The Infinite Universe

[Sculptor1]

It took me a long time to fully understand the Universe, largely because there is so much flawed information in the Scientific community.

Do not use an excuse for why 'you' took so long.

It took you as long as it took, that is it.

No.
The information has been limited to observations. But science has always attempted to offer interpretations of the evidence that "saves the appearances". As more and better evidence has grown so too have the interpretations to build various cosmologies that respect the growth of physics through the centuries

And this offering interpretations, or theories, and then further verifying, confirming, and/or falsifying what are essentially just assumptions and guesses anyway, with further experiments and measurements taken, and so on and so on and is why these matters take so long to ever reach a conclusion and come to an end, if they ever do.

Yeah, of course science is "flawed" but you know better than people that have dedicated their entire lives to the various issues.
ROLF

People have been known to dedicate their entire lives to various issues, but achieve absolutely nothing at all really.

What I said is completely accurate - The Scientific Community worships Einstein like a God - Einstein was a science fiction theorist. He didn't understand space, time, or gravity.

It is not that Einstein did not understand those things. Einstein just understood those things as best he could, at that time, which was probably a little bit better and more, than most people did, if not all people, at that time. Of course there was more to discover, learn, and understand.

In comparison, each generation only knows a fraction of what the next one will discover and learn. So what Einstein knew or thought he knew could be said to be ahead of that time.

Just like you gater I am pretty sure you have a lot more to discover, learn, and understand about the Universe, Itself, or do you really believe that you have learned it all?

If it is the later, then you really do have a lot more to discover, learn, and understand. Not just about the Universe, Itself, but also about you, and your self.

Time is a constant, gravity has no effect on time.

Is it possible that there is not even an actual thing as time, itself, for it to be a constant?

Could time just be a word only, which is used to describe the action of measuring changes in the Universe, and to describe the difference in the those changes so that human beings know where and when to go to 'after' or 'next', or where and when they were 'before', for example?

Is it possible that it is not time that is a constant, but it is motion, or change, which is what is actually constant?

If you are going to say that it is time that is a constant, then you had better explain what time is exactly then.

And how do you know that I haven't dedicated my life to understanding the Universe?

I would hope you did not. It certainly does not take that long to understand the Universe, Itself.

Also, remember, what you have learned and know now, if it is true and correct, which you may or may not have took a long time to understand, could be taught in a classroom to 10 years in the future in a few days, if not a few hours.

Do you imagine that they are also going to be stupid and childish enough as you are to say things like; The people in those days, of when this is being written, did not understand space, time, or gravity? Or, will they be a bit more knowledgeable and have a bit more understanding, than you have shown here, and just know and accept that "those" people, like "them", are ALL just like children in Life, discovering, learning, and understanding new and more things all of the time along the way?

You simple haven't got a leg to stand on.

[Atla]

Universe has 'always' been there - logical.
Infinite universe keeps changing - illogical.

Why illogical?

A constantly infinite changing Universe makes perfect logical sense to me.

In fact describing the Universe any other way has not even been logically done yet. Unless you are going to do it for us, atla?

You say that an infinite Universe that keep changing is illogical, which infers that you know why this is illogical or why some other way is logical. So, do you actually have any thing to back up your claim here?

Insisting on absolute space and time - refuted, all experiments confirm Einstein.

Einstein was not an absolutely imperfect human being who did not make mistakes. So, when you stop worshiping Einstein like God, Itself, then you will start to wake up and see things differently.

What Einstein was meaning, or was meant to mean, or maybe had missed, is not even yet fully understood. Once that is, then the experiments will change, and then the infinite and eternal Universe will be verified as being true. Although experiments will not be needed because just a sound and valid argument could show how an infinite and eternal Universe is true, and a sound and valid argument is irrefutable.

1/3

A better guess would be that some parts of our finite universe are retracting (with time flowing backwards there).

Assuming and/or believing that the Universe is finite, does not mean that It is.

Do you have any actual real prove that the Universe is finite?

Better still are you even able to explain, logically and reasonably, just how the Universe could even be finite?

If you are able to, then go ahead.

You made the claim, now let us see you show the evidence, which backs up your claim.

Or is that belief from the bible, "In the beginning", still stuck in that head. That sad misinterpreted belief has past down from scientists to scientists, for centuries upon centuries now, with them still doing all they can to confirm that the Universe had a "beginning", and is thus finite, just to satisfy their already obtained distorted beliefs that the Universe actually did 'begin".

If we use the old meaning of universe (= all there is), then yes it should be infinite.
As for everything else, you haven't got a clue.

[gater]

To understand the Universe, you must understand the true nature of time, space, and matter. The Scientific Community does not - they are under the false belief that time can slow and stop, and that space expands. They also believe that the Universe had a beginning - it didn't.
The Universe has always been here.

[creation]

Do not use an excuse for why 'you' took so long.

It took you as long as it took, that is it.



And this offering interpretations, or theories, and then further verifying, confirming, and/or falsifying what are essentially just assumptions and guesses anyway, with further experiments and measurements taken, and so on and so on and is why these matters take so long to ever reach a conclusion and come to an end, if they ever do.



People have been known to dedicate their entire lives to various issues, but achieve absolutely nothing at all really.



It is not that Einstein did not understand those things. Einstein just understood those things as best he could, at that time, which was probably a little bit better and more, than most people did, if not all people, at that time. Of course there was more to discover, learn, and understand.

In comparison, each generation only knows a fraction of what the next one will discover and learn. So what Einstein knew or thought he knew could be said to be ahead of that time.

Just like you gater I am pretty sure you have a lot more to discover, learn, and understand about the Universe, Itself, or do you really believe that you have learned it all?

If it is the later, then you really do have a lot more to discover, learn, and understand. Not just about the Universe, Itself, but also about you, and your self.



Is it possible that there is not even an actual thing as time, itself, for it to be a constant?

Could time just be a word only, which is used to describe the action of measuring changes in the Universe, and to describe the difference in the those changes so that human beings know where and when to go to 'after' or 'next', or where and when they were 'before', for example?

Is it possible that it is not time that is a constant, but it is motion, or change, which is what is actually constant?

If you are going to say that it is time that is a constant, then you had better explain what time is exactly then.



I would hope you did not. It certainly does not take that long to understand the Universe, Itself.

Also, remember, what you have learned and know now, if it is true and correct, which you may or may not have took a long time to understand, could be taught in a classroom to 10 years in the future in a few days, if not a few hours.

Do you imagine that they are also going to be stupid and childish enough as you are to say things like; The people in those days, of when this is being written, did not understand space, time, or gravity? Or, will they be a bit more knowledgeable and have a bit more understanding, than you have shown here, and just know and accept that "those" people, like "them", are ALL just like children in Life, discovering, learning, and understanding new and more things all of the time along the way?

You simple haven't got a leg to stand on.

Did you mean 'simply', instead of 'simple'?

And what exactly is 'it', which you propose I have not got a leg to stand on.

Instead of making a claim of no actual substance, why do you not put forward at least something, and then we will be able to see if I do actually have a leg to stand on, or, see if you are actually right and I do not. Until then what you are showing here is literally nothing at all.

[creation]

Why illogical?

A constantly infinite changing Universe makes perfect logical sense to me.

In fact describing the Universe any other way has not even been logically done yet. Unless you are going to do it for us, atla?

You say that an infinite Universe that keep changing is illogical, which infers that you know why this is illogical or why some other way is logical. So, do you actually have any thing to back up your claim here?



Einstein was not an absolutely imperfect human being who did not make mistakes. So, when you stop worshiping Einstein like God, Itself, then you will start to wake up and see things differently.

What Einstein was meaning, or was meant to mean, or maybe had missed, is not even yet fully understood. Once that is, then the experiments will change, and then the infinite and eternal Universe will be verified as being true. Although experiments will not be needed because just a sound and valid argument could show how an infinite and eternal Universe is true, and a sound and valid argument is irrefutable.



Assuming and/or believing that the Universe is finite, does not mean that It is.

Do you have any actual real prove that the Universe is finite?

Better still are you even able to explain, logically and reasonably, just how the Universe could even be finite?

If you are able to, then go ahead.

You made the claim, now let us see you show the evidence, which backs up your claim.

Or is that belief from the bible, "In the beginning", still stuck in that head. That sad misinterpreted belief has past down from scientists to scientists, for centuries upon centuries now, with them still doing all they can to confirm that the Universe had a "beginning", and is thus finite, just to satisfy their already obtained distorted beliefs that the Universe actually did 'begin".

If we use the old meaning of universe (= all there is), then yes it should be infinite.

And with the same meaning of Universe, then It should also be eternal.

As for everything else, you haven't got a clue.

Another one who is trying to propose something, without ever actually showing, nor proving, anything at all.

What do you propose I have not got a clue about?

You are obviously proving that you are not even capable to even back up your own claims.

You appear to have not got a clue at all in regards to the actual eternal Universe.

[creation]

To understand the Universe, you must understand the true nature of time, space, and matter.

To make the claim: To understand the Universe, you must understand the true nature of time, space, and matter. infers or implies that you do actually understand the true nature of the Universe, and understand the true nature of time, space, and matter.

The Scientific Community does not - they are under the false belief that time can slow and stop, and that space expands. They also believe that the Universe had a beginning - it didn't.
The Universe has always been here.

Okay this part is already well understood, already well accepted, and already well known, by some of us.

But you also made the inference that you do understand the true nature of the Universe, and of time, space, and matter as well. Now, if you want to be taken seriously, then how about starting to tell us what the actual true nature of the Universe, what the true nature of time, the true nature of space, and the true nature of matter actually is.

Then we will be able to see if what you know is right and correct, or not.

Surely if you are going to make claims, such as you have here, then surely you are able to substantiate them, correct?

[gater]

Sure - I thought I had.
Time is a constant, it never slows or stops. Nothing effects Time. Gravity has no effect on time - the Scientific Community thinks it does based on Einsteins theories, but this is where they fail - they don't understand time, and their beliefs are based on a flawed theory.
Every point of the Universe experiences the same time, the same now - that is the true nature of time.
The true nature of space is area without matter that extends forever.
Matter, like space, extends forever. Matter has been forming and reforming forever. Gravity is created by matter and only effects other matter.
The Universe has always been here, and always will be - that is the nature of the Universe.

[creation]

Sure - I thought I had.
Time is a constant, it never slows or stops. Nothing effects Time.

But what exactly is 'time', which is a constant?

What is this thing, which never slows, never stops, and is not affected by anything?

Gravity has no effect on time -

Well considering you just said 'nothing' effects time, I do not see any need at all to now say that 'gravity' has no effect on time also. If nothing effect time, then that is all that needs to be said.

the Scientific Community thinks it does based on Einsteins theories, but this is where they fail - they don't understand time, and their beliefs are based on a flawed theory.

I have seen you write this once or twice before.

Did you not read where I wrote: Okay this part is already well understood, already well accepted, and already well known, by some of us?

Also, theories are just that - a theory. A 'theory' does not purport to know the actual truth of what really takes place. Theories are just an assumption or a guess of what happens or occurs.

So, theories cannot be flawed as such, but obviously people can do experiments and read results, incorrectly, which then makes it appear as though a theory is being more verified as being correct, and then some people actually start believing the theory, assumption or guess, is right and correct.

Every point of the Universe experiences the same time, the same now - that is the true nature of time.

Are you saying the true nature of time is now, as in there is no other moment other than an eternal now?

If no, then what are you saying is the true nature of time, exactly?

However, if you are saying that the true nature of time is the eternal now, then I am still curious as to what is 'time', which is the constant-eternal now? What is 'it', which is in a constant-now?

By the way, if time is only a constant now, then there could only be One point of the Universe, which experiences the eternal now.

The true nature of space is area without matter that extends forever.

Well this obviously appears rather illogical, as an area without matter cannot extend forever, because there is matter.

The Universe could not exist, the way it is without matter, so there is obviously no area without matter where space extends forever.

Because there is matter, there could not be a space extending forever.

Matter, like space, extends forever.

This is obviously appearing even more illogical. How could it be possible that two opposing things, like; matter and space, could now both extend forever. For one to extend forever the other could not exist, and vice-versa.

Obviously both of them exist, so how could you better write the above, and write it logically this time?

By the way it is not hard at all.

Matter has been forming and reforming forever.

The word 'reforming' implies that something is forming back into its original self. What are the chances of the Universe ever reforming back to how it once was originally before?

Could just saying, 'matter is forming (or changing) forever', still mean the exact same thing as what you are trying to say here?

Gravity is created by matter and only effects other matter.

Okay.

The Universe has always been here, and always will be - that is the nature of the Universe.

Saying the Universe has always been here, and always will be, implies or infers that there was a past and a future, which contradicts your wording above, 'the same now'.

Obviously there cannot be 'different nows', like in the past nor in the future, if there is only the 'same now'.

Also, is just being here really the nature of the Universe. I would suggest that when you understand why the Universe is here, then you will better understand and know the true nature of the Universe. But you appear to still have some more to learn and understand yet.

By the way, if you want to make the claim that others do not understand things, like time, then it would be much better if you could explain things exactly as they are, like you actually truly and fully understood them yourself, and not explain them as how you believe they are.

[Atla]

If we use the old meaning of universe (= all there is), then yes it should be infinite.

And with the same meaning of Universe, then It should also be eternal.

As for everything else, you haven't got a clue.

Another one who is trying to propose something, without ever actually showing, nor proving, anything at all.

What do you propose I have not got a clue about?

You are obviously proving that you are not even capable to even back up your own claims.

You appear to have not got a clue at all in regards to the actual eternal Universe.

Yes the universe 'should' be eternal, probably.
And that's where you've already shown your complate ignorance about this topic as well, about the problem how one can reconcile Einsteinian temporality with the eternal universe. You aren't even aware of the problems being discussed, as I said, you haven't got a clue. Why don't you take a few years to get up-to-date with the current knowledge of humanity.

[creation]

Another one who is trying to propose something, without ever actually showing, nor proving, anything at all.

What do you propose I have not got a clue about?

You are obviously proving that you are not even capable to even back up your own claims.

You appear to have not got a clue at all in regards to the actual eternal Universe.

Yes the universe 'should' be eternal, probably.

Yet the science still says that time began at the big bang.

One day you will catch up and work out that, contrary to your belief, the Universe is eternal and infinite.

And that's where you've already shown your complate ignorance about this topic as well, about the problem how one can reconcile Einsteinian temporality with the eternal universe.

It has already been reconciled.

If you are not yet aware of how that so called "problem" was reconciled, then what have you been looking at studying?

You aren't even aware of the problems being discussed, as I said, you haven't got a clue.

Those so called problems have already been resolved. Are you not yet aware of this fact?

You can keep looking at perceived "problems" for as long as you want, but considering they have already been solved, then what is your purpose for doing so?

Why don't you take a few years to get up-to-date with the current knowledge of humanity.

Well considering parts of what you call "current knowledge" is so out-of-date and completely incorrect, why would anyone want to go backwards to what you call "up-to-date"?

I can see you obviously cannot over that old wrong knowledge, which you laughingly consider current, and that you cannot keep up with the right and correctly knowledge, which exists now.

[Atla]

Yes the universe 'should' be eternal, probably.

Yet the science still says that time began at the big bang.

One day you will catch up and work out that, contrary to your belief, the Universe is eternal and infinite.

And that's where you've already shown your complate ignorance about this topic as well, about the problem how one can reconcile Einsteinian temporality with the eternal universe.

It has already been reconciled.

If you are not yet aware of how that so called "problem" was reconciled, then what have you been looking at studying?

You aren't even aware of the problems being discussed, as I said, you haven't got a clue.

Those so called problems have already been resolved. Are you not yet aware of this fact?

You can keep looking at perceived "problems" for as long as you want, but considering they have already been solved, then what is your purpose for doing so?

Why don't you take a few years to get up-to-date with the current knowledge of humanity.

Well considering parts of what you call "current knowledge" is so out-of-date and completely incorrect, why would anyone want to go backwards to what you call "up-to-date"?

I can see you obviously cannot over that old wrong knowledge, which you laughingly consider current, and that you cannot keep up with the right and correctly knowledge, which exists now.

Okay then explain to us how Relativity was refuted.

[Atla]

One day you will catch up and work out that, contrary to your belief, the Universe is eternal and infinite.

I said many times that I think the universe (using the old meaning of the word) is probably eternal and infinite, logically it 'should be'. Again you have no clue.

[creation]

One day you will catch up and work out that, contrary to your belief, the Universe is eternal and infinite.

I said many times that I think the universe (using the old meaning of the word) is probably eternal and infinite, logically it 'should be'. Again you have no clue.

What do you mean I have no clue, no clue about what exactly?

I know you have now changed your position, and so now you think the Universe is probably eternal and infinite, and you have now come to realize that logically it 'should be', but this is because you are starting to slowly catch on, and catch up with and to the current true, right, and correct knowledge, which I have been saying for a while now. You, however, are still slowly learning how to disregard your belief that the Universe is finite, without looking foolish, just like those who believed so strongly that the sun revolved around the earth could only ever so slowly let go of their belief, without looking so foolish for believing so strongly what was all along so obvious wrong and incorrect.

[creation]

Yet the science still says that time began at the big bang.

One day you will catch up and work out that, contrary to your belief, the Universe is eternal and infinite.



It has already been reconciled.

If you are not yet aware of how that so called "problem" was reconciled, then what have you been looking at studying?



Those so called problems have already been resolved. Are you not yet aware of this fact?

You can keep looking at perceived "problems" for as long as you want, but considering they have already been solved, then what is your purpose for doing so?



Well considering parts of what you call "current knowledge" is so out-of-date and completely incorrect, why would anyone want to go backwards to what you call "up-to-date"?

I can see you obviously cannot over that old wrong knowledge, which you laughingly consider current, and that you cannot keep up with the right and correctly knowledge, which exists now.

Okay then explain to us how Relativity was refuted.

The Universe is infinite and eternal, just like the earth revolves around the sun, whatever opposes them is refuted.

Obviously, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, but because time and space are not physical things, then, no matter how fast an observer is traveling nor is away from another has no bearing on the actual ageing of any thing. The speed an observer travels just affects what 'appears' to occur, and not what 'actually' occurs.

Since absolutely every thing is relative, even what 'appears' depends on the observer, itself, but what is also obvious is what 'appears' to be the true is not necessarily actually true.

Space and time have absolutely no substance so can have absolutely no effect on physical things.

Since you have not provided any thing for what relativity is, to you, then I cannot refute what you do not share.

If, however, you want more detail and more explanations, or just want to learn more and anew, then just challenge and question me on absolutely any thing you like.

[Atla]

What do you mean I have no clue, no clue about what exactly?

I know you have now changed your position, and so now you think the Universe is probably eternal and infinite, and you have now come to realize that logically it 'should be', but this is because you are starting to slowly catch on, and catch up with and to the current true, right, and correct knowledge, which I have been saying for a while now. You, however, are still slowly learning how to disregard your belief that the Universe is finite, without looking foolish, just like those who believed so strongly that the sun revolved around the earth could only ever so slowly let go of their belief, without looking so foolish for believing so strongly what was all along so obvious wrong and incorrect.

I've been thinking it for like 20 years, stop lying already. Also, you could start by learning what the two main different meanings of 'universe' are nowadays.

The Universe is infinite and eternal, just like the earth revolves around the sun, whatever opposes them is refuted.

Obviously, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, but because time and space are not physical things, then, no matter how fast an observer is traveling nor is away from another has no bearing on the actual ageing of any thing. The speed an observer travels just affects what 'appears' to occur, and not what 'actually' occurs.

Since absolutely every thing is relative, even what 'appears' depends on the observer, itself, but what is also obvious is what 'appears' to be the true is not necessarily actually true.

Space and time have absolutely no substance so can have absolutely no effect on physical things.

Since you have not provided any thing for what relativity is, to you, then I cannot refute what you do not share.

If, however, you want more detail and more explanations, or just want to learn more and anew, then just challenge and question me on absolutely any thing you like.

Einsteinian spacetime is 'physical', and what you believe was directly refuted in every experiment ever conducted. And I don't have to share what's common knowledge to anyone except you. You don't have a clue.