[mkirkpatrick]

The intention to in-form came first,all of existance,including,the chicken and
the egg,arose within the mind of the one,an intention to inform?Which came
first is in essence irrelevant!

kind regards michael.

[Nobody]

Mr. Nobody,

Your 2-dimensional expansion into a 3-dimensional requires that 3rd spatial dimension, requires that it actually exists; time, being relative to space, is discounted obviously as a spatial dimension; and the proposed 5th dimension would have to literally exist where we could ask what would be on the exterior of that dimension, ad infinitum.

In your next posting, you said "nothing" which is the most-common response aside from the question being ignored altogether.

The black hole might very well have the same state as the outside of the cosmos, but I don't think it can be linked to cmb because emr is space-dependent as well; and the same would apply to vacuum energy. Whether we quantize energy or not, the moment we put "something" literal anyplace at all is the moment we create a irreconcilable paradox.

So I think ideas about expansion are the result of a type of brainwashing based on observations and correlating theoretical sciences. Imo, it's like saying that detectable light is the only light of the em spectrum, while we know for sure that this isn't so.

I'm curious though how your proposal of the false vacuum would affect a localized galaxy. Are you saying that there is similar expansion at the subatomic scale?

[Mr. Nobody]

A discussion between 2 noboys will still produce nothing

I'm curious though how your proposal of the false vacuum would affect a localized galaxy. Are you saying that there is similar expansion at the subatomic scale?

If expansion happens at an ever increasing rate then at some point it will outpace the speed of light or force interaction, meaning that the observable universe will begin to shrink. When the size of the observable universe becomes smaller than an atom, then no electromagnetic interaction between the furthest parts of this atom can occur and the atom will fall apart.

The black hole might very well have the same state as the outside of the cosmos, but I don't think it can be linked to cmb because emr is space-dependent as well; and the same would apply to vacuum energy. Whether we quantize energy or not, the moment we put "something" literal anyplace at all is the moment we create a irreconcilable paradox.

Maybe I was too vague, what I meant is what if we could remove all the energy and all the fields, including vacaum energy, within a limited area of space, then what do we get? Plain and simple an exercise in theoretical wondering, without a valid scientific nor practical application

Your 2-dimensional expansion into a 3-dimensional requires that 3rd spatial dimension, requires that it actually exists; time, being relative to space, is discounted obviously as a spatial dimension; and the proposed 5th dimension would have to literally exist where we could ask what would be on the exterior of that dimension, ad infinitum

You mention spatial dimensions. We live within 3 spatial dimension with 1 time dimension, correct. The 2 dimensional model is an example of how to visualize higher dimensions. When you think of yourself as a 2 dimensional creature (forget the third dimension for now) and your "space" consists of the surface of the balloon that is expanding, what do you see? You see everything moving apart, every spot within your "space" (the balloon's surface) is moving away from every other spot, wherever you go, things move apart...sooner you are going to ask, where is it all going?. You can't intuitively know, because all you know is 2 dimensions, you have lived on 2 dimensions all your live and nobody has ever seen nor heard of a 3rd dimension....

[Mr. Nobody]

Another way too lok at it is this:
You start walking in a perfectly straight line in space and after a bazillion years you end up back where you started, because a line within 3 dimensional space actually curves around a 4th spatial dimension, like a straight line on the surface of a humongous sphere appears to be straight in space but actually curves along the surface of the sphere.....
Don't confine your thinking to 3 spatial dimensions to visualize 4 spatial dimensions, but define infinity in circular terms

[Nobody]

Mr. Nobody,

I appreciate the attempt, but the responses seem to be textbook. I think the imagination in your head is more important than the knowledge found in a billion books. It promotes a logic that sometimes conflicts with observational data and math, but solves otherwise unsolvable paradoxes. Again, the moment we put literal dimensions in a place is the moment we are forced to put it within a place that isn't there.

To give you an example of what I mean: if I ask you what is on the outside of an infinite universe or "omniverse," if you prefer, with an infinite number of dimensions, what would your response have to be?

Philosophical renderings of nothing have been taken for granted for thousands of years, and yet it is this great void that is always greater than any material framework - whether it be infinite or not.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody Spacially there is nothing outside the cosmos. I have once posed a question of what would happen if one could block the cosmic background radiation within a sphere? Would that create a whole in space, since the EMR is all permeating and a fundamental attribute of all space, and to take that idea even further, is that what black holes do in the core? Is the core of a black hole made up of the same spacial void as the outside of the cosmos and therefore connected? Is the cosmos really like cheese after all (green cheese-moon, lol)?

You say there is nothing outside the cosmos?Are you sure!To me outside
the cosmos lies the noumena and the Absolute potentuality of the ONE!


kind regards michael.

[Mr. Nobody]

Originally Posted by Nobody Mr. Nobody, I appreciate the attempt, but the responses seem to be textbook. I think the imagination in your head is more important than the knowledge found in a billion books. It promotes a logic that sometimes conflicts with observational data and math, but solves otherwise unsolvable paradoxes. Again, the moment we put literal dimensions in a place is the moment we are forced to put it within a place that isn't there. To give you an example of what I mean: if I ask you what is on the outside of an infinite universe or "omniverse," if you prefer, with an infinite number of dimensions, what would your response have to be? Philosophical renderings of nothing have been taken for granted for thousands of years, and yet it is this great void that is always greater than any material framework - whether it be infinite or not.

My responses are in agreement with and are solely based on observation (COBE, WMAP, SDSS), but counter intuitive to what our every day small scale existence is like. We also cannot experience speeds approaching C, but still have an idea of the physics. Its not difficult to think of a straight line bending (into another dimension to become a circle, or perhaps we will find the missing energy not to be dark but just another attribute of gravity over extremely long distances.....

[Nobody]

I've never heard of our existence being referred to as small-scale, more macroscopic, but it brings up a good point imo. Extra dimensions in string theory, being based on the very small scale relative to our scale, can correlate with our scale and much larger scales - sort of like worlds within worlds. Still, I question string theorists regarding what is outside of all membranes, to exclude bogus answers of relative fields, and the responses are lacking to say the least.

Aside from talking in circles, though, i would think that gravity plays a large role in determining c, and the acceleration would be the result of c being increased to infinite proportions based on the lessening gravitional force over increasingly larger distances. Like the speed of light is inversely proportionate to the strength of the gravitional field. In other words: no field, no speed limit; and there is no need to invoke dark energy or any energy at all.

[mkirkpatrick]

There is no first or last,there is just in-formation,and what is in-formed is
the idea,maybe of a ckicken?Existance made form-al by the process of
intention rendered "down" to manifest as form?


kind regards michael.

[Nobody]

"Existance made form-al by the process of intention rendered "down" to manifest as form?"

Judging by this, it seems that you're saying existence was formless.

What would be the exact nature of that primal existence then?