• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
We don't know, obviously.

In my opinion it is a mark of stupidity to try to force a dogmatic answer to a question about which we don't have enough information.
Good to not be a member of your group.

Here is some light reading for you, pun intended. Tired Light Denies the Big Bang

Abstract

More and more problems related to Big Bang have been appeared in recent years. All the problems are due to the Doppler interpretation of redshift. The “tired light” theory, proposed in 1929 by Zwicky and most recently developed by Shao in 2013, gives a new explanation for redshift. The theory has shown that the redshift is induced from the energy loss of photons by the interaction with material particles on their journey through cosmological space. The basic principles related to the energy transfer are mainly the mass-energy equivalence and the Lorentz theory. Problems, such as super velocity, the horizon problem, the cosmological microwave background radiation, and Olbers’ paradox, vanish in the cosmological model of “tired light” theory. The model describes a boundless and timeless Cosmos.

And now please read this if you are serious.

James Webb telescope findings could mean our understanding of the Big Bang is fundamentally wrong

Think about it, the JWST viewed relevant Galaxies' redshift, treated as doppler, is showing that they are relatively near to the BB in time, but the BBT model says that Galaxies should not be as mature as these are for that time. However, if we treat the redshift as distance, it is consistent with the TLT SSM theory, for if the Galaxies are further away, which they are as they were not visible with HST, then they would be fully formed such as our Milky Way Galaxy, which apparently they are.

Do you understand the significance of what I'm saying?

TLT Tired Light Theory, SSM Steady State Model, HST Hubble Space Telescope
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That is a free floating answer. You have to give evidence for that. That means in practice that you have to use more words than just "No.". To show evidence is more than what you did. Use your words and make a case for it. That is how evidence works.
You need to ask better questions than you did. That was all that your question merited as an answer. Look back and see if you made any false assumptions in your question.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Good to not be a member of your group.

Here is some light reading for you, pun intended. Tired Light Denies the Big Bang


And now please read this if you are serious.

James Webb telescope findings could mean our understanding of the Big Bang is fundamentally wrong

Think about it, the JWST viewed relevant Galaxies' redshift, treated as doppler, is showing that they are relatively near to the BB in time, but the BBT model says that Galaxies should not be as mature as these are for that time. However, if we treat the redshift as distance, it is consistent with the TLT SSM theory, for if the Galaxies are further away, which they are as they were not visible with HST, then they would be fully formed such as our Milky Way Galaxy, which apparently they are.

Do you understand the significance of what I'm saying?

TLT Tired Light Theory, SSM Steady State Model, HST Hubble Space Telescope
"Tired light" has failed as a scientific hypothesis since it disagrees with some of the evidence. And using clickbait titles as "evidence" does not help you.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well, please help me out.
"If you know as know how what the universe is you are a gnostic and thus you can answer if a creator god exists or not. So if you know what the universe is, then you have answered if there is a creator god or not."

I am not sure what you mean by "knows as a gnostic" but I never claimed or implied to have an absolute knowledge of the universe. I have always pointed out that my beliefs are evidence based. If somehow the evidence changes then my beliefs will change. I am arguing against someone that not only has no evidence. he cannot understand the existing evidence. If one wants to all but guarantee that one will be wrong one would ignore the evidence and go by one's feelings. If appears that you are trying to accuse me of being dogmatic when I have been arguing against dogmatic belief all along.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No, we agree that there is no before. No before means no time, no space, no existence, no nothing, zilth, zero, nada.

No as described at least several time the 'nothing' described by Hawking is NOT no existence, no nothing, zilth, zero, nada.

The Quantum 'nothing' described by Hawking has no 'continuous time and space. It is a Quantum existence at the zero energy level.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
"If you know as know how what the universe is you are a gnostic and thus you can answer if a creator god exists or not. So if you know what the universe is, then you have answered if there is a creator god or not."

I am not sure what you mean by "knows as a gnostic" but I never claimed or implied to have an absolute knowledge of the universe. I have always pointed out that my beliefs are evidence based. If somehow the evidence changes then my beliefs will change. I am arguing against someone that not only has no evidence. he cannot understand the existing evidence. If one wants to all but guarantee that one will be wrong one would ignore the evidence and go by one's feelings. If appears that you are trying to accuse me of being dogmatic when I have been arguing against dogmatic belief all along.

So you are in effect saying that the evidence that the universe is physical doesn't mean that the universe is physical. Only that the evidence today support in the effect the model that the landscape is physical. Okay.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Not Okay, just more confusion. So intensely circular it bites you in the butt. If God exists, I have found anyone able to define nor limit God.
If space and time, could each act independently of each other, one could move in space without the constraint of time. This allows for omnipresence, which is a classic attribute of God; be everywhere in zero time. It appear classic thinking assumed time and space was not always connected; divine interactions, allowing more options than found in our material universe; limited to space-time. This is now more evidence of this within the quantum scale universe. This also proves the concept of God can be modeled with math model that simply expands the accepted limits of space-time to include independent space and independent time. One first needs to understand time without space and space without time to run the right experiments.

If you compare special and general relativity, Special is limited to velocity, while General is about acceleration. Velocity is d/t, while acceleration is d//t/t. Velocity applies to space time; d-t and changes in space time references cause by velocity. While acceleration is space-time; d-t plus extra time; t. This would imply that the bending of space-time, due to gravity, is based on an added frequency or time shift, and not a shift in distance=wavelength. However, wavelength will follow frequency, as time potential bends space-time, so space-time remains.

This is what one would expect; time potential leading, since distance is a passive variable, one can measure with a static meter stick. Measuring time requires an active tool with an energy supply; clock to measure this dynamic variable. Science may be doing doppler shift backwards, using a static variable to move a dynamic variable.

For example, the cosmic background radiation could be explained as the bending of space-time by all the matter of the universe; the extra time within universal acceleration is causing a time modulation of energy. It forms an average value simply because stars tend to be within the same size range all over the universe; CMBR averages. We see a red shift, since this easier to measure, even if wavelength is a reaction to the action of time. Independent space and time offers a new world view, when these two independent variables are added to space-time.

If you look at the sun and stellar synthesis, this is partly based on pressure, which has the units of pounds/in2. Pressure due to gravity, adds distance potential to space-time and the extra time of GR. Synthesis is different from bending space-time. One does not need space-time to bend, to induce the same fusion synthesis in a lab, even with less earth mass. The occurs in there sun via added distance potential, which does not seem to infer with the bending of space-time. This also allows options for the quantum universe, to be directly impacted by gravity and pressure, so the final macro-events persists.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Just practical life experience. If a person tries to argue by denying reality then reality should be allowed as a refutation.

Yeah, I know that one. Since gravity can kill me, that applies to all of reality and if I then say no now, I am dead, because I deny relative and I die.
I learned that one close to 30 years ago and have been dead ever since. But yet people keep tell me, that I will die, if I violate reality.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yeah, I know that one. Since gravity can kill me, that applies to all of reality and if I then say no now, I am dead, because I deny relative and I die.
I learned that one close to 30 years ago and have been dead ever since. But yet people keep tell me, that I will die, if I violate reality.
You are likely misstating the arguments used against you.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You are likely misstating the arguments used against you.

Yeah and now reality hurts me. Oh, it hurts so much. THE PAIN!!! And you are doing it, because you magically invoked reality to do that. Stop it.

I get it now. I fear reality and will obey reality, because if I don't worship it and so on, it will punish me. I get it now - reality is God. I am now your disciple and will spread the word that reality is God and must be obeyed as you command, Master.

But the way that is level one on Kohlberg, if you don't know that. I usually try to do level 5, but your evidence is so powerful, so please stop hurting me. I get it now! ;)

So how come you use pain as a method of convincing people? What kind of psychological theory is that?
 
Top