I find it absolutely amazing that Roger, being regarded as one of the leading physicists attempting to understand the origin of universe, would have such difficulty attempting to comprehend the dynamic condition of a relative state.
The idea that Roger and so many of his colleagues do not fully understand what a relative state of universe might look like is akin to the idea of the Pope not understanding or comprehending the significance of God.
It would seem obvious I must be missing something, either that or there is some point I myself do not understand.
I hear reference to; the latest model of the universe? Latest model, what happened to the old one? After all there is only one universe even if it does include infinite relative states.
Roger holds to the idea of the Big Bang theory, but with a twist in that there were a series of Big Bangs. A model where the universe continues to repeat itself over and over again, time after time.
But nowhere in any of this will you will find reference to an underlying force of energy affecting universe, as the existing model does not require an underlying force of energy, which suggests to me that perhaps there might be some form of magic involved.
What exactly sustains and perpetuates the existence of universe? What exactly sustains and perpetuates the existence of an atom?
If we ignore the possibility of an underlying force of energy determining the form and function of physical structure to the point where we perceive physical structure to be self creating, self sustaining and self perpetuating I would have to conclude that there is something wrong with our perception of universe.
It would appear we refuse to view the universe on its own terms, but choose to view the universe on the basis of terms we have determined to be consistent with our social/political agenda. Unfortunately the universe does not cooperate or make changes to accommodate such a purpose.
An expanding universe is a condition of field, in relation to the condition of universe remaining relative to the system or point of reference. Therefore there are an infinite number of conditions of universe expanding simultaneously at different rates.
And when you consider the simultaneous nature of universe it seems rather odd to hear physicists and or cosmologists make reference to millions and billions of years.
But it’s all in the math they say…and who came up with this concept?
What I want to know is what a million years looks like? But not wanting to seem unreasonable I’ll settle for someone showing me what a single year looks like.
Are all the years the same or are they different?
But my most urgent question is this; is there such a thing as a year existing beyond the deductive reasoning of the human mind, in that our existing concept of time is based on a human invention of the mind?
I would think not, as the existing condition of universe does not correspond to such reasoning nor does human rationalization change or alter the condition of universe in any manner whatsoever.
The universe exists on its own terms and is driven by a dynamic force of energy determining the form and function of all physical structure. Therefore the nature of universe is dynamic.
From A to Z the universe is dynamic…therefore change is continuous and without end.
Beyond a purely imaginative perception there is no static state associated with the dynamics of universe and no meaning to the repetitive reference to millions and billions of years.
Are we ensnared by our linear perception of universe? It would appear we are, to the extent that we might very well view ourselves as prisoners of a linear agenda.
1, 2, 3, 4, can we afford to feed the poor?
