The Void

[brap]

No, I don’t think so. Before the BB there was just a point of something, a singularity. And there was nothing else in existance - in this, your present model. In this model your singularity is eternal as it never had a cause, it always was. So, it always was a ‘stable point’, a permanent singularity with nothing in existance around or outside it. So the question is, why then did the point, the BB, explode or expand if it was an eternal, stable point. It could only have been some outside force or energy which could change an eternally stable point into an explosion which gives rise to a universe. In other words the eternal BB needed a ‘cause’ external to itself.

I believe the answer to that question is in the expanding/compressing part of the BB theory. The universe is in a cycle of expanding and compressing and is not a “stable” point ever.

This, however, still begs the question - expanding into what?

 

[brap]

Let me ask you this, OM: When you look at a coin at the bottom of a wading pool, why does it look distorted and not round, as a coin should be?

We can actually observe light being bent by the water. A solid observation that is used to extrapolate many facts/theories about atmospheric and gravitational distortions.
Extrapolation
*(–verb (used with object)

1. to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.) *
   being the key word here.

 

[brap]

brap~The problem is that as a Catholic you are accepting the materialist view of the Church which is essentially dualistic, but distinct from the dualism of science which does it by exclusion. The Church does it by separating Spirit and matter, God and Man.

The VOID is the everlasting and eternal Allness of God, which appears to human intellect as void because it is not a mental concept. It is Being, from which all is and is not separate from.

An excellent work on this topic is F. Merrell-Wolff’s The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object. You might enjoy reading it.

Thank you for the suggested reading. I always suspected my problem was my catholicism .

 

[o_mlly]

Let me ask you this, OM: When you look at a coin at the bottom of a wading pool, why does it look distorted and not round, as a coin should be?

If I don my goggles and immerse my head in the water, I observe a round coin. If I observe the coin from above the water, the coin appears distorted.

Reality is singular so I know that one or the other observations has fooled my senses. Aha! Refraction explains the apparent duality of the coin’s shape back to a singularity.

Now, if you are trying to draw a parallel to dark matter and the law of refraction, you must first observe dark matter/energy as I observed the round coin in the water. The law of refraction is science; dark matter/energy is speculation.

 

[Thing]

I believe the answer to that question is in the expanding/compressing part of the BB theory. The universe is in a cycle of expanding and compressing and is not a “stable” point ever.

I thought science had decided the universe had already gone beyond the point of returning into a compressed state. Everything is expanding away from each other at an exponential rate and there is not enough gravitational attraction between galaxies to pull them back or even to slow their rate of expansion. In fact I think they say the galaxies are expanding away at such a rate that science has had to invent things like dark energy and matter to explain the rate of expansion.
All in all, I don’t think a collapsing universe is too popular or possible. So I guess we’re back to a linear type creation and a beginning and an eternal expansion.

Expanding into that part of infinite heaven which does not yet contain any universe.

[/QUOTE]

 

[spockrates]

If I don my goggles and immerse my head in the water, I observe a round coin. If I observe the coin from above the water, the coin appears distorted.

Reality is singular so I know that one or the other observations has fooled my senses. Aha! Refraction explains the apparent duality of the coin’s shape back to a singularity.

Now, if you are trying to draw a parallel to dark matter and the law of refraction, you must first observe dark matter/energy as I observed the round coin in the water. The law of refraction is science; dark matter/energy is speculation.

Perhaps you are correct. Yet, you agree that the reason the image of the coin is distorted is that the light reflecting off the coin and moving to your eye does not take a straight path. No matter how clear the water might be, the distortion of the coin your eye sees indicates that there is something other than space and air between you and it. Don’t you agree?

 

[Detales]

brap~Those who argue in favor of “science” speak with a certainty that what they say is immutable. Those who do are clearly not actual scientists, as even they strive with all out effort to burst through their own limits of understanding, unlike religionists, I might add. A great case in point is a collection of short works by Richard P. Feinman called The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, again a pleasure in short supply with many religionists in a whole litany of areas.

As to the pulsating universe idea, don’t you think that since all things vibrate, pulse, if you will, doesn’t it make sense that the Universe does too, in some way? “In the beginning was the Word” or Sound, or Vibration, or Pulsing. Or could it mean that at the root of things is the vibration that is the zero point Source of everything as Universe? Is existence a wave pattern in the VOID of Consciousness that precipitates Awareness into manifestation as Self loving and enjoying Self infinitely? I have to wonder…My inner experience after a life altering experience sure points that way.

 

[o_mlly]

Perhaps you are correct. Yet, you agree that the reason the image of the coin is distorted is that the light reflecting off the coin and moving to your eye does not take a straight path. No matter how clear the water might be, the distortion of the coin your eye sees indicates that there is something other than space and air between you and it. Don’t you agree?

That there is a distortion cannot be known until two observations are made. I don’t have to deduce the water; I will necessarily sense it prior to acknowleding a distortion.

If the water is so clear and so still as to evade my sense of sight then I reach for the coin and getting wet sense its presence first with my sense of touch and having troubled the water confirm its presence with my sense of sight. All very “sensible” and scientific relative to the “insensible” dark stuff.

 

[spockrates]

That there is a distortion cannot be known until two observations are made. I don’t have to deduce the water; I will necessarily sense it prior to acknowleding a distortion.

If the water is so clear and so still as to evade my sense of sight then I reach for the coin and getting wet sense its presence first with my sense of touch and having troubled the water confirm its presence with my sense of sight. All very “sensible” and scientific relative to the “insensible” dark stuff.

But if the water is out of your reach, and it is clear enough, you might think there were no water. You might, that is, until you saw the distortion of your view of the coin, which you know is caused by the water. The reason for the distortion, physicists tell us, it that the water bends the waves of light moving from the coin to your eye. The bending of light is evidence for the presence of water. Is that clear as mud?