', of Itself, ALWAYS. The continual CHANGING of 'objects of matter' is just what is also known as 'evolution', itself, and of which the 'action and re-action process' of matter with itself is, literally, 'Creation', and HOW, and WHY, the Universe, or also known as 'God', Itself, is Creating, Its-Self, through 'evolution', FOREVER and ALWAYS, and IN ALL WAYS.

The SHAPE, or FORM, that the Universe may 'look' in the HERE-NOW, at ANY given moment, may well 'look different', but the EXACT SAME ALWAYS CHANGING of SHAPE and FORM, is the EXACT SAME 'WAY' the Universe WORKS, or BEHAVES, ALWAYS.

So, 'what did the universe look like at that time, and what did it look like say 50 billion years ago?' IS, The Universe, Itself, 'looked' the EXACT SAME at what is called 'the big bang', (but which is just one of countless bangs), as the Universe 'looked like' at say 50 billion, or one billion years ago, from the very day that this is being written. That is; The Universe 'looks' the EXACT SAME ALWAYS from the perspective of the Universe, Itself, is, FUNDAMENTALLY, made up of 'matter' AND 'space', ONLY.

The ONLY 'difference' of WHAT the Universe 'looked like' at those three different given moments in the SHAPE and the FORM of the 'matter', itself, WITHIN the Universe, Itself, 'looked DIFFERENT'.

Now, as AS ALWAYS, if absolutely ANY one would like to have ANY thing CLEARED UP, CLARIFIED, VERIFIED, or PROVED True, then by all means just ASK some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, and let 'us' have A DISCUSSION.

If you're not assuming the first definition of 'eternal' above, these questions might not make sense.

I am NOT 'assuming' the first definition of 'eternal' above, NOR am I 'assuming' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing else, here.

Anyway, what the Universe, Itself, ACTUALLY IS and HOW the Universe, Itself, ACTUALLY WORKS, or BEHAVES, can NOT be refuted.

The Fact that this can NOT be argued against

Don't be silly. Any position can be argued against, and there are many irrefutable views that are mutually contradictory, meaning that irrefutability is not at all evidence of correctness, let alone a proof.

MY APOLOGIES. The Fat that this can NOT be argued against 'soundly and validly'

But it can. [/quote]

If you REALLY WANT to BELIEVE, and CLAIM, that 'the Universe being infinite and eternal' CAN BE 'argued against', soundly AND validly', then PLEASE by ALL MEANS go AHEAD and SHOW 'us' readers HOW this CAN BE DONE.

There are valid views in agreement and in disagreement with all your assertions (and mine as well).

LOL 'Valid views' have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in the WHOLE Universe to DO WITH 'arguing against some thing' 'validly AND soundly'.

Also, you mentioned 'All my assertions', here.

So, 'WHAT EXACTLY' are even ALL of 'my assertions', here?

As for soundly, that implies that one has access to the way things actually are, wich we don't as long as there are valid views in contradiction.

you are getting what is some times referred to as, BEYOND BELIEF, here, "noax".

you are being just like "iwannaplato", here. Just ALLUDING to 'one or another thing' and CLAIMING that there are 'other things' that are have some UNKNOWN 'valid view' or 'views' 'in contradiction' of 'some UNKNOWN thing' is becoming BEYOND A JOKE.

Either be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, CONCISE, and PRECISE, or EXPECT to get INUNDATED with CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, and CHALLENGES, from ME.

Now, let 'us' USE 'an example' of your CLAIM and BELIEF, above here.

So, and according to your OWN so-called 'logic', here, if there are 'valid views', in contradiction, to say, 'The sun does not revolve around the earth', then 'we' will NEVER have access to the way things ACTUALLY ARE.

Which, as most of the readers here ARE SEEING, is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

One could just claim that 'my view' of seeing and observing 'the sun rise, and, set every day' is a 'valid view'. And, well according to "noax logic" anyway, is 'in contradiction' of another's view, and/or claim, that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and SO absolutely NO one WILL EVER have 'access' to 'the way' 'things' ACTUALLY ARE. Which MEANS FOREVER MORE NO will be ABLE TO 'work out' whether it is the sun that, ACTUALLY, revolves around the earth, OR, if it is the earth that, ACTUALLY, revolves around the sun.

Which, as just SHOWN and PROVED, is a Truly UNSOUND and INVALID view, believe, claim, and argument of "noaxs", here.

So your idea is 'proof' and 'fact' seems to be little more than mere 'opinion', if even that.

ONCE AGAIN, what can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN, and PROVED, here, is the POWER of BELIEF, itself.

This one has, and hopefully 'now' HAD, pre-existing BELIEFS that were STOPPING and PREVENTING it from SEEING and RECOGNIZING the ACTUAL Truth and WAY things ACTUALLY ARE, here.

To prove a point, an good start is to refute (a scientist would use the word 'falsify') any alternative, and I've seen none of that at all from you.

LOL, ONCE MORE for the VERY SLOW OF LEARNING and OF COMPREHENDING.

I have NOT even WANTED to 'falsify' ANY thing, here, YET.

I have just EXPRESSED A view, position, or assertion, and have just WAITED for those who SHOW ANY INTEREST and/or CURIOSITY.

Now, if absolutely ANY one would like to PRESENT ANY 'alternative' from 'The Universe IS eternal AND infinite', them by ALL MEANS do 'that', and I WILL 'falsify' and/or 'refute' 'THE ALTERNATIVE'. So, AGAIN, I AWAIT, patiently.

Just proof by putting words in caps. Shouting is always a favorite with the TV evangelists as well. Seems to work quite well for them. Plenty of snake oil sold.

1. I have NEVER 'shouted' ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE thought-out this WHOLE forum.

2. What can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE AGAIN, is that when these posters here had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that even just COULD 'refute' or 'falsify' 'my claims', then they would RESORT TO just 'looking at' 'the way' I speak, write, or present 'my words', ONLY.

3. you, OBVIOUSLY, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that COULD PROVE 'your BELIEF and CLAIM' that 'The Universe, Itself, began AND expands'. Nor do you have absolutely ANY thing that COULD 'refute' or 'falsify' 'my claim' that 'The Universe is eternal AND infinite'.

Will you write down ANY of the supposed and alleged 'many irrefutable views', which are supposedly mutually contradictory?

OK, since we've already discussed it, eternalism vs presentism.

Just so you become FULLY AWARE I do NOT do ANY 'isms', and this is BECAUSE of WHERE the very things come from, exactly.

But, anyway, 'carry on'.

Both irrefutable, but in direct contradiction with each other.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, not a SINGLE DEFINITION to be SEEN, nor HEARD, here.

LOL Those words are just spoken and/or written down as though ABSOLUTELY EVERY one KNOWS, or HAS and USES, the EXACT SAME DEFINITION that the speaker or writer HAS, and USES.

LOL This ALLUDING TO 'things' has HAPPENED CONSISTENTLY throughout this forum, and these ones, STILL, could NOT WORT OUT WHY they, what is called, 'talk past each other'.

I've actually opened a few topics trying to refute and/or defend both sides. Far easier to defend, even the view with which I don't agree.

This is, REALLY, HOW Truly STUPID these people WERE, 'back' when this was being written.

They, literally, would NOT 'seek out' and 'look for' what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, but instead WERE INSISTENT ON 'looking at' 'models', 'theories', or 'guesses', ONLY. They were like they were COMPLETELY INFATUATED with 'WHAT MIGHT or COULD BE', instead of just 'looking at' WHAT ACTUALLY IS, ONLY.

If you want another example, Bohmian mechanics vs MWI. I agree with neither, but they're opposite in a lot of ways, and they've not been refuted, although both have problems in need of being resolved. Hmm... Both are very deterministic, so maybe not opposite in all aspects.

LOL
LOL
LOL

AGAIN, this one is SHOWING and PROVING what they would ACTUALLY DO, 'back then', in those very 'olden days' when this was being written.

Most of the older ones ACTUALLY BELIEVED that it was a case of 'one' OR 'the other', ONLY. Which, AGAIN, was another DIRECT DETRIMENTAL RESULT of being TAUGHT 'DEBATING' and/or 'TO DEBATE'.

If not ALL, then EVERY one of the 'one' OR 'the other', created, DEBATES, these people would have, the ACTUAL Truth was, and IS, that there are Truths, AND, Falsehoods, in BOTH of 'the views'. And, on just about EVERY occasion BOTH are IN the IRREFUTABLE Truth, and Fact.

So, If, and WHEN, absolutely ANY one would like to ACTUALLY PRESENT 'the ACTUAL view/s', and NOT just the words like, 'eternalism', 'presentism', 'creationism', 'evolutionism', 'naturism', 'nurturism', NOR the many other words, only, then I CAN, and WILL SHOW and PROVE HOW, EXACTLY, what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct is FROM, and WITHIN, BOTH of the APPARENTLY 'opposing' and 'contradicting' views.

And, these two views can NOT be argued against, soundly and validly, which makes both of these views IRREFUTABLE.

No, what makes them irrefutable is their inability to be falsified.

LOL
LOL
LOL

See HOW these people were COMPLETELY and UTTERLY STOPPED and PREVENTED BY 'their pre-existing BELIEFS'.

These people ACTUALLY BELIEVED that there are some things, here, that could NOT be 'falsified' NOR 'proved'.

Which, ALSO, quite CONVENIENTLY, ALLOWED them to BELIEVE 'their other pre-existing BELIEFS' to be 'true', and 'to find' 'confirmation' for 'their BELIEFS'.

LOL Some of them would actually BELIEVE things like, 'we can NEVER KNOW what 'God' is, OR, 'we can NEVER KNOW what was 'before' the big bang'. 'Therefore, God, OR, the 'big bang' was the START OF Everything.

Talk about examples of MAKING UP your OWN 'self-believed STORIES'.

If there were no valid arguments against (and there very much are), then they would still not be proven since there may be alternatives not yet considered.

LOL There are NO ACTUAL ALTERNATIVES to WHAT IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, or Correct.

There are, OF COURSE, human being made up and CONCEPTUALIZED, ONLY, 'alternative stories', but this is ALL and ONLY what 'they' ARE, EXACTLY.

The valid alternative views are also

IMPOSSIBLE to prove otherwise

That impossibility of disproof is what makes them valid.

LOL ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing was ACHIEVED was ALSO SEEN and BELIEVED as IMPOSSIBLE.

What this one just SAID and CLAIMED here is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just HOW CLOSED they REALLY WERE, 'back then'.

1. There is NO ACTUAL 'impossibility of disproof'. This is just what some HOPED was true. BECAUSE they did NOT want what they 'currently' BELIEVED TO BE TRUE to be FOUND OUT was NOT TRUE AT ALL.

2. And, LOL, if one BELIEVED that the 'impossibility of disproof' MAKES 'a view', 'valid', then they are MORE DISILLUSIONED, DISTORTED, and CONFUSED then was first being SEEN, and RECOGNIZED.

But, when the infinite word is meant 'spatially', then the Universe, Itself, being infinite is size, spatially, means that It could NOT expand.

Expansion of space does not refer to an increase in the size of the universe,

ONCE AGAIN, this is 'trying to' FOOL and TRICK others, here.

So, allegedly to this one anyway, the size of a part of some thing can increase, but the thing, itself, will supposedly NOT increase. Which, OBVIOUSLY, means that 'another part' of 'the thing', itself, MUST decrease. So, will you EXPLAIN what 'it' is, exactly, that MUST BE decreasing, while 'space' is, supposedly, increasing?

And, if no, then WHY NOT?

Also, if you are 'trying to' CLAIM, here, that 'space' can increase, into a 'void of nothing', so to speak, then you have been MORE FOOLED and TRICKED than I first SAW.

which is indeed meaningless in a view where it doesn't have a meaningful size.

But, 'it' does have a meaningful size. you just can NOT SEE it YET.

Also, WHO has a supposed 'view' where the Universe, Itself, does not have a so-called 'meaningful size'?

you REALLY DO provide SO MANY DISTRACTIONS and/or CONVOLUTED views and ideas, here.

[Noax]

Why is 'this view', supposedly, also irrefutable?

How could two conflicting views of the EXACT SAME, ACTUAL, thing BOTH, supposedly, not be able to be refuted?

Again, HOW COULD 'two views', of which 'one', supposedly, 'denies' 'the other', BOTH be 'irrefutable', exactly?

Each would be irrefutable because there's no way to refute either: Neither view contradict evidence or is self contradictory.

Will you explain what the words 'finite but unbounded space' actually means and/or are referring to, to you, exactly?

For example, the surface of Earth is finite, but without bound (no edge to it).

ONCE AGAIN, for the Truly SLOW and SIMPLE ones, here. I SUGGEST THAT INSTEAD OF JUST ASSUMING/THINKING WHAT I AM TRYING TO CONVEY, HERE, you JUST ASKED ME SOME CLARIFYING QUESTION, INSTEAD.

I did. I got paragraphs of rant and perhaps a few words of clarification, enough to suspect my guess was correct.

2. 'Consensus' of some is COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT, to me, and HERE.

I've very much noticed. Your opinion is thus irrelevant to us 'older human beings'.

4. Just because you THINK 'a model', is 'valid', and therefore this ALONE makes 'that model', irrefutable, is just ABSOLUTELY NONSENSE.

That is indeed nonsense. What I think about a model is not what makes it valid. What makes it by definition valid is it actually being irrefutable, and my thoughts have nothing to do with it. But being irrefutably true does not make it actually true, and you seem to assert otherwise despite that assertion leading to a contradiction, and thus not being a valid assertion.

2. Considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that the word 'Universe' can and does MEAN, Everything; ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY

That assertion is easily refuted. Try harder, child.

1. in 'WHAT' 'source', or 'dictionary', EXACTLY, is 'the description' of 'eternalism', which you are talking about and referring to?

One of them is here, but there are many more: https://iep.utm.edu/eternalism/

I suspect you don't mean this meaning of the word 'eternal' since you display no knowledge of even the existence of the view, let alone the ability to describe what it posits.

Saying and claiming that, 'BOTH 'it', and 'some view', which supposedly denies 'it', are supposedly irrefutable', WAS, and IS, completely and utterly LOST WITH 'me', here.

Yet again, I very much noticed.

Also, because the so-called 'big bang' is just another natural part of the Universe continually creating Itself, always, through evolution, the big bang is 'meaningful', to me, from 'this perspective', only.

Gotcha. This pretty much answers my question, thanks.

But the idea that matter, and 'we' do not yet know how much of matter, was 'infinitely compressed into one singular piece of matter

No, that's not an accurate description of the big bang to which physicists refer. Compressed, yes. One piece, matter, both no. Small size, came from nothing? The theory suggests none of that. And no, it is not an observed occurrence. It is hidden behind an opaque wall.

In fact, 'infinitely compressed singular pieces of matter', or in other words 'singularity', is what is found at the 'end' of 'black holes', which 'one day' just end up 'expanding'.

Only one theory suggests black holes, and it doesn't suggest a piece of compressed matter inside it. Matter is in fact pulled apart (opposite of compressed) as it falls inward, and this pulling apart is what kills you if you go there.
Black hole represent the end of time, not the beginning of it, but that's also a usage of 'time' against which you rant.


Thank you for the extensive description following. You surprise me yet (and demonstrate my opinions to be wrong). You may not call it a model, but it's a model of sorts.



You say the universe consists of matter and space only, but where does time fit into that? Does it not exist, or is it made of matter and space?

And, because 'matter', itself, exists FOREVER

They seem to destroy matter at will. The sun for instance destroys over 4 million tons of matter per second. It's gone. Matter can also be created, but I have a hard time thinking of a current example of that happening at a large scale.

Your description suggests a cycle to the bangs, but distant matter is accelerating away and shows no sign of ever coming back. How will it ever come back together to do another cycle?


Do numbers exist?

There is a teleological argument for the existence of an intelligent designer/creator of the universe. How would you counter their argument? How is the apparent 'deliberate' tuning of the various fundamental constants explained in your opinion? This question was relevant to your definition of 'universe', which would include the designer.

If you REALLY WANT to BELIEVE, and CLAIM, that 'the Universe being infinite and eternal' CAN BE 'argued against', soundly AND validly', then PLEASE by ALL MEANS go AHEAD and SHOW 'us' readers HOW this CAN BE DONE.

The alternative is spacetime with slight but nonzero positive curvature. I can picture this for a 3D spatial universe, but not for a 4D spacetime model where a minimum curvature would be required, one large enough to have been measured. So I don't buy it.

So, and according to your OWN so-called 'logic', here, if there are 'valid views', in contradiction, to say, 'The sun does not revolve around the earth', then 'we' will NEVER have access to the way things ACTUALLY ARE.

Correct, yes.

One could just claim that 'my view' of seeing and observing 'the sun rise, and, set every day' is a 'valid view'.

Claiming it to be valid is not what makes it valid.

And, well according to "noax logic" anyway, is 'in contradiction' of another's view, and/or claim, that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun

The Earth revolving around the sun doesn't explain apparent daily sunrise and sunset. The former happens once a year, not once a day.

I have NEVER 'shouted' ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE thought-out this WHOLE forum.

Words in caps is considered to be the equivalent of shouting. It's considered impolite. Of course you've not literally shouted since there's no audio feed on this site.

Just so you become FULLY AWARE I do NOT do ANY 'isms', and this is BECAUSE of WHERE the very things come from, exactly.

Then you're missing out on some obvious examples of the things you're asking for.

So, If, and WHEN, absolutely ANY one would like to ACTUALLY PRESENT 'the ACTUAL view/s'

What is meant by 'the actual views'? It makes it sound like 'the view that is correct', but there is no access to what is correct, so there is but opinion. I cannot explain my opinion to you. A sufficient education is a prerequisite for that.

the size of a part of some thing can increase, but the thing, itself, will supposedly NOT increase. Which, OBVIOUSLY, means that 'another part' of 'the thing', itself, MUST decrease.

This logic only is applicable to a thing with a finite size.

Also, WHO has a supposed 'view' where the Universe, Itself, does not have a so-called 'meaningful size'?

You have expressed such a view.

[Age]

Why is 'this view', supposedly, also irrefutable?

How could two conflicting views of the EXACT SAME, ACTUAL, thing BOTH, supposedly, not be able to be refuted?

Again, HOW COULD 'two views', of which 'one', supposedly, 'denies' 'the other', BOTH be 'irrefutable', exactly?

Each would be irrefutable because there's no way to refute either: Neither view contradict evidence or is self contradictory.

LOL WHERE, EXACTLY, is this BELIEF COMING FROM that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AT ALL to REFUTE either?

HOW COULD you KNOW of SUCH A THING, EXACTLY?

ALSO, WHY WILL you NOT ANSWER ALL of the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I ASK you?

you are REALLY SLOWING the process DOWN, here.

Will you explain what the words 'finite but unbounded space' actually means and/or are referring to, to you, exactly?

For example, the surface of Earth is finite, but without bound (no edge to it).

What do you MEAN by, 'the surface of earth is finite, but without bound nor edge to it?

What ACTUALLY 'separates' earth from the rest of the Universe, EXACTLY?

Also, what has the earth got to do with the Universe, Itself, here, EXACTLY?

ALL of this DEFLECTION, DETRACTION, and REFUSAL to provide EXAMPLES and ANSWER questions is NOT helping you and your BELIEFS here in ANY way, shape, NOR form.

ONCE AGAIN, for the Truly SLOW and SIMPLE ones, here. I SUGGEST THAT INSTEAD OF JUST ASSUMING/THINKING WHAT I AM TRYING TO CONVEY, HERE, you JUST ASKED ME SOME CLARIFYING QUESTION, INSTEAD.

I did.

LOL you ASKED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS about the MOST MUNDANE of things LIKE, 'If I knew how far away some galaxy is', for example.

AGAIN, for the Truly SLOW OF LEARNING, I MEANT ASK me, enough, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO WHAT I ACTUALLY MEAN, and WANT TO CONVEY.

AGAIN, NOT CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO WHEN and HOW you WANT TO 'CATCH me OUT', as some might say.

ONCE MORE for the Truly CLOSED, INSTEAD OF JUST ASSUMING or GUESSING what I MEAN, want to CONVEY, JUST ASK me CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT I ACTUALLY MEAN, and/or WANT TO CONVEY.

It is REALLY SAD when one HAS TO, LITERALLY, SPELL OUT and HIGHLIGHT the VERY things one MEANS, EXACTLY.

I got paragraphs of rant and perhaps a few words of clarification, enough to suspect my guess was correct.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, this one can NOT STOP "itself" FROM 'GUESSING', here.

And, what can be OBVIOUSLY CLEARLY SEEN, even MORE SO 'NOW", is just HOW MUCH this one is just 'LOOKING FOR' 'confirmation' FOR its 'current' and pre-existing BELIEFS, ASSUMPTIONS, and GUESSES, ONLY.

The one ACTUALLY BELIEVES that the whole Universe, Itself, BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING, of which it has NOT produced a SHRED of PROOF, let ALONE ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, FOR, YET it, STILL, WANTS TO GUESS and BELIEVE that it is 'I' who is Wrong and who does NOT KNOW what 'it' is TALKING ABOUT.

2. 'Consensus' of some is COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT, to me, and HERE.

I've very much noticed. Your opinion is thus irrelevant to us 'older human beings'.

LOL The DIFFERENCE IS what you BELIEVE, CALL, and CLAIM is 'my opinion' can NOT be REFUTED by ANY one of you human beings.

And, what makes this MORE LAUGHABLE is you 'sitting there' 'now' LAUGHING and PRESUMING and BELIEVING, ABSOLUTELY, that 'I' can NOT PROVE 'MY ASSERTION and CLAIM', here.

Do you KNOW what 'you' sound like 'here now' "noax"?

If yes, or no, you sound like one of those 'older ones' who KEPT TELLING the one who was just asserting, stating, and claiming that, 'ACTUALLY, it is the earth that revolves around the sun, INSTEAD of the other way around', when 'they' would, ALSO, say and claim, 'That is just 'your opinion', only, and 'your opinion' is thus irrelevant to 'us'.'

LOL This one known as "noax" ACTUALLY BELIEVES that because 'more' are of 'a consensus' on some thing, then what opposes 'that thing' IS JUST 'an opinion' ONLY.

LOL This one has NOT even the COURAGE to DISCUSS, NOR TO EVEN JUST 'try to' CHALLENGE me ON, 'this', here.

BECAUSE it KNOWS that it can NOT PROVE its CLAIM, and IS CONCERNED what the OUTCOME WOULD BE if I DID PROVE my CLAIM, here.

4. Just because you THINK 'a model', is 'valid', and therefore this ALONE makes 'that model', irrefutable, is just ABSOLUTELY NONSENSE.

That is indeed nonsense. What I think about a model is not what makes it valid. What makes it by definition valid is it actually being irrefutable,

Well there is NOT 'a model' that IS IRREFUTABLE, UNTIL it is PROVED to BE IRREFUTABLE.

That there IS 'a model', if there IS 'a model', may well BE IRREFUTABLE. But, what 'the model' REPRESENTS is NEVER IRREFUTABLE, AGAIN, UNTIL it is PROVEN TO BE IRREFUTABLE.

So, your NONSENSICAL CLAIM that what makes 'a model', by definition, 'valid' is 'the model' actually being IRREFUTABLE, is ONLY KNOW AFTER 'the model' HAS BEEN PROVED TO BE IRREFUTABLE.

So, ANY CLAIM and/or OPINION of YOURS that A definition/view/model AND ANY definition/view/model that denies the former definition/view/model can BOTH be IRREFUTABLE IS, ONCE MORE, ABSOLUTELY NONSENSICAL, ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL, AND RIDICULOUS.

Now, if you SERIOUSLY WANT TO JUST CLAIM that what makes A definition/view/model, by definition, 'valid', is the definition/view/model BEING IRREFUTABLE, then that is a WHOLE NEW and OTHER 'thing' FROM what you were FIRST PROPOSING.

So, 'we' are, 'now', BACK to THE BEGINNING, AGAIN.

you CLAIM that the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING. Whereas,

I CLAIM that the Universe IS ETERNAL and INFINITE.

Obviously BOTH can NOT be IRREFUTABLE. So, ONLY ONE CAN BE IRREFUTABLE. This WILL BE DECIDED WHEN one IS REFUTED, and/or FALSIFIED. I NOW, without ANY DOUBT AT ALL, which ONE ALREADY HAS BEEN REFUTED, and which ONE IS IRREFUTABLE.

Now, if what makes A view/claim/model, by definition 'valid', is the view/claim/model BEGIN IRREFUTABLE, THEN, obviously, ONLY ONE of 'our claims' can be 'VALID', and I ALREADY KNOW which ONE 'it' IS.

And, ONCE AGAIN, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to LEARN MORE and/or ANEW, OR would like to just QUESTION, or even CHALLENGE me OVER ANY or ALL of this, here, then PLEASE let 'us' DISCUSS things, here.

OBVIOUSLY "noax" has ONLY BEEN 'trying to' DEFLECT, DETRACT, and/or DECEIVE, here, SO FAR. But, if ANY one would SERIOUSLY like to KNOW how the Universe IS, IRREFUTABLY, infinite AND eternal, and DID NOT begin and IS EXPANDING AT ALL, then GREAT.

and my thoughts have nothing to do with it.

But, that is just 'your opinion' ONLY.

What 'it' is, EXACTLY, may well be DIFFERENT from what 'your thoughts and opinions' ARE.

But being irrefutably true does not make it actually true, and you seem to assert otherwise despite that assertion leading to a contradiction, and thus not being a valid assertion.

It is this kind of ATTEMPTING to DECEIVE ABSOLUTE NONSENSICAL RUBBISH WHY you human beings take SO LONG to FINALLY SEE what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

So, 'now', to this one anyway, what IS IRREFUTABLY True, which OBVIOUSLY MEANS there is NOT a thing in the WHOLE Universe that COULD REFUTE what is being said or claimed, but this, in and of itself, supposedly, does NOT make what is being said or claimed, 'now', ACTUALLY True.

So, TELL 'us' "noax" if what is IRREFUTABLY True, supposedly, does NOT make 'it' ACTUALLY True, then what, EXACTLY, does make some 'thing' ACTUALLY True, EXACTLY?

(Note that "noax" WILL NOT TELL 'us'.)

All "noax" is 'TRYING TO DO', ONCE AGAIN, IS TO DEFLECT and TO DECEIVE, here.

2. Considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that the word 'Universe' can and does MEAN, Everything; ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY

That assertion is easily refuted. Try harder, child.

LOL
LOL
LOL

HOW COULD THE word 'Universe' NEVER MEAN some thing?

you are being BEYOND AN ABSOLUTE JOKE, here, now, "noax".

The word 'Universe' CAN mean what I wrote, AND, the word 'Universe' DOES mean what I wrote, to me. Therefore, that assertion, ALSO, can NOT be refuted AT ALL, let alone EASILY. Which is ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY TO YOUR CLAIM, BELIEF, and OPINION, here.

LOL Also NOTED is "noax's" USE of the 'child' word in an ATTEMPT at being AN INSULT. Which HELPS IN EXPLAINING FURTHER WHY these adult human beings, here, 'grew up' BEING 'the way' that they ARE, here.

Now, you SAID TO ME, 'try harder'. BUT, I JUST SHOWED and PROVED HOW and WHY what I SAID and CLAIMED IS an IRREFUTABLE Fact. you ALSO SAID TO ME, 'That assertion is EASILY refuted. So, I CHALLENGE you TO REFUTE 'that assertion' "noax".

And, I WILL SUGGEST, ONCE AGAIN, READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAID, and USED, there.

1. in 'WHAT' 'source', or 'dictionary', EXACTLY, is 'the description' of 'eternalism', which you are talking about and referring to?

One of them is here, but there are many more: https://iep.utm.edu/eternalism/

OF COURSE there ARE MANY MORE. That WAS MY POINT.

Which ONE is the EXACT ONE that you WERE USING, here? WAS, and IS, MY POINT.

I suspect you don't mean this meaning of the word 'eternal' since you display no knowledge of even the existence of the view, let alone the ability to describe what it posits.

SEE HOW this one 'TRIES TO' DECEIVE, and DEFLECT.

LOL WHERE, EXACTLY, have I, SUPPOSEDLY, DISPLAYED NO KNOWLEDGE of 'the existence' of 'one view or meaning' of the word 'eternal'?

LOL you, STILL, go on like there is ONLY 'one meaning' when you say and claim that you SUSPECT I do NOT mean 'this meaning'. LOL Like I was, SUPPOSED, to ALREADY KNOW 'the meaning' that 'this one' had NEVER BEFORE linked ANY one to. LOL this one BELIEVES, absolutely, that I have NOT ONLY DISPLAYED ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL of even 'the existence' of that ONE and ONLY view' but also DISPLAYED NO ABILITY AT ALL to describe what the word 'eternal' just posits. And, LOL, this was AFTER I HAD ALREADY PROVIDED A definition and thus KNOWLEDGE of what the word 'eternal' MEANS, and/or POSITS.

This one here is DEAF and BLIND, here, as one COULD BE. But, AGAIN, this is JUST BECAUSE of its 'currently' HELD ONTO BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS, here.

Saying and claiming that, 'BOTH 'it', and 'some view', which supposedly denies 'it', are supposedly irrefutable', WAS, and IS, completely and utterly LOST WITH 'me', here.

Yet again, I very much noticed.

And, what WILL BECOME ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS, for others AS WELL, IS THE FACT THAT you have NOT YET NOTICED HOW Truly ABSURD and ILLOGICAL your CLAIM and OPINION IS, here.

Also, because the so-called 'big bang' is just another natural part of the Universe continually creating Itself, always, through evolution, the big bang is 'meaningful', to me, from 'this perspective', only.

Gotcha. This pretty much answers my question, thanks.

GREAT. Now that 'that' has been resolved, let 'us' MOVE ALONG, here.

But, FIRSTLY, in what WAY do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that 'you' GOT 'me', EXACTLY?

But the idea that matter, and 'we' do not yet know how much of matter, was 'infinitely compressed into one singular piece of matter

No, that's not an accurate description of the big bang to which physicists refer.

What, EXACTLY, is, supposedly, NOT 'an accurate description of the big bang to which so-called "physicists" refer?

Also, let 'us' NOT FORGET that what the so-called "experts" referred to as the 'accurate description' turned out to be the EXACT OPPOSITE, AS WELL

LOL This one KEEPS FORGETTING this IRREFUTABLE Fact.

Furthermore, WHO CARES what the 'accurate description', by just some group of "followers", even is, especially WHEN 'that group of human beings' do NOT even KNOW what the 'accurate description' EVEN IS?

LOL This one speaks as though 'the description' by 'that group of people' IS the ONLY IRREFUTABLE ONE.

LOL 'That description' is NOT even CLOSE to BEING True, and Right.

Compressed, yes. One piece, matter, both no.

What does, 'one piece, matter, both no' EVEN MEAN, EXACTLY?

Small size, came from nothing?

WHY are you saying some RANDOM thing, here, and then putting a question mark at the end of it?

The theory suggests none of that.

1. The theory suggest NONE of 'what', EXACTLY?

2. WHO CARES what A 'theory' suggests? It is like this one KEEPS FORGETTING that A 'theory' does NOT necessarily HAVE TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL to DO WITH what IS ACTUALLY True, and Right.

3. By the way, were you AWARE that 'that theory' IS Wrong?

And no, it is not an observed occurrence.

What, EXACTLY, is, supposedly, NOT a so-called 'observed occurrence'?

This one speaks and writes like "iwannaplato" DOES. That is; it just ALLUDES TO things, INSTEAD OF BEING ACTUALLY CLEAR and PRECISE.

But, this is what just BECOMES HABIT from NOT ACTUALLY KNOWING what one is ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT, and WHEN 'TRYING TO' DECEIVE others INTO BELIEVING that 'they' DO KNOW. But, as MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ASKED here 'they' PROVE that "noax", like "iwannaplato" can NOT back up, support, NOR prove just about ALL of what they say and claim, which I CHALLENGE and QUESTION them ON.

It is hidden behind an opaque wall.

Okay. If you SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'this' MUST BE TRUE, correct?

NOTICE HOW NONE OF WHAT this one SAID, here, in the one quote that it replied with, MAKES ANY ACTUAL SENSE. I BROKE 'that one quote' DOWN to SHOW and PROVE HOW "noax" will be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY UNABLE to CLARIFY, ELABORATE, JUSTIFY, NOR BACK UP AND SUPPORT.

In fact, 'infinitely compressed singular pieces of matter', or in other words 'singularity', is what is found at the 'end' of 'black holes', which 'one day' just end up 'expanding'.

Only one theory suggests black holes,

WHO CARES?

WHY are you SO FIXATED ON 'theories' OF ALL things? AGAIN, 'theories' are NOTHING MORE than JUST ASSUMPTIONS and/or GUESSES, ONLY.

LOL I have been talking ABOUT what ACTUALLY IS, what ACTUALLY EXISTS, what ACTUALLY HAPPENS, and what ACTUALLY OCCURS, and which are ALL NOT ABLE TO BE REFUTED AT ALL, by ANY one. And, ALL the WHILE this only LAUGHINGLY talks ABOUT 'theories', ONLY.

ONCE MORE for the VERY SLOW ones, here, I DO NOT DO 'theories'. Just like I DO NOT DO 'debates'.

and it doesn't suggest a piece of compressed matter inside it.

AGAIN, WHO CARES?

Matter is in fact pulled apart (opposite of compressed) as it falls inward, and this pulling apart is what kills you if you go there.

LOL Talk ABOUT PROVIDING VERY IMMATURE DESCRIPTIONS of things, here.

Black hole represent the end of time, not the beginning of it, but that's also a usage of 'time' against which you rant.

OBVIOUSLY this one HAS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY MISSED, just about EVERY thing, of what I was ACTUALLY SAYING and POINTING OUT, here.

Thank you for the extensive description following. You surprise me yet (and demonstrate my opinions to be wrong). You may not call it a model, but it's a model of sorts.

you, AGAIN, seem to HAVE MISSED what was ACTUALLY BEING SAID, and MEANT, here. But, this is NOT UNCOMMON.

LOL, and by the way, what is the 'it' word, here, referring to, EXACTLY?

You say the universe consists of matter and space only,

I do NOT recall saying this. Will you link 'us' to WHERE I, supposedly, SAID this?

What I RECALL SAYING is some thing similar to, the Universe consists, FUNDAMENTALLY, of 'matter' AND 'space', to which I might have ended with 'ONLY'.

but where does time fit into that?

This is ABSOLUTELY VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE TO EXPLAIN, and TO UNDERSTAND, AS WELL. But, and OBVIOUSLY, I will NEED TO KNOW what you MEAN by 'time', here, EXACTLY, FIRST.

And, just so you ARE AWARE 'time' FITS INTO what I SAY and ASSERT ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY.

Does it not exist, or is it made of matter and space?

What is referred to as 'time', exists.

And, because 'matter', itself, exists FOREVER

They seem to destroy matter at will.

LOL Who, SUPPOSEDLY, destroys matter, at will?

The sun for instance destroys over 4 million tons of matter per second.

LOL
LOL
LOL

It's gone.

WHERE, EXACTLY?

Matter can also be created,

From WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?

but I have a hard time thinking of a current example of that happening at a large scale.

WHY might this be, EXACTLY?

Your description suggests a cycle to the bangs, but distant matter is accelerating away and shows no sign of ever coming back.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ANOTHER example of WHAT the Truly CLOSED, and BLIND, CAN NOT SEE.

How will it ever come back together to do another cycle?

you HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED what you are ACTUALLY 'looking at', AND, 'seeing'.

Do numbers exist?

WHY DO you ASK?

Do ghosts exist?

There is about AS MUCH RELEVANCE of me ASKING you this as there WAS to you ASKING YOUR QUESTION, to me, in RELATION to what I have ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT.

There is a teleological argument for the existence of an intelligent designer/creator of the universe.

WHO CARES?

ONCE AGAIN, if ANY argument is NOT sound AND valid, then 'it' is NOT even worth REPEATING.

How would you counter their argument?

The Correct, True, AND Accurate version, of the sound AND valid version, of 'that argument', AGAIN, FITS IN, PERFECTLY, ANYWAY.

So, WHY do you WANT TO EVEN 'TRY TO' COUNTER what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True?

How is the apparent 'deliberate' tuning of the various fundamental constants explained in your opinion?

SEE HOW this one just ALLUDES, and IS just NOT CLEAR, CONCISE, and PRECISE?

LOL WHERE and WHAT is some, SUPPOSED and ALLEGED, 'apparent 'deliberate' turning' of SOME 'things', EXACTLY?

And, WHAT even ARE the so-called 'various fundamental constants', which were, supposedly, 'explained in my opinion'?

And WHAT IS 'my, SUPPOSED, opinion' here, EXACTLY, anyway?

LOL NOT that you would EVER even 'try to' CLARIFY what 'my opinion' even is, to you, exactly, but if you ever DID TRY you would be ABSOLUTELY Wrong, anyway.

But, BECAUSE you do NOT have the COURAGE, NOR eve the ABILITY, to just START 'trying to' CLARIFY, here, I will NEVER get A CHANCE to PROVE you ABSOLUTELY Wrong, ONCE MORE.

This question was relevant to your definition of 'universe', which would include the designer.

OBVIOUSLY.

Anyway, you MUST BELIEVE that there IS A 'Designer'.

So, now that 'we' KNOW your BELIEF, here, 'we' can CARRY ON, here, with THIS VIEW and BELIEF of YOURS, here.

Also NOTICED in this another ATTEMPT OF YOURS TO DEFLECT you have 'TRIED TO' CLAIM that it was, LAUGHINGLY, so-called 'relevant'.

This one just can NOT counter NOR refute 'my claim' so it WILL 'try' ALL SORTS OF 'things' to DEFLECT what I have CLAIMED, here, and to DETRACT FROM its COMPLETE and UTTER INABILITY TO COUNTER and REFUTE what can NOT BE COUNTERED, NOR REFUTED.

If you REALLY WANT to BELIEVE, and CLAIM, that 'the Universe being infinite and eternal' CAN BE 'argued against', soundly AND validly', then PLEASE by ALL MEANS go AHEAD and SHOW 'us' readers HOW this CAN BE DONE.

The alternative is spacetime with slight but nonzero positive curvature. I can picture this for a 3D spatial universe, but not for a 4D spacetime model where a minimum curvature would be required, one large enough to have been measured. So I don't buy it.

LOL This one just about could NOT have just PROVED "itself" to be MORE STUPID nor MORE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ABSOLUTELY LOST, here.

LOL This one, ONCE AGAIN, talks ABOUT what are, ONLY, 'ALTERNATIVES' to 'THEORIES', ONLY.

AGAIN, this one is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY LOST and CONFUSED, here.

So, and according to your OWN so-called 'logic', here, if there are 'valid views', in contradiction, to say, 'The sun does not revolve around the earth', then 'we' will NEVER have access to the way things ACTUALLY ARE.

Correct, yes.

LOL What an ABSOLUTE IDIOT.

It appears that this one is NOT YET AWARE that in the days when this is being written that human beings had ALREADY BECOME AWARE that the sun ACTUALLY DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH.

But, as I have ALREADY SHOWN, POINTED OUT, and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True 'the way' ones like this one 'look at' AND 'see' things is WHY they could NOT SEE what the ACTUAL Truth of things is, EXACTLY, and WHY they took SO LONG TO SEE.

This one, STILL, is NOT YET AWARE that there are NO ACTUAL 'valid views', which could be IN CONTRADICTION what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

LOL Just because 'a view' MIGHT APPEAR TO BE A 'valid view' does NOT mean that 'it' ACTUALLY IS. And, AGAIN, just because there MIGHT APPEAR TO BE A 'valid view', IN CONTRADICTION to 'another view', then this will NEVER EVER MEAN that you human beings WILL NEVER EVER have ACCESS to 'the way' things ACTUALLY ARE.

One could just claim that 'my view' of seeing and observing 'the sun rise, and, set every day' is a 'valid view'.

Claiming it to be valid is not what makes it valid.

LOL ACCORDING TO you, the one who CLAIMS it is valid for a Truly ILLOGICAL reason.

And, well according to "noax logic" anyway, is 'in contradiction' of another's view, and/or claim, that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun

The Earth revolving around the sun doesn't explain apparent daily sunrise and sunset.

Are you REALLY this FAR BEHIND?

The former happens once a year, not once a day.

ONCE AGAIN 'this' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do WITH what I POINTED OUT and SHOWED, here.

And, LOL what you say happens once a day, does not even happen.

AGAIN, you REALLY ARE SO VERY FAR BEHIND, here. And, 'the way' you are 'going and traveling here, you are NEVER going to CATCH UP.

I have NEVER 'shouted' ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE thought-out this WHOLE forum.

Words in caps is considered to be the equivalent of shouting.

LOL ONCE AGAIN this one has just PROVED how ABSOLUTELY UTTERLY CLOSED it REALLY IS.

AGAIN, what you have heard, seen, and considered is NOT necessarily what IS True, Right, Accurate, NOR Correct.

ALSO, and ONCE MORE, what 'you consider', to be, is NOT necessarily 'considered', to be, by ALL, AT ALL.

But, then again, you MIGHT WELL BELIEVE that 'what you consider to be' is what HAS TO BE 'considered' THE SAME TO and WITH ALL others. Which, AGAIN, is just another example of the 'ego', here, in its PUREST FORM.

It's considered impolite

WOW Just like "iwannaplato" EXPECTING 'others' to SEE and DO what it SEES and DOES.

But, AGAIN, 'the ego' SPRINGS UP a LOT throughout this forum.

Of course you've not literally shouted since there's no audio feed on this site.

LOL, ONCE MORE, NOT A SHRED of CLARIFICATION SOUGHT OUT, and INSTEAD JUST ANOTHER ASSUMPTION MADE, IN REPLACE.

Just so you become FULLY AWARE I do NOT do ANY 'isms', and this is BECAUSE of WHERE the very things come from, exactly.

Then you're missing out on some obvious examples of the things you're asking for.

BUT I AM NOT MISSING OUT ON ANY ACTUAL EXAMPLES, here. Unless, OF COURSE, you are NOT PROVIDING them.

And, AGAIN, BECAUSE this one NEVER BEGAN to just even think ABOUT to SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION it just MADE UP ANOTHER False AND Wrong ASSUMPTION.

So, If, and WHEN, absolutely ANY one would like to ACTUALLY PRESENT 'the ACTUAL view/s'

What is meant by 'the actual views'?

The 'ACTUAL view' that one is HAVING.

Like, for example, I WANT TO HEAR and SEE 'your ACTUAL VIEW', or DEFINITION that you USE, for the words you USE here.

I do NOT WANT TO SEE and HEAR just the word 'eternalism', for example, and BE EXPECTED to just KNOW what your OWN ACTUAL PERSONAL VIEW IS, EXACTLY.

It makes it sound like 'the view that is correct',

Okay, but it is NOT 'that ASSUMPTION', which you having and making up, here.

but there is no access to what is correct,

Besides the Fact that 'this' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING, and SO is just your OWN MADE UP ASSUMPTION, which has LED you DOWN this ANOTHER Wrong, and Incorrect, PATH, the CLAIM that 'There is ABSOLUTELY NO ACCESS, AT ALL, to 'what is correct' is BASED UPON 'what', EXACTLY?

so there is but opinion.

And, what 'you' have just PRESENTED here, FOR 'us', is YOUR OWN OPINION, of which you could NEVER EVER back up AND support.

However, what can be BACKED UP and SUPPORT WITH IRREFUTABLE PROOF is that 'There ACTUALLY IS access to 'what IS Correct'.

But, while you CONTINUE TO BELIEVE, otherwise, you WILL NEVER BE OPEN nor CURIOS to FIND OUT and SEE the IRREFUTABLE PROOF, and thus NOR HOW 'this' IS AN IRREFUTABLE Fact. Thus, while you continue to HAVE and MAINTAIN 'your own personal BELIEF, here, you WILL NEVER LEARN the PROCESS, nor the HOW-TO, of HOW to ACCESS 'what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY Correct, Accurate, Right, and True, in Life.

I cannot explain my opinion to you. A sufficient education is a prerequisite for that.

And, just like "iwannaplato" and others here 'the ego' RAISES its 'UGLY HEAD', as some might say, with ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT CONDESCENSION.

LOL This one CAN NOT EXPLAIN 'its opinion', here, to ANY one BECAUSE 'its opinion', here, IS UNTRUE, ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, and just plain old ABSURD.

the size of a part of some thing can increase, but the thing, itself, will supposedly NOT increase. Which, OBVIOUSLY, means that 'another part' of 'the thing', itself, MUST decrease.

This logic only is applicable to a thing with a finite size.

I KNOW, and that IS WHY I POINTED IT OUT and PRESENTED WHAT I SAID, here.

Which, by the way, and OBVIOUSLY FURTHER SHOWS and PROVES that the Universe, Itself, is INFINITE, in size.

But, and let 'us' NOT FORGET some people who COULD NOT FATHOM, NOR COMPREHEND, 'INFINITY', ITSELF.

Also, WHO has a supposed 'view' where the Universe, Itself, does not have a so-called 'meaningful size'?

You have expressed such a view.

LOL What ANOTHER Truly IMBECILIC PRESUMPTION you HAVE, here.

ONCE AGAIN, I REALLY DO SUGGEST that you SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUALLY CLARITY and CLARIFICATION, BEFORE you GO OFF MAKING UP these Truly INSANE ASSUMPTIONS that you KEEP MAKING UP, here.

That way you WILL NOT BE AS Wrong, AS OFTEN AS you ARE, here.