Keiran,

You probably know the formula for a straight line: y=a+bx. With several procedures, clusters around a line of best fit or regression, one can see the maths works. Penrose, historically, Durac et al. with their greater knowledge of physics do the same thing. They can tether their thinking.

The age of this universe is only relevant after Planck time because timelike space is a dimension. Pushing into phase space or in QM quantum indetermancies, infinities do exist. [No teddies.] Moreover, contrary to intuition some infinities can be larger than others!

The prior existence of the expanding universe does not prevent the creation of black holes or new matter [provided the Law for the Conversation of Charge Matter/Antimatter is not broken.].

Science does allow you, your own personal paradigm, but, you need to apply rational methodologies and formulate null hypotheses. Galaxies popping in what you [not me] might call empty space, just does not do it.

As George notes, there is also sub-structure to consider. Strings? Manifolds?

[ Respect your right to have a different opinion. ]

Keiran,
Thank you for your sincerely expressed views on maths and religious activities. Some people mistrust religion, especially the established ones, some people mistrust science, especially that part of it that depends heavily on mathematics. You seem to mistrust both. Your second paragraph could have been written by a fundamentalist creationist. He is worried that contemporary cosmology could rob him of his belief in a "God who created the world in six days", you seem to be worried that it could rob you of your belief in an "infinite universe". It does neither. Contemporary cosmology, even less mathematics, challenges neither a belief in a God, unless He is naively understood, nor the belief in an infinite universe/multiverse, unless it is naively visualised.

Oliver,
You cannot compare strings with manifolds: the former are physical concepts (like electron, photon) the latter is a purely mathematical concept (like sphere or a prime number). E.g a pseudo-riemannian manifold of signature (3,1) - a mathematical concept - is the model of space-time - a physical concept - in Einstein's theory of gravitation.

George,

Thank you for that clarification. I did not have Reinmann in mind, nor, Euclidean space*. Rather, [n > 3,n > 4**] n-manifolds non-Euclidean space. Like you, Penrose notes that manifolds are best regarded from the perspective on general physics:

"To consider n-manifolds for which n is larger than 4, since ordinary spacetime has four** dimensions. In Fact manay mondern theories such as string theory, operate in a 'spacetime' whose dimention is greater than four. BUT (my emphasis, your point?) quite irrespective of the question of whether actual 'spacetime' might be appropriately described as an n-manifold, there are quite compelling reasons for considering n-manifolds generally in physics." Penrose, 2004.

I stand corrected regards my approach.

[With Reinmann surfaces, I think of malformed dohnuts comprised of co-orinates. Then, I think of a coffee break ;-)]

Keiran,

1. If the unification of cosmology and QM finally, once and for all [although should be tentatively held], indicate infinities and the spontaneous creation of matter; that does not make it IMPOSSIBLE that the PROCESS is not of intelligent design:

ONE possible agent for the CREATION of the processs is divine. It just happens, I feel the latter a highly degraded heurustic. I would be more inclined towards a mathematical architecture as the positive heuristic, over a theocrasiac architecture, which cultural anthropology can explain.

Moreover, I find frustration that while I am willing to maintain a null hypothesis, a priest will not.

2. It is an oversimplification but think of solids becoming liquids and liquids gases under heat. More energy that elections fly off their orbits, more energy an tradition sub-atomic particles break-up, yet, more excitation [might be a better word] sub-sub-structures fail, neuclear-binding forces zap! Now think of the aforementioned great pressure. Okay? Reverse the process and think of thermodynamics and entropy and the creation of spaceetime.

George, blind trust ultimately relates to the worship mindset where the desire to believe is easy and the exacto opposite to the love to find out and gain understanding. Trust can only be earned and when one examines the likes of Einstein, Hawking, Davies, Smoot, Mather, Dawkins with their belief in a nonsensical expanding universe I just see, and even from when I was a thirteen year old, a group of high priest mathematicians doing their best to design their own universe. (Now I am finding Oliver doing much the same.) Why they even make ridiculous assumptions for the suckers, like a sucking gravity ( as an attraction) when it can only be a push. Hawking for twenty years plus was speaking of classic black holes where nothing escapes. What a dead head but all this sucking up sure gets people sucked in. Years ago my response was that they cannot exist unless the universe is symmetrical around the black hole, which is impossible. Quite recently, Hawking was forced to come out and admit he was wrong.

Oliver, in Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2 what does the 'm' represent .... mass or matter? i.e. Because trust can only be earned, just what assumptions are made in formulae and equations? They may all look impressive but all have embedded agendas and many in fact may be quite fictional.

Also, prior to 1920 we humans couldn't see beyond our galaxy the Milky Way and this was thought to be the whole universe. We now see countless galaxies with much improved instruments. Some are huge. Because there is so much that cannot be explained or known it is still not unreasonable to make the statement that we have an infinite environment always existing. We can only base this on reasoned and logical deductions from what we do know and this all points to infinite processes. Like, let's have an emphasis on the enlightened, find and ye shall seek, rather than tight closed cosmological systems.

Keiran,

Answer: Mass

Better still, “µ” represents the rest mass of a relativistic quantum particle [Penrose]. E=mc2, as expressed [Einstein], does not clearly indicate negative mass/energy. Therefore, Davies noting Dirac (1929) states, E2=m2c4. Expanding the equation and substituting notation, we have, [(c2+µ2) + c2p2]½ . Where the particle is in motion, kinetic energy is additive.

- Hope the symbols print. Numbers a superscript. A half-power indicates a square root.

I would prefer testable to fictitional

Keiran,

With E2 = [(c2+µ2) + c2p2]½, you have postive and negative solutions, including solutions for matter and antimatter.

George, is likely to know more than me.

Whether one holds to the BB, SS or something else, retaining a null hypothesis as degraded heuristic against convictions is insurance against fictions.