... and for PK - meditate in the morning, the early morning. Its easier to 'quiten' the mind whilst everythihng is still and much of the world around you is still asleep.

Hello Keiran,

Thanks for a prompt response. I am caught with my own research over the next few days but will come back to your comments. However, just quickly Astronomical observations tend to be cross-verified from multiple receiving stations. Some folks (not saying you)think that NASA faked the lunar landing but the CSIRO in Parkes was the main receiver.

The colliding galaxies is an interesting counter-remark. It could be we should not be examining the behaviour of galaxies but the delayed consequences of the behaviour of precusor gases that have been regionalised? That is, solid matter is "formed", within a once gaseous region, and later cross-interacts as galaxies.

Just so I undestand your perspective:

-- Do you believe the Universe is billions of years old?
-- Do believe in the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Thanks

Keiran,

Postscript to the above:

While redshift is a signature of recessional motional motion, it is not a Doppler effect. With redshift the electromagnetic spectrum is stretched as the spact-time contuum expands faster the c. (e.g., lightwaves crossing the universe.

Do you have any comment on the validty/invalidty of background radiation?

--Kieran's assertions to Oliver:

1. “Perhaps you can tell me how nothing could exist and then bang a universe appears.”

2. “Perhaps you could explain how this big bang universe could be expanding into itself.”

3. “Perhaps you could explain how we see galaxies colliding.”

4. Hubble, in actual fact, was a life long doubter of velocity being the cause of cosmological redshifts. Just the same, Hubble’s work –though understandably limited by today’s standards-- leans towards the formulation of Big Bang theory.

-- Oliver's replies to Kiernan:

1. Quantum indeterminacy before reality had coalesced to space-
time.
2. The universe expands “with” itself. Entropy.
3. Gravity overcomes the expansion.
4. Hubble died in 1953. The Big Bang was confirmed [background
radiation] in 1965.

-- Questions for Kieran:

1. As previous asked.
2. Can God count to infinity using regular numbers? Please support reply.
3. Can God count backwards from infinity to 0 using regular numbers in His lifetime? Please support reply.
4. Where is God’s lifetime? Please support reply.
5. How is God’s lifetime bounded within reality?

Oliver, as is often the case, answers to complex questions lead not to closure but to more questions. .... so you or teddy (an invented god) cannot have an infinite, ... sorry .... because infinite is a process not a product. Infinite here refers to a process needing assumptions only to understand and this point explains why assumptions and not absolutes are necessary for thinking. If we ignore the imperfections produced by infinity, of course we can imagine some perfect objects, perfect motions and idealised states but we can never actually find them. In fact that mode of belief belongs to a now obsolete assumption of finite universal causality.

e.g.
Neither empty space nor solid matter can exist because they are human idealisations ..... i.e. absolutes. The reality in an infinite universe can only be the continuum between ..... never being an absolute solid nor an absolute space that we call a vacuum. If there can be no true vacuum then it is reasonable to conclude that the NON-existence of the universe is an impossibility.

Oliver, if the universe is an infinite process and has always existed then what role could there ever be for a teddy if you wanted one? Certainly, an infinite universe is a far more pleasant thought than an imaginary created one with a beginning and an end. But closed systems people like yourself prefer this finite mode of thought and erroneously apply it to everything.

e.g.
The 2nd law is a law of departure but it has a complement as a law of arrival. i.e. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the overall entropy or disorder of a perfectly isolated system can only increase. Because an infinite universe is not a perfectly isolated system but an environment with infinite processes then all real things have a degree of isolation and a degree of nonisolation. In an infinite universe divergence and convergence are equal. Things come apart in one place to form other things in another place. The constituents of galaxies eventually diverge from one another only to form new galaxies in the intergalactic space.

--Part One--

Keiran, I am unsure if you have answered my questions. Definitely not as anticipated. Why I asked the above questions was because I am trying to know should I calibrate my response to a…

a. Religionist?
b. Philosopher?
c. Scientist supporting the Solid State universe?
d. Perhaps a combination?

To hold, as a temporary proposition, the Big Bang universe is the most valid competing explanation and is no a teddy. If the expansion of space-time is asymmetrical (admittedly not the most widely held view) then we have previous universe states existing before our/this generation universe. In which case there might not be a first universe. So there is no teddy.

If,(a) on average, the background radiation of this universe were absolute zero, (b) predicted transmutation from elementary particles to exotic energy and particle forms did not occur in accelerators, (c) and there was no recessionary redshift, then, there would be a good case to revisit the solid state universe. But the evidence does not support the Solid State universe. Mathematically and personally this stance has nothing to do with a fear of there being “no beginning” and need for a teddy.

One can look at infinity as a continuum. However, also, infinities can differ in magnitude: e.g., some infinite numerical sets are greater than other numerical sets. Moreover, infinities can delimiters. Relately, the space-time of this universe theoretically could have no end. No teddy. However, according to Roger Penrose, there is only one-thirteen the required matter now observed. So, unless there is more matter out there, or there exists physics, we don’t understand, this universe will collapse. This is not a teddy: It is science.

Actually, previously, I thought you were seeking idealised states. No me. Historically, Peter Abelard and, more recently, Michael Polanyi have argued against resting on final states, when it comes to understanding reality. Here, the best we can do is make a commitment. We temporary hold that incomplete understanding based on evidence. Today’s evidence supports the Big Bang. Neither, the Solid State theory, nor the creationist explanations hold-up as well to deep investigation.