proof of life?

Bodies not boddies, their not there, fusion not fussion. varible not varibly. Gravitational force is far more powerful than electromagnetic fields. The planets are held in place rather than thrown out by the fields. How can you use the term ambigous when describing science? I do thank you for your response. I do not deny that the universe is expanding. What I am saying is that it shouldn't be. All atomic, molecular, cellular, planetary and stellar units are held in place by a cohesive force be it the attraction of polar negatives or gravitational force. The fact that the universe is expanding goes against sequential thought. Think about it. Solidspirit.

Sequncial thought is possibly the wrong way to think about it. Though our knowledge of science and Astrophysics are phenomenal they are not yet totaly complete. There is still much to learn in the ways of the universe that we will not learn untill we get out there and begin to experience it first hand. Now don't get me wrong it could be devine inluence but I think as per most things like gravity we will find a universal constant for it. My answer was merely one of the plosible solutions to attempt to explain the gross expansion the universe continues to indure. Plus there are lots of things as learned as a race that we know about science there are still many of things that are "ambigous" like the human soul.

Sorry Dickus... you have clearly misunderstood, this is about science not toilets, enjoy your day with the blunt scissors and colouring books all the best urban

You should not consider that comment arrogant, only that when we are discussing such matters a greater precision and accuracy of language use is necessary and yours was so clumsy and ambiguous that it was impossible to have any confidence in correctly interpreting it all the best uraban

Thanks urban for your response especially in an opposing viewpoint. I let the arrogant incoherent comment bounce off like a .22 off a tank as I'm more interested in the discussion. I agree that vacuum in itself is not a force but gravity is but more importantly, is the most elemental force in the universe and as vacuum does not offer resistance, the flow of star material should be toward each other. The pattern we see should be all matter coagulating. If our own sun is an example, nuclear fusion should be the source of the big bang with black holes and quasars still moving out in expansion. The central galaxies should be running into the outer most galaxies for they should expanding at a slower rate then the inner and central ones because of running into one another and merging causing slowing expansion and creating a road block for the ones coming out from the center of the universe. Star matter attracted to each other should have caused huge galaxies swallowing up all around them in much the same way black holes do.One is caused by a great amount of mass and one is dense mass. The constellations should have expanded in ever increasing sizes in measurable amounts. Again, I submit that the inconsistency of the universe is proof of life. Science has to be exact for it has to be duplicatable and repeatable. Science can explain how a zygote is created but it doesn't change the fact that the zygote is living and this is my point about the universe. The universe is living from its most stellar size to the molecular and atomic level. Life exists from the smallest to the largest. What we see in the planetary orbits around the sun is no different than electrons orbiting the proton/neutron necleus of atoms. I am at your service. Thanks again and may you have the best day you've ever had. Solidspirit

Thanks for your response. I go backwards on my answer. If gravity has been explained, why can't it be duplicated in a repeatable manner or negated? If gravitational pull is determined by the mass of atoms/weight/density, why isn't it observable with smaller masses on still smaller masses even in a vacuum? Also, for a vacuum to be expanded, it has to have an external force which is contrary to the Big Bang theory. The expansion of the universe, I submit, is proof of life. Thanks

Well this is only observable with the planets right now we can't go scale modle to see what will happen because one of the planets gravatational pull would get in the way making it inconclusive. This is because of a round oberit it would be pulled by other things making an akward oberit or the object would just be pulled away from the scale modle of a planet or star. They would also need to get far way from this scale modle because their own gravitational pul although not very strong would contribute to the objects floating away.

I was going to comment re vacuum and gravity, but since Urban decay already handled that (and very well btw), I'll go at it from another angle. You titled this discussion '"proof of life". But all this talk of gravity, collapsing universes and so on is unnessecary. Life, the fact that you and I and everybody else exist, is the only proof of life you need. I think what you mean is proof of God. I think you're trying to say that the way the universe operates is proof of God's existence. Which is hardly a new viewpoint. And I don't dismiss it out of hand. Instead what I would say is that the universe operates is proof, but the question is of what. Some say it's proof there's a God. Some say it's proof there isn't a God. The problem is that right now the proof is open to many interpretations. We don't know enough to determine the correct one.