Infinite Universe versus volatile Universe

An infinite Universe could only be the ultimate in the balance of nature,
immortally incapable of any overall imbalance and/or volatility. The
ultimate in the order of disorder. The more I try to reach to infinities the
more I realize leveling overall. Infinity can be reduced via a constant
reduction. But without infinity, there is no reduction. There are also no
mutual cancellations of it without it. No such thing as cancelling it
without it.

I still read physicist authors claiming infinity to be meaningless. Why if
it weren't meaningless the Universe would fry itself from infinite
lumination, or close up to a point from infinite density and gravity, or
some such hogwash. As if one infinity does not cancel another infinity
everywhere locally, relatively speaking. As if infinite and infinitesimal do
not cancel each other out realizing the entity of "finite"...also the entity
of "constant." Also what would be the dividing line between infinite and
infinitesimal, the deciding decision point between what is infinite and what
is infinitesimal except finite and finite's relativity to the two. We say
that such and such can become infinitesimal or infinite. "We" must stand
between the two deciding which is which. "Finite" stands between the two,
the only gauge of relativity that infinite is indeed infinite and
infinitesimal is indeed infinitesimal. The only point or line between the
two making them two. And of course there is the point that every point in
the Universe is the center of the Universe. How many points are there to the
Universes? An infinity of points.

In more than one book I've seen universes (plural) illustrated like
galaxies, as if they might exist in just a larger space outside our own
universe's space -- like the galaxies we see. They would not exist like
that. The vacuum, or nothingness, of space should be where everythingness
would reside. Everythingness and nothingness being one and the same.
Meaninglessness? No. Somethingness is the relative "other" to
everythingness, to nothingness, as finite is the other to infinite, to
infinitesimal. Speed, actually constant acceleration in velocity, is the
only highway between universes. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum.
Acceleration in velocity by you or me in a vacuum wouldn't change the
constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. Since it wouldn't what is left
is to leave this our own local universe for some other. Essentially become
less and less relative to it and more and more relative to some other,
probably seamlessly. The Universe is nothing but mass, nothing but energy,
nothing but space, nothing but time, nothing but life, nothing but death,
nothing but position, nothing but velocity....and nothing but mutual
cancellations of infinities, mutual cancellations of absolutes, locally that
is...with regard to every foreground (versus all background) that is...or
relatively speaking. It wouldn't be the first, or last, time for the
universes something went to seeming nowhere or came out of seeming nowhere.
It wouldn't be the first, or last, time universes lost something to seeming
nothing, or gained something from seeming nothing. It happens all the
time...is as common a thing as dirt -- so to speak. Our view of [universe]
is a view of acceleration's constancy, plus the speed of light's constancy
(13.7 billion light years to the horizon of relativity : 13.7 billion years
to the horizon of relativity, 1:1, reduces or averages to the speed of
light). A view of the road itself so to speak.

If an infinite Universe is infinite in the number of its hydrogen atoms,
just how many oxygen atoms does that infinity of hydrogen atoms permit to an
infinite Universe? Answer, an infinity of hydrogen atoms permits an infinity
of oxygen atoms to an infinite Universe. Rather an infinite Universe permits
both infinities, just as it permits all other infinities for it is the
infinity of infinities.

We measure all gravity according to one Earth gravity. Going up from one
Earth gravity all gravity is in whole numbers and fractions. Going down from
one Earth gravity all gravity is in fractions of one Earth gravity. Thus a
heavy gravity being in another galaxy measures his or her or its own gravity
by that universal standard measure we on Earth set for the entire Universe.
In other words every heavy gravity being through all space and time will
measure two gravities as being two gravities relative to one Earth gravity.
No heavy gravity being anywhere in the Universe will measure his or her or
its own planet's gravity as being one (X) gravity ("(X)" in place of that
planet's, or whatever's, name). Not unless that planet has exactly the same
measure of gravity as our Earth. Nor will any light gravity being measure
his or her or its own gravity as anything but a fraction of one Earth
gravity. Even in saying "heavy gravity" and "light gravity" I've assumed the
guage of all measurement of all gravity everywhere in the Universe to be
from, or relative to, one Earth gravity. They will then of course measure
every weight there is and every mass there is relative to the physicist's
measurement of it while standing on this one planet of ours in some facility
next to some railroad track (Albert's railroad track). On Earth a one troy
ounce block of gold has the weight and mass of one troy ounce of gold. Thus
a being from another galaxy who was born or hatched on that planet, a two
gravity planet relative the one Earth gravity, will -- in addition to
measuring that planet's gravity as being two gravities rather than one --
measure a one troy ounce block of gold (relative to one Earth gravity) as
having the measure of mass and weight of [two] troy ounces. They will say
it, "Its weight is two troy ounces," just as they will say this, "The
gravity of our planet is two gravities because the physicist on Earth within
that other galaxy has set the measure, rather the gauge, for the entire
Universe as being an absolute rather than a relative. Therefore we are more
massive, and are shorter and thicker too, than we might think we are." "I
weight three hundred pounds here relative to one Earth gravity, so if I
landed on Earth in that other galaxy, I would weigh what?, one hundred and
fifty pounds relative to one Earth gravity?!?!" "But I would still be very
short and very thick, and very massive, none of that having changed at
all?!?!" "Earthmen think me a virtual Hulk -- comparitively speaking, and I
would still remain that Hulk, even gain in being that massive Hulk-like
super-creature, upon Earth while then being one hundred and fifty pounds in
weight in that Earth gravity?!?!"

Not going any further with that, of course the reality should be that if
he steps on the scales on his world he should see his weight to be 150
pounds per (X) planet gravity. And if he steps on the scales on Earth he
should see his weight to be 150 pounds per Earth planet gravity. He couldn't
leap twice the distance up, or do twice the work, on Earth that he could
leap or do upon his own planet. A 150 Earthling on Earth stepping upon the
scales of planet (X) would weigh 150 planet (X) pounds. If planet (Y) were
ten Earth gravities in gravity (relative to one Earth gravity), that 150
pound man on Earth, from Earth, would still weigh in at 150 pounds on planet
(Y) -- per the scales upon planet (Y). And the one troy ounce block of gold
he took with him to planet (Y) would still weigh in -- per planet (Y)'s own
weights and measures [on] planet (Y), under planet (Y)'s gravity -- at one
troy ounce of gold.

GLB

G. L. Bradford wrote:
An infinite Universe could only be the ultimate in the balance of nature,
immortally incapable of any overall imbalance and/or volatility. The
ultimate in the order of disorder. The more I try to reach to infinities the
more I realize leveling overall. Infinity can be reduced via a constant
reduction. But without infinity, there is no reduction. There are also no
mutual cancellations of it without it. No such thing as cancelling it
without it.




Meaningless garbage.

"Vert" wrote in message
oups.com...

G. L. Bradford wrote:
An infinite Universe could only be the ultimate in the balance of nature,
immortally incapable of any overall imbalance and/or volatility. The
ultimate in the order of disorder. The more I try to reach to infinities
the
more I realize leveling overall. Infinity can be reduced via a constant
reduction. But without infinity, there is no reduction. There are also no
mutual cancellations of it without it. No such thing as cancelling it
without it.




Meaningless garbage.


Not quite. Cancellations of infinities are a mathematical construct for
artificial reasons. Infinities remain the nature of the actual. Sort of like
your lawn grass being artificial and those infernal weeds that are forever
cropping up natural. You believe your lawn is evolution of nature and those
weeds the primitive you are making extinct. One problem, your lawn does not
expand into the wild ever to take it over, but the wild is forever at
expanding into your perfect lawn to make it extinct and displace it. You and
all the energy you must expend on it to keep it alive is all that keeps it
from dead certain extinction.

Your closed but expanding, absolutely finite Universe -- therefore there
being no such thing or concept as "open" -- is an ultra-single sided (no
other side whatsoever) artificial construct. A purely arrogant and stupid
construct. Your Universe contains only the Earth alone, since there is no
other side or entity to it but pasts or histories. One light second (one
second past. One second ago in history). One light hour (one hour past. One
hour ago in history). One light year (one year past. One year ago in
history). Ten billion light years (ten billion years ago in history). There
is no present, or now, anywhere at all, anywhere whatsoever, to your entire
Universe but this Earth. There WERE galaxies ten billion years ago, but ARE
there any galaxies ten billion light years away from Earth? You probably are
like most people, most especially including cosmologists, having no
conception of any difference existing between WERE and ARE but I ask the
question anyway. ARE there any galaxies existing ten billion times nine
point seven trillion kilometers distant from Earth in SPACE rather than
SPACE-TIME?

WARNING! Remember before answering that the establishment has stated
flatly that the Universe is FLAT! SPACE-TIME flat! Flatly SPACE-TIME! So if
you could get up the speed necessary to travel a distance of 13.7 billion
light years from Earth in your lifetime, you would be blasted by the Big
Bang beginning as there would nothing there, nothing whatsoever to the
Universe, but you and the Big Bang. SPACE-TIME is single-sided only with
regard to the present or now. One single arrow of time. Only the Earth
exists in the present, as the present Universe. You would have to travel
back in time to travel out into the Universe, the Universe shrinking back --
the arrow of time shrinking back -- toward the Big Bang around you. So I ask
the question once more. There WERE galaxies ten billion years ago, but ARE
there any galaxies ten billion light years away from Earth? To mean: ARE
there any galaxies existing ten billion times nine point seven trillion
kilometers distant from Earth in SPACE rather than SPACE-TIME?

Let's make the distance a little closer. Alpha Centauri. Would you travel
to the star we observe or to a star invisible to us? Would you become
invisible to the observer on Earth? Not because you shrank with all distance
gained from Earth out, but because you got way ahead of the speed of light
bringing information back to the observer on Earth. Remebering of course
that you can never get out front in space and time of the observation of an
observer on Earth. Time slows for you so that he can continue to observe you
in realtime at all times. It's an absolute of relativity that you aren't one
light month out from Earth until the observer on Earth observes that you
are. In the intervening one month that it took light to bring that
information to the observer on Earth, no time passes for you, you do not
progress one silly millimeter on your way into your voyage. You aren't one
light year out in your voyage until the observer on Earth observes that you
are. In the intervening one year that it takes light to bring the
information to the observer on Earth that you are one light year out from
Earth, no time will pass for you, you do not progress on your way into your
voyage during that entire year. Time will really slow for you as will your
gain in distance in your travel. You do not arrive at Alpha Centauri until
the observer on Earth observes that arrives. It doesn't matter that Alpha
Centauri is four plus light years from Earth and that it takes light four
plus years to come to Earth from Alpha Centauri. You did not arrive at Alpha
Centauri until the observation of such arrival would arrive to the observer
on Earth. It simply does not matter that it should be four plus years after
the fact that the observer on Earth should have observed the fact, if the
observer could observe the fact at all. There is no mathematical
compensation in the math for the observer being four plus years behind the
times. No mathematical compensation in the math for the observer being one
year behind the times. No mathematical compensation for the observer being
one month behind the times in having observed a traveler to be one light
month out from Earth. There is no mathematical compensation for the
observation of the observer progressively falling farther and farther behind
the real time and space of the traveler in time and space. It is that way
with cosmologists and physicists on Earth and things in general in the
Universe at large as well. Exactly the same way.

GLB

Compared to the age of the universe our life span is shorter than a fly's.


--
Two ways to improve your life.
1. Turn off the TV.
2. Throw it out the window.

Vlad the Impaler