For ages religions have served 2 primary functions in human society. To explain things that primitive people could not explain by reason, observation, or understanding. Also to control the masses, through ambiguous future rewards, and eternal punishment for those unwilling to full comply with that control.

 

    By design and by need religion has been confusing and contradictary, and that is no accident. It thrives on limitation. Absolutes are keys to the success of religion. The ONLY way that this can exist is because divinity _____ did it. The only way you will reap rewards is by following this path. If you wish to know about life, the only real answer is in our book, or scrolls, or teachings, etc.

 

It is the use of ambiguity, unquestioning faith, and the promotion of limited thinking that has been the mainstay of most organized religions for centuries. Let's face it, it is NOT in the best interest of religions to have their followers using their minds to think in open terms and objectively view the world. If they did this, pretty soon the religion would be out of business, and they are ALL in business when you talk about organized religion.

 

   But oddly science does have a parallel and it is disturbing. The way that I see science minded people and rational intelligent atheists also adhering to a nonsense theory that was dis-proven decades ago, and yet has somehow crept back into the scientific community as a sort of pseudo fact. Now it is the subject of much debate and erroneous thinking between Christian and other fundamentalist religious and pseudo-science or soft thinking atheists.

 

    That is the idea of the so called "Big Bang" theory. Utter nonsense! There is a whole industry devoted to this garbage and otherwise intelligent people who support the postulation and the idea as some sort of fact. Many quasi-quantum physicists, and other almost scientists thrive on not only the idea of the big bang, but also this time zero concept. In essence that time and space began at a single point.

 

    Not only is this illogical and improbable, it is an avoidance of the one concept that seems to drive most of the limited thinkers among humanity absolutely nuts! That is the idea of infinity. The idea that there is no start point to time and space. Logically one can easily see that if all of space existed in a singular point then it would still have been surrounded by what in all directions? SPACE! And I wont even dignify the time concept because that is beyond stupid. It is so laughable that it makes me wince to even hear that some of my fellow scientists will on occasion speculate or even postulate this time zero crap. So what was happening before time began? In those moments that the universe was waiting to fill in the space all around it while it incubated in its point of origin? The fact that gases and other matter are moving in an expansive trajectory does not prove nor does it even definitively support a point of origin. It does support the idea that perhaps there is a greater kinetic cosmology than we are aware of, but that is because we are tiny. We think tiny. We see in great limitation, and for all of our imagination, let's face it, we are not that creative when it comes to most of our unsubstantiated speculation about the universe. Inverse planes of existence. Black holes and all sorts of other anomalies which are far more easily studied.

 

   Now my memory is not "photographic" or perfect. I will be the first to admit this, but it is strong. I can recall things quite clearly back to age 2. I have a very high IQ and try to use it as much as possible. I am not bragging either just quantifying what I am about to share. As a scientist and an author my fields of expertise are biological in nature, however I recall having read a very interesting article in national geographic. I want to say it was 1977or 1978 in which the travelling waves and direction of gas and space particulate matter had been measured and remeasured and provided definitive proof that the big bang could not happen as it would have had to have been several bangs and they would be from several areas of the cosmos. In fact for a while anyone continuing to speculate about or support the big bang theory in the scientific community was seen as a raving loon.

 

    News flash. Just because some scientists are now courting this theory once again, their mental status has not changed to those with a mind and a memory. As far as the universe is concerned, why is it so darn hard for folks to grasp the concept of eternity? Always has been. Always will be. And always present in all directions for infinity. Time and space are not just abstract principles, they are measurable affects, even though we are so obsessed with linear time and with the universe that it seems to hurt our tiny brains to conceive that there are 2 truly infinite things in nature. 

 

    The universe was not created. Not by God, not by Nor, not by Aliens, not by anything cognitive, and most of all not by some explosion in a fictitious or after a fictitious starting point to time. Any notion to the contrary while certainly imaginative bears no logic, nothing substantive, and is quite frankly arrogant and insulting. WE have limited thinking! That is all that there is to it! And no amount of debating theories that are backward, nonsensical, and irrational is going to change that fact.

 

If you believe in the Big Bang, or the origin of time, you likely do not have the mental capacity to push beyond your comfort zone and see the plain easily assessed truth. Infinity applies to time and space in all directions. There ARE some things without a beginning or an end, and no amount of your need to give everything a start and end point is going to make that any more true.

Views: 100

Replies to This Discussion

Rather intriguing! Thanks for this great input. And the link. The supposition of multiple events would support the gas and particulate studies done in the 70's which concluded that due to the vast regions of space in which  flow of matter was converse to other surrounding regions that if one postulated a bang theory ( as you said so well ) it would be multi-phased in a larger region, and when we state creating the universe (since this would suppose that the universe is infinite or to paraphrase you, an "uber-Universe) one could instead state that a big bang would be the creation of universal matter within a given region. Again I am at odds with the explosion theory, but there is better merit for that supposition than for a singular event.

 

Thanks so much! Good posting!

Why the chip on the shoulder? "you likely do not have the mental capacity" "I have a very high IQ" "even postulate this time zero crap"  You come out swinging, but at what? With what? You have a pile of words shaped to insult and pick a fight, but you don't provide anything substantive. I'm happy to hear your case for what's wrong with the big bang but you've chosen to not present it. You've merely argued it out of existence with insults. Is that really conclusive science? You note a story from 1977 or 78. Is it possible that the resurgence is due to new evidence? If you don't have the first story, did you check on whether or not it was refuted? Here is National Geographic's current stand on the orgins "The most popular theory of our universe's origin centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang." Link 

  So based on your recollection of a 30 year old story, all new science is tossed aside? Based on your understanding everyone whom doesn't agree with you is an idiot without the mental capacity to push beyond their comfort zone? 

Michio Kaku buys the Big Bang and mocks those that don't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkW7lPMhqSI

Neil Degrasse Tyson in a lecture series on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSU3SK7UFQM&feature=related

John Mather Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJBNm4ZD69E

Stephen Hawking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd1tgLQg4ZU

 

To be fair, you haven't presented any evidence. You have pitted yourself against the top relevant scientists in the world. In doing so you hurl insults for no clear reason. A reasonable assumption would be that you do so because you've faced opposition to this before and seek to quiet any opposition. I'm open to the evidence. I only ask that you present some and maybe some credentials. What University do you teach at? What published papers can I find on you? Why should I give more weight to your data over Hawkings? Tyson's? Kaku's? Mather's? 

Interesting perspective. I did come off antagonistic. It was intentionally provocative.

 

That said however, the evidence does not change. Granted I have not provided anything substative if you are basing substative upon quoting scientific theories and opinions postulated by modern proponents of the big bang theory, but by the same token one may also say it would be arrogant to make the supposition that not being involved in this particular field of science or research invalidates the opinions and observations that I have expressed.

 

Steven Hawking is a brilliant man, as are all of the people that you mention, however, being brilliant does not make them right. It is also what I consider a flaw in their reasoning. Regardless of speculative research. Mathematical statistics do not prove or even support counter logic to the most basic science. The reason I disagree is simple.

 

1). There is physical evidence that was researched and discovered by credible astronomers in the field that shows  and has indicated clearly that the big bang is pure nonsense. Kinetic expansion of gases and particulates as well as other bodies are converse to any singular point of outward expansion.

 

2). The limitation of human thinking is what I find arrogant and even reprehensible. Why must time have a start point? Illogical. What was happening before the start point? (Time was transpiring. It is so simple that anyone should be able to understand it.) Yet this is too "likely or obvious" to be accurate. No we have to complicate things and try to make a concission. The human mind in most cases simply cannot fathom the idea of infinity. Reflect upon it and move your mind outward as you do so, or inward and you will quickly discover just how beyond us even the basic gist of this truly is. Our minds tend to reject that which is limitless because we cannot measure infinity.

 

As for my reason for posting this and starting this group it is because I believe (again based on obvious observable and proven evidence - regardless of the fact that it was shown over 30 years ago) that the big bang, and limitations in thinking regarding time and space are analogous to limits of reasoning ability within the observer, no matter how intelligent or clever they may be.

 

My credentials are not any more germane to the discussion and point of view than yours, other members, or any of the men that you have cited. Do not get so hung up on titles that you forget about thinking. I do not mean that insultingly either. I mean that many PHD scientists and professors are wonderful at facts as they were taught them, within a given field, but this does not mean that they were ever taught to think or have ever trained themselves to do so.

My field of expertise is marine biology and herpetology. I do not teach at any university, I conduct independent research and work with a variety of conservation and advocacy organizations with regards to oceans and elasmobranch conservation. I am the author of 2 books within my field and have a third book in the works. My first book was a breakthrough in marine and atmospheric science because of limited or rather "focused" (if you prefer this word over "limited") thinking. Many top experts around the world did not see what was right in front of them. It is a reminder to me that regardless of intelligence or intellect it is easy for people to escape logic or seeing the big picture because they are too focused on the smaller or more immediate concerns. (See there you have the psychological backdrop for my disdain.)

However as I had stated in the opening to this group and during our discourse here, I hold no titles in any of the related fields to the men which you have listed. I will hope from your rather rational candor that you are wise enough to infer that one need not be published, or an expert in a given field to still be competent to formulate an opinion based on one's understanding of that given field. And that said, I have to say thank you for bring up this criticism. It is very well thought out although I disagree about not having provided anything substative. I have invited you to re-examine your faith in the works of these men and their notions. Also to rethink the idea that just because they are gifted within their areas of expertise does not make them infalible.

 

My opinion < is just that. My opinion. My disdain for boxed thinking is also just that. MY disdain. And in my opinion one would have to be a bit lacking to postulate or continue to adhere to the Big Bang, and out and out mad to give time and space a starting point. Ludicrous and illogical.

 

In the interest of fairness though and certainly the need is here to be objective, I will check out the links that you have provided. Thank you for posting them. Thanks also for joining in this discussion. You make some really great points. Very well thought out and lucid!

Well I read National Geographic's Current stand on the big bang theory: (Apparently the title has given you the supposition of absolute endorsement). The end point of their article is most telling:

 

"The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge."

 

The 20-30 billion year old universe is as insulting to logic as a 4-6000 year old earth. We are part of a 6 galaxy cluster at the moment. Each moving in different directions. However this is a nesting of one set of galaxies. There are more moving in opposing directions. Again, arrogant and presumptuous at best to try to guess in the dark at a starting point. This also ignores the equally viable directional overlap theory in which galaxies travel great distances sometimes colliding with each other in the course of their motion and at other times overlapping and then repelling each other with their own forces of gravity and repulsion. Near misses, absolute misses, and galaxies are like ships passing each other in the night, or in this case in the infinite universe. A theory far more likely than explosions of compressed matter. And where was that matter of compressed energy sitting? In a void? In space without stars or composition? One simply cannot escape the obvious. Infinity is real and it is present in time and space. It is the lack of ability to measure it in linear terms that has everyone digging so hard to prove the Big Bang and similar related hypothesis.


But anyway, it is an interesting article. I will look at the rest of your links and get back with you on these as soon as I can. Thanks again for the postings. Good stuff!

This is an interesting related article that was a side thread from one of the other topics posted about things not in the bible. The same source had a 6 things that are inacurate in history story. One of them was the nomenclature of "The Big Bang" theory. Here is the link if you are interested:

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_18627_6-things-from-history-everyone...
Steven Hawking is a brilliant man, as are all of the people that you mention, however, being brilliant does not make them right. It is also what I consider a flaw in their reasoning.

Your own arguments have flaws of their own:

1). There is physical evidence that was researched and discovered by credible astronomers in the field that shows  and has indicated clearly that the big bang is pure nonsense. Kinetic expansion of gases and particulates as well as other bodies are converse to any singular point of outward expansion.

I don't know about the evidence you speak of in the first sentence, but I sure know the second one presents nothing but a false analogy, as far as Big Bang theory goes. Expansion of a gas within space is not at all the same thing as expansion of space itself, which is an intrinsic expansion of the metric of space, rather than an outward expansion of objects within that space. 'Outward' assumes an 'outside', the Big Bang doesn't. There's no 'point of origin' you can point you finger at (a common misconception.) The Big Bang event is not, never was meant to be, a 'singular point of outward expansion', period.

2). The limitation of human thinking is what I find arrogant and even reprehensible. Why must time have a start point? Illogical.

Well, if space indeed began with the Big Bang (I'm not claiming it's the case, only assuming), it naturally follows that time also did. Measuring time ultimately boils down to measuring thermodynamical processes, and without space, there could be no matter nor energy as we know them, therefore no changes of state, no thermodynamics, and no time - but for an abstract concept that would be non-measurable, and as irrelevant as the concept of 'God' in an universe devoid of sentient life.

By the way, you seem to have a major problem admitting, or even only assuming for the sake of the discussion, that the universe didn't emerge within 'something bigger' ("In those moments that the universe was waiting to fill in the space all around it", you wrote earlier.) But IF that was indeed the case, and IF you could observe the first split-second of the universe from an hypothetical 'outside', what would you see? For all practical purposes, the reverse equivalent of a black hole. And if you could go backward in time to the instant of the Big Bang, you'd notice time dilation effects so big that this 'start point' which annoys you so much would appear to be in an infinite past, from your 'outside' point of view (assuming this 'outside' is causally related to the universe itself, at least.) In other words, infinity would manifests itself at the very moment you thought it vanished. Ain't that great?

My disdain for boxed thinking is also just that.

That's fine, but I'd say I didn't find any of your arguments to be logically consistent or compelling so far. I'm not even trying to defend Big Bang cosmology here, but you misrepresent it so much you sound like you're unable or unwilling to think outside a box of your own.

Hi and thanks for posting those points.

 

To avoid cherry picking my statement let us read it again in it's full context:

 

"Steven Hawking is a brilliant man, as are all of the people that you mention, however, being brilliant does not make them right. Itis also what I consider a flaw in their reasoning. Regardless ofspeculative research. Mathematical statistics do not prove or evensupport counter logic to the most basic science."

 

First off I was not stating that it was only gas but also particulate matter that is moving in directs that exclude the idea of outward expansion from a single point. To be more clear, let's use a simple analogy. Let us suppose for a moment that I were to have a pole that was staked into the ground with an eye-ring at the top. ( This is a basic 2 dimensional example but for purposes of illustration it will suffice. ) Let us now say that the pole represents the position of the matter which allegedly goes through the "Big Bang" affect and is now scattered/blow/expelled outward. Let us represent this by taking 10 people each with a spool of line. One end is tied to the eye-ring ( the origin of the event ) and the other spools out with the person as the walk steadily away from the event.  If these people represent the universe in the context of expanding matter & energy then the only path that should appear is 10  lines from point "A" to point "B" (this being the direction or point at which the people are as they move outward.

 

IF this was a representation (on a tiny scale) of what transpired with the big bang, then the only lines that one would ever see, or the only people that one ever encountered would be these ten. If however you find more people moving with lines (representing travel vectors) who are not part of this ten pack and are moving from points that indicate their origin in a cross direction or opposite direction or any variance there of, it would be safe to assume that there is more than a singular point from which the matter (represented by these people) stems from. If this is the case (and studies of debris, particulate, and gas have long ago confirmed this) then one of only a handful of explanations is viable;

 

1). There is one or more additional matter expansions (big bangs if you like) taking place at variable or the same time.

 

2). There is matter traveling without any expansion other than the natural expansion of the mass of these objects for the distance and gravitational fields to which they are subjected.

 

3). Some force beyond those understood has caused secondary bangs after an initial event (if one presupposes that there was one singular event).

 

It is rudimentary and simple if you think about it. Also I disagree (in my opinion) space cannot expand. Object and matter within a given space may move, expand etc, but to say space expands is to not understand space for what it is, and endless expanse that is infinite and always has been and will be,

 

Galaxies are merely matter groupings in space. Nothing more or less. A galaxy may have a point of formation/birth, maturation, and death. But that still transpires in space. Space is vacuous not solid. Therefore it is beyond measure.

 

I am not certain about your statement >

 

"By the way, you seem to have a major problem admitting, or even only assuming for the sake of the discussion, that the universe didn't emerge within 'something bigger' ("In those moments that the universe was waiting to fill in the space all around it", you wrote earlier.)"

 

Admitting to something I believe to be false would make any point I made subject to scrutiny since I do not believe the  supposition that you shared.

 

Assuming for the sake of argument has been done when I explained my rational for the absolute belief that it did not happen. I will however state it differently. In order for the big bang to have happened matter would all have to have 2 features that were consistent in all cases studied. Age studies which conclusively showed that matter or energy to be a specific measure of age without any other matter present that violated the common longest age of a majority of that matter. And 2, it would have to have a point of expansion without any other matter moving in opposition or other directions to the point of origin.

 

Now realistically we have no way to date all matter. We can speculate, and we can make educated guesses and conclusions, and even mathematically formulate the rate of decay of some matter or the rate of morphism into other forms of matter or energy. But there is no definitive measure for all matter. Not that we understand.

 

And secondly since there is not a single expansion point as is absolutely requisit for a "Big Bang" to have occurred, this too is impossible and would require for one to move logically into alternative supposition such as those listed in the earlier portion of my statements.

 

I believe that one other area that is throwing people off is our perception of what is the universe. I believe (again my understanding/perception) that the "universe" is all that matter which fills or inhabits space if you will. But going forward or backward in time would not make infinity any more or less a perception since I view all time and space as infinate and since I do not believe that I could ever reach a point zero, it is again a moot point. Creatively thought out and well worded I will grant you. But it does not jive with the basic evidence and logical suposition.

 

Hopefully this clears things up a little bit for you. I believe what you feel is my having "misrepresented it" was either my lack of having clarified to a level that you found satisfactory, or a failure on my part to have illustrated my perspective in a rational fashion that you were able to then gather what I was trying to get across. Or I could just be "out there" and in denial. LOL. But if I was/am I would not know anyway, so the feedback is good to have.

 

Thanks for the posting! I am grateful for your observations.

 

 

 

 

First off I was not stating that it was only gas but also particulate matter that is moving in directs that exclude the idea of outward expansion from a single point.

 

Whether it's gas, particulate matter or whatnot doesn't make a difference, the kinetic analogy remains flawed just the same. And notice you used the word 'outward' again in your new one? As Jaume's Law on Big Bang Analogies says,

the relevance of these analogies is inversely proportional to the frequency with which the words 'away' and 'outward' occur in them.

Again, this one presupposes one can spatially move 'away' from the Big Bang event, but that's not what Big Bang cosmology says. The event is a point in time only, not space (or you could say it happened in every point of space; anyway the end result is the same: you can't pinpoint its location in space), and thus the only dimension you can move away from that event is time.

(By the way, your depiction of your eye-ring as 'the origin of the event' is an awkward one: the event is the origin, thus your wording sounds like a pleonasm at best.)

If I were to use your example to make an analogy of the Big Bang, I'd ditch the ground, the pole, the ropes, and keep only the eye-ring with people walking on its surface (which would be a torus in this case, but that's anecdotal - what's important is that the ring's surface represent all the space there is: for the purpose of this analogy, there's no space except for this surface, neither inside nor outside.) So as time passes, the ring grows bigger and bigger, and people wander on its surface randomly. The average distance between all these people grows because of the ring's expansion, so they appear to move away from each other in space (except for people who strated close enough to each other and who may thus counteract this expansion when they move towards each other.) But none of these people move away from the ring itself, except as time passes, they become far removed from the moment the ring was small (i.e., the Big Bang event.)

Also I disagree (in my opinion) space cannot expand.

Well, I understand no Big Bang theory will ever make sense for someone unwilling to make this assumption, but since it's impossible at the moment to prove that space doesn't expand, it's not a valid refutation of these theories either - only a plain rejection based on disagreement with their fundamental premises.

Not that I see anything wrong with that (except when you liken the theories you reject but fail to refute with 'bullshit'), but it doesn't lead us very far if you can't submit a competing theory of your own that's both internally consistent and has as much predictive power as the mainstream theory has. I'm not saying that current Big Bang theories are perfect, they might even fall apart in the future as better theories emerge, but at the moment I think they're one of the best tools we have for understanding our universe, and the fact that they leave so many questions unanswered makes them even more exciting: they're highly dynamic theories in constant evolution, and I rather like that. It's proof that science progresses, and not at all like religion.

I am not certain about your statement >

"By the way, you seem to have a major problem admitting, or even only assuming for the sake of the discussion, that the universe didn't emerge within 'something bigger' ("In those moments that the universe was waiting to fill in the space all around it", you wrote earlier.)"

Admitting to something I believe to be false would make any point I made subject to scrutiny since I do not believe the  supposition that you shared.

Well, the words I quoted are yours, aren't they? And in your original post, you also wrote: "Logically one can easily see that if all of space existed in a singular point then it would still have been surrounded by what in all directions? SPACE!" How is an awkwardly circular way to defeat an argument by both assuming and negating its premise logical? Would you also say that if you could compress all of Earth's oceans's water into a single drop, that drop would still be surrounded by water?

My point here was, everywhere you seem willing to assume the point of view of mainstream cosmologists, you only go halfway and claim that if the universe expands, it has to do it within a 'bigger', infinite space. This would indeed lead Big Bang cosmology to a logical contradiction if that's what it said, but it's not. You'll never disprove a scientific theory with such methods. If you can't defeat it from the outside by showing its fundamental premises are flawed, you have to assume these premises and defeat it from the inside by showing they lead to logical contradictions, or contradictions with observational evidence. But no, you just can't fully assume for a second that the expansion of space may be intrinsic, which makes this discussion kind of moot.

 

Actually you have made suppositions that are NOT at all what I stated. How you arrived to those conclusions I cannot fathom. I will break this down one last time so we are clear.

 

This is what you copied and pasted then commented on:

 

ERIK > I am not certain about your statement >

YOU > "By the way, you seem to have a major problem admitting, or even only assuming for the sake of the discussion, that the universe didn't emerge within' something bigger'  ME > ("In those moments that the universe was waiting tofill in the space all around it", You > you wrote earlier.)"

ERIK > Admitting to something I believe to be false would make any point I made subject to scrutiny since I do not believe the  supposition that you shared.

YOU > Well, the words I quoted are yours, aren't they? And in your original post, you also wrote:ME > "Logically one can easily see that if all of space existed in a singular point then it would still have been surrounded by what in all directions? SPACE!" YOU > How is an awkwardly circular way to defeat an argument by both assuming and negating its premise logical? Would you also say thatif you could compress all of Earth's oceans's water into a single drop, that drop would still be surrounded by water?

 

Okay now brace yourself here. I confused you apparently (and I did not catch it until you pointed this out, so  thank you) because I posted this:

 

Logically one can easily see that if all of space existed in a singular point then it would still have been surrounded by what in all directions? SPACE!"

 

Instead of what I was trying to state (only typed in the wrong words for you to follow my meaning) which is this:

 

Logically one can easily see that if all of the universe existed in a singular point then it would still have been surrounded by what in all directions? SPACE!"

 

Your ascription of time/space as a singular anomaly is (in my opinion) beyond illogical. The big bang being an expansion from a time point that is instant throughout existance sounds less credible to me than God or Gods do. And I don't have faith in that superstitious drivel at all.

 

As for your opening explative:

 

Whether it's gas, particulate matter or what not doesn't make a difference, the kinetic analogy remains flawed just the same. (flawed? the universal observable and 100% proven laws of kinetics do not work for you eh? Interesting but let's read the rest.) And notice you used the word 'outward' again in your new one? As Jaume'sLaw on Big Bang Analogies says,

the relevance of these analogies is inversely proportional to the frequency with which the words 'away' and 'outward' occur in them.

 

(What Jaume is stating is "If one uses terminology that is converse to my theories or beliefs and makes use of supportive words that describe why my understanding of the universe and it's origins is in direct conflict with logic and scientific facts, the more you use those words the more flawed, or wrong you are.)


Does he stick out his tongue and stomp his feet too at this point? Is there a "Nah Nah Nee Nah nah!" that follows?

 

I suspect he was one of those kids who took his ball and went home when things were not going his way. I also used the word "the" and several other words. Is he okay with those? Or is it only "away and outwardly" that bug him? LOL. By the way that is not a supportive statement to your position. It's a dismissive statement meant to invalidate directional observation by implying that using directional statements to explain why the big bang is false scientifically and was shown to be false according to science over 30 years ago are invalid. Jaume is no more an authority on this than any other human. Just as I am not, nor anyone else. It is easy to speculate on that which cannot be definitively 100% proven.

 

BUT back to your discussion:


Again, this one presupposes one can spatially move 'away' from theBig Bang event, but that's not what Big Bang cosmology says. The event is a point in time only, not space (or you could say it happened in every point of space (Or I could say that it only happened at one point of space); anyway the end result is the same (How can it be the same? The glass is both full and empty at the same time? I see you are trying to support a statement with a statement which you allege that I had made and in fact it was you who later reiterated this point with the ocean and drop of water analogy. But back to your discussion points) : you can't pin point its location in space ),(You cant? Really? So the point of origin is a time of origin in your opinion and the opinion of those you believe? Very interesting concept. So to you the big bang to explain universal origin was not the big bang. Not really. It was the Big When eh? That is a rather fascinating idea.) and thus the only dimension you can move away from that event is time. (Time is a dimension? Or is it perhaps something else that operates in it's own law and separate of space? Not to be philosophical here but your cup appears to have a few holes in it. That is my opinion however. And in my opinion you will see the empty cup as full! And you know what, it could well be. Maybe the paradox is not so paradoxical and you are totally right. But let's get something clear between us, just casually. I used the EXACT analogy for my discussion against the big bang as I understand it {which I have admitted I may not. I could be way off! In space if you will pardon the pun.} that I wished to convey. You have come into this discussion with what appears to be a rigid view that what you have learned or theorized is supported by "x" amount of experts and so it must be correct. Of course the same thing was said about a flat world once. And I have to admit I was once convinced that the world was round. But I now know that the earth is an oblate spheroid. But hey, technically that is still round! LOL.)

(By the way, your depiction of your eye-ring as 'the origin of the event' is an awkward one: the event is the origin, thus your wording sounds like a pleonasm at best.)

I have GOT to give you Kudos on this one. You are the first person to use the word pleonasm with me in a conversation. A large vocabulary should validate the superiority of the intellect I am squared off with and let's fact it, it does sound so much more clever than simply saying superfluous or meaningless. I will ignore the denigrating undertone and simply agree to disagree with you on these points.

 

Actually some of your discussion points and the time/space thing are rather fascinating. I do believe that you either did not grasp or simply elected to ignore my reasoning on the point of origin as a locational index rather than a time point, but again, that is okay with me. I am not out to convert or change your mind, I am just seeing what you have to say, and gaining gems of insight as well as enjoying your linguistic skills. Thanks a lot for posting this. It was both enlightening and entertaining. All disagreement aside (and I am not being sarcastic) you are an interesting conversationalist. Cheers!

Jaume is no more an authority on this than any other human. Just as I am not, nor anyone else. It is easy to speculate on that which cannot be definitively 100% proven.

I never claimed to be an authority, and never will: I'm only a layman with a decent - I hope - grasp of astrophysics and cosmology.

Anyway, everything I've said so far is basic 'Cosmology 101' stuff, and (besides 'Jaume's Law', which was a mere tongue-in-cheek observation), the only speculation I've presented that's mine, is when I likened the newborn universe to a reverse black hole in my first post. While it's based on a contradiction (there's no 'outside' you can observe the universe from - that is, as far as Big Bang theories go), I believe my conclusion is consistent with these theories nonetheless. Even my big-bang-ring is just a rehash of the common 'inflating balloon' analogy you've probably seen elsewhere.

I do believe that you either did not grasp or simply elected to ignore my reasoning on the point of origin as a locational index rather than a time point,

...because you use that argument to disprove the Big Bang model from within, with analogies assuming, implicitly or not, that the underlying theory makes claims it never did. I understand your reasoning way too well, but it's not any more valid. You just can't make a relevant analogy of the Big Bang assuming a spatial location for the initial event, PERIOD. It may be a correct analogy for another inflationary model where space is not an intrinsic property of the universe, but just not this one.

Maybe this will help clearing things up: did it occur to you than when astronomers say, "OK, let's have a look at the Big Bang", they do this by pointing their telescopes at any direction in space, provided the point they observe is far away - far enough to give an image of the distant past? In which way do you think these astronomers will find any of your Big Bang analogies relevant to their own views of the universe? Hint: they won't, because they can't: your characterization of the Big Bang event just don't fit theirs.

I suspect he was one of those kids who took his ball and went home when things were not going his way.

For the record, while it's true that I find the Big Bang model the most compelling at the moment, in the past I've played Devil's Advocate for competing models (and that's even including the tired light model that's been out of favor for a long while), when I thought they raised interesting points that Big Bang theories failed to address; or just because I believe that adopting a different perspective can sometimes be enlightening. How's that for a narrow-minded sophist?

You're right on a point, though: I'll take my ball and go home - but only because I'm easily bored by fruitless discussions.

Well while I disagree with you characterization I do actually gather what you are saying, and why it makes sense given the view that you have expressed. Also I agree with you that the discussion is academic at best. An interesting little diversion. That said, since neither of us are really making subject progress it is wise as you suggested to write it off to a simple impasse.

 

That said, you have some really well thought out and excellently stated counterpoints to my views. It is mentally stimulating and interesting to consider your views and thoughts on the matter. Thank you very much for these excellent discussions! Have a good one Jaume!

Though true both are limited, only Science has made any headway in the history of our existence.  Religion may change over the years, but it never advances at all.  Science does.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service