4) What is Infinity and what is Zero? 

Infinity is not a fiction or imagination. It is a part of reality, because it is a positive quantity or measurement, but it is too big for us to describe a count or a dimension for it. It is real also because it exists in all kinds of circumstances! In the state of  "infinity" there are no beginning, no mid-point and no end, nor any point of reference. The human begins life in an environment of infinity, where things and events are simply countless. He also ends his life without having experienced or encountered all the things and events. Therefore, human awareness can and does exist in the reality of unaccountable infinities, be they things, or events in life and in nature. For that matter, no living beings or events can ever exist outside the state of infinity. In such analysis, it is not unnatural or untrue to say that the universal existence is a state of infinity or eternity, and time, which represents reality, is an infinite progression. Yet, despite the analysis, it is still typical of the human to think that there must be a beginning and an end of everything. And Why? Because all the human sees are repetitions of beginnings and ends of lives, of things and of events, which are only temporary existences, such as the egg or the chicken! But when you see them or hear about them everyday, fictions can become reality, even a course of nature, until eventually life, society and the entire civilization becomes made-belief, or hollow! For instance, no one asks, is the Big Bang Singularity the beginning of universe? How long had it been there before its explosion? Or perhaps what size was its 4th dimension (time) before explosion?  

Although time is purely a human invention, yet, in human conceptual behaviors, the references of time are very important because without them the human sense of timing would be lost and the human would be left disorientated. For instance, there would be no days, months, nor years, and we wouldn't know how old we are!... In mathematical applications, both Infinity and Zero are generally, or rather unconsciously, taken as realities and put into daily use. However, Infinity in cosmology may be regarded as an Uncertainty, just like the Principle of Uncertainty in quantum physics They are both real but uncertain, because nature does exist in a state of perpetual change or in a capacity of indeterminable infinity, yet at the same time, it is in dynamic balance (this will be further demonstrated under the phenomenon of "dynamic symmetry" in other parts of this theory). However, unlike Infinity, which is a reality, Zero is an abstract or imaginary quantity, because in reality Zero does not exist! There is no such thing as Zero or true Nothingness in existence, just as there is no "empty space", not even an independent existence of "space", since "space" is none other than the corporal extension of mass/energy. Even vacuum contains negative energy... 

In other words, the term Infinity may be rather difficult to grasp and comprehend, but it is real in existence, while Zero is just an abstract assumption. One would do well to bear in mind that the "unreal' term Zero is mixed in daily use and treated with equal validity as the 'real' term Infinity or other real numbers, very often many times over in one same mathematical application. One may therefore ask what is the true result of mixing an imaginary existence into a real number?.... What's more, in general applications a small part divided by a colossal number, for instance one divided by a multiple of trillions, is often taken as "zero", but in modern quantum physics or in String Theory, perhaps even in cosmology, one atom or one cosmic object divided into a trillion parts can still have a significant number because the object can still consist of unknown multi-trillions of elementary parts. No matter how tiny the dividend appears to be, it is not "zero"! In both ends, i.e. in sub-atomic scale and in cosmological scale, astronomical numbers and even uncertain quantities are common place, this resultant dividend could still be meaningful! We are barely beginning to understand these extreme scales... Obviously I am not suggesting that one should stop using mathematics, but should one wonder if such traditional mathematical assumptions do qualify for all new and old scenarios with permanent or complete freedom and impunity? For after all, mathematics are numerical devices of philosophy, they must pass the test of philosophical bases before all else and at all times.    

Mathematics in scientific application are like the transport vehicles. Without them many things don't get very far. Yet in traveling, as long as it is around the earth, we usually know where we are going, and in science, as long as it is chemistry or physics or any of the daily applied Newtonian sciences, we also know what we are doing. But when it comes to the size, the shape, the age and the origin as well as the future of the universe, these are the spots and dark corners where no one has ever visited and probably no light has shone before. Well, it's not surprising and perfectly true that we don't know too much about the universe yet? Still we can make sure it is solid ground that we stand on, and then go on step by step. In other words, let's bear in our minds what real or unreal.  It is safer to base on some things or knowledge that not only we can visualize, but also we can understand, such as common logics or even common sense, or better still, common proven facts, or at the very least, things that are familiar... Because only when knowledge is true and dependable, it is valuable!  

There had been no less than over a dozen versions of theories of the universes just between 1917 to the 1960s. All of them had been proposed on some extents of mathematics support. For instance, starting from 1917 there was the Static Einstein Universe, the De Sitter Universe, the Lemaitre Universe as well as some versions and variations of Friedmann Universes ... and many others, such as the T. Gold/F. Holye Steady State Universe, but now only a couple of them are left still under discussions... Thanks to Minkowski who started the 4th dimension. Now there are also 5 versions of String Theory with 5 versions of mathematics, which suggest that our universe may have extra dimensions ranging from 10, 11 to even 26 dimensions.  .... Amongst all mathematics in cosmology the equations of Lorentz Transformation remain particularly influential, but 100 years has passed, it remains controversial. It simply decides that the speed of light is the top limit of all motions without explanations. As a result, theories such as curved space, dilated time, static universe, æther, cosmological constant, energy-mass equation, spacetime continuum, spacetime curvature, relativistic gravitation, big bang singularity, gravitational black holes, and lots more, were born... See, how one thing leads to another, and how fast or far things can go! 

Modern mathematics such as algebra, calculus, statistics .... including computers, etc.... are wonderful devices and tools invented not too long ago. Still, these marvelous inventions are brain-child of logics whose brain-parent was philosophy, and whose good old ancient grandpa was common sense. At the bottom of all super advanced sciences and technologies, there resides none other than common sense, and what we are used to understand... (Perhaps soon enough when people go to Mars, if they stay long enough, they might prefer to use Martian digital system, based on 11 digits rather than 10, because Mars has one more satellite than Earth, making 11 cosmic bodies orbiting and affecting its evolution!)...  At any rate, if we can understand reality with simple and realistic terms, then all excessive gadgets become tasteless, even meaningless, and they only complicate or side-track the real issues. In which case, direct and realistic descriptions will suffice and must prevail. The difference between the reality of infinity and the non-existent zero is just a parable, but rather alarming. The message here is that not all people bother to dig and see which is real and which is not! Yet, appreciation of cosmology is built on reality of established facts, not on impressive or strangely provocative names or adjectives. I will therefore try my best to describe the universe here in simple terms, understandable language, common sense and established knowledge as well as direct observations... (Checked 15/04/2012)