The "Big Bang Theory" Question.
What was the "medium" within which the "Big Bang" happened?
There are other interesting considerations.hey, "Bang" can indicate to a lot of things i.e. The Big Bang Theory (porn edition), Beijing Bang Bang, the Gang Bang theory
. You have to b specific. Which one r u talking abt? 
Rishy:
Sure.
The one, alledgedly, responsible for the universe we exist within.
Would you like a more complex identification or will this do?Surely it will do
No medium existed prior to big bang, big bang created the space & medium we are living in. Its a gud question by the way. & I think I havent answered ur question. Ryt?
The Big Bang Theory came about when Scientists cannot come up with a good answer to counter the existence of a God. So, conveniently, everything in the Universe turned up all-of-a-sudden and out-of-nowhere for a mass orgy from where the term Big Bang comes from.
So the short answer should be - no medium existed before the big bang, but latest developments in quatum theories came up with loads of mumbo jumbo (I forgot what) about particles or whatever tinier than atoms that existed before the big bang.
Well the last big bang I had was with Suzie Long and the medium was between the sheet in the bed of my apartment. I can tell you more than a few stars were formed by that collision and I'm hoping to create a whole other alternative universe this weekend!
I see that you aren't that well informed
Sorry to Burst your Bubble but......
Apparently it wasn't a Big Bang at all
Suzie Long told Maria Short that the stars came from an overactive headboard and that she hopes that you can last a bit longer than the 2 minutes you did before 
Now a medium is a more of a physical entitity. However space is the lack of anything. So big bang would have happened into a void if you will.
Space is more conceptual than anything else. It is actually nothingness and is a pure dimension.
There are some theories that create bounds in the universe. Even so space is still the lack of matter.
So space, which is where the big bang would expand, is the lack of anything and therefore does not need to be created.Ben:
You've put some thought into that response. Thanks.
I agree that if "space" was empty and truly a 'void" one could could assume that the "Big Bang" existed in a "void." ( What are the limits of this 'void?'") But who is to say that the "void" beyond the point which the "big bang" happened, is not filled with the results of countless other "explosions" and that "void" is rife with "mass?"
These are the kinds of thoughts which befuddle the best minds on the planet.
Our "knowledge" of all that exists is restricted to that which can be observed in the miniscule facet of "all" which exists within our "sensed" universe.
We can only dream about that which exists beyond.
Distances are so immense that those mysteries will NEVER be known to man during the short period of time he will exist.I actually didnt put a lot of thought to this. I have been involved in and have studied mathematics for quite some time. My concept of a void without limits is perfectly plausable in my mind. Visually being able to conceive space in more than 3 dimensions is hard. Space in which we visualize is coordinate system of x, y , z (or other three dimensional system). Whether space is bounded or not still does not negate there being a void whithin the bounds from which we percieve. Even if whithin space there is particle matter, a void exists when there is a lack of this matter.
While our universe has been described by dimensions which are much higher than three, there is not yet the mathematical solution to prove these theories. Actually at this point no one can do the math. While we think of these theories are pertaining to dimensions, they apply more to the proof of gravity, and weak and strong nuclear forces. This is the basis for guft.
I tend to think that many people adhere to the big bang theory and now there are some other theories that are other theories that now exist. I for one believe that the big bang theory is just that a theory and I shall not try to prove its existence.
However, as far as being able to conceptualize and understand space I think it is indepent of both the big bang theory as well as how our universe is dimensionally bounded.
I think that the big bang is a very hard conceptualization and I also believe there may be many new theories that come along. It is nice to be able to think about these things and also conceptualize these things. It expands our minds.Ben:
These words "It expands our minds." is the uniqueness of human progress.
Yes. That void exists in both the macro and quantum worlds of existence.
It is the fundamental aspect of all science fiction.
I'm not a mathematician. I am a logician, realist and pragmatist who understands the profundity of human ignorance and the unlimited ontological/epistemological abilities inherent in the human brain.
11 dimensions? Far too complex for this simple mind to comprehend.
The illuminati who understand such "esoterica," are unfortunately a minority surrounded by the primitive and lesser evolved of the human species who jeopardize the longevity of mankind.
The cosmos is pure violence and WE are a semi-intelligant short-lived product of that reality that may never live to realize our full potential.
We are on a return journey to that "void.". I am a logician, realist and pragmatist
After reading you, I wouldn't say you are ! LOLWatchya:
I can accept that you disagree, but pls offer an explanation why you disagree.
Isn't that fair?What do you want me to explain?
Read yourself. What has your post to do with logic, reality and pragmatism?
Fair, yes.
But I'm not
LOLWatchya:
It is evident to me from that comment, that you are unwilling or unable to offer a logical, realistic, pragmatic reply to my question.
I find nothing in my post to disagree with.
I would appreciate you breaking down the intent of every sentence and enlighten me by teaching me according to your interpretation of my words, where I have gone so wrong.
Would/could you kindly and thoughfully do this for me? TY...:-)"The cosmos is pure violence and WE are a semi-intelligant short-lived product of that reality that may never live to realize our full potential.
We are on a return journey to that "void."
What is the logic in there?
Cosmos it's not violent or anything else. Humans can't describe it with words.
What's real in saying we're returning to the void ?
And what's pragmatic in believing that?
I can't find anything logic, real or pragmatic in that comment.TY Watchya:
I now know the level of your intellect...lol
I will not ask you again to respond to my comments.
I do appreciate your honesty....:-)Arrogance !
I will respond anyway. I think you don't know what you're talking about, and there are some people here that, as they don't know either and are ashamed to say so, acquiesce with whatever you say !How would you kow that, if you are a new member of Hubpages?
Do I need to be an old hubber to see what's going on ? LOL
I only had to read a couple of pages in this thread to get the picture ! LOL
That is a pretty humanistic veiw Quark. Kinda depressing.
I think I'ma go cry...Science fiction while often contrived takes its cue from science. I do not mean to try to appear sarcastic or sharp in my words. I am sorry if I appear that way.
I seperate my philosophical and spiritual ideas from science. I believe that science is is a secular study. So my understanding and thesis is coming from that standpoint.
I agree that we as humans have a short and small exixtence in this universe. Those who call themselves among the very few enlightened people are not as enlightened as they think. Many people take advantage of their abilities to master their realm or to have power or dominion over others.
As small as our existence is in this world and universe, we are quite unique and powerful in our own right. While we cannot individually affect the whole universe, we are quite powerful and we can do much for ourselves as well as the few people who are within our sphere. Great things can actually be accomplished on a small scale.
Quark, I believe you are very smart person and while I explain my view of the universe in another way I certainly dont intend to take away from what you are saying. I am just trying to explain my view (mathematical and physical) of our universe.Ben:
You express yourself from the heart.
I understand, totally, what you say.
I agree with you in ref to the import of "WE" to ourselves.
To the "cosmos" we are but an ephemeral "happening."
I find no great importance in anything man does on this planet.
I live but for a few decades and am gone...forever.....as does every other form of life.
You are quite correct when you say that the "brightest" of us is abjectly ignorant.
Aristotle, when introduced as the most learned of men, replied: (paraphrase) 'Certainly thou doth jest! Why, I am the most ignorant of men.
The point of my question is simply this: we are comprised of the most basic elements of the universe. We are just the serendipitous result of time and evolution. We are an infant species gifted with an anomaly i.e. "consciousness" which has and is creating myriad problems for us. If we cannot use that "gift" to adapt to Mother Gaia, we will disappear, as so many others have and the cosmos will not "twitch" at our loss.
I respect your thoughts and your delivery.
So far you impress me as being a "thinker" ...a rarity! :-)
If there was a Big Bang the matter was already here. Space and all matter have no beginning and no end. They just transform. Creation cannot happen from nothing.
there was the in between matter and energy. matter and energy separated during the big bang, separated meaning in terms of manifestation, creating dimension.
Still - they exist! As you've stated, all matter can exist on many different levels. Undoubtedly, most of these levels current mankind is unaware of or even have the faintest grasp of in terms of their laws and physics.
To say that the matter from the galaxies we see at night didn't exist prior to a "bang" is rather narrow in the context to an infinite universe of possibilites. Perhaps the matter was there, but was just pulled back together to cause a bang. Perhaps the galaxies already existed and an "event" brought them into this realm of view or dimension. Perhaps these epic "bangs" can occur and occupy the same space at the same time, yet on different dimensions.
Possibilities are endless.i agree with you, it did exist except it was not an existence perse. something was there but it was indeterminate, meaning NOT MEASURABLE.
it's like you can't make out a form, no dimension. like perhaps how you would instinctively describe a soul without a body.Agreed. There is no soul without the body for the body and spirit constitute the soul. The individual spirit is very real but exists on a different level "not measurable" according to our temporal existence. Our spirits are every bit at eternal in nature as the galactic elements.
in hebrew, spirit, wind and strength (force) are described as OX, meaning ox power...you get it? spirit is energy. that thing that is a no-thing moving and creating all the manifestations in its resting stage.
but yeah, lets not rattle the scaredy cats... these are all mathematical concepts that makes you think outside of math.
I watched something about it on the Science Channel
In the String Theory if I understood it right. There were at least two Branes (an extended object with any given number of dimensions)
One Brane, which was the 4th dimension (Time) collided with a Brane that was 3 dimensional which caused the Big bang. It is just a theory. However I believe the Branes were connected and somehow separated which caused the Big Bang.
But it was not the beginning of time, just a part of the Universe we are aware of.
Before anyone attacks me on this. I took notes as I watched it on TV.The concept of the Big Bang did not originate with Edwin Hubble, but from a Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaître in 1927, two years before Hubble published his observations of the Red Shift.
This theory arose because the Catholic church, which was active in science, was seeking for a “scientific” proof for many centuries that God created the universe. They wanted to cross the line from belief into science. Only then could they claim bragging rights that their theology was the truth.
The BB claims the medium was "nothing". It is creation ex nihilo!
Hubble initially didn't want to accept this theory because it doesn't explain why there are so many blue-shifted galaxies.
Einstein didn't want to accept it either, because the 'singularity' violates Special Relativity.
So these idiots who believe in the Big Bullshit theory cannot have it both ways. They cannot harp on religion and creationists, when they are actually pushing their OWN religion with creation out of NOTHING! They have no rational explanations for anything they preach. Their position is hilariously stupid at all levels.
The BB is nothing but religion dressed up as science!Well, that would be Stephen Hawking who mathematically proved big bang...but that would not be ex nihilo. It is the lay people who are ascribing religious meaning to big bang and they would also be wrong as religious myth is saying
"world without end, a mean" the omnipotent as the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end...meaning
tenth dimension and first dimension.
http://www.break.com/index/how-to-imagi … nsion.html
The Big Bang, God, etc, can be easily ‘proven’ within their ‘defined systemic context’, just as all concepts can. But that's where they 'stay'.
It is impossible for a concept to jump out of Hawking’s brain; go Bang! and then become ‘Big’ as it gets reified into space and matter.
What Hawking failed to do, is explain how a “void” (not even space), can “create” space (nothing) and matter (atoms).
"but that would not be ex nihilo"
It most certainly would be “creation from nothing”, as defined by the religion of the Big Bang.
"It is the lay people who are ascribing religious meaning to big bang"
Agreed. Hawking should know better than to be ascribing the religious “creation from nothing” to ‘space’ and ‘matter’.i don't think he meant it to be religious. he computed the stretching of the fabric of space from a singularity. The singularity as the point of origin of space-time, time being an experience of space and not a separate component of reality.
what i have been trying to offer is this...the singularity is not nothing but a starting point of the expansion. what is within the singularity is another universe in a different scale with the exact same dimensions.“stretching of the fabric of space”
Space is nothing. It is not an object. It lacks shape. It is the static distance between objects. As such, it cannot “stretch” like your pants can, when you consume too many physical objects.
“The singularity as the point of origin of space-time”
Very unscientific!
A 'point' is a 2D geometric figure in the shape of a circle...like this ---> .
What was the “medium” that facilitated this ‘point’, before the universe was created from it? Was it sitting on a piece of paper? And was the ‘point’ made out of ink from a pen, or graphite from a pencil?
And what is this “spacetime” you speak of? Is it a physical object or a concept?
Physics is the study of objects; namely, physical objects that exist. We usually leave the study of concepts to Religion, Philosophy, Politics, and to some of the ‘brighter’ patients in the mental ward.
Anyway, you should get familiar with Einstein and his SR before you reference his works. Relativity explicitly forbids singularities. Your 'singularity' is a contradiction of "Big Bang" proportions!
“the singularity is not nothing but a starting point of the expansion”
This ‘point’ you speak of ---> .
.....is a 2D shape, a concept. As such, it doesn’t exist. What can only exist is the physical ink & paper it’s drawn on.
Concepts can only ‘expand’ in religion, never in physics.
“within the singularity is another universe in a different scale with the exact same dimensions”
Wow! All that in the little 2D dot --> . <-- which doesn't even exist?
I think I’m gonna go back to believing in Jesus. At least he can do ‘real’ things like “walk on water”, which is a physical object, and build stars & planets & living tissue from atoms.
He used to be a carpenter you know, actually working with real physical objects....so he is FAR more plausible than some neo pseudo religion known as the Big Bang.
Anyone can figure that out based on the definitions. Voids don't create space or matter, by definition.
There was no "medium" then just as there is no "medium" now. Space is defined as the distance between two objects. If there are no objects, there isn't any 'space' as defined.
"Void" might be the answer you're looking for?The big bang is a contradiction, if their was nothing then how did that explode to create everything. According to scientists including Stepehen Hawking there are a proven 11 dimensions. The only logical assumption therefore is that a higher power from one of these dimensions that is beyond our comprehension created everyting. though what created the being.......
Read the bible " I am that I am" spoken to moses through the burning bush.
Dense and zzron, those were both such asinine answers I won't bother to reply other than to offer what I just wrote. There are those who are active in the forum whom I have listed as those who offer nothing worthy of response.
I have just added you 2.
That should please you....:-)@zzron: Your summary is better than my summary.
For anyone willing to actually read the current theory and comment on it I have two words for you.
Lawrence Krauss.
Lawrence gives many public lectures and has been awarded for his clarity in explaining many current scientific theories.I have often wondered about the expansion of the universe about us. I would always ask, if we are expanding, what are we expanding into?
There has to be some kind of larger space beyond this.Thank you Mike.
...and what might you think that may be?...and why?Not as I understand it, there doesn't HAVE to be anything, it is our limited perception of what is 'nothing' and and what is the nature of space that gives us this picture of something we must expand into. As we don't 'know' it and us could be anything ?
Poet:
Ah but that was not my question.
What is it that the "Big Bang" existed in and expanded into?
This is a question that could drive a contemplative person insane trying to "know."
If "whatever" it is exists as it does, isn't the possibility of there being unlimited numbers of potential for other "Big Bangs" to have happened, happening and will happen, "chronically" forever?well theres a theory which states the possibility of multiple big bangs that might have happened at the same time. The same theory also states the possibility of the existence of multiple (millions) universe existing side by side, expanding (at present) & contracting (might happen in future) just like lines of bubbles.
Again I think the problem is in our ability to describe, find the words for. You talk of bubbles of universes and multiple universes side by side - but actually we don't really know what this means enough to even discuss it rationally.
That is called the theory of Bubble Universes.
A can full of beer sitting on a shelf has no activity taking place within its self. Shake it and energy is loosed in the form of expanding gaseous bubbles. The energy unlocked can swell and pop a can. I can imagine "space" filled with That kind of action. Inumerable Big Bangs exploding endlessly far beyond our ability to understand.
I'm gonna hit the sac.....g'nite all...:-)
I think it is the answer to your question - we are not able to describe these things yet - and so the limited words we use are kinda 'wrong'.
I see this like the creationist phenomenon, they are just unable to think in big enough time, the idea of what can happen in millions of years is beyond their imagining ablity. In the same way - I have a relation who just does not 'see' art, he is violently against wasting any money on anything 'arty' to the point of demonstrating and writing letters to the Times about it!
well i don't know if expanding, its more like stretching the way you stretch a rubberized fabric, or mozzarella.
The medium was a hot Extra Terrestrial curry that apparently originated in the general region of Uranus
This is a deep subject, but I only read as far back as our sun exploding, and fragments of it were blasted out into space. Most of the pieces were sucked back in by the trememdous force of gravity exerted by the sun. The rest of the pieces, travelling at huge speeds, like the sun, shot round in circles, sometimes hitting each other, until gradually the molten rocks cooled and they slowed down until eventually they became our solar system. The sun lost a huge amount of its gravitational pull but still retains a lot - enough to pull back the trajectories it is still throwing out today - the so-called solar flares.
The 'medium' in which it all happened was space, which is unchanged now to what it was then.We cannot get away from the fact that the big bang theory is just that, a theory. It all exists in our minds. The mind cannot function without the concepts of time, space and causality....but ideas are in the millions of which none are true.
To say that everything is one event. That the past, present and future are contained in an infinitesimal point sounds ludicrous. Yet we cannot deny that nothing happens, or ever did happen, outside of the present instant.Not being a quantum physicist myself, I can't testify to this, but I really thought they had mathematical formula that proved their theory? Not saying that was ultimate proof because it is still called a theory, but having mathematical backing gives it a lot more credence than any other theory.
Lawrence Krauss is the worlds best at explaining the big bang theory.
He has made many videos and has lectured in front of his peers many many times. His series can be found at the BBC website.This song explains it all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxDcOxXQI-kI am sure we have moved past the big bang and onto the big bounce.... which begs the ?.
Where did the material for the big sqish and bounce come from?
So we're back to, they don't know. But it is a good guess.
Just another of thier supositions. Superstitions?
Whatever.might there not have been another universe in place predating the big bang?
That is the going theory. One which reached maximum expulsion before imploding upon itself.
But.
That doesn't answer or even speak to the eternal ? of did God create the universes.
Actually. No science, nor theory, is even intended or devised to do so. But the Athiestic wing of the sciences cannot help themselves. So the shit spews and the suppositions swirl the rim.I don't think science will ever be complete, because science attempts to explain GOD's creation.
But that is in no way the role of science and should not be the reason it is undertook. Science deals with the physical world. And God is spirit. Science, for now it seems, is excluded from that realm.
Doesn't frustrate me.
I am not one of those idiots that spins his way through the prevailing theorisms, to try and prove or dis-prove God had anything to do with it.
Science has it's place in God's world. And God has His place in Science. I see no reason the two cannot co-exist. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.
But. Alot of scientists I know seem to think they are.So the basic concept of scientific thought is making an observation, in this case assumed to have always acted the way it does now, and then making predictions based on the observations. If further observations and tests agree with the predictions over and over, we have a theory. For the big bang, they observed that the universe is uniformly expanding using the physics of light frequency and stuff. From here they thought, where is the universe expanding from? So they decided that it could have come from one point of energy in space. But in order for this to have any validity, there would have to be some sort of evidence that agreed with this. So they had to predict what kind of evidence there would be. They predicted that there would be background radiation of the universe had indeed expanded rapidly for the first few billion years or whatever. And they found this radiation. So this led to proposed ideas on what the beginning of the universe would be like. So they predicted what the ratios of elements would be in such an environment, and they found these ratios. So they then decided that these elements could combine to form denser elements, and the forces of gravitation would act on these elements, which is observed by the existing condition of the universe. And hence the big bang theory.
So long story short, its based on observation, prediction, more observation, proposal, assumption, debate, but NO DEFINITE ANSWER TO ANYTHING. That's why its a theory. Its a good try, but we can't really "prove" any of it. The reason why people find more validity in this than anything religion tells us is because the observations somewhat agreed with the predictions. So these people become trusted in their proposal of what the first second of the universe could be like. It isn't truth, but when observations made in the Bible don't even agree with observations made with this type of thinking, it loses credibility, and therefore enhances the acceptance of things like the big bang.
I hope this made some sense, if not, just let me know how retarded I am.Natural:
Thanks:
Logically expressed, but doesn't answer my fundamental question: What did the "big bang" happen within....assuming that it happened of course.yeah i kinda took a long way of explaining that to think about the medium of the big bang is assume that it even happened. But the premise is actually based on some things in the universe we have found to be true, which was more of a reply to the guy who said that the big bang was scientists bad attempt because they couldnt countering the existence of a God.
I was referring to a comment up at the top made by "dense". So whatever god he refers to. To dig into the god thing I would refer to would take too long, but it relates to pantheism.
good call. I don't mind seeing a viewpoint I think is wrong, because by being limited to human perspective we are all wrong to some degree. But when people just don't think about what they say it angers me. Like people who don't understand evolution but then go on to say that scientists can't even agree on the principles of evolution in an attempt to discredit it. I'm graduating with a biology degree this month, and I'm pretty sure that no intelligent scientist has ever argued the basis of evolution. But that's another subject for discussion, just ranting here ha.
Ha ha ha !I don't think dense cares about it. God, you're arrogant ! LOL
Hi qwark:
It may be there is something illogical about your question.
It assumes a medium existed.
Why?
The existence of an "ether" was assumed by many scientists as a necessity within space (outer space). How else could energy waves like light or radio be carried? (They surmised.)
Must we of necessity assume there is a medium?
Is the Big bang an event known to repeat?
Is it observed? Is it inferred? Is it consistant with other general concepts about the universe?
Let's look at this word...THEORY.
It has two basic meanings.
#1. a hunch. a guess. a supposition.
#2. a principle. a law. a rule.
#1. Is watercooler conversation.
#2. Engineers use these principles to invent new technologies.Hubcrafter;
I try think of questions that cause people who think they may have an answer to, to respond.
In this case there is no answer but "guess."
I find it amusing to read the comments. Some silly and childish, some logical to the responder but without foundation. Some primitively religious and trite...on and on and on.
WE don't know what the "big bang" happened in, if anything at all.
At this moment in our evolution journey, opinions are all we can offer...
My question isn't illogical, it's not even senseless...it's just a query....:-)“Must we of necessity assume there is a medium?”
It has nothing to do with assumption, belief, truth, or with any “authority” signing their name on it and decreeing it as “gospel”. This is an issue we can resolve here and now:
Physics is the study of objects that exist. We leave the study of concepts to the patients in the asylum.
Consider the edge of the supposed BB expansion. If we go to this supposed edge, can we put our arm through it? Can we drill through it?
If yes, then there was no universe created by BB. The universe was already there!
If no, then why not? What hard ‘substance’ is this supposed “edge” made from? Steel? Titanium? No matter how hard it is, it can be broken!
If there is an edge or border to the universe, then there MUST be something behind that edge. That something is called: the universe which was already there!
Students of math-physics have learned to repeat what they’ve memorized from idiot Hawking: "Uh duh, that's like asking what is north of the North Pole?"
Well, SPACE is north of the North Pole and south of the South Pole. And there are stars & planets out there!! That's the 'stuff' we encounter when we take a step radially outwards from the North Pole. They need to get their heads out of their asses so they can "visualize" the universe.
Space is what “contours” the supposed “edge” of the BB expansion. So space was already there, which contradicts the religion of the BB.
So here is the challenge to those who subscribe to the religion of the BB:
Explain the physical mechanism that allows space (nothing, void), spontaneously and of its own volition, to acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into an object.
>Let's look at this word...THEORY.
>It has two basic meanings.
>#1. a hunch. a guess. a supposition.
>#2. a principle. a law. a rule.
A scientific theory is not a: guess, law, rule, fact, truth or proof. It is a rational “explanation” that can be visualized.
The scientific method consists of a Hypothesis (assumptions, objects, definitions, and initial scene), and a Theory (rational explanation).
BB Hypothesis: There was no space, no matter, no time.
BB Theory: I can now rationally explain the spontaneous creation of space, matter, and time, as follows......
We are still waiting for Hawking and his idiots to complete the BB Theory and fill in the blanks above.
But their only response to our query is: "Uh duh, that's like asking what is north of the North Pole?""Physics is the study of objects that exist. We leave the study of concepts to the patients in the asylum."
Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en& … mp;f=false
Math Concepts:
http://www2.ups.edu/community/tofu/lev1f/conframe.htm
"WHAT IS A MATHEMATICAL CONCEPT?
Einar Jahr, Hedmark University College, NORWAY
The main goal of my ongoing research project is to find out how human beings form
mathematical concepts. This is a very complicated matter, and has to be analyzed in
several steps. The very first step is to clarify what a concept is, and then try to
characterize the mathematical concepts. My starting point will be some observations
of how various people use the word ‘concept’.
... it became clearer to me than before
that many people just mean a word or an expression when they use the word concept.
This indicates a very poor understanding of what a concept is"
Big bang has alot of issues.
One is the formation and cool down rate for the amount of matter we see present in the universe.
Two is that if the big bang happened. Then we should in theory be able to recreate the structural growth of the universe in reverse, and see a direct regression to the biginning.... the bang itself.
We cannot. It doesn't work.
So, alot of issues.
As you said a good guess. But?... That doesn't mean we stop trying or guessing, either. You know. We just should not lock ourselves into one theory or the other. To the exclusion of all other thought and theory on a said matter.Mason:
I agree.
The TOE (Theory of Everything) is taking the "Super String Theory" to the "nth" degree.
It has been proven mathematically, but not subjectively.
It is thinking beyond the "theory of the big bang."
Man is such a curious creature that this kind of thinking will never stop.
If man can continue to survive as a species, he will unravel myriad wonderous possiblities.
I asked this question in the hope that a few here in the forum, might be inspired to "think" seriously about the reasons we exist and why.The "Big Bang" theory was so called rather surreptiously by Astophysicist Hoyle, who promoted the Solid State theory. Detection of cosmic rays suggested an initial explosion, observation of an expanding universe confimed this.
The Bible says at John 1:1, that "in the BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth."
So, the Bible does NOT contradict the Big Bang theory, really.
The Hebrew verb ba.ra' means to "create', which suggests to form from NOTHING. This suggests that MATTER can be created.
The Law of the Conservation of Mass, basically states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, this was subsequently modified to add "by chemical means".
It has since been proven that matter CAN be created using INTENSE energy. It is an accepted scientific fact that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but is transformed from one type to another.
Essentially, the Bible when placed under the 'microscope' proves to be way ahead of man in key concepts relating to science. It is sound in all respects, be it historical, prophetic, scientific. Its internal harmony is only interrupted by faulty translations e.g. 3rd edition Textus Receptus, which was used significantly in the KJV translation. Google "The Historical Account of Two Noted Corruptions in Scripture", as wriiten by Sir Isaac Newton.
Compare 1 John 5:7, Revelation 1:11 and 1 Timothy 3:16, in as many different translations as is feasible.
All are invited to my Hub for more info." "in the BEGINNING God..."
Pls tell me sir, what is this "god" thing mentioned above?
I can't take you seriously if you can't define "it" with fact.
If you are just imagining "it," how can you present the concept of "it" and expect us to accept you as being a credible forum hubber?
That was a very , very interesting idea, I thought, Qwark. That TOE theory, that supercedes the superstring theory. I'm not sure I understand all the implications, but it is a very interesting idea. Thanks for putting this out here, I enjoyed very much reading all the input here. Fascinating!
Oh, boy, here we go, back to a religious war on the forums. I think "space" is an adequate response to the question: "What medium did the Big Bang happen in?". And all that "space" implies.
Let's not bring religion into this particular forum, okay? It just starts an unpleasant argument that's way off the topic.You know what? I don't text message people very often and have forgotten what this means, could you just tell me? I don't care if it's sweet or sour, I'd just like to know, thank you!
Wouldn't surprise me. Definitely someone with a penchant for starting arguments where none existed. It's also not good etiquette to join a forum then immediately post. Much better to lurk and read for a while before joining in. Some people have no education.
LOL! Are you kidding me or what ?
Anyway, I can cope with it. Thanks for my new personality !will not be long before everyone else recognizes it.
Yep, there's that...one can't change one's spots, eh???
I think we got the True Truthseeker (aka Tantrum?) off this forum, however redundant that avatar seems...
The "big bang" theory is a misnomer. The whole "thing" happened a micro second before. As was proved in 1957, and again when that giant particle accelerator is mobile, matter and anti-matter can come together to make nothing. Thus, the universe could have come about this way. So we're on one side of this equation and there's an equal amount of anti-matter on the other. So, when the two come together there will be nothing, and from this something can arise. You can create something from nothing, only if you create an anti something, an equal amount.
Oh good - I have no money, could you stick it in the accelerator for me and I will come back later to collect whooo oo !!
Only joking of course - the basic idea that if there was nothing how does something arise leads to this idea I think? As all this can only be thought about within the understanding (ans so language) of what we know it would be logical to pursue the idea in science, and logical that science will find the answers it is looking toward. I have just made a hub poem about faulty logicthat would be because nothing is not absence, it is presence of both opposites. zero is the paradox, the point between separation. It the either and neither (lets call the whole thing off)
Isn't this the wrong way around - nothing must be absence to have the absent thing as its (opposing) presence ?
absence is negative. presence is positive.
zero is both and neither. it is a singularity where all dimensions collapse as one single point in space.
the spacetime continuum is the stretching out of this singularity
[-5-4-3-2-10+1+2+3+4+5] it is like a zipper.
imagine a ditch and a mound. a ditch is - (negative) a mound is (positive). what do you call the flat ground? it is zero manifestation where it is neither a mound nor ditch.
The flat ground is the absence of ditch or mound ?
the ditch is not absence of mound or vice versa
The flat ground or the zero has the possibility of and so the absence of
As I understand this - nothing cannot exist without the absence of something, therefore there must be something if there is nothing
this may seem to be splitting hairs but actually this kind of thing is at the base of misunderstandings so i am genuinely interestedwell, mathematics are abstracts. we think in terms of material things that's why its a little hard to understand. we think in terms of absolutes like 3 coconuts, 4 hair strands splitting and so and so forth.
but mathematics is really measuring relationships of concepts more than things.
zero in relation to one for example is saying
the point before first manifestation. and negative integers are saying the absence of first manifestation after it has appeared.
so, if you add the two, first manifestation, absence of first manifestation then what you get is the point of no manifestation...the NO THING...it is talking of energy.
so two would be the next manifestation after the first.Absolutely - mathematics is only a language. and I think if you translate what we both said it would say the much same thing - except you have not dealt with the 'meaning' of absence I think.
absence is the antithesis of presence. zero is not absence its actually "undetermined"
it is the stage of "before counting"
absence is "when you take away that which is counted, and it is missing..." that presupposes that something was already counted.
think concept instead of thing.
the negative is the ditch, the exact shape of the mound except in reverse.
in love. you are not inlove, you are in zero mode, no feelings.
then you fall inlove with this woman...that's presence of feelings, then she's a cheating liar, you lose that love.. you don't go back to zero feelings. you have negative feelings, hatred, disgust...etc etc. do you get it?I definately 'get it' - but I definately do not agree with 'it'.
The disagreement comes with zero. You say it is 'before' I say it is the sum of all possibilities (or numbers) that are 'absent' - it is not the concept but the description that I disagree with.well, look at it terms of application. it is describing the indeterminate. which is also all possibilities in the same way 0=infinity.
any number multiplied by 0 is 0 and any number divided by zero is undefined. divided meaning the opposite of multiplied.
what this means is if I clone you zero times, you will have no clone. But if I divide you in zero you will be undefined. you will not be considered gone, just undefined.
see you were not absent you were just divided into the point where your presence cannot be traced or made out.
Zero is not undetermined. it is very specific. It is a reference. If zero had substance what would 0 times infinity be?
We can describe zero in limits as something approaches zero. Would this be zero? It is so small it cannot be describe yet it is still not zero.
A simple equation can be shown with limits:
(X(squared) -4X +3)/(X-3)=F(x)
F(x)= what?
lim
x->3
It would seem to be 2/0*0. Right? This would be 0*infinity. Hey it is equal to 2...........imagine that.
Now what is undefined is this number that approaches zero yet never quite reaches it. 0 is very specific.
Negative numbers are not an anti-positive number. They are all number which are referenced to 0.
0 is defined.
Philisophically speaking we can describe the world but philosophy and mathematics usually make poor bed fellows. I am not saying that all philosophers are non mathematical. However, when something of non math is used to describe math it is often just an idea which allows us to argue points. It is contrived or manufactured.
Mathematics is a descriptive model. It cannot be a basis for creating a physical construct. It is a decriber of something that already physicall exists.That example doesn't work very well because F(x)= X-1
How does it not work well? I think it demonstrates the point quite well. You are correct by factoring the quadratic and dividing the (x-3) term to get (x-1).
First if 0 is not defined as per my thesis, we would have zero*infinitiy which would be infinity right?
But it is not the number is 2.
We can solve the equation or we can have a very large polynomial fraction which is broken into partial fractions and many other types of functions. We could have functions that fill up a chalk board that will have the same results.
0 is defined.
Did I miss anything?"It would seem to be 2/0*0. Right? This would be 0*infinity. Hey it is equal to 2...........imagine that."
Yes I can imagine that. 2 over 0 times 0 is two because you negated the division by multiplying it. you canceled the action keeping that which you divided multiplied back to its original value.
The fact is mathematics is describing the unseen reality. It's mathematically sound, it will hold in actual reality. Math is describing dynamics of the unseen relationships and hierarchies of manifestation.
err...and this is princeton's definition of zero:
Definitions of zero on the Web:
* nothing: a quantity of no importance...
* indicating the absence of any or all units under consideration; "a zero score"
* a mathematical element that when added to another number yields the same number
* zero(a): having no measurable or otherwise determinable value; "the goal is zero population growth"
* the point on a scale from which positive or negative numerical quantities can be measured
* indicating an initial point or origin
* of or relating to the null set (a set with no members)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
no measureable or determinable value = indeterminate.
I was not philosophizing, i was stating actual definitions of zero.
The only issue I have is that zero is not "undetermined"
* indicating an initial point or origin......That is not undetermined
* of or relating to the null set (a set with no members).......That is not undermined
* the point on a scale from which positive or negative numerical quantities can be measured......That is not undetermined
* a mathematical element that when added to another number yields the same number...............That is not undetermined
* a mathematical element that when added to another number yields the same number..................That is not undetermined.
* nothing: a quantity of no importance........That is not undetermined
* zero(a): having no measurable or otherwise determinable value; "the goal is zero population growth"................That is a stretch
The number was factored however it was not negated. If poles and zeros are ploted it shows a realization. I digress. This is not as trivial as it may seem. I am going to drop it, however.
I am trying to stay out of this but a couple of things made me cringe. I didnt mean to give anymore of a disseration. I guess it slipped out.
You are a very good at tangential arguement and a very tenatious. All good points of a debator.
0 does not equal infinity.the number was not negated the action was canceled out.
what you fail to realize that wherever zero is placed determines the beginning of value because it is a point of origin. it is a conceptual point of origin not an actual one. you can put zero on your forehead and it will be the point of origin, but is it absent? it is not. It is your forehead.
You are not grasping the meaning of what zero is representing. You think its an actual thing.
zero is the unmeasurable union of manifestation and its conceptual absence. when you cannot measure its presence nor absence. when you cannot measure its separation. a singularity is what zero is. the point of the source, but is it empty. it is not, in fact it is full.
it is a point of origin of measurable value, it is not NOTHING as a concept. It is however used to describe empty or nothing in everyday reality, so I understand your confusion.
I did not say that zero was UNdetermined.
I said it is indeterminate.
Main Entry: in·de·ter·mi·nate
Pronunciation: \ˌin-di-ˈtərm-nət, -ˈtər-mə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English indeterminat, from Late Latin indeterminatus, from Latin in- + determinatus, past participle of determinare to determine
Date: 14th century
1 a : not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : vague b : not known in advance c : not leading to a definite end or result
2 : having an infinite number of solutions <a system of indeterminate equations>
3 : being one of the seven undefined mathematical expressions
4 : characterized by sequential flowering from the lateral or basal buds to the central or uppermost buds; also : characterized by growth in which the main stem continues to elongate indefinitely without being limited by a terminal inflorescence — compare
ex. 0/0, infinity/infinity, infinity * 0 etc etc
you are mixing up function with essence. SEE, zero divided by zero is an example of the word INDETERMINATE. ZERO is a source of value, it is not NO-THING, and neither is it ABSENT.
if it meant absent then 0/0 would equal 0, which is not the case.
you use the symbol ZERO to determine a source, but that source is not absent. it is just the source.When I looked at what you had claimed regarding zero, I did a double take. Now a couple of statements that you had written were so preposterous (at least in the mind of most who study math) that I had to comment.
Now before we go any further, I am not failing to realize anything but I am disagreeing with you. Here is everything point by point
Zero is the origin I agree. This is defined in number theory. Zero cant be both the origin and a conceptualization of the origin. One is specified and the other is not.
Zero on the forehead has nothing to do with number theory. That is just cute statement.
Again I am grasping what you are saying but I am not agreeing with what you are saying.
"Zero is the unmeasurable union of manifestation and its conceptual absence. when you cannot measure its presence nor absence. when you cannot measure its separation. a singularity is what zero is. the point of the source, but is it empty. it is not, in fact it is full........."
Something conceptual and unmeasurable cannot be in union. I do not understand what you mean by "full" (those are words that sound nice but do not have anything to do with numerical theory).
Once again I am not confused but I do disagree with what you are saying. I can understand that your sarcasm is being used to try to diminish my arguement. With all due respect, they are just words and you are trying to argue numerical theory with language and philosophy.
If you want to argue it, the only way to do it is to argue is by doing mathematical proofs. I am waiting and you will convince me if you can write out a good mathematical proof of what you are saying.......Remember you must prove it with numerical theory and not language and your proof cannot have any holes. .
I do have to say that you did say zero was "undetermined". It is as follows:
absence is the antithesis of presence. zero is not absence its actually "undetermined"..............Those are your words.
A few last points:
The definitions you posted of INDETERMINATE do not hold true to zero. It does appear is indeterminate and undetermined are being used synonymously.
Once again I am not mixing up......Uh huh once again......I am not agreeing with you. You will convince me as well as others if you stick to facts and points as opposed to attacks. (Aw yeah I know those are not attacks).
if it meant absent then 0/0 would equal 0, which is not the case. Show your work I dont know what you are talking about.
It appears that either you have a bet with someone and you are nudging them saying look what I can get away with saying, or you have a severe case of cognitive dissonance......Sorry, now I am resorting to sarcasm.
I am willing to discuss this with you but I cant follow your points and a lot of what you state disagrees with number theory. Maybe you believe number theory is wrong. If that is the case, we cant discuss this.geez, you're so angry. calm down.
(by the way, yes, i realized I said undetermined, I meant indeterminate and its very different)
I wasn't really being sarcastic. The forehead thing is an example and it is symbolic of all things that emanate from your brain when it does "the orbit of zero under iteration of the complex quadratic polynomial" fractal of your thoughts.
Zero is not a sum, it is a point of origin and a starting point of value. I already sent you the definitions, so disagree with them. Disagree with the people who invented zero as a concept. Zero is not absence, negative numbers are that which are not Real Numbers...WHY? because their value is in relation to what was counted.
Do you want an equation to prove that zero is the indeterminate value that signals where value begins?
okay:
-n+n=0
zero is in your mind my dear, it is whatever you wish to start counting.
example
before this thread: value of angry mathematicians manifesting in forums : 0
value of writer plagiarizing Princeton's definition of zero : n
after this thread:
n/0 = undefined but multiply that to zero and you have n.
what this means is, you can divide what I said and your position will still be undefined other than it is opposite to what I'm saying and you can multiply the value of that disagreement, for as long as your definition of zero has no value and it will be as if we never had a discussion. You argument is not even a negation of mine, it just a confusing angry reaction to MY interpretation of what zero means based on EVIDENCE. Actual evidence.
They are not cute. they are real.
G(ground floor) is 0, 1st floor is 1 and B1 is the negative floors. But you can choose to count the very bottom as 1st floor and zero will be the concrete. the rock beneath that building are the negative floors. its all symbolic of concept.. But math is math.
If you don't count apples -- you have zero apples. start counting apples, then the value begins 1 apple 2 apples. no apples to count, how can you count?--- there are ZERO apples. Are there no trees where the apples grow,? maybe, are we in the farm? we don't know. are we in the super market? we don't know but what we know is we have ZERO APPLES TO COUNT. But is there nothing there apart from zero, is there a seed of apple there, or an apple tree?we don't know because at this stage apple of existence where it is a tree or a seed, you cannot count the value of APPLES it is uncountable. but for sure some apple is there but you cannot determine it from the rest of the TREE. (or how do you count the number of whole apples that are diced in a cocktail, you can't if you don't have the value of the whole apples, so depending on how you look at it, there will be no apples to count too or undefined)
SO your claim to understand basic mathematics is highly highly doubtful.
If you can't defend your logic using basic logic, then my dear, as mandelbroth can prove, your understanding of mathematics will be superstitious...
that 2/n*n is such a magical thing? It's not. it's logical. division is the opposite of multiplication.
multiply what you divided and you get the same value.
F(x) does not say anything to counter zero being indeterminate. because for all the math genius it implies, what that really means is this.
"multiply any number with another number"
It is all orbit of value starting with zero. zero being no value and 1 being the 1st determinable unit of value. zero is not absent, it is a thing that cannot be measured. if you can measure it it will be one)
so after all that ef-of-eks... you prove that zero is an absolute number, use whatever equation you have and i will translate it in simple words...see if it will hold.
Mathematics and Philosophy are twins bearing different faces.We call this "Woo Woo La La." Celia being very, very good at it.
hello Mark, I suppose an entire branch of study is woowoo to you. the philosophy of mathematics is REAL, my friend. check my link.
Remember Spinoza's G-d that Einstein believes...he's one of those woowoo's that delve into the philosophy of mathematics.
(really? an entire school of thought woo-woo, aw c'mon!)Sure PC, and just incase you don't know what I'm talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCL5Ugxt … re=related
This does not make sense because:
n/0=undefined
n(0/0)=undefined*0
and therefor
n = undefined * 0 which makes no sense
I am confused what you are arguing, because you have already stated that n/0=undefined which is true.no read up...
ben wrote
2/0*0 is 2 not zero. and I think that's because division is the opposite of multiplication.Ben wrote this:
"A simple equation can be shown with limits:
(X(squared) -4X +3)/(X-3)=F(x)
F(x)= what?
lim
x->3
It would seem to be 2/0*0. Right? This would be 0*infinity. Hey it is equal to 2...........imagine that.
Now what is undefined is this number that approaches zero yet never quite reaches it. 0 is very specific.
Negative numbers are not an anti-positive number. They are all number which are referenced to 0.
0 is defined."
2/0*0 is not 2 or 0
2/0*0 is undefined
He said "it would seem to be"
This makes sense because F(x)=X-1 and the limit is set as x approaches 3. You can't just plug the number 3 into the original function where x is because it is a function of x with a set limit. You have to factor it before you substitute.
You can't ignore 0 in the denominator of a fraction.
Even if you put:
2/0*0=0
You would get
2/0=0
2(0/0)=0*0
2 =/= 0
it doesn't make sense when you perform the order of operationswell, he was saying that zero is absence not presence.
and I said it is not absence, because absence is a negative integer, which is not a real number a concept that is relative to its opposite number.
Zero is the unmeasureable. then he latched on to the word indeterminate because mathematical language, 0 is defined. But what I'm saying is its only defined because that's what you use it to begin counting, to start measuring. It is a symbol that you can assign anymore as a starting point of measuring.
then mark came and got the shakes...oh no...then the big bang theory forum came to life!
meanwhile 0=infinity because it cannot both cannot be measured.... watch 10th dimension clip
http://www.break.com/index/how-to-imagi … nsion.htmlAn negative number integer is included in the real number system, it is a subset. It is a real number. The real numbers also include all the rational and irrational numbers.
yes, yes! But not all sources agree. Some contest that only positive integers are real numbers, or natural numbers.
zero is neither positive or negative, which translated in common language it means, it's neither present nor absent.
Cecilia,
I am not angry. I am actually enjoying a few chuckles.
It sounds to me more like you are angry.
Your proof. I am sorry it doesnt cut the mustard so to speak.
The proof started with what you are trying to prove. I do not need to say much more. Others I see are pointing out the holes in your proof.
You already conceded that zero was not undetermined.
There were philosophers that were mathematicians but the two are totally different studies.
Now if you believe in what you are saying I cant do much to change what you think. However, if you are arguing for ego sake (to be right) please stop. What you are saying appears very silly to me and you arent going to convince me.
You have a lot of moxie and give you that but I do want to say your whole arguement cant be based on name calling and tangential points.
For what it is worth, I have no animosities and wish you well.you see, you can win even if you lose!
by the way, have you seen this?
http://www.break.com/index/how-to-imagi … nsion.html
Mark,
Woowoo logic. That is a good term. It is sometimes hard to discuss with people who will not listen and use tangential points to make their arguements.you know mark, you just have to realize that this is just a simple case of you're a PC
and I'm a mac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jULUGHJCCj4
cheers, maybe in 10 years like microsoft, you'll catch up. Meanwhile I'll be selling IPads like hotcakes.
Cecilia,
You thrive on controversy dont you.
This is here because I couldnt get on the bottom of the thread.
I do want to let you know that I did not say 0 was absent. You did. Maybe that is your assumption. You need to strike that out of your argument.
Have a good night.Isn't this the issue, surely zero represents the absence of every other number - it is not itself absence, but a representation of it.
yes you're right...it was another person that said that. I reviewed it.
I don't think you understand my position though. I agree with number theory. Zero is a concept that can be assigned in any starting point. It is neither positive nor negative, indicating that it is neither here nor not here. Zero is "before measuring". In this way, even if we use it to define a starting point it is really an imaginary starting point that have variable positions depending on where you assign it or what you are measuring.
As for controversy, it is just a consequence of a general running philosophy that all things are connected. All fields of study emanate from observations of a reality that we are slicing and dicing the way we naturally think of time as separate from space. but its not.
Alternate poet,
Zero is actually a magnitude it is a position it is crossing point.. It is thought by many as being absent but in terms or numbers real applications can have zeros with sustance.
In calculus zero tangential slope can represent a maximum or minimum. It can represent the center of a sine function.
It can represent a boundary in partial differential equations. It can represent points for an electronic filter (zeros in poles and zeros).
Now it may be just how we are looking at zero. To me zero is just another marking on a scale if you will or just a middle point. I see numbers as continuous.
Cecila,
I agree it is a point. I also agree that it is arbitrary. I dont agree that the point is imaginary and maybe it is just a difference in linguistics but it is defined and to me that is not imaginary. Maybe we are finding some center ground......No pun intended
How can you imagine "2 over 0 times 0 is two"? You can't just ignore zero in the denominator of a fraction.
Sorry, I was just confused because you wrote 2/0*0. I see your point now.
there is a book entitled zero, a dangerous idea. it was the coolest thing I have ever read!
think of your bank account.
if you spend all the you have you have 0 balance in your statement... now if you owe money, meaning you spend something you don't have you have a negative balance.
How can something come out of nothing?
What made the big bang bang?
Do we have one iota of an idea how vast the universe is?
Do we have any idea how infintesimal we are in the entire scheme of things?
Perhaps our universe is Whoville!
Perhaps our universe is the Higgs Bosun of another universe.well that is definitely a contending thought.
what's really flying my noodles is mandelbroth's fractals. what the hell is that? and then there was this article i recently read that our universe may be inside a black hole! our universe is inside a black hole where black holes exist and inside those black holes are universes.
kind of like, we are inside the earth and the earth is inside the solar system which is inside a galaxy which is inside a universe which is inside something else. and inside us is the human body parts and inside that are cells and inside cells are dna and so and and so forth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNzFJ-LU9Qo
that's the other thing, maybe there is no such thing as a singularity because the singularity is just a microscopic version of its macrocosm.
by the way, fractals is so great at defining nature, it may be that my dear lord, there is no such thing as beginning, only infinity...world without end amen.That's exactly what I preach. Worlds roll into existence as much as worlds are destroyed. In my view they are all part of a design for the benefit, progression and eternal habitation of man. All matter is eternal, or gnaulum, and is without beginning or end. It can be an extremely difficult concept to grasp. We have finite minds in this sphere. It's hard for us to wrap our knowledge around something without beginning or end. It's foreign to us and gives us a sense of futility in understanding it. I think it's important for people to not try so hard to understand it rather than to try to accept the possibility of it.
well all of creation is resting upon supporting systems that enable it to exist. I wouldn't call it something that just supports us. it is supporting everything in the same proportional way that is why it exists.
what I'm saying we are special and not special in equal amounts depending on how we look at it. really kinda works both ways depending on which side of the mathematical equation you focus on.also, i do contest that we cannot grasp it. we cannot describe it, but we can grasp it, we are doing it through mathematics.
I would say that 'grasp' is an exaggeration - explore I would agree with, but in the end you have to put it into words or you did not understand it in the first place
I also have issues with the tools in between mathematics and language - just hubbed a poem about itthere are many things we understand or fathom but cannot define or describe. so you are right that grasp maybe a tad simplistic...we can fathom it.
i don't know what you mean by "tools".A tool is a device that is necessary to, or expedites, a task.
Logic is a tool that we use to organise our thinking.i agree, it really is inadequate because its mechanized.
we are both mechanized and organic, our quantum nature can be defined in thereabouts instead of absolutes.
So equally you must think that the opposing view of no god is also possible - therefore you should not be preaching, just discussing. If everyone did that then religion would evaporate into the myths of time, and about time too
shoulda woulda coulda. the thing is, people preach, you're preaching non-preaching.
my stand on the matter is, everyone comes to their senses in their own time when they want to. thinking that you can actually slap a person around the direction of your thoughts is a futile activity.
preachers exist, let them preach. no amount of preaching can make me go to mexico and stand on the steppe pyramid on 2012. but if somebody preached sleeping with brad pitt, why, i'll bring out my cross, my holy water and renew my vows every hour of the day.To take a stand against the preaching of outdated myth as fact is only countering mis-information. When the introspective, self seeking, dominating aspects of religion disappear then I guess I, and many others, will stop countering it.
i don't know if you've heard of Joseph Campbell's work on mythology.
myth is a language that shouldn't be taken at face value. It communicates to us in the language of consciousness, as in dreams, visions. myth is not a lie, it's a metaphor.yeah, well...just don't lose sleep over it.
- Nothing wrong in that mind you. our friends the worms will renew the soil to grow the veggies to feed another religious fanatic is the only drawback I can see!
worms are part of the ecosystem, without the presence of religious people how else would the non-religious define themselves.
It is I the....err..the engineer, the accountant, the macho man with body hair, the babe, the people of earth alive as opposed to dead.
I'm all for allowing both ends of the equation to exist because it just adds dimension to life.
being preached to can be a tad boring though, so i can see where you're coming from.
just the same, you should see my husband preach the iPad to many people. Why, you think he'll go to iPad heaven. like Apple will give him a special place in the Mac store in 5th ave.
sometimes, preachers are just passionate about what they believe that they can't stop thinking about it. and in this way, i have come to terms that is not about you, its about them.i know right? I don't know why religion came into the picture!
I'm going to go on a big blink, goodnight.
Thing is, when you get to essence all these, religion, mathematics, economics, blablabamics...its really about who you are and the things that you see outside of yourself are you also. how you see your friends are who you are. how you see your enemies are reflections of who you are as well.
in keeping with the topic, the universe is the outward explosion of a singularity. in the human context, that singularity is the self from which all notions, perceptions emanate from...or stretch out from. it still is the self, projected outward.
so if you're fighting religion on the outside, you are actually still battling it from within. I say, deal with it inside and the outside won't matter.it is an absence that is defined by presence. it is not zero, it is not a return to the point of origin...the self.
the "I am the beginning and the end, the one who is, who was and who is to come".
all things we hate are shadows of all of all the things we fear we are.I concurr with a previous answere that if you deny the existance of a creator then it becomes very difficult to explain the big bang idea.
The scientist are saying that if i threw a bunch of plastic bits and electronic bits into the air i could mathematically expect a mobile phone to fall into my hands.
As i'm sure you will agree this big bang stuff is utter nonsense.It is refreshing after all this sensible discussion around the limits of human knowledge to have your stone age opinion to remind us of the extent of human stupidity.
- yeah, its mean but its funny what can I say sorry purple cow. but science is really say that because that's what happened...but what it cannot say is why.
Science niether proves, nor dis-proves God.
It niether asks, nor answers the question of God's being, or His creating.
Science simply looks, observes, and then renders a guess, or prediction.
You who say it shows this and doesn't show that. (On Both Side Of This Argument)
Haven't looked.
Science can be applied to the things around religion, but never to the things within religion.
We can look at the bible in all manner of scientific ways. But it does not address the spiritual and ephemeral aspects.
Physical sciences are just that, Sciences of the physical world.
Stop mixing the two.though i agree with you, you really can't stop. I mean you see something and it makes you wonder. or you see something that challenges your world view and you react. these babies are twins inside a womb. it is fundamentally an attempt to answer the question: who are we?
Being that, at the time of the big bang, energy and mass were likely to have not existed, the medium would have been nothing. Space time didn't exist - there was no space, and there was likely no time.
So...
The answer is!!! ... nothing. If i'm not mistaken - lord knows i haven't done my research on said topic, but the big bang was the creation of matter and energy.the number two is describing duality.
mathematics came from the necessity to describe concepts that are actually philosophical in nature.
you are measuring something when you count, its not a thing but it is a concept of universals. which means, mathematics is counting the underlying foundations of reality, that which we cannot describe otherwise.
they are infact not only bedfellows, they are joined at the hip like siamese twins.Opinions do not necessarily result in illumination, hence the contradictory
sayings; "wise think alike" and "fools seldom differ".
Truth of any subject matter has to be absolute, unless, the subject itself is not reality.
For all the Physical Laws and Chemical Laws that we are aware of, there is a degree of predictability. Without the Law of Aerodynamics being absolute for instance global transportation would be a 'nightmare'.
When the initial 'explosion' occurred there had to be PRECISE CONTROL, or the resultant planets, stars, galaxies, the very universe itself would not be. So, as matter formed, correspondingly so did anti-matter, a cooling process occurred within seconds, and the resultant Physical Laws, and Chemical Laws arose possibly simultaneously.
Were it not for the relative masses of the proton, neutron, and the resultant electromagnetic forces between the proponents of the nucleus and the circulating electrons, elements and their compounds essential for life would NOT have formed.
The precision involved in the formation of hydrogen, with its particular chemical characteristics, could NOT be left to chance.
God is a title, but , if there is a God, then the Intelligence behind the universe would be God.
As scientist observed and eventually measured the speed of the expansion of the universe something astonishing was inferred. Gravity alone cannot explain why the universe is held together based on its speed of expansion. So dark matter, and dark energy have been ascribed as components that help to explain this.
The universe is extremely vast and complex, the Bible, on the other hand is easier to understand, and offers answers as to who, why, when and how.The Truthseeker:
The "bible" offers answers in the form of "opinion."
I'm sure you know that opinions are worth about a dime a dozen?
Lets try to "get real."
Oh, and by the way, what is this god thing mentioned in biblical scripture? "It" is only referred to and not factually defined.
TY
I don't accept the "Big Bang" theory. I am one of the last holdovers of the "Steady State" theory which says that the universe always was and that while it is diminishing in content in one area it is at the same time amassing content in another area, keeping itself in perfect balance. Steady State.
YoU CAN NOT BELIEVE IN CREATION and the Big Bang theory
at the same time.I believe that God Created this world and it's
begaining,and will also cause the ending of it.Why can you not belive in both?
I do... doesn't conflict in my world.
I don't see any possible way the Big Bang conflicts with God.I believe in both
Read my hub "the Kabbalah In Simple Terms"Drawing Conclusions. .
The Song of Creation composed in Sanskirt over 3,000 years ago is part of the Rig-Veda, a Hindu
holy book. In this work, the poet doubted that even the many Hindu gods know "how creation happened" because "gods themselves are LATER than creation."
Likewise, writings from Egypt and Babylon contain similar MYTHS about the birth of their gods in a
universe that already existed. NOTABLY, these myths COULD NOT SAY WHERE THE
ORIGINAL UNIVERSE CAME FROM.
THE BIBLE ON THE OTHER HAND BEGINS: ":In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth." Genesis 1:1. This statement was written by Moses who "talked" with the Living God, some
3,500 years ago. The Bible describes God as a Spirit [John 4:24], not visible to our eyes. The effects
of invisible heavenly bodies such as neutron stars and black holes are detectable by TODAY'S
scientists by the effects they produce, making the concept of invisibilty plausible to even the cynical.
It is widely AGREED among scientists that the universe had a BEGINNING. It is also agreed
by MOST, that BEFORE THE BEGINNING something REAL must have existed.
Whatever THEY may speculate and postulate WHAT existed, MOST presuppose the
existence of something, something WITHOUT A BEGINNING, THAT EXTENDED BACK TO
INFINITY.
The issue NOW BECOMES, some THING eternal, or, some ONE eternal.
Considering the following should help you to decide.
1. In time prior to Louis Pasteur many believed in SPONTANEOUS GENERATION-- the
notion that life could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter.
2. In the 17th century, Italian physician Francesco Redi proved that maggots appeared in
rotten meat ONLY AFTER flies had laid eggs on it.
3. Pasteur after PROVING that ALL LIFE AROSE FROM OTHER LIFE, EVEN
TINY ONES LIKE BACTERIA [MICROBES], in 1864 he announced: "Never will the
doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple
experiment."
4.The Russian biochemist Alexander I. Oparin offered a few theories as to how life began on
earth. This resulted in a plethora of tests in the labs since 1950 to generate life from nonliving
matter, ALL HAVE FAILED MISERABLY.
5. Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist stated in a documentary film when being
interviewed: "We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There
is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an
INTELLIGENCE; it CANNOT ARISE FROM CHANCE EVENTS. Just mixing letters does
not produce words." He continued: "For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein
replicating system in the cell MUST HAVE BEEN PERFECT FROM THE VERY START. If
not, life systems could not exist. THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION IS THAT THIS
VAST QUANTITY OF INFORMATION CAME FROM AN INTELLIGENCE."
6. Dr. Richard M. Restak describes the human brain as having somewhere in the region of
50 BILLION neurons with a MILLION BILLION synapses [connections], and with an
overall firing rate of perhaps 10 MILLION BILLION TIMES PER SECOND.
7. Robert Ornstein and Richard F. Thompson, biology professors, wrote: "The ability of the
human mind to learn-- to store and recall information-- is the most remarkable phenomenon in
the biological universe. Everything that makes us human-- language, thought, knowledge, culture
is the result of this extraordinary capability."
8. There are complex cycles that help to maintain life, as we know it. Food for flora and fauna
results from these cycles viz a viz. WATER CYCLE, CARBON CYCLE, PHOSPHORUS
CYCLE, AND NITROGEN CYCLE. ALSO PHOTOSYNTHESIS OF PLANTS,
RESPIRATION OF BOTH PLANTS AND ANIMALS ARE ALL INTER-RELATED AND
MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL.
BIBLE
Origin of the Universe: Gen. 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In 1978, astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote: "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."__ God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.
Isaiah 40:26: "Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.
CREATION
Job 38: 9 says: When I put the cloud as its garment, and THICK GLOOM as its SWADDLING
BAND.
The ABOVE is in AGREEMENT with the undermentioned.
Genesis 1:1, 2 relates to a time before the six “days”. When these “days” commenced, the sun, moon, and the stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. However, prior to these six “days” of creative activity “the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep.” (Ge 1:2) Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth, preventing light from reaching the surface.
It seems that this was a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J.W. Watts: “And gradually light came into existence.” (Ge 1:3, A distinctive Translation of Genesis).
God brought about a division between the light and darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness-Ge 1:3,4.
It is noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba.ra’, meaning “create” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb ‘a.sah’, meaning “make, is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it.
When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.- Ge 1:14.
Length of Creative Days
The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7,8,11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” The Thousand Year of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great Sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end.
That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8).
Shape of Planet Earth:
Isaiah 40:22: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." In ancient times the general opinion was that the earth was flat. It was not until over 200 years after this Bible text had been written that a school of Greek philosophers reasoned that the earth likely was spherical, and in another 300 years a Greek astronomer calculated the approximate radius of the earth. But the idea of a spherical earth was not the general view even then. Only in the 20th century has it been possible for humans to travel by airplane, and later into outerspace and even to the moon, thus giving them a clear view of "the circle" of the earth's horizon.
Animal Life: Lev. 11:6: "The hare........is a chewer of the cud." Though this was long attacked by some critics, the rabbit's cud chewing was finally observed by Englishman William Cowper in the 18th century. The unusual way in which it is done was described in 1940 in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 110, Series A, pp. 159-163.
Its internal harmony is significant.
This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were recorded by some forty men as diverse as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. To appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously interwined, you must read and study it personally.
ON this note,
if we are really inside a black hole which is supposedly what a singularity is (zero) then the singularity like mandelbroth's fractals is another orbit of space time that is very much the same as ours but different in scale.Oh on for those who doubt that philosophy and mathematics are related,check this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematicsben, the two of us won't hurt no more. we both found we're looking for with a clip that's not my own, you'll never be alone! and you my friend will see that the point is zero and its indeterminate....
miss you benMy goodness, lol..who knew?
Here we are on page 9 and still going!
So many well intentioned folks who have no logical answer to my intitial question...:-)
I asked it just because I knew that so many who know so little would participate and in the end, nothing of worth will have been offered...lol
Oh hell, it's sumthin' to do whan ya got nuthin' else to do.
Play time for we infant human creatures....:-)Quantum physics.The physics of possibilities.
Everything came from nothing.
Nothing does not exist.
Existence comes into being through observation.
Who and where is the Observer?
What are thoughts made of?
Why does Chaos come before Order?
Do relationships of possibilities cause particles to come into existence?
When electrons protons even the nucleus pop into and out of existence Where do they go?
Any one who understands Quantum Physics hasn't learned anything.
And then there's the"Measurement"problem.
There was a young man from Nantucket
Who studied Physics and said F**K it!
I don't know!
You don't know!
Pass the Joint to the left!!!some say, to another dimension, because ZERO is a concept of value not an actual nothing.
love the poetry!
"A scientific theory is not a: guess, law, rule, fact, truth or proof. It is a rational “explanation” that can be visualized.
The Unseen Challenge, Polytechnic Institute Research
http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Research/2 … Challenge/
Science have tools to visualize mathematical concepts that we cannot otherwise imagine in our own minds as in the case of fermat's theory:
https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~hanson/“that many people just mean a word or an expression when they use the word concept”
Yes. You also forgot to mention that concepts also encompass ideas, models (like Big Bang), relations, abstract objects, or anything imaginary (like a singularity point, or a God).
You also forgot to mention that there are “static” and “dynamic” concepts.
These are all a priori, and as such, any proof under the sun can be conceived to prove them within their systemic tautological domain. If applied to physical existence, any such proofs will fall under the umbrella of Religion.
All concepts are “descriptive”. They can only be used by people to describe, never explain a physical event. To explain physical phenomena, you need to use physical objects.
For example: You can describe a singularity with equations, pictures --> . <--, etc., until you a blue in the face.
But for God’s sake, you can’t tell us that a 2D picture of a point, or that an equation hit you over the head. They are concepts, not physical objects. Either the “paper” or the “ink” or both, hit you over the head. But not the picture of the point, and certainly not the equations.
In physics we say that “a rock”, not a concept, hit someone over the head.
If anybody ever claims that a concept jumped out of somebody’s head, and began interacting physically with the universe.....then this is a clear sign that we need to call the men in the white jackets to haul him off to a nice place with lots of trees and flowers (physical objects).
Worshipped authorities and idols like Hawking, Einar Jahr, etc, do not have any special “brains” given by God which allows them to magically reify concepts into physical objects, by twisting their nose like in “Bewitched”. The universe has no authorities!
“The Unseen Challenge”
God can always be “seen” to exist by his easily led followers. Why? Because it is the "brain" that "sees", not the "eyes".
Physics has no such authorities which dogmatically lead the blind. In physics we assume that an object exists as part of our hypothesis. The Theory will then be used to explain. If the BB theory cannot explain without using surrealism and supernatural mediators, then it remains just another Religion.
Hypothesis: Assume the God of the Bible exists.
Theory:
- I can now explain the “creation” of the universe as follows.......blah blah.
- I can also explain how space & matter & time were created from “nothing” as follows.......blah blah.
- And just to stick a needle (conceptual metaphor) into the eyes of atheists, I can explain how God is the eternal uncaused cause as follows.......blah blah.
This is what science is about. Any takers? Not even one? I thought so. It's best not to disturb the sleeping sheep!
“Science have tools to visualize mathematical concepts that we cannot otherwise imagine in our own minds”
Contradictory statement. Only biological brains can visualize.
“visualize” is a verb, something that requires an observer. There are no inanimate objects that can “visualize” under their own volition. Only “life” can move under its own volition in the presence of gravity, visualize something, and decide to subjectively interpret the limited data using its brain.we're talking in different wavelengths.
concepts represent something real just as numbers are concepts of value in relation to each other.
for example the number 1 is a unit of something, but it could be anything..it is an abstract. it is a concept. it is not a thing.
concepts are patterns of relationships of energy.so they are real but they are not tangible. A concept of form, like a pyramid is a concept. It started as a concept and was interpreted as a form.
people deal with concepts everyday. Advertising agencies that create advertising that move products and the economy deal with concepts on a regular basis, because people latch on to concepts and instinctively understand them.
The creative business operates on "concepts"and since astronomy is mostly in the realm of the mind because the scope is just too big for any one person's life, it deals largely with "concepts".
Most of it requires visualizing a thing you have never observed in your life. Albert Einstein introduced the concept relativity and it is just recently proven to be true. He did not observe it in a telescope, he imagined it using a mathematical equation as a tool.E=mc squared. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Einstein … 8461.shtml
If you want to deal with mundane tangible things, then be a butcher, or a baker or a candlestick maker.
But as for science, you cannot engage it, understand it without understanding the value and role of conceptual thought.
I couldn't make out though if it has something to do with G-d. G-d is also concept. But this concept is very very much influencing our daily lives.(concepts represent something real just as numbers are concepts)
Concepts are real? Numbers are real? Please explain how a concept jumps out of someone’s brain and creates a real object?
What does the word “real” mean in your religion? In science, “real” means: physical object that exists.
The number 2 is no more real than your singularity point --> .
Both can be written on paper. The only thing that is real is the paper & ink. It is your “brain” that conceives meaning of the ink & paper image, to establish a mental quantifying concept (a relation) we name: the number 2.
If you disagree, please send me the number 2 ‘object’ via FedEx and I will paypal you $5000. Deal? I’d love to see what this critter looks like once and for all.
“concepts are patterns of relationships of energy”
Very unscientific statement.
Energy is not an object. It is a concept of the human brain, used to establish a dynamic relation between other concepts. This is why energy is a dynamic concept that necessarily depends on the concepts of time, weight, and distance-travelled to establish a quantifying relation. 1 J = 1 kg m^2/s^2
So your above statement is a tautology: “concepts are concepts”
“Advertising agencies, etc.”
What does this have to do with physics?
“Albert Einstein introduced the concept relativity and it is just recently proven to be true”
LOL! A scientist you do not make. Science has no proofs. Only religion has proofs. Science has hypotheses and theories. Theories only explain. There are no theories that can be proven. There are no theories that are true/false, correct/incorrect, or right/wrong; as these concepts relate to axiomatic systems of logic.
Theories only explain, and the explanations can only be rational & irrational.
It is funny how you often refer to Relativity, which is violated by singularities. You really need to learn the basics here, cause you keep contradicting yourself.
a) So if Relativity is proven true (according to you, ref: Einstein), then this automatically proves the Big Bang FALSE!
b) But if the BB is proven true (according to you, ref: Hawking), then this automatically proves Relativity FALSE!
Which is it (a or b)?
“But as for science, you cannot engage it, understand it without understanding the value and role of conceptual thought.”
Finally, you said something rational. Science is about conceptualizing, understanding, and illustrating the explanation of the BB Theory. Now please conceptualize and illustrate for us how this singularity point --> . creates space, matter, and time, under its own volition.
You have eluded this question so many times. But now that you understand that science is about conceptualizing and illustrating all the physical mediators of an event, please explain the BB Theory.
“G-d is also concept. But this concept is very very much influencing our daily lives.”
You love using “ordinary speech” which is unscientific.
Sure, the God concept can influence your daily life, because life is a verb; a dynamic concept. You have established a conceptual relation of ideas, none of which are objects. If you disagree, please point to this object you call “life”, so we can both see how this critter looks like. Only in religion can one point to concepts.
When this concept God influences your physical body, then it’s time to call in the men in the white jackets, to take you to a nice and beautiful serene place with white padded walls. This is the only place where God can’t hurt you.
When God created Adam & Eve & The Snake, he used atoms, the physical matter of existence. Even God was not stupid enough to create with concepts, which don’t exist. The last time he tried that, he created the concept Jesus. That obviously didn’t work out well with the people, and now God is in eternal hiding, for fear of his “life”, which is also a concept!seriously?
"What does the word “real” mean in your religion? In science, “real” means: physical object that exists."
Ok. at this point I already know what kind of person I'm dealing with.
2 is duality. that's a concept. they represent two people talking.
you and me. 2. a concept that represents something real.
I am a science writer and I educated many doctors. My job is to make things like
"PROGRAMMED cell death (apoptosis) is a prominent feature of the development of the immune and nervous systems1,2. The identification of the Caenorhabditis elegans cell death gene, ced-3, as a prototype of the interleukin-lbeta converting enzyme (ICE) protease family has led to extensive evidence implicating these enzymes in apoptosis3,4. Among the ten or more members of the ICE protease family, CPP32/yama/apopain5−7 exhibits the highest similarity to CED-3 in both sequence homology and substrate specificity8"
look like this:
Mice brain cells die when they do not have enzymes that support their immune system.
Ok?
real things are influenced by energy relationships.and newsflash. you can't see radiation, but its there and its real.
So I live you with your rock on your head. And goodluck getting something published in any scientific journal.“2 is duality. that's a concept”
Those who subscribe to religious ideologies rely HEAVILY on semantical arguments to push their theories. A point is BOTH a 'dot' AND a location. God is human and 'the Spirit', Love, Intelligence. Spacetime is BOTH an object AND a concept.
In physics we call these handy sleights of hand: dualities.
The theist will always invoke “dualities” in order to confuse you into accepting their nonsense.
These idiots claim that a ‘point’ is indefinable. Yet it turns out that the point is the 'figure' that underlies most of their theories.
In physics, there is only ONE consistent definition. The reason a point can't be defined is that it is a geometric figure. We don't define figures in Science. We point to them. And that’s why you don’t even know what a singularity point --> . is. You are NOT a scientist. You are a theologian!
“2...they represent two people talking”
Yes, in YOUR religion they do talk... in tongues. The last time I measured a 2 m long piece of wood, I did not see or hear 2 people talking. Are you sure you are not on any medication? If not, you should be! You see, I told you that eating too many concepts will mess you up.
“a concept that represents something real”
Yes, any “named” concept which you can resolve by pointing to a physical object, is said to represent something real. Can you point to an “apple”? In the English language, “apple” is a word, a concept!! In physics, the word “apple” resolves to a specific physical object that hangs from a tree, or is sold in the supermarket.
Your singularity point fails even your own suggestion of this test for soundness; another contradiction on your part.
The number 2 does not resolve to two people talking. I was able to illustrate that by measuring something 2 m long. This is pretty basic stuff we learn before we go to primary school.
“I am a science writer and I educated many doctors”
Only in religion do pseudo-science-fiction writers educate doctors. And your recorded comments here have elucidated this fact. Real medical doctors are subject to government guidelines for education, and dissect real cadavers, not imaginary concepts.
“Mice brain cells die...”
What does this have to do with your explanation of the BB Theory?
Changing the subject won’t make me forget all the unanswered questions posed to you. If you hold yourself in such high regard, an authority, an idol....then you should have no problems answering the easy questions. So which is the “proven” theory: BB or Relativity? You *should* know it can’t be both.
I am just a poor old shoeshine boy who ripped your nonsense to pieces without even blinking. I already told you that the universe recognizes no authorities. Authorities & idols belong exclusively to religion, like yours!
“real things are influenced by energy relationships”
Very unscientific, again.
Energy is a concept, and so are “relationships”. When energy or an “energy relationship” influences “real” objects, it’s a sure sign somebody didn’t take their medication.
In physics, only physical objects can interact with each other. In YOUR religion, with your “dualities”, “contradictions”, “surreal & supernatural mediators”, “ambiguous use of terms”, and “religious use of ordinary speech”.....anything is possible and provable!! You belong in the asylum, along with Godel, Cantor, Turing, and Boltzmann (you should do some reading on these characters before you end up like them).
“you can't see radiation”
Of course, “radiation” is a concept. It’s an ambiguous term stemming from the idiots who first thought that light is a “wave”, that radiates by undulating like a water wave.
A “wave” is what something ‘does’, not what something ‘is’. In a water wave, the water is the physical mediator which “waves” up & down. The ocean is NOT a wave, neither is the water. A wave is a dynamic concept! Did the wave knock you down at the beach, or was it the water?
“but its there and its real”
No, radiation is not an object!
Radiation is a dynamic concept, a verb ; to radiate.
How can you possibly educate doctors when you don’t even know basics we learn in primary school English: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc?
What is real, is the physical mediator for what we call light (whole spectrum).
For the 5th time, here’s how we resolve such issues in science....
Hypothesis: Assume light is a particle (or a wave...LOL).
Theory: I will now explain the behaviour of light as follows.....
A scientist you do not make!
“goodluck getting something published in any scientific journal”
Thank you for the encouragement, but I think I’ll stick to shining Hawking’s shoes. I get so much joy every morning when I “explain” to him what kind of idiot he truly is.
I’ll tell you what I will do for you, tho. Tell me which journal you publish your religious nonsense so I can send in my refutations. They won’t censor me after I destroy your religion, now will they?I don't know whether to laugh at you or be sad at how much you're missing the point.
My point is as a writer, science or not you have to be able to bring it down to a level that is accessible.
Also, I do not go to church, nor do I espouse any specific religion, these are assumptions on your part.
Only scientists doing research in a particular topic are qualified to publishe the results of their experiments in scientific journals and you can't refute them unless you have data countering their conclusions. And these conclusions are just collective data. there are no interpretations.
Science writers as well as pharmaceutical companies then purchase these articles at a fee ranging from $30 to $60 dollars depending on how recent the articles are.
Then the science writer interprets the research using everyday language. Mathematical equations are explained in terms of their implication to the nature of reality outside the scope of our observation.
These then will be sent to editors of popular science and commercial science magazines for enthusiasts like you to read. But they would have then an interpretation and application.
Concepts are abstracts. For example, the concept of G-d is as you pointed out "not real" in a physical sense. But in Physics, there really is a unified force that is creating all these manifestations of matter. We call this force energy. Although I am not saying that G-d is energy. I'm just saying that energy does permeate all manifestations in the universe. The way G-d is depicted by religious dogma. The concept is a single power creating all that exists. Similar yes? But should we now start worshiping our electric outlets. NO, right? The celebration of the G-d concept is humanity's way to grasp the concept of unity despite diversity. In all our differences, is a universal oneness. Worship is an act of community and solidarity.
There are many mathematical equations that suggest absurd realities, like Einstein's e=Mcsquared, mandelbroth's fractal equations and quantum mechanics. But they all have real applications. The equations represent phenomena.
Mathematicians compute them, Physicists interpret them and engineers build from them. All math, all concepts creating the science that you love.
I know most of these things I said will be outside of your world view. But I say this also to those who might be reading it in the hopes that they will understand. Thank you for the discussion.“I don't know whether to laugh at you or be sad”
That’s ok, you also don’t know what a point is, a concept, an object, the meaning of “real”. You also haven’t the slightest clue what science is about, what a hypothesis or a theory is....
“My point is as a writer, science or not you have to be able to bring it down to a level that is accessible”
Nonsense! When you use semantics, “tricky dualities”, ambiguous terms, supernatural mediators, imaginary concepts, and common speech (unscientific), it is a clear indicator that you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about.
This is why you dodged all my scientific questions posed to you. You can’t even defend your religion of the BB.
“I do not go to church, nor do I espouse any specific religion”
If you have learned anything from our exchange, it should be: anyone who uses ambiguous terms and surrealistic mediators to explain phenomena, without a doubt, is pushing a religion. You don’t need God or church, just the religious adherence to dogmatic nonsense.
“experiments in scientific journals and you can't refute them unless you have data”
You religion is laughable. Theories are easily refuted with contradictions, as is with the BB!! No data is required. Of course you didn’t know this; you have no science background.
What does subjective ‘data’, prone to human error, have to do with science? No amount of data will prove anything in science, let alone the Big Bang. The gathering of data is an extra-scientific activity we do to convince the jury. Science is about explaining our theories.
If you disagree, please show me the data for your singularity point! Your BB doesn’t even make it past the “thinking” stage, so data won’t do anything for you except to sway some idiots to agree with your religion. Only idiots believe that a 2D conceptual point ---> . can actually create a universe..LOL
“these articles at a fee ranging from $30 to $60 dollars”
That’s all they pay for your nonsense? I’m not surprised! A rational person wouldn’t even give you 2 cents, especially since you know nothing about science. Well, I already gave you an offer to instantly make $5000 (previous post), but you didn’t accept it. Do you enjoy making a measly little $30?
Geez, I make more than that shining shoes....and I get to poke fun and ridicule all those authoritative idiots who have irrational Theories and practice the religion known as “Authoritative Idolatry”.
“the science writer interprets the research”
Exactly my point! All of your subjective interpretations are the product of your opinionated religion. Theists interpret the data for Jesus and prove him every day. You are no different. This has nothing to do with science. In science we explain; that is as objective as it gets.
“using everyday language”
This is why you don’t understand what you preach. A scientist never uses common “everyday” speech to explain phenomena of nature. We leave this activity to sellers of science fiction novels. Science is about using unambiguous and consistent terms that only have one objective meaning, ie. scientific!
“Mathematical equations are explained”
Equations and concepts are never explained. They are described. Equations are dynamically “descriptive”. An equation can conceptually describe the itinerary of a moving object in a curve. Equations can NEVER explain the reasons WHY the object went in that path. Only a Theory (explanation) can do this. If you disagree, then please give me an equation that explains why a rock falls to the ground. You can’t! And this blows your nonsense out of the water.
You haven’t the slightest idea what mathematics is about or how it is used. You really don’t even know the basics, do you? Math dynamically describes with quantifications. Only Theories explain why nature behaves the way it does.
“the nature of reality outside the scope of our observation”
Right! All of nature is outside the scope of any human’s limited observation. Observations are subjective. Did God give any single human “special” observation capabilities that we must trust this person as an authority to provide correct, right, and true observations? Your statement here makes you concede that all you have parroted earlier is completely irrational. This is why we formulate Hypotheses and Theories.
“for enthusiasts like you to read”
Oh thank you for the kind words. But you see, I’m just a poor old shoeshine boy. I can’t afford these authoritative periodicals you speak of. I can send in my refutations tho. You eluded my previous question on this issue: Will your editors CENSOR my refutation of all the nonsense that you write?
“But they would have then an interpretation”
And this is what crushes your religion. We leave interpretations of God and proof of him, to Religion. In science, the best we can do is Hypothesize and explain in a rational manner. What is your explanation of the BB?
“But in Physics, there really is a unified force”
What is this ‘force’ you speak of? Is it an object or a concept? Can you draw a picture of it or reference it on online so I can see this litter critter for myself?
“force....that is creating all these manifestations of matter”
Wow! That ‘force’ is some busy bee....I mean, “creating” manifestation of matter and all.....just like “its Creator”, God....who manifests himself as a burning bush.
Please reference a picture of this ‘force’ right away. I am dying to see what this marvel of nature looks like!! It will be the best discovery we have made since Jesus ascended from Hell to Heaven.
“We call this force energy”
Do you enjoy showcasing your ignorance of anything having to do with science? I mean, even a little girl in school knows that Force is represented in Newtons, while Energy is represented in Joules. These are two different concepts that relate different ideas. I tell you what....please take an introductory course in high school physics, then come back here and try to have an intelligent conversation with me... Ok?
“The celebration of the G-d concept is humanity's way .... Worship is an act of community and solidarity”
And how does this explain your BB Theory?
“I know most of these things I said will be outside of your world view”
A “worldview”, like any “view”, is subjective because it necessarily requires a subject: an observer & their opinions. Worldviews are religions that are espoused by those who claim that concepts (innate human ideas) physically interact with matter. A rational person is able to explain natural phenomena, instead of claiming that: A concept did it!
You have yet to produce any concept that can jump out of your brain, or anyone else’s, and move an object on a table. The Randi Foundation will give you ------> $1,000,000 if you can provide a SINGLE demonstration of this. This beats the hell out of the measly little $30 chicken feed you make selling your nonsense to unsuspecting idiots, just as Sylvia Brown does. But Sylvia makes $700 per 10min phone discussion. Now she must REALLY “know” what she is talking about, as not even Hawking makes that much.
"The ocean is NOT a wave, neither is the water. A wave is a dynamic concept! Did the wave knock you down at the beach, or was it the water?"
Oh and the answer is it was the force of the wave, it was energy that knocked me down. waves are brought about by the forces of the movement of the earth, the force of gravitational pull of the moon and the speed of the wind pushing the water.
all energy, heatwaves, microwaves...waves. radiation is wavy too, but not like your hair, like current. waves are undulating forces.“it was the force of the wave, it was energy that knocked me down”
Wow! It was 2 different concepts, “force” and “energy” that knocked you down at the beach? That must have been a sight for sore eyes. I have never seen that before. Can you please draw a picture of this “force” critter and this “energy” critter? I’d love to see what they looked like before they “touched the surface of your body” and “pushed” you down.
Did the “force” touch your body first and push you down, and then the “energy” clobbered your body afterwards, or was it the other way around?
To show you how serious I am, I will paypal you $5000 if you can draw a picture of these 2 concepts for me, force & energy, so I can find them when I go to the beach this weekend. Deal? I am a person of my word, are you?
“waves are brought about by the forces...”
In your religion, are waves “brought”, like bread & wine are “brought” for communion?
Are waves objects? Can I pick up a wave in my hand the next time I go to the beach? What, my hands are too small? Ok, what if I bring a huge bulldozer or a crane? Can I use it to pick up a wave? Why not? What I am actually picking up?
“waves are undulating forces”
Concepts, like a force, never undulate! Especially since “force” is a VERB ; to force! A ‘force’ is what something “does” or “exerts”; it’s a dynamic concept. A ‘force’ is not what something ‘is’. It is actually the “something”, the physical object, which undulates.
How can you possibly write articles without even knowing basic grammar skills? We’re not even entering the realm of science here, only basic grammar: noun vs. verb
Maybe in your religion forces undulate, but never in the physical universe. Only physical objects can undulate or wave or bend..... like your hand “waving” bye-bye to the $5000 I am offering you to demonstrate all this nonsense.LOL - This is Woo woo lala logic that (according to Woo woo lala here) means "being open minded and sharing possibilities."
It then turns out to mean speaking Woo woo lala absolutes and ignoring reality. It also comes with it's very own version of physics that presumably dropped through a worm hole from an alternate universe.I know Mark, but it’s not only Cecilia who has been brainwashed by all this pseudo-science. We have all been brainwashed at one time or another. Remember, this is the crap they taught in school, and still teach.
It is information stemming from “authority” which us intelligent, yet gullible apes, are quick to accept as Absolute Proven Fact. We do this without understanding the scientific method, which never proves. Proof is the hallmark of Religion. Theologians have been proving God’s existence for the past 2000 years.
Hypothesis: Assume the initial scene where only an object, call it X, existed.
Theory: Now I can rationally explain the “creation” of the universe, using X, as follows.....blah blah
Where X = singularity, God, Jesus, Allah, etc.
I challenge ANYONE to fill in the blacks for “X” and for “blah blah”. I don’t care what degrees you have, or what Monastery you graduated from. The nonsense of “creation” in any form, is a product of Religion, and it will always be!
All a rational person has to ask is: Who created X? And the whole creation theory is flushed down the toilet.
An “atheist” or “scientist” can’t pretend to be smart by pointing out to the “theist” that somebody HAD to create God. He is pushing the same religion with his singularity. Who created the singularity? You can’t have it both ways.
I can tell Cecilia is a good and honest person who means well. I applaud her for defending her beliefs by constantly challenging me. But us humans have been brainwashed by the power of dogma. I don’t care how many PhD’s somebody has. If they don’t understand the difference between an object vs concept, between a verb vs noun, between an adverb vs adjective, and how we apply them to understand the world around us.....then they are under the spell of “dogma”.
We have ALL been under the “spell of dogma”, whether from traditional religion or otherwise, at one time in our lives. To those who have been successful to escape this “nightmare”, please.....go grab one of your favourite drinks, a beer, a scotch, or whatever, and enjoy. Cheers!
How many ever theories people keep coming up with it aint actually possible to find the exact cause and how it happened !!
sure it is totally knowable. Logic, once acquired will point the way to the truth of it. Check out what I already stated in other forums. The Stehen Hawking forum just received my little nugget.
Related Discussions
- 95
Is believing in the "Big Bang" as irrational as believing in a creator
by uncorrectedvision 12 years ago
As I understand it, everything did not exist at all a nano-second before the "Big Bang" and everything, absolutely all the energy in the Universe was in existence a nano-second after the "Big Bang." From where did all of this come? How did it come to be? Is it...
- 9
WHAT if there was an entire universe that existed before the Big Bang?
by John Harper 11 years ago
"This is the theory of a leading Oxford University scientist who claims to have evidence of stars and galaxies that existed long before the universe as we know it formed, The Daily Mail reported.Professor Roger Penrose says that cosmic radiation discovered by one of NASA�s telescopes is...
- 68
Do you believe in the Big Bang?
by janesix 11 years ago
The Big Bang is a religious concept, not science. It takes faith to believe that it happened. If you believe in the Big Bang, why?
- 25
The Big Bang Theory Fizzles
by Make Money 14 years ago
I'm sure if you listen to this audio file you'll agree that the Big Bang theory has fizzled. http://www.audiosancto.org/auweb/200804 … izzles.mp3-----------------------------------How many academics does it take to screw in a light bulb ?- the entire department, then they all get a...
- 121
Why is there something, and not nothing?
by Ron Hooft 12 years ago
I'm interested in your thoughts. Not how. I'm not interested in the idea that a god did it or not. I am interested in your thoughts on why there is something instead of nothing.
- 178
Here Is Something For You To Ponder?
by Raymond D Choiniere 12 years ago
Hey Hubbers,I was digging through some of my research and since a lot of it is philosophy based(meaning it's about answering questions and reasoning), I happen to cross an interesting tidbit I figured I would share with others and see what exactly that they thought about it.It seems like a lot of...