Quantized redshift anomaly

And that brings us to the beginning of our quest. Was that beginning a nothingness? If so then all our searching would have ended in nothingness. Or was that beginning a Wholeness? If so then all our searching would have brought us back to Wholeness.

This, Nothingness or Wholeness.is the beginning of the worldview each of us holds to.


Look at what is entailed in the assumption that the beginning was nothingness. First there has to be an event in time when there was no time. A probable event when the probability was zero. But that isn't enough, so there has to be an Inflation. And talk about fast, an entire Universe in a split second. Then this has to stop and cool down. We don't have to worry about Newton's laws of motion because Newton wasn't born then. (just a joke) What we have to do is make space expand so that matter is not affected by it and yet be able to detect this invisible motion. Or else we would find galaxies moving at speeds as fast as light.

But if we assume the Whole to begin with, then all we need to do is find out how the whole differentiated into bits of matter.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
Religion is a belief system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It was a joke.
Criticizing the origins of our thoughts, the religions reduce to an humanization of the objects that I cannot accept.
Finished on this topic.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />And that brings us to the beginning of our quest. Was that beginning a nothingness?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All forms that we encounter in the universe, ourselves included, arise from other, earlier forms, and will eventually change back to other, later forms. Nothing of their substance is ever created or destroyed.

So why then does your mind insist that a "beginning" had to exist? In deep reality physics, miracles such as a beginning are excluded from consideration. It then becomes fairly easy to wrap one's mind around the idea of eternal existence with lots of ephemeral change but no true "evolution" (a form of permanent change). -|Tom|-

Tom, I am convinced that nothing is really No-Thing. Is my writing that confused that you haven't grasped my point? If we expect them to be fair, then we have to be fair. Just because they are not fair does not mean we can be unfair. So both sides of the story have to be told. And if we do acknowledge both sides, there are two primary or fundamental assupmptions being made. One assumption is that there was a beginning and that beginning came from nothing. I go on to state the other assumption that the Universe was/is a Whole (does not imply beginning) and ask this question:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But if we assume the Whole to begin with, then all we need to do is find out how the whole differentiated into bits of matter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You see, it boils down to observations. We know what we see. We see a galaxy. Now our worldview assumptions kick in. One worldview could interpret what we see as matter inflowing toward the center of the galaxy/star/Sun. The other worldview interprets the observation as matter outflowing from a galaxy/star/Sun.

I asked many months ago whether or not matter was flowing in our out of a galaxy. How come I couldn't find anything on that? What I found was observations of matter outflowing from a galaxy/star/Sun. And now, they are about to publish observations which show a halo around a galaxy and they are saying that this must be infalling matter. Apparently, the best they can do to show us infalling matter is come up with this perfect ball of glowing gas around the center of a galaxy.

But didn't you say, Tom, that the gravitational forces in a galaxy exists inbetween stars, and not toward a supposed center of gravity?

<center>
</center>


Does that picture look like matter is falling inward toward the stars? Or does it look like matter is being rediated outward from the center of the galaxy?

Their answer would be "it must be falling in because we can't think of any way it could be flowing out"

Well, instead of a whirlpool sucking it all in, think of a spinning top spewing it all out.

I think we need that "killer application" to make our point. Arguents about details just confuse everyone. It should be an observation so interpretation doesn't enter into it. So what observation works both ways? I think it is the flow of matter in a galaxy. The big bang gang says it is flowing inward. And we can say it is flowing outward. Keywords scalar, displacement currents, plasma,

As far as beginnings, usually the literature talks about spiraling
and we come back in the circle to where we started but a level higher. There isn't a beginning to a circle, but we can pick one. You know, a lot of our language is habitual. And even if we come to know there is no beginning, still it is so easy to say there is a beginning anyhow. This is now the mind works with ilusions.

The Whole is eternal. Now is eternal. Now always existed. The Universe works now. It always worked now. How the Universe always worked is how it works now. Now is the only thing happening. If it isn't happening now, it isn't happening. Schroedinger said it, Now is the only thing that has no beginning or ending."

So the real deep question is what does the Whole do (now) when it differentiates into parts? It is that event that sets the stage so to speak.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />I am convinced that nothing is really No-Thing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Can you cite an example? [}]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is my writing that confused that you haven't grasped my point?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I realize that different people learn in different ways. But speaking for myself, I do find your writing unusually difficult to follow, and your messages discouragingly lengthy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">there are two primary or fundamental assupmptions being made.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's an example of a difficult-to-understand-in-context sentence. Assunptions made by whom? Two assumptions behind one theory, or one assumption for each of two theories? The reader must read on and try to figure out what this sentence meant later. Pretty soon, the reader is struggling to hold several ambiguous sentences in mind.

We were taught to develop an outline before writing. I think your writing could benefit from that too. As it stands, there is too much "stream of consciousness" for people like me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One assumption is that there was a beginning and that beginning came from nothing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That assumption is a miracle. Miracles are allowed in mathematics and philosophy as approximations to reality. As Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But we always keep in mind that the idea must be possible, even if the details are hidden from us. Something from nothing is not possible in that sense and requires a genuine miracle, not just an advanced technology. It is important to avoid invoking miracles when non-miraculous explanations exist, because miracles terminate inquiry and are permanently beyond the possibility of understanding and prediction.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I go on to state the other assumption that the Universe was/is a Whole (does not imply beginning) and ask this question: But if we assume the Whole to begin with, then all we need to do is find out how the whole differentiated into bits of matter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You say this is not a beginning, yet it is some sort of evolution or permanent change. That to me is a "beginning" even if it does not require making substance from nothing. It does require making energy or momentum from nothing when substance is set in motion or begins to change, which still amounts to something from nothing and still requires a miracle.

Because any kind of initial "beginning" (in the sense of evolution or permanent change) requires a miracle, the only position that does not require a miracle is that of "no beginning" -- an eternal universe just like today's, differing only in details but not in essence.

I don't understand how your subsequent discussion of galaxies relates to this point about beginnings. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't understand how your subsequent discussion of galaxies relates to this point about beginnings. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, seriously, how can anyone make any sense out of the nonsense they are feeding us? Invisible nonsense on top of it.

The relationship of beginnings and conclusions can be significant - the cosmology of beginnings model, the big bang model, has matter flowing inward toward the galaxy..

The other way to look at the cosmology is as if the matter is flowing outward, which obviously is happening all the time. This implies a source not a beginning

What the astronomers see happening is usually described as matter/energy flowing outward.