I love your replies, Andy, though we are not in full agreement about the subject matters we are discussing. I claim that the human brain is the main source for not understanding the universe correctly, while it is awfully simple to see what is going on.
Space is infinite.
Matter is finite.
So we have to agree that the term universe exists as a concept only. The universe is neither an actual unit nor does it capture an actual unified reality at any level.
The term universe is a collective term that includes contradictions such as space always being infinite and matter always being finite.
If I read your reply correctly, then you are not making that distinction. You meld items that I claim should not be melded into one.
--
As quick analogy, we have the same conundrum just here on planet Earth with Life and gender. It would be totally incorrect to say that Life is male. That would be a brain fart, agree?
Two items, Life and gender, that cannot be melded into one larger concept that is then true throughout. Each concept points in a different direction.
Life points to the overall concept, it points up, applicable to all. Gender points to the specific aspects, not the whole, and it is generic only for that person or life form in as far that specific reality tells us something about the whole of that person or life form.
--
Gödel (best buddies with Einstein) already showed that there is absolutely no Mathematical 1 at the highest level. Anyone claiming that there is a Mathematical 1 at the top level is filling in a spot that is definitively not scientific in nature.
In religion, which has plenty freedom to say whatever one wants to say as long as it is not shown to be incorrect, that spot is available. In science, that spot is not available.
So, that is the entire point I am making:
Physicists incorporate a level at which they presume that all can be made one. Gödel already showed us how that is available on the inside of the human brain only.
In scientific words: The universe is a result and it is not the original state. The original state (whatever it was) could have produced an outcome only if it ended up having a fundamental break at one point in time (13.8 billion years ago).
How we think, structurally, is the most important point I am making. It is vital for science. Science should never theorize all the way to finding God because God is never a scientific position.
The egg cannot become an omelet unless we break it. We live in 'an omelet' so we know that the fundamental reality is indeed 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. We must start with the break of whatever it was that was the prior state.
-
Then, when we look at an entire galaxy, then we see that all matter is moving outwardly at the fastest speed we ourselves are involved in, all that matter conglomerating together but not becoming a single mass.
Galaxies are moving in one and the same direction at the highest speed of all speeds.
That means gravity is enough to keep all connected (kind of in an imperfect manner), and that means that we have two options to view the gravitational monster we do see occurring among the material outcomes.
A: Black Hole -- an enormous but invisible mass is doing the attracting. The pull is toward the center with that invisible mass.
B: Black Eye -- the collective of masses created an enormous depression unlike anything else in the galaxy. The pull is outward, strongest on the very center in which there is no invisible mass. Yet this outbound pull gets neutralized the further out we go due to all masses individually pulling toward their own masses.
It is very similar to human behavior, where a single individual behaves differently by him- or herself than when being part of a crowd of, for instance, 100,000 people cheering on their sports team, or protesting the government.
-
Because two galaxies near each other can attract one another, we do know that there is a collective nature to gravity. The galaxies remain intact until the moment they are close enough for specific interaction and the 'weakest' spots end up budging to the stronger ‘attractor’.
That information supports our understanding of B, the Black Eye, because if gravity can be collective, then the center of the collective will produce a 'high of gravity' (better: it will produce a 'low of gravity') among all these masses. Yes, the very center is net-zero, just like a high pressure system or a depression has a net-zero spot in its center.
Once we accept that we can have an extreme low, then we can also see how we have a very dynamic situation in place that is somehow in balance at the galactic level.
I hope it was clear that I do not worry about the universal level because that is not an actual level for all matter all connected. As mentioned, we live in a result, so the parts (the largest material outcomes as large as galaxies) are independent from one another (until they meet).
-
Thank you, Andy. I hope I make sense. Keep up the conversation because I can tell you have a good view on everything, but the structural question I have is whether you have everything put together the correct way or not (including a fundamental separation at the universal level).
