Common misconceptions about the big bang

[oracle]

You have it backwards - strings make subatomic particles. Energy is in the form of vibrating strings

You're not getting what I am saying. You need space in order to have energy, and you need the division of space to make a string. What existed before the string? How do you get a vibrating string in the first place? I don't think its so much as the division of space. It's a distinction made. You have to first make that distinction. Energy is movement within space. Vibration is movement within space. You need space in order for a membrene to move. But since you are beginning with virtually nothing, that means no spacetime or matter, you must first make a distinction, and that distinction is the essence of spacetime and matter.

You need matter in order to have space, and you need space in order to have matter. You can't have only one and exclude the other.

What is the shell of a subatomic particle made up of? That's what I really want to know.

The hypothetical particle is infinity. But you can't comprehend infinity because you are a finite quantum mechanical entity. You can only comprehend it by saying what it is not, and that is everything that exists, however it is also everything that exists.

It's the same concept of God in Qabbalah. Aleph is the infinite nothingness. Bet is the first distinction made out of that nothingness. It is a duality, a "division of space", a distinction between what is inside and what is outside. This is the essence of space and matter, (female and male), yin and yang. Sophia and the Demi-urge.

What you think is inconsistent with M-Theory. What you think is inconsistent with observed events within our universe.

I'm sure there are inconsistencies with my theories. But you are also not getting what I am saying, and others are not getting what I am saying.

The universe is probably not torodial in shape. However, the universe is finite and also infinite. It is a cyclic process, like Ouroborus who eats his own tail, or the Phoenix that dies and rises from it's own ashes. There is no edge, but what I consider the "edge" is the point of infinity, because that is our edge, our limit of comprehension.

There is a point where space ceases to exist, but at the same time matter ceases to exists, and that is infinity. Infinity is the beginning and end.

 

[Pah]

You're not getting what I am saying. You need space in order to have energy, and you need the division of space to make a string. What existed before the string? How do you get a vibrating string in the first place? I don't think its so much as the division of space. It's a distinction made. You have to first make that distinction. Energy is movement within space. Vibration is movement within space. You need space in order for a membrene to move.

What space does gravity take up? What space creates gravity? We know the relationship of energy and matter so the same would hold true for matter. Energy is not movement - that is a property of matter - energy is a force.

Is the reality of Pepsi the space within the glass? or is it the combination of matter? I don't know why you are so fixed on something that means so little.

I think we should understand what strings are and whether there is inconsitency in the evolving theories before you conclude that there must be something that causes strings.

Strings are infinite in length and some are as small as the Plankton Constant in the various dimensions.

The hypothetical particle is infinity. But you can't comprehend infinity because you are a finite entity. You can only comprehend it by saying what it is not, and that is everything that exists, however it is also everything that exists.

It's the same concept of God in Qabbalah.

Infinity is a mathmatical concept and not a property of matter or energy. Further, there are an infinite number of infinities - Aleph Null being the cardinal number of the first. If you would like to exend infinity to a concept of God, then you must allow for an infinite number of Gods.

I'm sure there are inconsistencies with my theories. But you are also not getting what I am saying.

It is immaterial to the inconsistencies within your theory that there exists other theories that are more consistent. I'm not getting what you are saying because I have not seen scientific or mathmatical proof of what you say.

 

[oracle]

What space does gravity take up? What space creates gravity? We know the relationship of energy and matter so the same would hold true for matter. Energy is not movement - that is a property of matter - energy is a force.

You need space in order for a force to exert itself. Gravity would be the manipulation of spacetime caused by a superconductor, something that spins extremely fast. Evidently matter would cause this. You need empty space in order for this force to exert itself. If energy is not movement, why are we pulled by the earth's gravity? Well I see that movement is defined by both the force creating the pull and the matter getting pulled with it. But the force of Gravity is actually created by movement of particles, a superconducter if you will (hypthetically).

spacetime curvature moves like a vortex, in the distortion caused by gravity.

If spacetime curvature is not moving, why does it bend light?

Matter IS energy.

Strings are energy, and they make up particles.

Particles move, therefore energy is moving.

Space itself is energy.

Everything is made from infinite energy (Aleph). A single point of nothingness that exists outside the human mind.

Something is only created, or comes into being, by making a dualistic distinction. If you want to create a vibrating string, you have to first make a distinction. There must be a distinction that defines the vibration, and there must be a distinction that defines the string itself. You must have a distinction in order to create definition, otherwise you cannot difine anything. You need an opposite in order to compare it to or define something. One side will define the other. In order to make opposites you must first make a distinction. In order to make a distinction you need space, and in order to make space you need something that divides it and encompasses it, a string (bet). If you want this string to vibrate, you have to make a distinction that defines vibration, and that is the dualistic function that creates waves; the spiral movement of energy (gimel), which is made possible with space.These are the first three archtypes of everything in existence (my interpretation from a Qabbalistic understanding). The archetypal energy (Infinity), archetypal distinction (string encompassing space), and archetypal movement (vibration), met with archetypal resistance (Dalet).

Everything created is therefore an illusion, and everthing is made of this infinite energy. a single point of nothingness is unstable and cannot support itself, and you so get a cyclic process of explosive infinite energy, and compressive infinite energy. There is no beginning or end, but the end it the beginning and the beginning is the end.

Is the reality of Pepsi the space within the glass? or is it the combination of matter? I don't know why you are so fixed on something that means so little.



I think we should understand what strings are and whether there is inconsitency in the evolving theories before you conclude that there must be something that causes strings.

You don't understand what I'm saying. I've just been trying to apply the Qabbalistic understanding of the Universe with the scientifical understanding, which seems to me like a scientifical explanation of the universe.

Strings are infinite in length....Infinity is a mathmatical concept and not a property of matter or energy.

Since you just said that infinity is a mathematical concept and not a property of energy, than how can strings be infinite in length?

If you would like to exend infinity to a concept of God, then you must allow for an infinite number of Gods.

There is One God, but an infinite number of possiblities of percieving God. That is why many polythiestic religions are monotheistic in disguise.

Well, after explaining the whole Qabbalistic concept, then the big bang is continuous and virtually happening in all directions. However a compression is also happening in all directions.

 

[Pah]

You don't understand what I'm saying. I've just been trying to apply the Qabbalistic understanding of the Universe with the scientifical understanding, which seems to me like a scientifical explanation of the universe.

Have a good time with that thought. It is clear to me that no scientific explanation will satisfy you.

 

[oracle]

Have a good time with that thought. It is clear to me that no scientific explanation will satisfy you.

That's you're opinion. You obviously don't understand Qabbalah.

 

[linwood]

Well 11-12 pages and still no falsifiable evidence for any of it.

By the way guys, this is a Big Bang thread.

I`d love someone to start a string theory thread and post the basics of the theory so i`d have somepleace to start.

 

[oracle]

Good point, sorry for the digression. I suppose I'll retire from this discussion.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

EDIT: Corrected spelling ...

Certainly, hypothetically it would be non-existant.

Of course logic and general observation tell us it cannot possibly be non-existant

Again just because it has no meaning does not mean it doesn`t exist.

If it is meaningless, then we have no way of measuring it or detecting it. If there is absolutely no evidence for something, why should we presume it exists?

It isn`t similar though if you think about it considering space while it cannot be seen due to it`s very nature does exist and this can be verified.

Yes, but the only space that can actually be measured is the space between two objects. There is no possible way of measuring space if there are no objects to relate.

You have not addressed the topic of relativity. Relativity states that our physical dimensions are not absolute, but rather are based on relative values between objects. It implies that your assertion above is incorrect, that space without mass or energy is non-existent. Your mind seems determined to think of space in absolute terms, but that interpretation of the Universe disagrees with Relativity.

This is why it has taken me so long to grasp the concept of the Big Bang.

because science told me space wasn`t infinate, that a particle can be infinate, that space curves.


All these statements are not fact but thinking of them as fact helps science come to their conclusions.

They should not however spread these concepts as truth to the layman if they ever wish him to understand the greatness of their discoveries

I'm not sure what you are considering "fact". Do you consider theories to be fact?

Becareful about relying on your intuition too much. Many people in history have claimed it is obvious that the world is flat due to plain observation, and that scientist who claim that the world is round by tracking the stars must be mistaken.

I had a serious problem understanding finite space simply because it is impossible.

I am interpreting this statement in that you have not actually formulated a logical proof for that assertion, but rather, it simply contradicts your intuition.

I still don`t understand why people have a problem with it.

It logically follows simple observation.

Most people have a problem with infinite physical structures because they seem paradoxical. For example, if the dimension of time were infinite, then present time would never reach the current moment... an infinite amount of time would have to pass before we reached this point in time.

In fact most science has recently recanted it`s theories of space having a boundry.

They`ve finally decided to call it what it is regardless of it`s use for them.

"Infinate"

I don't follow... which theories are refering to and who recanted them?

You have to remember that your experience of "space" is a perception. It is a perception constructed in your mind from information received from you senses. You seem to be too quick to draw conclusions about the source of the information you are receiving by transposing your mind's interpretation of that information.

Your mind develops a spacial awareness to allow you to operate within 3 dimensions. My question to you is, can you imagine 5-dimensional space? What it would be like to move around in such space?

The answer should be no because our minds are built for 3-dimensions. This says nothing however on whether 5-dimensional space could exist, because mathematically, it is theoritically possible.

I state this only to caution you not to limit your thinking of what is possible and what is not possible to your intuitions about spacial awareness. Our spacial awareness was designed to get us around our world efficiently, but it was not designed so that we may easily conceive the deepest complexities of our Universe's mechanics.

Anyway, you think those concepts above are weird, try checking out quantum theory. If you have not looked into it before, I would recommend it. You can learn the concepts without touching the math involved, and some of the concepts are really bizarre. It may completely change your intuitions about the world.

For example, there are implications that things do not actually happen until they are observed. Schrodinger's Cat is the most famous of these concepts.

 

[linwood]

I`m hoping this is just an exercise because I thought we just solved this in the Manipulation of Space thread.

If it is meaningless, then we have no way of measuring it or detecting it. If there is absolutely no evidence for something, why should we presume it exists?

It is meaningless to scientific theorem, not to me. In fact it is science who is doing the “presuming” here, the kind of presuming that would fit under # 2 in the definition below.

I would like your definition of “presumption” before we continue this.

Considering the amount of “space” ( forgive the pun) those engaged in this debate have used simply discerning the meanings of words and concepts I`d like to avoid it in the future.

Presumption

1. Behavior or attitude that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery.
2. The act of presuming or accepting as true.
3. Acceptance or belief based on reasonable evidence; assumption or supposition.
4. A condition or basis for accepting or presuming.
5. Law. A conclusion derived from a particular set of facts based on law, rather than probable reasoning.

I am using 3,4,& 5 as my definition of presumption here.

I “presume” space will always exist because there is no evidence for any other possibility.

The evidence of the infinite existence of space is in the nature of space itself.

The question you ask is like asking “How do we know the water we might find on Mars is wet?”

The very nature of water is “wet” if it`s not wet, it`s not water.

I hate to keep dragging it out but this is still an example of the” tree falling in the forest doesn`t make a sound” fallacy.

As far as this debate goes I have been very kind considering I did not make the initial assertion about the existence or non-existence of space.

Science did when it told me “Space didn`t exist” or that it has an “edge”.

The burden of proof would seem to fall on those defending the presumptions of science on this topic.

Where is the evidence of a literal ending of space?

Where is the evidence that space did not exist before the bang?

I wish I had a dime for every time I`ve typed those two requests in the past week without receiving an answer.

Yes, but the only space that can actually be measured is the space between two objects. There is no possible way of measuring space if there are no objects to relate.

So?

I don`t need to measure space to know it exists I can see it, I can sense it around me. Science needs to measure it to form it`s models but I have no model to form.

By perceiving and understanding the very nature of the thing around me I can tell it cannot end or stop existing.

I am the one speaking of the literal universe here, science is making the presumptions. Again this is not an assault on scientific method.

I understand why they need to presume this.

You have not addressed the topic of relativity.

Relativity is a scientific theorem, it`s assertions do not override nor falsify the evidence I base my perceptions of the space around me on.

Your mind seems determined to think of space in absolute terms, but that interpretation of the Universe disagrees with Relativity.

So be it.

If relativity is telling me space didn`t exist and my own personal perceptions tell me it does then I have no problem disagreeing with relativity.

We both know relativity does not literally disagree with my perceptions though.

I'm not sure what you are considering "fact". Do you consider theories to be fact?

I know better to use a word as subjective as “fact”.

I should have used “reality”

My apologies

Becareful about relying on your intuition too much. Many people in history have claimed it is obvious that the world is flat due to plain observation, and that scientist who claim that the world is round by tracking the stars must be mistaken.

Flat Earthers weren`t using their senses of observation very well.

The curvature of the planet is obvious from the visual affect moving objects have on the horizon

I`m not relying on intuition, I`m relying on my own personal observations of the space around me and I did not arrogantly accept my own observations over the observations of science.

I spent a lot of time and effort trying to reconcile my observations with those of science before coming to the conclusion that either science was wrong or it wasn`t expressing itself in a clear concise manner for understanding

I have concluded the latter is the case and you yourself have agreed to this

Most of these statements are the result of people mistakening our scientific models for the real world.

I suppose this is easier said than done. The physical world exhibits both elegance and sophistication--it is bound to develop its own vocabulary. To understand the nuances, one has to become familiar with the vocabulary (e.g. curved space).

I am interpreting this statement in that you have not actually formulated a logical proof for that assertion, but rather, it simply contradicts your intuition.

Again, I don`t necessarily need proof.

Science made the assertion that space can be manipulated and or didn`t exist.

I merely came to this thread asking for evidence to support the concept.

It does not contradict my intuition it contradicts my perceptions I believe my perception of space itself leads to the logical conclusion that it cannot end or be manipulated.

Do you have evidence of the manipulation of space or the assumption that it didn`t exist?

(I want my dime )

I don't follow... which theories are refering to and who recanted them?

Steven Hawkings and others have written of a theoretical “boundary” to space.

The model of the Big Bang states that space did not exist before the bang.

Again recanted is the wrong term.

It seems the edge of space is a part of a mathematical algorithm in theoretical physics. However it is presented by many as “reality”

Mr.Spinkles clarified it in post # 40 of this thread.

To be quite honest Spinkles took the affirmative position to my negative position in this debate and considering that concession should have helped me get that point out of the way I didn`t question it.

But..you can trust Spinkles

You have to remember that your experience of "space" is a perception. It is a perception constructed in your mind from information received from you senses.

I am a skeptic.

I have nothing else I can place any trust in other than information recieved from my senses.

It seems you are asking me to ignore my own perceptions and accept what I`m told by those who know better.

If I was capable of that I wouldn`t be an atheist




The truth of the matter is I spent a very long time doubting my own perceptions in order to understand what science was telling me.

It turns out science and I don`t really disagree we just have different ways of perceiving the same thing

You seem to be too quick to draw conclusions about the source of the information you are receiving by transposing your mind's interpretation of that information.

My interpretation of science stating that space can be manipulated was that space could literally be manipulated.

Is it my fault science didn`t mean what it said?

I have not been quick to draw any conclusions here.

I studied and thought and studied some more.

I finally grew tired of doubting my own perceptions and came in here to this “Misconceptions” thread and demanded evidence for what science was telling me.

I have received not a scrap of evidence but I have realized that science didn`t mean what it said.

Not literally.

This has allowed me to finally reconcile the differences I thought I had with what science was telling me.

This thread cleared up my “misconceptions” but not in the manner the OP thought it would I think.

 

[Joannicius]

linwood
​

If space is curved wouldn't it have to be inside something sorta like Orion's belt ?
​

 

[oracle]

EDIT: Corrected spelling ...

If it is meaningless, then we have no way of measuring it or detecting it. If there is absolutely no evidence for something, why should we presume it exists?

Yes, but the only space that can actually be measured is the space between two objects. There is no possible way of measuring space if there are no objects to relate.

You have not addressed the topic of relativity. Relativity states that our physical dimensions are not absolute, but rather are based on relative values between objects. It implies that your assertion above is incorrect, that space without mass or energy is non-existent. Your mind seems determined to think of space in absolute terms, but that interpretation of the Universe disagrees with Relativity.

I'm not sure what you are considering "fact". Do you consider theories to be fact?

Becareful about relying on your intuition too much. Many people in history have claimed it is obvious that the world is flat due to plain observation, and that scientist who claim that the world is round by tracking the stars must be mistaken.

I am interpreting this statement in that you have not actually formulated a logical proof for that assertion, but rather, it simply contradicts your intuition.

Most people have a problem with infinite physical structures because they seem paradoxical. For example, if the dimension of time were infinite, then present time would never reach the current moment... an infinite amount of time would have to pass before we reached this point in time.

I don't follow... which theories are refering to and who recanted them?

You have to remember that your experience of "space" is a perception. It is a perception constructed in your mind from information received from you senses. You seem to be too quick to draw conclusions about the source of the information you are receiving by transposing your mind's interpretation of that information.

Your mind develops a spacial awareness to allow you to operate within 3 dimensions. My question to you is, can you imagine 5-dimensional space? What it would be like to move around in such space?

The answer should be no because our minds are built for 3-dimensions. This says nothing however on whether 5-dimensional space could exist, because mathematically, it is theoritically possible.

I state this only to caution you not to limit your thinking of what is possible and what is not possible to your intuitions about spacial awareness. Our spacial awareness was designed to get us around our world efficiently, but it was not designed so that we may easily conceive the deepest complexities of our Universe's mechanics.

Anyway, you think those concepts above are weird, try checking out quantum theory. If you have not looked into it before, I would recommend it. You can learn the concepts without touching the math involved, and some of the concepts are really bizarre. It may completely change your intuitions about the world.

For example, there are implications that things do not actually happen until they are observed. Schrodinger's Cat is the most famous of these concepts.

Good Post Afotel. I've been trying to relate some of the same things.

You know linwood, you should note the fact that any M theorist will tell you that M Theory cannot be proven because there is no concrete evidense. So I really don't know why you require evidence from the Big Bang theory, but yet no evidense from string thoery. There's condradiction in your logic. There's more concrete evidence of the big bang than there is M theory, because for M theory there is non. It is hypothetical calculation, just as the big bang is hypothetical calculation. However it is more evident because there is a back wall of microwave backround radiation. Nothing can be seen beyond this wall of light, which dates 379,000 years after the big bang, an exact time when hydrogen and helium particles would have first formed, the point when light would first begin shining.

In order for space to be infinite, I would say that you also need a point in the universe where no space exists, and this can only be done by "compressing" or breaking down all atomic particles into subatomic particles, and the subatomic particles into their sub-subatmic particles, untill you get neither spacetime or matter.

This is why I drew the universe as being torodial in shape with a singularity in the center, which evidently, einstien's equations point to Schwarzschild geometry [Einstien wanted to discover the complete evolution of the universe]. However a "wormhole" with a singularity is unstable. But, It actually becomes stablized by putting matter in the center.

this, from my understanding, is a one explanation of why hypothetically, at some point in the universe, spacetime does not exist and matter has infinite mass. I am not talking about size. It would be a single point smaller than anything else in the universe.

if there are strings, which I believe there are, there is also a point when string's do not exist, or perhaps you have a "mother" of all strings. I have read about string theory, and I'm a little familiar with it. Personally I don't think strings "vibrate", I think they spiral and spin at different speeds. Vibration can only be caused by resistant energies (which spirals would make this happen) in the case these (spirals) are actually hyperspheres, that spin by pulling within itself like a smokering. The first resistent energy however is open space, which is not actually resistent energy, it only makes resistence possible, and can only be created by making a single point of distinction, the first particle which later becomes "mother of all strings". I think there is a "mother" of all strings, and it spirals and spins at an "infinite" speed, the whole universe is the result of vibration, which is like a cosmic egg or seed in the "center" of the universe. It is like a superconductor, the conductor of a universe of symphonies. Then you have the multiplying of this superconductor, as the spiraling movement creates an extremely massive amount of strings, or mini spirals (well, they're actually bigger).

The big bang would be a macroscopic point of view, but it's telling the same story which is pointing more towards the structure of the universe on the macroscopic level. Eventually these strings make subatomic particles, and the subatomic particles make atomic particles, as you get hydrogen and helium atoms, and other atoms. eventually you get matter as atoms clump together, and then you also get macroscopic space, as you get multiple forces created by the spinning and warping of strings, strong force, gravity, etc. Because these strings spiral, as more atomic particles clup together from attraction, you have equal forces that causes repulsion.

I think the problem with science is that they try to avoid the singularity, when even Einstein pointed to it. There is a point when strings do not even exist. Everything is made out of infinite energy.

 

[oracle]

I`m hoping this is just an exercise because I thought we just solved this in the Manipulation of Space thread.

If space is infinite, than you wouldn't have spacetime curvature, because infinity can't be manipulated. Actually science rather avoids any Infinities, because infinity is an anomaly. The stadard scientifical understanding of space from what I know, is that it's not infinite.

From my analogy that I explained before, consider matter to be numbers and space an equation. The equation is the relationships between the numbers, in this case it's like a dividing relationship. You can't have equations without numbers and you can't have numbers without the use of equations. It's the same with matter and space. Space, although untangible, is an equation, a thing, a relationship that exists bewteen matter. You need space in order to make a string vibrate, and you need a point of distinction or differentiation in order to make a string.

 

[Joannicius]

I haven't seen or been to that thread, thanks for the info. Linwood
--------------------------

Oracle,

Do you realy think it was solved??????????

It realy amazed me how much of Theory is regurgitated as fact.

 

[oracle]

I haven't seen or been to that thread, thanks for the info. Linwood
--------------------------

Oracle,

Do you realy think it was solved??????????

It realy amazed me how much of Theory is regurgitated as fact.

Theory is not regurgitated as fact, it's all hypothetical. If space is infinite, it cannot be manipulated, this is fact not hypothetical. This is why science says space is finite. Science does not except any infinities because infinity is an anomaly. You are not understanding what infinity is. Space is not infinite, it is manipulated as you get spacetime curvature. You cannot manipulate something that is infinite. You do not understand what infinity it. Infinity would be a singularity, and if you say that space is infinite, you also must have a point in space where spacetime is non-existent, and that is a singularity. This part is hypothetical but it makes sense to me. General relativity even points to a beginning of the universe where space did not exist. I really don't think any of you are smarter than Einstein. Space can only exist as long as you have a point making a distinction between what is space and what is not. Otherwise space is inconcievable. When a person thinks of non-existance, they think of empty space. This is due to spacial awareness. Non-existance is when space does not exist. Space is the relationship between matter. So in order to "annihilate" this relationship, you also have to "annihilate" the cause of distintion, which would be matter. In the process, you would get nothingness. Infinity is nothingness, non-existence, less tangible than 0, and nothingness cannot be manipulated by anything else concieved. For anything concieved, you must have space and a point of distinction that defines space. In order to have space, you must have something to compare it to. This makes space finite.

From what I hypothesize, not to contradict myself, but space is infinite, in the event that you also have a point in space where space ceases to exists, and all space is attatched to that point. However all matter also becomes compressed into a single point. It's like a massive warping, a distortion, a hyperbolic spacetime warp, from which I drew the universe as being torodial or hyperspheric.

 

[Joannicius]

Doesn't that presupose that an anomaly is not fact?
I thought an anomaly was something our of the ordinary, but not unreal.
​

 

[oracle]

Doesn't that presupose that an anomaly is not fact?
I thought an anomaly was something our of the ordinary, but not unreal.
​

An anomaly is something that any scientist, theorist, physicist, or mathmetician would avoid. An anomaly to a theorist would be like the bubbles you get when you try to tint the windshield of your car. It's something that doesn't make sense. That is why infinity isn't accepted because infinity is an anomaly, and why most avoid anything that resembles a singularity in astrophysics. An anomaly is the occurances that happened before the big bang, or what caused the big bang, which points to a singularity (infinity), which science cannot explain, which becomes the biggest contradiction of science.

 

[linwood]

If space is infinite, than you wouldn't have spacetime curvature, because infinity can't be manipulated.

True, and thats one reason why we do not have a literal space time curvature.

Please supply some evidence for the literal curvature of space.
(10 cents please)

Actually science rather avoids any Infinities, because infinity is an anomaly. The stadard scientifical understanding of space from what I know, is that it's not infinite.

yes and I have addressed this numerous times.

The concept of infinity is useless to the methods of science so they disregard it.

This does not mean that they do not exist.

Please supply evidence for a finite space.
(you`re up to 20 cents now, actually I think you owe me about $2.50 if we include all previous posts.)

From my analogy that I explained before,...

With all due respect Oracle I believe you`re not getting it.

I understand the concept and methodology that science uses.
What you do not understand is that science does not state that the parameters they are using for his methodology is equal to reality.
In fact they say it isn`t..they just don`t say it so clearly.

I submit that you, like I had been, have fallen prey to the difficult vocabulary and expressions of theorem that science uses

You are taking their suppositions as reality when it is not what they intend.

So I really don't know why you require evidence from the Big Bang theory, but yet no evidense from string thoery.

I require evidence FOR EVERYTHING.
I do not hold one single belief that cannot be based upon some type of verifiable evidence..not one.

I would also ask you why you think I don`t require evidence for String Theory?
I don`t even truly grasp what String Theory is yet and have said as much a couple of times.
In fact your description of String Theory is the first detailed explanation I have been able to grasp.

Thank you.

 

[linwood]

An anomaly is something that any scientist, theorist, physicist, or mathmetician would avoid.

You didn`t answer Joanniscus` question.

"Doesn't that presupose that an anomaly is not fact?
I thought an anomaly was something our of the ordinary, but not unreal."

Joannicus is entirely correct

Scientists avoid them because they do not follow other observed evidence therefore they cannot with any certainty of outcome insert them into their models.

This is entirely understandable but it does not deny the existence of anomalies.

Like infinate space and the fact that space cannot be manipulate it is substantiated through verifiable evidence.

An anomaly is the occurances that happened before the big bang, or what caused the big bang, which points to a singularity (infinity), which science cannot explain, which becomes the biggest contradiction of science.

This is what i`ve been getting at for this thread and the Mnaipulation of space thread.

Science can`t explain it because they cannot get evidence for it.
Therefore it`s existence is in doubt and always will be.

It can never be established.

Thats my whole point yet y`all keep arguing with me like a bunch of religious zealots.

Even after you`ve conceded the point you still cling to the falsity of it.

 

[oracle]

True, and thats one reason why we do not have a literal space time curvature.

Please supply some evidence for the literal curvature of space.
(10 cents please)

"The Einstien cross captured by Hubble, proves the physicist's theory that massive objects curve space around them. Two galaxies are in the same line of sight -- the one in the middle, and the four that flank it. The four flanking galaxies are actually a single galaxy. Light from the more distance galaxy is split and bent around the central one, creating a mirage in space of four surrounding galaxies." --Smithsonian Intimate Guide to the Cosmos by Dana Berry

yes and I have addressed this numerous times.

The concept of infinity is useless to the methods of science so they disregard it.

This does not mean that they do not exist.

Please supply evidence for a finite space.
(you`re up to 20 cents now, actually I think you owe me about $2.50 if we include all previous posts.)

With all due respect Oracle I believe you`re not getting it.

I understand the concept and methodology that science uses.
What you do not understand is that science does not state that the parameters they are using for his methodology is equal to reality.
In fact they say it isn`t..they just don`t say it so clearly.

I submit that you, like I had been, have fallen prey to the difficult vocabulary and expressions of theorem that science uses

You are taking their suppositions as reality when it is not what they intend.


I require evidence FOR EVERYTHING.

I do not hold one single belief that cannot be based upon some type of verifiable evidence..not one.

I would also ask you why you think I don`t require evidence for String Theory?
I don`t even truly grasp what String Theory is yet and have said as much a couple of times.
In fact your description of String Theory is the first detailed explanation I have been able to grasp.

Thank you.

Actually my description of String theory has only a small portion to do with string theory. My theory is that there is a mother of all strings, and that there is a point when strings do not exist, and that everything is made of up infinite energy. Good luck with string theory, there are five of them and not one have any evidense.

 

[linwood]

linwood
​

If space is curved wouldn't it have to be inside something sorta like Orion's belt ?
​

You`re close in a way.

Science says space is curved because the gravity from a planet or star can affect the light coming off another planet or star close to it in a way that "curves" the light.

Science describes this as a "curvature of space" .

I don`t know why they describe it this way considering it is extremely misleading.

Space does not actually "curve" and it cannot .

Light however can "curve" under the forces of gravity because ultimately light is made up of particles which are matter.

I described it like this in the Manipulation of Space thread.

It`s like tossing an iron filament past a large magnet.
The filament will alter it`s course due to the pull of the magnet but the velocity of the moving filament is greater than the magnetic force on it so it continues by only in a different trajectory.

Thus the filaments(lights) path appears to "curve"

With the light representing the Iron filiment and the magnet representing the mass that the gravity from is affecting the light.