How did spirituality, belief in God and the continuing search for God change you?

[thedoc]

Also the topic nonduality which is my definition for the word God ...is not easy to write about because it is paradoxical and contradicts itself and is therefore very time consuming and hard to convey.

But I want to do it, it is my life's quest to do this, I'm doing this for myself, so that I can be of better service to the world.

Nonduality sounds very Buddhist, and would probably be more easily understood by someone who has some understanding of Buddhism.

Many times I will write something to see if I can clearly express my ideas. If others agree or do not respond I assume that I was clear enough, if the disagree and pose a counter argument, I will consider it and either clarify what I was saying or change my own ideas.

[Dontaskme]

Also the topic nonduality which is my definition for the word God ...is not easy to write about because it is paradoxical and contradicts itself and is therefore very time consuming and hard to convey.

But I want to do it, it is my life's quest to do this, I'm doing this for myself, so that I can be of better service to the world.

Nonduality sounds very Buddhist, and would probably be more easily understood by someone who has some understanding of Buddhism.

All beliefs systems including the belief of separate ego are rooted in Nondual philosophy.
Nonduality is not a theory, religion or belief system, it is that which does away with all such ideas.

Many times I will write something to see if I can clearly express my ideas. If others agree or do not respond I assume that I was clear enough, if the disagree and pose a counter argument, I will consider it and either clarify what I was saying or change my own ideas.

Me too.

[Dontaskme]

Because you still haven't tried to find out about how expansion works, how space itself is expanding, how the universe is finite and expanding etc.you just claim it is not possible. In which case you reject the big bang theory.you talk of time before time existed. Till you figure out these things which are very counterintuitive you won't know what I am talking about.you can't reject it and say it's not possible if you want to learn.

How can space expand? please explain.

[thedoc]

Because you still haven't tried to find out about how expansion works, how space itself is expanding, how the universe is finite and expanding etc.you just claim it is not possible. In which case you reject the big bang theory.you talk of time before time existed. Till you figure out these things which are very counterintuitive you won't know what I am talking about.you can't reject it and say it's not possible if you want to learn.

How can space expand? please explain.

The conventional theory is that space is elastic and is stretching and getting bigger. For myself, I don't like that Idea that space is elastic but prefer to believe that space is perfectly fluid but in-compressible, and is getting bigger because there is more of it. I have suggested that there are many places in the Universe where space, energy and matter are coming into existence and pushing the older space, energy and matter out ahead of it. This material in the form of galaxies then collects at the cusps between the places where new material is coming into existence, explaining the expansion, and the large scale structure of the Universe.

It is possible that someone will quote the law of thermodynamics that states that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, to refute this theory. But it must be remembered that the laws of thermodynamics were written when the Milky Way was believed to be the sum total of the Universe and the Universe was not known to be expanding, both of those concepts were discovered in the 1920's. The large scale structure of the Universe was discovered even later. The laws of thermodynamics do apply to a closed system, but it is not known that the Universe is a closed system.

[thedoc]

Also the topic nonduality which is my definition for the word God ...is not easy to write about because it is paradoxical and contradicts itself and is therefore very time consuming and hard to convey.

But I want to do it, it is my life's quest to do this, I'm doing this for myself, so that I can be of better service to the world.

Nonduality sounds very Buddhist, and would probably be more easily understood by someone who has some understanding of Buddhism.

All beliefs systems including the belief of separate ego are rooted in Nondual philosophy.
Nonduality is not a theory, religion or belief system, it is that which does away with all such ideas.

I am familiar with the Buddhist use of the term nondualism, but my Lutheran pastor used the term, and I don't believe it was in the same sense. I just need to fine the opportunity to clarify that point with her. I'm sure that all systems use the term, but I'm not sure that each belief system uses the term in the same way.

[ken]

I never intended to call the big bang an 'actual' explosion. Explosion is just a simple word I use. The word 'bang' seems to suggest a loud noise. The word 'big' seems to suggest the bang was a massive noise, like in a huge explosion. So the words 'big bang', in of themselves, seem to suggest an explosion also, for me anyway. What was the intent and purpose for using the words 'big bang'?

If the big bang was not in fact an explosion, but was in fact a quantum fluctuation, which caused singularity to rapidly expand, then at the point of quantum fluctuation in the big bang, with the "insane temperatures and pressures" and with the rate and speed of expansion, this, relative to anything a human has experienced previously, was like a massive 'explosion', for lack of a better word.

All the explosions I know of begin with 'temporary change in the amount of energy in a point', similar to what is sometimes referred to as a quantum fluctuation, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang), then that change in energy causes everything at that point to rapidly expand, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang), usually with a loud bang, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang). Some bangs are bigger than others, but all explosions act, and react very similar.

I do not challenge singularity rapidly expand in the big bang with subsequent inflation, creating the present-day universe.

What I do challenge however is the way some people suggest that just because they do not know what was happening prior to singularity, and do not know that what caused singularity, then the universe must of began, at singularity. I do not challenge the view that there was absolutely no time nor space AT singularity and I gave reasons why there could be no time nor space thus no events AT singularity. I do challenge however that that in of itself does not mean there was not time and space still going on, around singularity itself. I suggested and have explained what could have been happening before the big bang, with proof of the present day universe and black holes as evidence. I challenge the use of the word multiverses instead of using the One word universe, and explained why. I challenge people when they use words like "in the beginning" as though it is correct. What I challenge most is the way people think. I especially like to challenge that what people think, and thus challenge the words they write and speak, which then negatively affects the way they look at, and therefore see, things.

If people feel like they want and could challenge me, then challenge me on anything. I love the challenge and would love to be challenged on my view that the present-day universe is still the exact same universe that was in existence prior to the big bang. The more I get challenged on my words and views then the more I learn and improve.

Well, like I said, you need to read.

Read what exactly.

I have already implied that I am not really that enthusiastic about the minor details. I am not disagreeing with what is already out there and that I am only adding onto what is already known.

You still say that an explosion is like the big bang expansion.

I used the words, to me, and I used the word 'like', similar, not the exact same. In other words, "to me an explosion is similar but not the exact same as the big bang expansion". Is that clearer? If so, then as I said previously, "I love to be challenged" and "The more I get challenged on my words... ...then the more I learn and improve. So, thank you.

If anything I say, including the above, is still not clear, then please keep challenging me. I truly am loving and enjoying the challenge.

There are a lot of sites which explain the difference between and explosion and expansion. Explosion needs existing space. Here there was no space to explode into.

Who says there was no space?
At the end of a black hole there is singularity, right?
Black holes AND singularity exist NOW, right?
There is space existing NOW, right?

If space is the distance between matter, and if there appears to be no other matter, besides singularity, then there would appear to be no space, right?
However, we know that there is space and time because if there was no space and time there would be no universe and if there is no universe there would be no black holes, and if there are no black holes, then there would be no singularity. So even though there may appear to be no space there in fact actually always is.

Expansion is literally the space between things increasing such that the scale changes.

The scale of what exactly actually changes here?

If, as you say in your previous quote, there was no space for singularity to explode into, and now, in this quote you say 'the' space between things increases, then how do you propose space came into existence if space did not exist prior?

The objects dont move away from each other. The scale simply changes.

The scale of what exactly, again, simply changes?

The explanation of expansion is so counter intuitive that it takes a lot of re-reading to understand.

The explanation of expansion is so intuitive to me when looked at from a certain perspective, i.e., the open Mind.

As long as your premises are based on a wrong understanding of the big bang theory, which in itself is a misnomer and was used sarcastically by a physicist who never accepted the theory, there really is nothing to challenge.

What exactly is my supposed WRONG understanding of the big bang theory?
And, what are my premises that are based on a wrong understanding of the big bang theory?

It appears, from what you have written, that you have had a lot of trouble understanding the big bang theory. Do you have a fully understanding of the big bang theory now? If not, then could it be the case that what appears to you as "my" wrong understanding of the big bang theory actually not really be the case?

I really hope you can clear up "my" wrong understanding of the big bang theory for me.

You claim your theory begins where others left off. That Implies that you assume the big bang theory to be true. Since you seem to suggest that you are taking this forward, your theory would have to be consistent with the original model. That is where the problem is. Like I said, you need to re-read the theory.

I am not taking this forward. I am taking this backwards, beyond singularity, and then forwards again. I thought that was obvious. Just maybe you need to re-read what I have said exactly.

My view is NOT inconsistent at all with the, so called, "original" model. On that note, I wonder how much of the latest model of the big bang theory is EXACTLY the same as the original model is?

What is the problem exactly? In other words, what is the question you want to pose for a solution. I do not see any problem here anywhere.

Also you say, "That is where the problem is", whereabouts exactly? I just want to make sure I am understand you right. If were I think you say it is, again, my views are not (that much?) inconsistent with the general idea of A big bang.

Also you are arguing with the wrong person. We both seem to suggest the same thing. I have also said that whatever existed during singularity was in such a state that we cannot possibly intuit what it was.

I have already shown what 'I' intuit the state the universe was in, during singularity. I thought that was obvious. What you call "My Theory" is NOT interested at all in what existed during singularity, within singularity, what I am interested in is what was happening at singularity and what was before singularity, i.e., what caused/created singularity.

If you mean by 'arguing', disagreeing, then I am certainly NOT disagreeing with you. What do you mean by 'argue'? I think there never could be a 'wrong person' to 'argue', logically reason with EVER.

By the way what is the same thing that we both seem to be suggesting?

So we can only say that it was existence in another state.

That is what 'you' call it. I do not, so that is NOT what "we can only say". Please try not to think that others can not know more or have different knowledge from that what is written in the books you read only.

You seem to be suggesting a theory of what the existence really was.

'Is' would be a better word, but 'was' will do for now. Yes I am suggesting what the existence really was/is. That is, the exact same existence that exists now, i.e., the universe, just in another shape and form. Just to make it very, very clear.

Since your theory can neither be confirmed nor denied by anyone, including any physicist since it theorizes a situation beyond a point where the laws of science breakdown, it can only remain a theory for your satisfaction. It has no real relevance because it can never be proved to be true or false.

But "My theory" can be confirmed, or denied, by anyone.

If this is being read NOW, then there is an observer.
If there is an observer, then the existence of the universe is already proved true.
If the universe exists NOW, producing black holes and singularities, then there is confirmation. For any and every one.

If there is singularity at the end of a black hole, then it would be safe to say that the black hole helped in the creation of singularity.
Things from the universe that enter a black hole are re-formed and re-shaped through infinite density into singularity.

What happens to singularity at that time a black hole ends?
Where is singularity now?
What could have happened to singularity?

The answers to these questions we may not have, yet. The reason for why we do not know the answers, I have already supplied. But I will reiterate:

At singularity there is no space, without space there are no events, and without events measurements can not be made, so there is also no time. There can be no observer if there is no space/time continuum.

However, what we have observed and thus do know is:
Quantum fluctuations cause singularity to rapidly expand in, what is known as, "the" Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day universe.

And,

In the present-day universe, we can observe how singularity is created and what singularity is created from.

By looking back we can observe creation from singularity.
By looking forth we can also observe creation of singularity.

An observer can only truly observe in the HERE and NOW. But imagine, as an observer, looking infinitely, and not stopping at singularity. You circle the infinite universe, for lack of better wording, in the moment. You were pre-sent to end up here back in the present. Looking beyond singularity, back and forth, you will always end up HERE, in the NOW, back where and when you began looking. This end, however, (long), is just the beginning. If 'you' are reading this, then 'you' are an observer. Creation, Itself, in action, is observed in the HERE and NOW.

[Dontaskme]

The conventional theory is that space is elastic and is stretching and getting bigger. For myself, I don't like that Idea that space is elastic but prefer to believe that space is perfectly fluid but in-compressible, and is getting bigger because there is more of it. I have suggested that there are many places in the Universe where space, energy and matter are coming into existence and pushing the older space, energy and matter out ahead of it. This material in the form of galaxies then collects at the cusps between the places where new material is coming into existence, explaining the expansion, and the large scale structure of the Universe.

It is possible that someone will quote the law of thermodynamics that states that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, to refute this theory. But it must be remembered that the laws of thermodynamics were written when the Milky Way was believed to be the sum total of the Universe and the Universe was not known to be expanding, both of those concepts were discovered in the 1920's. The large scale structure of the Universe was discovered even later. The laws of thermodynamics do apply to a closed system, but it is not known that the Universe is a closed system.

We can only guess what's going on with space and matter.

If space is expanding, it sound pretty much like it would be a counter acting force against the universe collapsing in on itself.. kind of like it was breathing in and out.

What if a black hole is breathing in matter and exhaling it out through the opposite side that being the white hole....maybe?


“There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

Another theory suggests that our universe is located within the interior of a wormhole… which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe. The matter that black holes absorb don't condense into singularities, instead, they burst out the other side (of our universe?) and become the building blocks for whole other universes in another reality. In short, our Big Bang popped out of a black hole from another, much larger universe.

The plot thickens...

[sthitapragya]

I never intended to call the big bang an 'actual' explosion. Explosion is just a simple word I use. The word 'bang' seems to suggest a loud noise. The word 'big' seems to suggest the bang was a massive noise, like in a huge explosion. So the words 'big bang', in of themselves, seem to suggest an explosion also, for me anyway. What was the intent and purpose for using the words 'big bang'?

If the big bang was not in fact an explosion, but was in fact a quantum fluctuation, which caused singularity to rapidly expand, then at the point of quantum fluctuation in the big bang, with the "insane temperatures and pressures" and with the rate and speed of expansion, this, relative to anything a human has experienced previously, was like a massive 'explosion', for lack of a better word.

All the explosions I know of begin with 'temporary change in the amount of energy in a point', similar to what is sometimes referred to as a quantum fluctuation, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang), then that change in energy causes everything at that point to rapidly expand, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang), usually with a loud bang, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang). Some bangs are bigger than others, but all explosions act, and react very similar.

I do not challenge singularity rapidly expand in the big bang with subsequent inflation, creating the present-day universe.

What I do challenge however is the way some people suggest that just because they do not know what was happening prior to singularity, and do not know that what caused singularity, then the universe must of began, at singularity. I do not challenge the view that there was absolutely no time nor space AT singularity and I gave reasons why there could be no time nor space thus no events AT singularity. I do challenge however that that in of itself does not mean there was not time and space still going on, around singularity itself. I suggested and have explained what could have been happening before the big bang, with proof of the present day universe and black holes as evidence. I challenge the use of the word multiverses instead of using the One word universe, and explained why. I challenge people when they use words like "in the beginning" as though it is correct. What I challenge most is the way people think. I especially like to challenge that what people think, and thus challenge the words they write and speak, which then negatively affects the way they look at, and therefore see, things.

If people feel like they want and could challenge me, then challenge me on anything. I love the challenge and would love to be challenged on my view that the present-day universe is still the exact same universe that was in existence prior to the big bang. The more I get challenged on my words and views then the more I learn and improve.

Well, like I said, you need to read.

Read what exactly.

I have already implied that I am not really that enthusiastic about the minor details. I am not disagreeing with what is already out there and that I am only adding onto what is already known.

You still say that an explosion is like the big bang expansion.

I used the words, to me, and I used the word 'like', similar, not the exact same. In other words, "to me an explosion is similar but not the exact same as the big bang expansion". Is that clearer? If so, then as I said previously, "I love to be challenged" and "The more I get challenged on my words... ...then the more I learn and improve. So, thank you.

If anything I say, including the above, is still not clear, then please keep challenging me. I truly am loving and enjoying the challenge.

There are a lot of sites which explain the difference between and explosion and expansion. Explosion needs existing space. Here there was no space to explode into.

Who says there was no space?
At the end of a black hole there is singularity, right?
Black holes AND singularity exist NOW, right?
There is space existing NOW, right?

If space is the distance between matter, and if there appears to be no other matter, besides singularity, then there would appear to be no space, right?
However, we know that there is space and time because if there was no space and time there would be no universe and if there is no universe there would be no black holes, and if there are no black holes, then there would be no singularity. So even though there may appear to be no space there in fact actually always is.

Expansion is literally the space between things increasing such that the scale changes.

The scale of what exactly actually changes here?

If, as you say in your previous quote, there was no space for singularity to explode into, and now, in this quote you say 'the' space between things increases, then how do you propose space came into existence if space did not exist prior?

The objects dont move away from each other. The scale simply changes.

The scale of what exactly, again, simply changes?

The explanation of expansion is so counter intuitive that it takes a lot of re-reading to understand.

The explanation of expansion is so intuitive to me when looked at from a certain perspective, i.e., the open Mind.

As long as your premises are based on a wrong understanding of the big bang theory, which in itself is a misnomer and was used sarcastically by a physicist who never accepted the theory, there really is nothing to challenge.

What exactly is my supposed WRONG understanding of the big bang theory?
And, what are my premises that are based on a wrong understanding of the big bang theory?

It appears, from what you have written, that you have had a lot of trouble understanding the big bang theory. Do you have a fully understanding of the big bang theory now? If not, then could it be the case that what appears to you as "my" wrong understanding of the big bang theory actually not really be the case?

I really hope you can clear up "my" wrong understanding of the big bang theory for me.

You claim your theory begins where others left off. That Implies that you assume the big bang theory to be true. Since you seem to suggest that you are taking this forward, your theory would have to be consistent with the original model. That is where the problem is. Like I said, you need to re-read the theory.

I am not taking this forward. I am taking this backwards, beyond singularity, and then forwards again. I thought that was obvious. Just maybe you need to re-read what I have said exactly.

My view is NOT inconsistent at all with the, so called, "original" model. On that note, I wonder how much of the latest model of the big bang theory is EXACTLY the same as the original model is?

What is the problem exactly? In other words, what is the question you want to pose for a solution. I do not see any problem here anywhere.

Also you say, "That is where the problem is", whereabouts exactly? I just want to make sure I am understand you right. If were I think you say it is, again, my views are not (that much?) inconsistent with the general idea of A big bang.

Also you are arguing with the wrong person. We both seem to suggest the same thing. I have also said that whatever existed during singularity was in such a state that we cannot possibly intuit what it was.

I have already shown what 'I' intuit the state the universe was in, during singularity. I thought that was obvious. What you call "My Theory" is NOT interested at all in what existed during singularity, within singularity, what I am interested in is what was happening at singularity and what was before singularity, i.e., what caused/created singularity.

If you mean by 'arguing', disagreeing, then I am certainly NOT disagreeing with you. What do you mean by 'argue'? I think there never could be a 'wrong person' to 'argue', logically reason with EVER.

By the way what is the same thing that we both seem to be suggesting?

So we can only say that it was existence in another state.

That is what 'you' call it. I do not, so that is NOT what "we can only say". Please try not to think that others can not know more or have different knowledge from that what is written in the books you read only.

You seem to be suggesting a theory of what the existence really was.

'Is' would be a better word, but 'was' will do for now. Yes I am suggesting what the existence really was/is. That is, the exact same existence that exists now, i.e., the universe, just in another shape and form. Just to make it very, very clear.

Since your theory can neither be confirmed nor denied by anyone, including any physicist since it theorizes a situation beyond a point where the laws of science breakdown, it can only remain a theory for your satisfaction. It has no real relevance because it can never be proved to be true or false.

But "My theory" can be confirmed, or denied, by anyone.

If this is being read NOW, then there is an observer.
If there is an observer, then the existence of the universe is already proved true.
If the universe exists NOW, producing black holes and singularities, then there is confirmation. For any and every one.

If there is singularity at the end of a black hole, then it would be safe to say that the black hole helped in the creation of singularity.
Things from the universe that enter a black hole are re-formed and re-shaped through infinite density into singularity.

What happens to singularity at that time a black hole ends?
Where is singularity now?
What could have happened to singularity?

The answers to these questions we may not have, yet. The reason for why we do not know the answers, I have already supplied. But I will reiterate:

At singularity there is no space, without space there are no events, and without events measurements can not be made, so there is also no time. There can be no observer if there is no space/time continuum.

However, what we have observed and thus do know is:
Quantum fluctuations cause singularity to rapidly expand in, what is known as, "the" Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day universe.

And,

In the present-day universe, we can observe how singularity is created and what singularity is created from.

By looking back we can observe creation from singularity.
By looking forth we can also observe creation of singularity.

An observer can only truly observe in the HERE and NOW. But imagine, as an observer, looking infinitely, and not stopping at singularity. You circle the infinite universe, for lack of better wording, in the moment. You were pre-sent to end up here back in the present. Looking beyond singularity, back and forth, you will always end up HERE, in the NOW, back where and when you began looking. This end, however, (long), is just the beginning. If 'you' are reading this, then 'you' are an observer. Creation, Itself, in action, is observed in the HERE and NOW.

Why are you asking me to explain???? I have already said there are a lot of sites which explain these things. You have two options either continue to believe what you believe or read. The choice is yours. I am not a physicist.i cannot explain things as well as all the sites can. Your questions are directed at the wrong person. All I can say is that if you go deep, you will get a whole new perspective. otherwise you won't. again the choice is yours to make.

Also these are not minor details. In anyway.

[ken]

[

If the 'universe', is ALL things, then EVERY THING, including Existence, is a part of the One universe.

But there are different types of things.
Some you can trip over, others you can only think about.

I said, If the universe is ALL things....

I did not state, the universe is ALL things.

If can trip over your brain; but the shit you think about does not exist when your brain stops working.
Existence is an idea and your version of it dies when your brain falls out. It is then that I can trip over it.

Some of the "shit" we think about does continue to exist.
For example the sentence, "... the shit that you think about does not exist when your brain stops working." is actually the type of "shit" you thinking when you typed that sentence. Now that you have typed the type of "shit" that you were thinking out, and have actually posted it on the internet for all to see, then for as long as the internet exists, or for as long as some other place that can hold the "shit" that you were thinking for, then that means possibly well past your brain stops working the "shit" that you were actually thinking WILL actually still be existing, for all of us to see. So, the "shit" you think does actually still exist when the brain stops working.

If, as you say, 'existence' is just an idea and not an actual physical state, then if you provided us with your version of existence here in writing, then as long as your idea can still be observed, then your version actually does not die, which could be many, many years after the brain dies.

Another example of this is when, as you call it, "the shit" that a person thought about roughly over 2000 years ago, i.e., the "shit" that jesus was thinking, is actually still existing today and obviously all of the brains in that day and age have long stopped working and have since decayed.

Also I would be very careful of saying, "It is then that 'I' can trip over it" [the brain]. Until you can answer, and thus know, Who 'I' am'?, you do not know what 'I' am capable or not capable of doing.


By the way, What IF there are different types of things?

IF, and only IF, the universe IS ALL things, then that means ALL and every different type of thing is included. For as long as the Universe exists then everything that has also existed within it is a part of the Universe. This includes every emotion, every thought, every idea, and absolutely everything. ALL IS The Universe. Surely this is not to hard to understand.

[thedoc]

We can only guess what's going on with space and matter.

If space is expanding, it sound pretty much like it would be a counter acting force against the universe collapsing in on itself.. kind of like it was breathing in and out.

What if a black hole is breathing in matter and exhaling it out through the opposite side that being the white hole....maybe?


“There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

Another theory suggests that our universe is located within the interior of a wormhole… which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe. The matter that black holes absorb don't condense into singularities, instead, they burst out the other side (of our universe?) and become the building blocks for whole other universes in another reality. In short, our Big Bang popped out of a black hole from another, much larger universe.

The plot thickens...

There have been several theories suggested to explain what is causing the expansion to speed up. Dark energy, Dark matter, (it's gravity) and I believe someone has suggested that there is Dark gravity (negative gravity). Until something is observed that can only be explained by one of these theories, it's all up in the air, (so to speak).

I believe that In the Hindu tradition the belief is that the Universe is a dream of Brahma, and each time he wakes up the Universe disappears and is recreated when he goes back to sleep. The current Universe is just one of Brahma's dreams.

[ken]

What I learned, I told you.not being a physicist I cannot explain it well but I know it took me a lot of reading and re-reading the same stuff to understand because it is all very counter intuitive.

And no, I am not thinking of a multiverse scenario.

What exactly do you find counter intuitive. I do not find any of this counter intuitive.

Because you still haven't tried to find out about how expansion works, how space itself is expanding, how the universe is finite and expanding etc.you just claim it is not possible. In which case you reject the big bang theory.you talk of time before time existed. Till you figure out these things which are very counterintuitive you won't know what I am talking about.you can't reject it and say it's not possible if you want to learn.

If you re-read what I have written enough times, then you will have already noticed that I know how expansion in the big bang theory works, and how space is capable of expanding. For the rest of that sentence I thank you, for you have now shown what you believe, so I can move accordingly. I have NEVER claimed anything is not possible. So I am not sure what you are reading and how you are reading it.

You say I won't know what you are talking about. The truth is your belief that the universe is finite and that time once did not exist is actually stopping you from knowing what others are talking about. Those beliefs, which you are holding onto dearly, is what is stopping you from learning.

I have NEVER rejected the big bang theory. In fact I have NEVER rejected anything. It is you who is rejecting. You reject things before you even try to begin to understand them.

[Dontaskme]

[

If the 'universe', is ALL things, then EVERY THING, including Existence, is a part of the One universe.

But there are different types of things.
Some you can trip over, others you can only think about.

I said, If the universe is ALL things....

I did not state, the universe is ALL things.

If can trip over your brain; but the shit you think about does not exist when your brain stops working.
Existence is an idea and your version of it dies when your brain falls out. It is then that I can trip over it.

Some of the "shit" we think about does continue to exist.
For example the sentence, "... the shit that you think about does not exist when your brain stops working." is actually the type of "shit" you thinking when you typed that sentence. Now that you have typed the type of "shit" that you were thinking out, and have actually posted it on the internet for all to see, then for as long as the internet exists, or for as long as some other place that can hold the "shit" that you were thinking for, then that means possibly well past your brain stops working the "shit" that you were actually thinking WILL actually still be existing, for all of us to see. So, the "shit" you think does actually still exist when the brain stops working.

If, as you say, 'existence' is just an idea and not an actual physical state, then if you provided us with your version of existence here in writing, then as long as your idea can still be observed, then your version actually does not die, which could be many, many years after the brain dies.

Another example of this is when, as you call it, "the shit" that a person thought about roughly over 2000 years ago, i.e., the "shit" that jesus was thinking, is actually still existing today and obviously all of the brains in that day and age have long stopped working and have since decayed.

Also I would be very careful of saying, "It is then that 'I' can trip over it" [the brain]. Until you can answer, and thus know, Who 'I' am'?, you do not know what 'I' am capable or not capable of doing.


By the way, What IF there are different types of things?

IF, and only IF, the universe IS ALL things, then that means ALL and every different type of thing is included. For as long as the Universe exists then everything that has also existed within it is a part of the Universe. This includes every emotion, every thought, every idea, and absolutely everything. ALL IS The Universe. Surely this is not to hard to understand.

Maybe It's just too simple for human intellect, perhaps the human brain got too big to comprehend simple logic.

I can't keep up with this thread, so much to catch up on....

[ken]

Because you still haven't tried to find out about how expansion works, how space itself is expanding, how the universe is finite and expanding etc.you just claim it is not possible. In which case you reject the big bang theory.you talk of time before time existed. Till you figure out these things which are very counterintuitive you won't know what I am talking about.you can't reject it and say it's not possible if you want to learn.

How can space expand? please explain.

Since sthitapragya readily admits they are not capable of explaining further, on what they themselves write, and usually just refers me "to read" I will give you my perspective.
'Space', means the distance between matter. So, space can very easily expand when pieces of matter move away from each other. This applies in the smallest quantum physics all the way up to the largest cosmological physics. The friction less distance between matter allows all matter to move freely. Obviously when matter moves freely around, which it is able to do because of friction less space, the universe itself can change into any shape and form.

It is this always changing in shape and form, which allows new things to continually come into being, evolve, move around, and pass on, into and creating another new shape and form.

[Dontaskme]

There have been several theories suggested to explain what is causing the expansion to speed up. Dark energy, Dark matter, (it's gravity) and I believe someone has suggested that there is Dark gravity (negative gravity). Until something is observed that can only be explained by one of these theories, it's all up in the air, (so to speak).

I believe that In the Hindu tradition the belief is that the Universe is a dream of Brahma, and each time he wakes up the Universe disappears and is recreated when he goes back to sleep. The current Universe is just one of Brahma's dreams.

Yeah, certainly up in the air, as there is no one here to witness or explain anything..all we can do is create our own model based on what is observed,the story of me and the world I live in.... I use myself as a model, when I breathe in I expand and can float on water. When I breathe out I contract and may sink in water... I think what works for the microcosm is what works for the macrocosm ....and yes all dreams within a dreams within dreams...has to be a dream since there is no entity observing the dream there is only the dream.

[ken]

The conventional theory is that space is elastic and is stretching and getting bigger. For myself, I don't like that Idea that space is elastic but prefer to believe that space is perfectly fluid but in-compressible, and is getting bigger because there is more of it. I have suggested that there are many places in the Universe where space, energy and matter are coming into existence and pushing the older space, energy and matter out ahead of it. This material in the form of galaxies then collects at the cusps between the places where new material is coming into existence, explaining the expansion, and the large scale structure of the Universe.

It is possible that someone will quote the law of thermodynamics that states that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, to refute this theory. But it must be remembered that the laws of thermodynamics were written when the Milky Way was believed to be the sum total of the Universe and the Universe was not known to be expanding, both of those concepts were discovered in the 1920's. The large scale structure of the Universe was discovered even later. The laws of thermodynamics do apply to a closed system, but it is not known that the Universe is a closed system.

We can only guess what's going on with space and matter.

If space is expanding, it sound pretty much like it would be a counter acting force against the universe collapsing in on itself.. kind of like it was breathing in and out.

What if a black hole is breathing in matter and exhaling it out through the opposite side that being the white hole....maybe?


“There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here,

What the Universe is for IS so that 'I' can bear witness of My Self. This is the same as you saying, so the Conscious can become aware of Its Self.

Why the Universe is here IS so the 'I' can observe the beauty that 'I' am creating.

it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

"No", 'I' am here to tell you that that is not right.

Another theory suggests that our universe is located within the interior of a wormhole… which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe. The matter that black holes absorb don't condense into singularities, instead, they burst out the other side (of our universe?) and become the building blocks for whole other universes in another reality. In short, our Big Bang popped out of a black hole from another, much larger universe.

The plot thickens...

[/quote]

'I' really wish humans would pick just ONE definition for a word, and stick to that definition.

IF, and only IF, the 'Universe', means ALL there is, then ALL of these theories that suggest something lays within a larger universe or a smaller or equal universe comes out of another universe, or a universe that has a beginning and/or an end with something else, or something/someone created It ALL, or anything else besides what the actual definition of the word 'Universe' actually means ARE totally wrong. How obvious can 'I' make it. If the word 'Universe' means All there is, then there can only ever be One and only One Universe, which is made up of ALL there is.

For gods sake, for lack of better words, could ALL of 'you' human beings please just decide on what 'you' ALL want to define the Universe as being? 'I' certainly do not care what you decide the definition is, but until you ALL come to an agreement on the definition how in the hell can you even discuss this topic about The Universe.