₦airaland Forum

chessguru: The Original Chessguru is back !! CHESS IS IMMORTAL:!!

Deep Sight: Lol at perfect vacuum.

I no fit shout. I maintain that you did lie on the question: for your first response to my questioning was to admit that as I stated, the universe is expanding into already existing space. Haven seen that that conceded the debate, you now seek to qualify or withdraw it. That is disingenuous, period.

As to the matter of manner of expansion, I already answered it in my X Y Z galaxies analogy to Martian.

Digging up your personal hurts from old threads will not address the logic in this one, thanks.

thehomer: One problem with the theists idea is to explain how something physical comes from something non-physical.

jayriginal: I have given you an answer before. Im quite certain of it.

If I answer you, I will not be answering you from what I have experienced personally, but from the body of knowledge established by people in the field.

That is the reason I ask you to google it.


Succinctly, space is not expanding into anything observable. Space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house, rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Google it so you know.

That is what is there.

I dont even know why I bother with you when I already know what you are going to say next.

Deep Sight: Thanks boss.

Now let's settle down.

It is by no means a resolved question: and there are several different view points even within the scientific academia.

Thus google is useless. I wanted YOUR TAKE.



Now I will give you a one line knock-out:

Since you say that galaxies are moving apart from one another INTO SPACE THAT IS ALREADY THERE, then evidently such space was already there for the expansion to occur into.

Thus space was not created by the big b.ang.

Case closed. I hope you see now.

This is why I am bemused at you guys. You have no clue. And yet you rev high and mighty. LAWD.

Deep Sight: In all cases they end up saying the very same things about me which you are now saying: namely that I am deliberately misconstruing their words, and other such.

https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/10#10598392

Deep Sight: I am sure I did not say that it was the most convincing argument for the existence of God. I said it was one of the most convincing.

https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/9#10589391

Deep Sight: For my part, let me here accept that yes, you were right that I said the Cosmological Argument was the best argument. I didn’t remember my exact words, and I accept that.

jayriginal: No big deal. It happens.

Deep Sight: There are many things which you have said explicitly on this thread: and which you now are appearing to deny. In this post, I will not bother to quote them: once I am done in this post, I will reserve my next post to extracting those quotes and shewing them unto thee, that thou mayest behold for thyself that which thou hast done and said.

jayriginal: I would very much like that.

Deep Sight: It is by no means a resolved question: and there are several different view points even within the scientific academia.

The idea that the universe is expanding involves a bit of subtlety. For example, we don’t mean the universe is expanding in the manner that, say, one might expand one’s house, by knocking out a wall and positioning a new bathroom where once there stood a majestic oak. Rather than space extending itself, it is the distance between any two points within the universe that is growing.

"The Grand Design" , Stephen Hawkin and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, New York, 2010.

https://www.nairaland.com/1000711/ex-nihilo-nihil-fit-refutes/7#11649462

jayriginal: My problem with DeepSight and where I complain of his "arrogance" is when he says certain things like he is the sole custodian of knowledge.

DeepSight does not strike me as a tolerant person (from reading his posts). Sometimes I read his posts and feel there is barely concealed contempt therein.
Of course these are just my impressions and they do not stem from this thread alone.

On the positive side, DeepSight is not to be counted as one of the foul mouthed personalities here. Also, I have seen some humour in his posts which I always count as a good thing.

Its my opinion and I may be wrong, but I mean no offense. I just mean to criticize fairly and help him improve (if thats possible).
https://www.nairaland.com/878904/historicity-books-bible-reference-daniel/3#10283434

Deep Sight: You said, that the universe is expanding into already existent space: and this gave away the discussion to my position. When you realized that, you then said that the universe is not expanding into anything observable - after posting a load of contradictory extracts. To turn about and deny same amounts to lying: and as poor as you are at debating, I am shocked that you would resort to outright lies. I had thought you a decent person.

Deep Sight: Its amazing that you are not ashamed of the repeated fact that all you ever have to say is that you don't know, and that nobody knows. Fair enough, but I ask you: if that is the case, then why the heck bother posting on this forum or reading anything anybody posts. . . . .since you don't know and nobody knows? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are wasting your time, and everyone else's, with your repeated posts which simply declare that you don't know and nobdy knows. . . . . you bring NOTHING to the table and I have always told people who are trying to make decisions that any decision is better than no decision. As such, I would learn more from any person who proposes ANY idea - - - no matter how right or wrong the idea is, than from someone like you who is incapable of EVER proposing ANY concept whatsoever.

Please stop posting on this board. . . .cos we are bored with your buzz. . . . . that you don't know.

Thanks!

Deep Sight: My friend, after you were shown up with your horrible contradictions [which showed exactly why you are always frightened of answering questions!] - having made a horrible mess of the first question you attempted to answer - [first saying that the universe is expanding into already existing space, and then contradicting that by claiming that the universe is expanding into nothing observable - and then when ratted out, producing a hash of copy and paste extractions contradicting everything] - - - - - - - > ALL of this lamentably shows your incapacity for independent thought, which is why you only offer to me copy and paste extractions from discussions completely irrelevant to the questions being discussed!

I mean, just look at the ridiculous nonsense contained in the bold above: "empty space" having properties, etc. And then do you think this illiteracy is obviated by name-dropping Einstein? Think for yourself. The above quote shows firmly that true to my conviction, you sir, are absolutely incapable of independent thought.

Worse, you do not recognize the pith of any discussion. And the above quote shows that you don't even know what is being discussed here.

OLODO!

wiegraf: Note, atheists do not contend to know what first cause is. Most of us just contend that NOBODY KNOWS. For you to make some silly assumptions, that could be used either ways, are illogical, unverifiable etc, and claim them to be some sort of truths borders on lunacy.

Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe.

. . .

A last possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct. That would not only affect the expansion of the Universe, but it would also affect the way that normal matter in galaxies and clusters of galaxies behaved. This fact would provide a way to decide if the solution to the dark energy problem is a new gravity theory or not: we could observe how galaxies come together in clusters. But if it does turn out that a new theory of gravity is needed, what kind of theory would it be? How could it correctly describe the motion of the bodies in the Solar System, as Einstein's theory is known to do, and still give us the different prediction for the Universe that we need? There are candidate theories, but none are compelling. So the mystery continues

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

For objects in our ordinary experience, like the rising loaf of raisin bread dough also used as an analogy to the expanding Universe, there are two ways to see that the object is expanding:
The distances between objects are all increasing, so the distance between any pair of raisins increases by an amount proportional to the distance.
The edge of the loaf pushes out into previously unoccupied space. Note the distance between any pair of points on the edge increases by an amount proportional to the distance.
The first statement involves the internal geometry of the object, which can be measured by an observer sitting in the object. The second statement involves the external geometry of the object, which can only be measured by an observer outside the object. Since we are stuck within our spacetime, we need to study the internal geometry of space-time, and that is what general relativity does. In terms of internal geometry, any object with the first property above is expanding. Furthermore the Universe is homogeneous so it does not have any edge. Thus it can't have the second property above. But it does have the first property so we say the Universe is expanding.

Martian: If you insist you know better, present your measurements and observations instead of your feelings.

Let me begin by saying that "expanding" isn't really the best word to describe what is happening to the universe, although that is the word that is often used - a word choice which I think leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion regarding what is already a difficult topic! A more accurate word for what the universe is doing might be "stretching".

The difference between "expanding" and "stretching", for me at least, is that an "expanding universe" conjures up an image where there is a bunch of galaxies floating through space, all of which started at some center point and are now moving away from that point at very fast speeds. Therefore, the collection of galaxies (which we call the "universe" is expanding, and it is certainly fair to ask what it is expanding into.

The current theories of the universe, however, tell us that this is not the picture we should have in mind at all. Instead, the galaxies are in some sense stationary - they do not move through space the way that a ball moves through the air. The galaxies simply sit there. However, as time goes on, the space between the galaxies "stretches", sort of like what happens when you take a sheet of rubber and pull at it on both ends. Although the galaxies haven't moved through space at all, they get farther away from each other as time goes on because the space in between them has been stretched.

Of course, when we think of space in everyday life, we don't think of it as something which is capable of stretching. Space, to us, just seems like something which is there, and which everything else in the universe exists within. But according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, space isn't really as simple as our common sense tells us. If we want to understand the actual way that the universe functions, we need to find some way to incorporate Einstein's ideas into our mental picture and imagine space as a more complicated entity which is capable of doing things like "bending" and "stretching".

To help us imagine this, a lot of people have come up with analogies for the universe in which space is represented by something more tangible. For example, there is the analogy with a sheet of rubber (or sometimes a balloon) that I mentioned above. My favorite analogy, though, involves imagining the universe as a gigantic blob of dough. Embedded in the dough are a bunch of raisins, spread throughout. The dough represents space, and the raisins represent the galaxies. (To the best of my knowledge, this analogy was originally proposed by Martin Gardner in his 1962 book Relativity for the Million.) We have no idea how big the dough is at this point - all we know is that it is very big, and we, sitting on some raisin somewhere inside it, are so far away from the "edge" that the edge can't possibly have any effect on us or on what we see.

Now, someone puts the dough in the oven and it begins to expand. The raisins move apart from each other, but relative to the dough they don't move at all - the same particles of dough that start off near a particular raisin will always be next to that raisin. That is what I meant when I said that the galaxies aren't really moving through space as the universe expands - here, the raisins aren't moving through the dough, but the distance between the raisins is still getting larger.

This new picture of the universe which I am asking you to imagine is, on a practical level, much different from the old picture in which the galaxies are all moving through space away from some point at the center. A lot of concepts and definitions that seem simple to us in the old picture are much more complicated now.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274

I get this question a lot, and with good reason. You've seen a Science Channel special in which a dapper (presumably British) cosmologist talks knowingly about how the universe is expanding as though it's the most natural thing in the world. But to someone not trained in general relativity, it can be hard to grok what the expanding universe really means. This sort of question comes up so often, in fact, that it (or a variant of it) is the title of Chapter 5 in my book, and was the first question, chronologically, that my co-author, Jeff Blomquist, and I knew we had to answer.

So first, a few things about what the expansion of the universe isn't.

1. You are not currently expanding. Neither is the earth. Nor the solar system. Nor the Milky Way Galaxy. The expanding universe is due to gravity, which means that in regions of high density, the dominant gravitational effects are entirely local. As a case in point, not all galaxies are moving away from the Milky Way. Our nearest neighbor, Andromeda, is actually hurtling toward us at around 80 miles per second, and will collide with us in a few billion years.

2. Don't believe the metaphors. In every science special worth its salt, you'll see some image of a balloon being inflated. "This is just like the universe!" the dapper British cosmologist will say. But you, being clever, will note that there really is something outside the balloon universe, and that the 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is inflating into a 3-dimensional studio. But our universe only has 3-dimensions. *

3. The universe doesn't have a center or an edge. We're not actually sure whether the universe is infinitely large, or merely very, very big, but in even supposing it is, that just means that if you traveled far enough in one direction, you'd eventually return to where you started. Think Pac-Man, but without the ghosts or fruit. Practically speaking, though, the speed of the expansion (and the size of the universe). As for the center, that's where the balloon analogy is actually pretty helpful. Sure, it seems like all of the galaxies are moving away from us, but from their own perspective, every galaxy appears to be at the center of the universe. I assure you that it's just an illusion.

So what is the universe really expanding into? Nothing. There is no cosmic storage locker just waiting to be filled up with stuff. But in order to understand why, let's see what general relativity has to say about space-time.

In GR (as the pros say), the most important property of space (and time) is the distance (and time interval) between two points. In fact, the distance measure defines space entirely. The evolution of the distance scale is governed by the amount of matter and energy in the universe, and as time passes, the scale increases and the distance between galaxies increases. But, and here's the weird part, it does so without the galaxies actually moving.

I know your intuition breaks down at this point. Mine does, too, but that doesn't prevent us from exploring some of the weird implications of all of this.

For one thing, you've probably been told that galaxies are flying away from us. They're not. This is one of those realities that are usually swept under the rug because science channel producers don't have the same faith in you that I do.

"But wait!" one of the more scientifically astute among you will say, "We measure the Doppler shifts of distant galaxies." This is the so-called "redshift" that PVIII referred to in his question, and here on earth, a Doppler shift, like with an ambulance siren, is a sure sign of motion. But that's not what's happening on cosmological scales. What's really going on is that the scale of space increases from the time that the light was emitted at the distant galaxy to the time that it reaches your eye. As space expands, so do the wavelengths of the photons, and as wavelengths increase, they appear redder.

This picture of the universe even helps you to understand another popular question: "Is the Universe expanding faster than light?" It's absolutely true that the most distant galaxies are increasing their distance from us at faster than the speed of light, but so what? The galaxies aren't moving faster than light (they're sitting still), and more importantly, the fast expansion doesn't actually help you do anything. For example, you couldn't use it to send a care package – or any information – to a distant galaxy faster than a light signal, which means that the speed of light is still the universal speed limit.

I've described the rock-solid (or at least relativity-solid) consensus view of how cosmological expansion works, but I'll finish with something we don't currently understand. Everything I've described above works perfectly fine if you have already have space to stretch. But what happened at the very beginning to create space out of literally nothing? Physics doesn't have an answer for that yet, I'm afraid, and we'll presumably have to wait (at least) until a theory of quantum gravity comes along before we have one.

http://io9.com/5526583/if-the-universe-is-expanding-whats-it-expanding-into

What is the Universe expanding into?

This question is based on the ever popular misconception that the Universe is some curved object embedded in a higher dimensional space, and that the Universe is expanding into this space. This misconception is probably fostered by the balloon analogy which shows a 2-D spherical model of the Universe expanding in a 3-D space. While it is possible to think of the Universe this way, it is not necessary, and there is nothing whatsoever that we have measured or can measure that will show us anything about the larger space. Everything that we measure is within the Universe, and we see no edge or boundary or center of expansion. Thus the Universe is not expanding into anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about. Just as Dali's Corpus Hypercubicus is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D object that represents the surface of a 4-D cube, remember that the balloon analogy is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is supposed to help you think about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that there is really a 4-D space that the Universe is expanding into.
For objects in our ordinary experience, like the rising loaf of raisin bread dough also used as an analogy to the expanding Universe, there are two ways to see that the object is expanding:

The distances between objects are all increasing, so the distance between any pair of raisins increases by an amount proportional to the distance.
The edge of the loaf pushes out into previously unoccupied space. Note the distance between any pair of points on the edge increases by an amount proportional to the distance.

The first statement involves the internal geometry of the object, which can be measured by an observer sitting in the object. The second statement involves the external geometry of the object, which can only be measured by an observer outside the object. Since we are stuck within our spacetime, we need to study the internal geometry of space-time, and that is what general relativity does. In terms of internal geometry, any object with the first property above is expanding. Furthermore the Universe is homogeneous so it does not have any edge. Thus it can't have the second property above. But it does have the first property so we say the Universe is expanding

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#XIN

So what is the universe expanding into? When new spacetime is created, into what do the edges go? The answer depends on whether or not there are edges.

If we live in an infinite universe, then the answer has to be nothing. Adding more fabric to infinity doesn't make more infinity. An infinite universe would have no edges that expand and the question is meaningless. In such a universe, there would be no 'outside'.

On the other hand, if the universe is finite, with a boundary that we have not yet discovered, then the answer may be that we are expanding into something. If that is true however, then the boundary is so far away that we cannot see it and it can therefore never, ever affect us. We have already seen photons that have been travelling since the universe was only 500 million years old. Anything much further away lies beyond our detection forever. Given that our universe is expanding - if we cannot see the boundary now, this expansion guarantees we never will - it will forevermore get further and further away. it will always lie beyond our detection.

Only one hundred years ago, we had no idea there were other galaxies besides our own. It was thought that humanity and the galaxy we inhabit was an island, adrift in a universe of 100 billion stars. We now know that our universe is a vast, dynamic cauldron of activity: home to 100 billion galaxies, all racing away within a boiling ocean of spacetime. While we may yet find our universe is just an island, we have discovered it is much larger than we ever thought.

http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-is-universe-expanding-into.html

Deep Sight: This says nothing to debunk your first answer [which was in line with my position].

Please you are not helping me. I have read all this elementary things before.

FACT: The growth of the space between galaxies refers to the baloon model. No baloon would be inflated without space outside of it into which its expanded size would project.

So back to square one: the fact remains that you can logically see why I say that space is NOT created by or at the moment of the big bang.

Rather than space extending itself, it is the distance between any two points within the universe that is growing.

Deep Sight: I see the clueless atheistic calvary have taken off. Lol. Predicted.

jayriginal: I have given you an answer before. Im quite certain of it.

If I answer you, I will not be answering you from what I have experienced personally , but from the body of knowledge established by people in the field.

That is the reason I ask you to google it.


Succinctly, space is not expanding into anything observable. Space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house, rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Google it so you know.

That is what is there.

I dont even know why I bother with you when I already know what you are going to say next.

The idea that the universe is expanding involves a bit of subtlety. For example, we don’t mean the universe is expanding in the manner that, say, one might expand one’s house, by knocking out a wall and positioning a new bathroom where once there stood a majestic oak. Rather than space extending itself, it is the distance between any two points within the universe that is growing.

It is important to realize that the expansion of space does not affect the size of material objects such as galaxies, stars, apples, atoms, or other objects held together by some sort of force. Rather, because the galaxies are bound by gravitational forces, the circle and the galaxies within it would keep their size and configuration as the balloon enlarged. This is important because we can detect expansion only if our measuring instruments have fixed sizes. If everything were free to expand, then we, our yardsticks, our laboratories, and so on would all expand proportionately and we would not notice any difference.

"The Grand Design" , Stephen Hawkin and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, New York, 2010.

https://www.nairaland.com/1000711/ex-nihilo-nihil-fit-refutes/7#11649462

Martian: Dude, everyone's knowledge is limited when it comes to the universe. You feel you know but all you do is take the knowledge we have and twist it to fit your imaginations. Then you huff , puff and act like what you feel is verifiable fact.
You're not the only one with ideas. Plaetton also has his but he doesn't act like they are absolute facts.

Deep Sight: Thanks boss.

Now let's settle down.



It is by no means a resolved question: and there are several different view points even within the scientific academia.

Thus google is useless. I wanted YOUR TAKE.




Now I will give you a one line knock-out:

Since you say that galaxies are moving apart from one another INTO SPACE THAT IS ALREADY THERE, then evidently such space was already there for the expansion to occur into.

Thus space was not created by the big b.ang.

Case closed. I hope you see now.

This is why I am bemused at you guys. You have no clue.

It is by no means a resolved question: and there are several different view points even within the scientific academia.

Deep Sight: Humility is my most shining virtue. I AM GREATLY HUMBLE. How dare you suggest that I am not humble. Will you kneel down joor! I am humble.

I have provided the questions conscisely again in my post at martian.

I am happy if you guys can conscisely address them.

Simple.

Deep Sight: No, you did not answer teh questions o. What you did was simply to repeat the mainstream current scientific viewpoint on spacetime. That was useless. What I request is that you give me specific answers to my specific questions. In case the posts were long, let me conscise the questions.

1. If space was created by or at the moment of the big b.ang, then into what is the expansion occuring?

Deep Sight: Okay Osuofia. Are you ready to settle down and address the issues?

I don't mind laying them on the table succintly for you.

Deep Sight: Lol, just giving as good as I get. Don't cry.

You see, you lot have proved something cardinal here: namely that you have no point to make on the substantive discussion. Ad hominems all the way, and it is usual. I threw out direct posers for your buddy martian. Rather than answer them head-on, he is worried about ancient aliens or how "exposed" I a.

And I comfortably predicted that he neither could nor would address those questions.

So. . . . . hey!

Deep Sight: Ah, breathe.

Hmmmm? Breathe.

I am not the source of your issues ok?

Stop obsessing on a faceless person on a faceless forum.

You don't stalk, do you. I hope not.

Deep Sight: Hope the c/u/m is out now.

Ah, breathe.

Deep Sight: If it is to cheer-lead insulting Deep Sight, you arise with your desperate inferiority complex. Give it up mate. I ain't your ex girlfriend, am I?

Deep Sight: I am content to be ridiculed by dolts. You surely don't imagine that I am concerned about ridicule from people who can hardly think?

You have never advanced a single original thought on this forum. All you do is ask others to stop thinking.

How and why should I be concerned at ridicule from such a man?

Or ridicule from liars?

Deep Sight: I wrote it already - here is my final position on you, Mr. Jayriginal.



You bring nothing to the table. Scoot off.

Deep Sight: You are still bringing nothing to the table, you know?

plaetton: Breath of air. Thank you. i was almost suffocating under Under Deepsights Fantasies.

Like Jayriginal Stated before. Deepsight simply cannot seperate A mere notion, a mental projection, no matter how elegant, from the reality of what we know and we dont yet know.

To him, an elegant notion has to magically transform into indisputable fact that everyone has to accept or be mocked.
Sounds more like a religion.

We all, at one time or another,have considered non-scientific notions that usually fill in the gaps of knowledge. It is called imagination. Imagine if I were to write mine donw on paper and bury it a time capsule, someone,a thousand years from today, may find it and claim that they have discovered the holy grail that contains hidden knowledge about the universe.

It amazes me how Deepsight waxes easily and confidently about pre-existence and eternity, and forgets to remind us that those are simply abstract projections that are not supported by any science. He states them as facts and not as his opinions.

Martian: I don't need to rebutt your position because your position is based on your emotions and things you think are logical, even when obervations shows that you're wrong. I clicked on one of the links you posted from 2009 and you were there saying the same thing about your disagreement with the nature of time and how you feel you are right about what time "really is". Then you name dropped Galileo and Copernicus and the opposition they faced, as if your rhetoric is akin to their assertions which were based on observations. Get off your high horse. You must have some special people around you that give you this over inflated ego. lol
You've stated your position a thousand times, you can't expect me to keep arguing about the same thing over and over and over.

You must have some special people around you that give you this over inflated ego. lol

Now you have talked about order and logic.

Let me suggest to you a divide between truth and how to know truth.

Truth is the constant.

In our journey towards Truth, we have our senses by which we perceive and then we have logic by which we reason.

Since we cannot start from a vacuum, we must accept as a given that order exists.

With logic we explore this order and move towards truth.

I hold that if there exists order, then there must be one that gives order.

I hold that our search for Truth is really our search for the One who gives order.
When we observe order and try to seek the the reason behind order, What we are really doing is asking the question: Who/What gives order? and Why order instead of absolute disorder?

Now let me describe something else that is really interesting.
If our senses are limited such and our first basic foundational truth comes from observation using our senses then our logic is such that it is limited as it cannot go beyond the realms of our senses. This is where communication and revelation comes in.

I'll explain with this analogy:
Assuming our Urhobo boy (or Tiv) bakes a cake, We can by our senses experience the cake i.e. see it, touch it, taste it e.t.c. We find the order of the cake. We can even get the best scientists in the world to carry out all sorts of logical tests on the cake such that we know every thing that can be known about the cake up to the number of atoms in it.
Now assuming I ask why did Urhobo boy bake the cake. I put to you that no amount of sensual experience and logic can tell us why he baked the cake. He is the only one that can possibly know this.
Let us say He tells us why he baked the cake, we must also use our reasoning and logic to now make sense of why the cake is as it is. I a sense, we begin to observe the cake in a whole different light than when the baker had not yet told us why.

I hope you have understood me thus far.

For the reasons above, I hold that where there is order, there exists an order-giver which is the Truth of the order we experience, we can infer that the order-giver(truth) exists by reasoning but we can only really know Truth by revelation.


I could go further but I'll stop here for now. I've had enough procrastination for one day. . .lol.
I'll come back to this a bit later but first tell me if you agree.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

Douglas Adams