Universes Are Being Unmade and Remade All the Time: The Unmaking and Remaking Was Everywhere and Is Everywhere

Aug 14, 2020
706
124
1,060
It was no one-time shot. Being no one-time shot, it is continuum always and forever past and future, here, there, anywhere and everywhere. A flat infinity, so to speak.

But you can't see infinity through any scope and can only detect the possibility, the probability, of it. What you can see is finite local universe expanding to a potential possibility of infinity, of the infinity already existing, always existing. Wherever and whenever you are in the infinity, the infinities, there will be expansive, and contractive, frontiers to it. There will be the macro-verse. And, too, there will be the micro-verse. The micro-verse the vastly, vastly, greater scoping of the two that in fact fold to one.
 
Last edited:
The infinite view was quite popular until the mid-20th century. The Big Bang Theory greatly damaged this view (i.e. Static Universe model). It has gained in popularity, however.

It was no one-time shot. Being no one-time shot, it is continuum always and forever past and future, here, there, anywhere and everywhere.
A false premise almost guarantees a false conclusion, or is there objective evidence in this case to the contrary? Objective evidence is no minor requirement in science. Otherwise, it is a philosophical or religious view, which is home to a lot of subjective arguments, some being very logical, admittedly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 14, 2020
706
124
1,060
One thing that frustrates mediocrity is the inability to prove conclusively that infinity does not exit. It can't be proved to exist, but the potential of its existence now or in the future ("the future", the same as now) is continuously observed in expansionism. If one infinity is observed to be possible, even if futuristically, all potential infinities are possible . . . and probably already existing and have existed forever. That infinities of universes are being unmade all the time, and remade all the time, is one reason to realize why any universe exists continuously in its making. and unmaking.

We make pretty good guesses, not to mention observations, at what unmakes universes. But what makes universes? Basically, below and before the level of relativity? Something maybe not relative. A making always in progress happening in space and time even as unmaking is always in progress. A premise of making many with no imagination whatsoever definitively call "a false premise" because we possibly, probably, won't ever detect its existence (except possibly indirectly a few times and entities, levels, removed from relativity), much less ever observe its existence.

Time has probably existed forever (infinitely singular) since it is always in turnover of times (finitely plural) from new to old, old to new, an infinity of parallelism.

What would be "static" about this picture? What Stephen Hawking said was static about it, the constant movement of life from the aging and dying pieces (regions) of universe to the more youthful frontier universe life pieces (regions). Hawking believed, from what I've read, that the only dead universe was the old universe always gone in time. A "history" and nothing more.
 
Objective evidence is required to support any scientific premise. It’s not optional for any scientific hypothesis. If none is provided, it’s easy for most to disregard any conclusion based on what may be a false premise, which would almost guarantee a false conclusion.

I disagree with your philosophical views, but I support your right to express them. Fresh ideas lead to new or improved theories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 14, 2020
706
124
1,060
Objective evidence is required to support any scientific premise. It’s not optional for any scientific hypothesis. If none is provided, it’s easy for most to disregard any conclusion based on what may be a false premise, which would almost guarantee a false conclusion.

I disagree with your philosophical views, but I support your right to express them. Fresh ideas lead to new or improved theories.
Do you state (as your seeming absolute statement) there is no such thing as "infinity", and never will be, since there is no "objective evidence" for its existence and can never be any? That the existence of "infinity" is and must always be a "false premise" and "false conclusion"? Because "infinity" is a state of mind, ever and always a next new frontier, it isn't "science"?! Has nothing whatsoever to do with "science"?!

Does "science" tell us absolutely nothing came before or comes after the presently "observed" and "observable" universe?! Does "science" tell us absolutely nothing is, or can be, outside of, or inside of, the presently "observed" and "observable" universe (considering that the "observed and observable universe" is nothing but the light at the immediate scope or radiation at the immediate detector -- that there is nothing, so no scientific evidence of any kind for any existence, outside or beyond the scope's or detector's "objective evidence" at the scope or detector (evidence, which in itself because of the speed of light, is normally just a "history"))?!

Where is your "objective evidence", your "scientific evidence", for the existence of anything you haven't immediately to, or in, hand? I think "science" is broader and deeper than you would have it be. "Broader and deeper" is "infinity".
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts