Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Ben Dhyan]

You seem to have different definitions to how science define them.



Either you don't understand what "falsifiable" mean or you don't know that there the Big Bang has already been falsifiable since the early 30s (with redshift), 1964 (with discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, that was predicted back in 1948). The Big Bang nucleosynthesis have to occur, otherwise there wouldn't be no matters, no atoms, no stars, etc.

Falsifiable is define as any statement, hypothesis or theory being able to be testable and refutable.

The Big Bang has been tested. There are evidences to support it.

But you keep wanting to add something that's not part of theory, AND that is largely theoretical and untestable with the "something-out-of-nothing". That you would say the Big Bang is not falsifiable, just because something-out-of-nothing isn't testable, don't make the whole Big Bang fall apart.

Scientists don't know much of what happen before the Big Bang, eg the singularity, they can only speculate, and speculating is not a fact.

You quoted Steven Hawking:


Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist, but what he said here about the time only apply to the universe as we know it, because if there is a singularity before BB, then what he stated in his conclusion, may seem logical, may even be provable - mathematically - but it is not verifiable until we can actually test his claim.

Yes, I agree with Hawking's statement that is the beginning for our universe, therefore the time is finite here, but if there is a singularity, then he can in any way certain that time didn't exist.

And for your information, if there is a singularity, that means there isn't "nothing" before BB.

I don't know what is Hawking's stance on singularity, but you can't have nothing and singularity. A singularity is something, just that no scientist, including Hawking, can do except speculate and theorise about it.

Gotya!!! Science has not tested the big bang...and never will because they admit they do not know why and how the singularity began. If you think otherwise..provide a reference. And please don't bother to do your normal copy and paste 'post time = 0' red shift and CMBR material as it is not germane to the begining... The fact that science admits that they do not know how 'time = 0' occurred, and that it can't be tested, means the big bang theory is not falsifiable... Of course you can claim that even though the theory relies on an yet untestable beginning, because the possibility remains that 'time = 0' may be disproven, the theory remains falsifiable.. This is not a reasonable understanding of the meaning of falsification in the context of scientific theory...

Where is your scientific proof that there is not no time and no space (nothing) from which the singularity arose? And where is the scientific proof wrt the reason why the singularity arose?

So if you say that science can only speculate about why and how the singularity arose, then how can you claim big bang theory is falsifiable? How can skeptical scientists falsify a theory based on a speculated beginning?

Now if you disagree with anything I've said...quote me precisely and address my remarks with relevance...no digression on 'post time = 0' aspects of big bang theory...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not obfuscating or misdirecting, because I don't know how space and time began, and that because no scientists have been able to verify where or when they come from BEFORE the universe began expanding. Science are only aware of them after the initial expansion.

What we do know is that as the universe expand AFTER the Big Bang, so does space.

I really don't know you can expect me to know things before the scientists know these things that they can verify or test.

So why have you been wasting my time....I have only been discussing the 'time = 0' beginning which science has speculated as the beginning...nothing else!

 

[gnostic]

Gotya!!! Science has not tested the big bang...and never will because they admit they do not know why and how the singularity began.

What part of CMBR, redshift, quasars, nucleosynthesis, etc that you don't get. These are the evidences, measurements testings that have been done since the expanding universe theory came out in the 1920s. The Big Bang has been tested and verified.

The Big Bang theory has always been theory about the universe history (the observable universe), how the expansion cause matters to form, how the stars, galaxies and other planets formed; it was never about the singularity. The Big Bang was never a theory about before the Big Bang.

I have stated this time and time again, but you refused to understand, which make you ignorant about what the Big Bang theory actually covered.

I have to wonder you think "tested" mean. You seemed to have a different interpretation of what being "tested" and what hasn't.

The Big Bang theory isn't a field theoretical physics. And it has been 87 years, when the first evidence for BB. The first test that the universe was and still is expanding, come from the measurement of wavelength, by Edwin Hubble in 1929, known as the Redshift.

The CMBR was first predicted in 1948, discovered in 1964, and the 9-years WMAP space programs have take microwave images of the BB remnant heat, which also help determined the age of the universe.

These two evidences above, not only verified the Big Bang cosmology as a valid and well-tested theory, but also verified General Relativity, as it is one of the main framework to the Big Bang.

On the Quantum Physics (QP) and Particle Physics (PP) side to the Big Bang: the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and Stellar Nucleosynthesis (SN), these two verified that the Big Bang model is well-tested, but vital in understanding where MATTERS come from and how they were formed.

The only thing is not tested is your flimsy claim to associate SOMETHING-OUT-OF-NOTHING to the Big Bang, which is not even part of the theory.

You are embarrassing yourself by making claim that "Science has not tested the Big Bang".

No, no. Never mind. Forget the previous line. I have changed my mind...go on, and keep making a fool of yourself, because I don't really care any more. Plus, I have decided to ignore you in this thread too.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What part of CMBR, redshift, quasars, nucleosynthesis, etc that you don't get. These are the evidences, measurements testings that have been done since the expanding universe theory came out in the 1920s. The Big Bang has been tested and verified.

I have to wonder you think "tested" mean. You seemed to have a different interpretation of what being "tested" and what hasn't.

The Big Bang theory isn't a field theoretical physics. And it has been 87 years, when the first evidence for BB. The first test that the universe was and still is expanding, come from the measurement of wavelength, by Edwin Hubble in 1929, known as the Redshift.

The CMBR was first predicted in 1948, discovered in 1964, and the 9-years WMAP space programs have take microwave images of the BB remnant heat, which also help determined the age of the universe.

These two evidences above, not only verified the Big Bang cosmology as a valid and well-tested theory, but also verified General Relativity, as it is one of the main framework to the Big Bang.

On the Quantum Physics (QP) and Particle Physics (PP) side to the Big Bang: the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and Stellar Nucleosynthesis (SN), these two verified that the Big Bang model is well-tested, but vital in understanding where MATTERS come from and how they were formed.

The only thing is not tested is your flimsy claim to associate SOMETHING-OUT-OF-NOTHING to the Big Bang, which is not even part of the theory.

You are embarrassing yourself by making claim that "Science has not tested the Big Bang".

No, no. Never mind. Forget the previous line. I have changed my mind...go on, and keep making a fool of yourself, because I don't really care any more. Plus, I have decided to ignore you in this thread too.

Feeble misdirection - strawman.....you know I am not speaking of post time = 0 ....and I preempted your SOP copy and post of red shift and CMBR stuff that is irrelevant to my post by specifically asking you not to...and what do you do!!!!

Now try and respond to my post in a relevant manner..

Btw and fwiw, I know more about red shift and CMBR than you imagine...I worked in RF communications most of my life...I have done CMBR temperature measurements in the context of measuring parabolic satellite system gain/temperature on new systems. I have also studied and worked on military navigation and attack radar systems in which the RF signal frequency doppler shift is an important feature.. One day when we get past the time = 0 question, we may have a technical discussion about both....but for now I ask that you stay relevant in our exchange and quit obfuscating...

 

[gnostic]

Feeble misdirection - strawman.....you know I am not speaking of post time = 0 ....and I preempted your SOP copy and post of red shift and CMBR stuff that is irrelevant to my post by specifically asking you not to...and what do you do!!!!

Ok, I will make an exception here, and will respond this part...that's in bold red.

Then let's further clarify your position.

You stated quite clearly that the Big Bang "hasn't been tested". Correct?

But If t = 0 second is the very start of the universe "expanding", then you want to talk about what "cause" or set the expansion in motion.

If this is what you are referring, then if you really talking about CAUSE, then you are really talking about BEFORE t = 0 second, hence BEFORE the Big Bang. Correct?

----

And btw, I haven't been copying and pasting, so you have claim.

Those replies are in my own words, in which I have expressing what I have learn over the years, about physical cosmology, general relativity and quantum physics. Apart from using the QUOTE button on your posts, I have been typing everything the 5 days on this thread. So why don't you stop using straw man about what I didn't do.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok, I will make an exception here, and will respond this part...that's in bold red.

Then let's further clarify your position.

You stated quite clearly that the Big Bang "hasn't been tested". Correct?

But If t = 0 second is the very start of the universe "expanding", then you want to talk about what "cause" or set the expansion in motion.

If this is what you are referring, then if you really talking about CAUSE, then you are really talking about BEFORE t = 0 second, hence BEFORE the Big Bang. Correct?

----

And btw, I haven't been copying and pasting, so you have claim.

Those replies are in my own words, in which I have expressing what I have learn over the years, about physical cosmology, general relativity and quantum physics. Apart from using the QUOTE button on your posts, I have been typing everything the 5 days on this thread. So why don't you stop using straw man about what I didn't do.

Ok..let us find common ground on what time = 0 means. I mean it to mean the inception zero point...there is no expansion yet....space and time are not yet......yes?
I mean post time = 0 to mean expansion is taking place..time and space now exist....yes?

 

[gnostic]

Ok..let us find common ground on what time = 0 means. I mean it to mean the inception zero point...there is no expansion yet....space and time are not yet......yes?
I mean post time = 0 to mean expansion is taking place..time and space now exist....yes?

Ok.

Then I would say scientists don't really know what happened at zero second.

I am quite sure that I have mentioned it before that scientists can only speculate the 1st few seconds AFTER the Big Bang.

So if they can only fraction of first second, then they can only speculate what happened at 0 second.

The first epoch of the Big Bang - the Planck Epoch lasted only 10 to the power of -43 second. And that's highly speculative. If the Planck Epoch is speculative and hypothetical, then so is zero second.

I hoped that make sense to you.

But just because the 1st couple of seconds are speculative, doesn't mean the whole large part of the theory speculative and not tested.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But just because the 1st couple of seconds are speculative, doesn't mean the whole large part of the theory speculative and not tested.

As I understand it science is gradually drawing closer to t = 0.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok.

Then I would say scientists don't really know what happened at zero second.

I am quite sure that I have mentioned it before that scientists can only speculate the 1st few seconds AFTER the Big Bang.

So if they can only fraction of first second, then they can only speculate what happened at 0 second.

The first epoch of the Big Bang - the Planck Epoch lasted only 10 to the power of -43 second. And that's highly speculative. If the Planck Epoch is speculative and hypothetical, then so is zero second.

I hoped that make sense to you.

But just because the 1st couple of seconds are speculative, doesn't mean the whole large part of the theory speculative and not tested.

It was not meant as a trick, it is just that conceptual language is a necessity when trying to communicate and somethings are not easy to put into words.....but you agreed to the logic involved in my using the concept of "space and time are not yet". Then there is time and space....so there is this epoch whereby time and space arose from the 'time = 0 time and space were not yet' epoch...do you follow?

Btw....1 x 10 ^-100 sec is still a real time duration...

 

[gnostic]

As I understand it science is gradually drawing closer to t = 0.

if there is no more delay, a new space observatory will be launch in 2018, which will have have the similar capacities of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and the Spitzer Space Telescope (SST).

it is called James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). the telescope would have visible and mid-infrared technologies, and larger mirror. this should allow scientists to see even further than before.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

it is called James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). the telescope would have visible and mid-infrared technologies, and larger mirror. this should allow scientists to see even further than before.

So further back in time as well?

 

[mystic64]

Sorry, but I am aware that I have use the words - "not sane", or other possibilities, "insane", "insanity" in this topic.

What I do recall that we (me and ben) have accuse each other of being "ignorant" or not well-educated or something like that, particularly of each other reading skills, if not in this thread, certainly in another thread; I don't remember which, because the line to blur when take up so many different threads.



No. I do recall that he, and others like him, can't learn the distinctions between evidences and proofs, and between everyday-layman theory and scientific theory. I have been trying to drill him and others like him to understand that science have different meanings to words, theory, proof, evidence, but to no avail.

When people say something like "Evolution is just theory, not fact", I immediately know that they have no understanding of what SCIENTIFIC theory means.

More commonly or not, I know that they are basing their argument about theory from dictionary, and not from science.

Do you know how frustrating it is, trying to teach creationists the actual meaning of scientific terms, like theory, proof, evidence, but only to find them repeating the same mistake, misinformation or ignorance in another thread?

You seem to have a grasp for the distinction between proof and evidence, but I know that ben_q.

Sure, people can have different opinions to everyone else, but the very least they could do, if they are going to argue against science, is to at least learn basic science or do a little research.

I may not know everything about any specific religion and I may not be a believer, but I have done a fair bit of research and reading, and some of what I know come from my experience in reading, researching and interpreting ancient and medieval literature.

I do the same thing with science. I read and do some research, especially stuff that I have no expertise in, but I do so finding valid scientific sources, not pseudoscience ones or YouTube.



No, I am not a gnostic.

But about 10-11 years ago, I was very interested in reading Gnostic codices from the Nag Hammadi, and had called myself "gnostic" in a different forum, I had called myself "gnostic", because "agnostic" wasn't available and because I did have interests in reading Gnostic creation myths, like The Apocryphon of John, The Hypostasis of the Archons, On the Origin of the World. And when I had joined RF, I kept this name.

I had even created a website - Dark Mirrors of Heaven - which explore non-bible sources that parallel with Genesis creation stories, like Gnostic texts (like the one I have mentioned above), the Jewish Aggadah and Midrash, the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (like 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, the Book of Jubilees; including fragments that were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls), etc.

I am not really interests in religious beliefs, religious customs, but I am very fascinated by religious stories, myths and folklore. I am what you would called a (amateur) mythologist, as another website - Timeless Myths - that I have made would testify to that.

It is the storytelling that I am interested in, not the belief or faith, although I familiar with them.

If I shoot down scriptures, religions or mysticism, is actually more to do with the people than the religions or the scriptures. I find people are trying to mix their belief with science, their interpretations of both, and more often than not, they are misrepresenting and misuse science.

Are they misinterpreting religion and science out of misunderstanding or ignorance? Or are they deliberately providing misinformation? Or is it a little of both?

Gnostic that was very well said and in my opinion, you are now handling me quite nicely ! I am also an amateur mythologist, but you do know more about it than I do. The "empath" phenomenon is real and there is a part of the "evidence" side of science that is studing it and measuring it. But mostly they are very quiet about it because of the possible military applications. I have been involved in the studies back in my younger days, so I do have a little experience with it. And because of it I am not allowed near anybody who is working on classified stuff. Which is ok with me I do not mind because I understand and respect the why of it all. So anyway the mystic experience can be real. The problem is identifying the source of the information that one recieves as a mystic (an empath) along with then testing to see if the information is real or interpreted correctly. One would assume that a mystic's focus is on God (for lack of any other term) but a mystic's focus does not have to be just on God. God is only one mind (and yes I understand that you disagree on the possibility of God's existance) and there are other minds out there besides that one mind. And some are sane, some are not sane, with a lot of versions between the two. Which is why most folks that are empaths learn to shut it all off because they just do not want to deal with it . Which is also understandable. So what is my point? There are other minds out there that do understand the physics of the part of Creation that the "evidence" part of science can not yet measure. Thus the question becomes, "Can/will they help us to understand the physics of that which seems to be beyond today's known physics?" My information says, "Yes." But at the same time, my information also says that humankind is not ready for it yet. And as an empath I do understand why that is true. So now I am just an old mystic hanging out on this wonderful message board to practice the art of and the responsibility of being an experienced empath along with interacting with other minds at play. And as an empath I take on the feelings/emotions of those around me and if they are nice then I am nice and if they are not nice , then I don't have to be nice (with the understanding that I am on the side of message board management's attempt to create and maintain a civilized social environment). Gnostic, I have no agenda on this message board. I am here just for practice and just for fun.

 

[mystic64]

There is no such thing as a valid mystic experience.

And "outhouse" jumps in getting three posting credits for one post. Too cool ! Well "outhouse" mate, your opinion has been duly noted !

 

[gnostic]

So further back in time as well?

yes

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So further back in time as well?

Yup....it is three times the size and seven times more powerful than Hubble....and will not be in earth orbit but parked at Lagrange point 2....

 

[godnotgod]

Ok..let us find common ground on what time = 0 means. I mean it to mean the inception zero point...there is no expansion yet....space and time are not yet......yes?
I mean post time = 0 to mean expansion is taking place..time and space now exist....yes?

Just curious....can you tell me against which background, or field, it is determined that such a 'zero point' began, or exists? There has to be some reference, no?, for you to even conceive of a 'zero point'?

The way I continue to see it, is that such an inception was an event in consciousness. In consciousness, there is no time or space. IOW, out of the No-thing-ness of Pure Consciousness, comes Everything.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just curious....can you tell me against which background, or field, it is determined that such a 'zero point' began, or exists? There has to be some reference, no?, for you to even conceive of a 'zero point'?

The way I continue to see it, is that such an inception was an event in consciousness. In consciousness, there is no time or space. IOW, out of the No-thing-ness of Pure Consciousness, comes Everything.

Time is a concept created by consciousness, it has no intrinsic reality of itself......not in the way space is intrinsically real independent of consciousness.. Zero point time wrt big bang theory came from the human mind to fit the need to have a beginning of the universe...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Time is a concept created by consciousness, it has no intrinsic reality of itself......not in the way space is intrinsically real independent of consciousness.. Zero point time wrt big bang theory came from the human mind to fit the need to have a beginning of the universe...

So why is the fabric of the cosmos referred to as space-time? What about entropy? What about the arrow of time? What about atomic clocks? Etc.

 

[godnotgod]

Time is a concept created by consciousness, it has no intrinsic reality of itself......not in the way space is intrinsically real independent of consciousness.. Zero point time wrt big bang theory came from the human mind to fit the need to have a beginning of the universe...

If that is the case, then the BB actually occurred in a timeless, spaceless field of some sort. IOW, it occurred nowhere, and at no particular time.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If that is the case, then the BB actually occurred in a timeless, spaceless field of some sort. IOW, it occurred nowhere, and at no particular time.

According to you the big bang was an "event in consciousness", whatever that is supposed to mean.