In the beginning there was no beginning !

[Polymath257]

The Neutron isn't required and besides the point the maths work

Neutrons are most definitely required to understand atoms.

1.0.5/V= 0 density

2.0.5/V=0 density

3.0.5+0.5/V=1/t

4.(0.5+0.5/V)(0.5/V+0.5/V)=1/t

A high dense state times the pre-existing micro bang energy would physically result in expansion at near the speed of light .

1 over time E=mc^3

OK, I think we're done. It's no use debating nonsense like this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"In the beginning there was no beginning !"
We do not know enough to make a declaration, but perhaps existence and non-existence are two phases of 'what exists'.
At least RigVeda said so.

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation., Part of verse 4

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Fact :

Neutrons are most definitely required to understand atoms.



OK, I think we're done. It's no use debating nonsense like this.

Sorry how can you say that is nonsense when you can do maths and know that adds up to 1 ?

The visual universe has a whole is one , it doesn't matter how much it expands in metric measure , it will still be one .

Why do you think Neutrons are required ? A proton and electron when joined are in essence a Neutron , measuring 0 net charge , a neutral particle .

I am still waiting for you to also define your material properties of space that is malleable and expanding ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Since no one knows what was before the BB i see little point in guessing.
You can of course say "in my opinion .... " Thats wht there are so many hypothesis on pre bb.

Christine, the event horizon is at 'inflation'. We do not know even about BB, so what to talk of pre-BB. We are searching, we are learning.

I think the RigVeda quote is from around 1,000 BCE.

 

[ChristineM]

Christine, the event horizon is at 'inflation'. We do not know even about BB, so what to talk of pre-BB. We are searching, we are learning.

I think the RigVeda quote is from around 1,000 BCE.

Cosmology has moved on a little since 1000bce. They still don't know anything before 10e-43 of a second after the bb but are getting closer. When i first began cosmology as a hobby some 15 years ago 10e-32 of a second was the limit f knowledge. We live in exiting times

 

[ecco]

It's truly amazing how many people with breakthrough scientific theories believe the best way to get their work recognized is to make assertions in an online forum. Perhaps one reason is that posting in an online forum requires no actual knowledge or work.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What was all this before creation?
Was there water?
Only God knows, or perhaps He knows not.

- That’s from the Rig Veda

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

It's truly amazing how many people with breakthrough scientific theories believe the best way to get their work recognized is to make assertions in an online forum. Perhaps one reason is that posting in an online forum requires no actual knowledge or work.

It is truly amazing how many people think space itself is expanding with no physical evidence of this . Space is not some malleable fabric that can curve or expand .
I have provided counter claims based on sciences own evidence , space is not directly or indirectly observed to be expanding . A point of space cannot expand or have motion .
People are ignoring the facts just because it isn't written that way .

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

You are truly wrong if you think space itself is expanding . We can only see and observe visual matter , the Hubble red-shift is based on visual matter . That is scientific fact . Below you will see a diagram that demonstrates this fact . The further objects move away from the observer , the more space the observer can measure and see .

 

[ratiocinator]

1.0.5/V= 0 density

2.0.5/V=0 density

3.0.5+0.5/V=1/t

4.(0.5+0.5/V)(0.5/V+0.5/V)=1/t

A high dense state times the pre-existing micro bang energy would physically result in expansion at near the speed of light .

1 over time E=mc^3

Sorry how can you say that is nonsense when you can do maths and know that adds up to 1 ?

The visual universe has a whole is one , it doesn't matter how much it expands in metric measure , it will still be one .

This is just meaningless. We're into "not even wrong" territory.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is truly amazing how many people think space itself is expanding with no physical evidence of this . Space is not some malleable fabric that can curve or expand .

There is plenty of physical evidence that space-time can curve and expand. That's the whole basis of the theory of general relativity, which has been tested in many different ways: Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia

It is also the case that the GPS system relies on the theory to take into account the curvature of space-time that is the Earth's gravity.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

This is just meaningless. We're into "not even wrong" territory.

No , it is correct , perhaps none of you understand it is more likely because it is ''alien'' to you .

Ok, rewind for a minute , lets return to the big bang and the high dense state ,

I assume the high dense state was a product of opposite attraction that formed the ''energies'' bond ?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

There is plenty of physical evidence that space-time can curve and expand. That's the whole basis of the theory of general relativity, which has been tested in many different ways: Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia

It is also the case that the GPS system relies on the theory to take into account the curvature of space-time that is the Earth's gravity.

Space-time is a mathematical model , space-time energy is the stuff that does the curving . As explained prior , consider the Earths magnetic field , field curve lines are curved relative to flat space .

 

[ratiocinator]

No , it is correct , perhaps none of you understand it is more likely because it is ''alien'' to you .

In the sense that it's alien to both mathematics and physics. Look, it's blindingly obvious that you haven't studied any of this, so why are you bothering? And as has already been pointed out, if you really believe you know better than professional cosmologists, and have a better theory, then you're wasting your time here on a religion forum. Go and get it published in a peer reviewed journal and collect your Nobel prize.

 

[Polymath257]

No , it is correct , perhaps none of you understand it is more likely because it is ''alien'' to you .

Rather prosaic, if you ask me.

Ok, rewind for a minute , lets return to the big bang and the high dense state ,

I assume the high dense state was a product of opposite attraction that formed the ''energies'' bond ?

Nope. No 'before', recall?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Rather prosaic, if you ask me.



Nope. No 'before', recall?

There was space before the big bang , an epoch of space is just not logical or physically possible

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Rather prosaic, if you ask me.



Nope. No 'before', recall?

Sorry I updated in my journal in the wrong thread , this should be here : Let me know when you want some serious discussion on physics .

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Star Date 21/11/2021

Updating Neurological Reference Frame : (1.Humans inability to use and access their own Neurological Creationism and diversity ) . Simple terminology ( The inability to think without using constant neurological reference frames) .

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

I still await a challenge on that in the beginning there was no beginning because space has always existed . Quoting back present Neurological constants of information is the constants I have challenged therefore a frivolous challenge .

1. Space is not constructed of malleable material
2. A point of space cannot stretch , expand or have motion (x0,y0,z0)
3.Space is a Neurological Constant , observable reference frame

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Star date 21/11/2021 Neurological Reference Frame update :

1. Space-time energy has malleable properties
2. Space-time energy can be displaced
3. Space-time energy is an observable Neurological Constant