Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

But a mathematical theory based on a theory that has been verified by observation is. General relativity has been extensively tested. The BB is what you get when you apply GR to the universe as a whole.

Why? It is a theory about how the universe is *after* the beginning.

You don't need a theory of planet formation to be able to describe the orbits of the planets.

And that would have no effect on the BB description. If you understood what the BB model *actually* says, then you would know that.

Actually, we *do* have this, but within the universe. Quantum fluctuations do exactly this. And, in some models (extensions of the BB model), the BB is produced by exactly such quantum fluctuations.

But, I would point out, once again, that you are *assuming* that there was a 'before the BB'. And you do this without any good reason for that assumption.

I don't assume there was a before the big bang, there is such a thing as reason. Reason tells me that before this universe came into being, eternal existence/God was (and is and will be). Also I don't assume the reality represented by the name God exists, it is a fact. And the fact that there is no objective evidence to support your claim there was no before, and not a clue as to how and why the universe exists, is icing on the top.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Maybe you need to realize your question has assumptions that are wrong?

So the appropriate answer is: mu.

That is smoke screen and you know it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is smoke screen and you know it.

Have you ever consider that there is a general limit to knowledge that includes you and not just everybody else?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Really? What objective evidence do you have of this?

That the universe exists. What exactly is pantheism?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Have you ever consider that there is a general limit to knowledge that includes you and not just everybody else?

Certainly knowledge limitation is true for atheists, but for truly religious folk, seek and you will find works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That the universe exists. What exactly is pantheism?

Let me explain something very simple. For a definition as to what a word means, as X is Y, it doesn't mean in all cases that X is Y is an objective fact.
So what X means, is not necessarily the same as X is Y as per a fact. Can you understand that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Let me explain something very simple. For a definition as to what a word means, as X is Y, it doesn't mean in all cases that X is Y is an objective fact.
So what X means, is not necessarily the same as X is Y as per a fact. Can you understand that?

Concepts are not real, whether they be numbers, words, symbols, etc., that are meant represent something real. A religious soul does nor deal in concepts, but reality. I try to convey to atheists that the reality represented by the concept God exists, not because of belief, but through realization. Realization in this context is not conceptual. You will never understand unless you seek with all your heart, mind, and soul for as long as it takes,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Concepts are not real, whether they be numbers, words, symbols, etc., that are meant represent something real. A religious soul does nor deal in concepts, but reality. I try to convey to atheists that the reality represented by the concept God exists, not because of belief, but through realization. Realization in this context is not conceptual. You will never understand unless you seek with all your heart, mind, and soul for as long as it takes,

Yeah, and you will never understand it differently, as long as you don't understand that real is a concept itself and not real itself.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't assume there was a before the big bang, there is such a thing as reason. Reason tells me that before this universe came into being, eternal existence/God was (and is and will be).

OK, prove this using reason. In particular, prove, using reason, that there was a 'before this universe came into being'.

Also I don't assume the reality represented by the name God exists, it is a fact.

If you identify God with the universe, then you have the difficulty of showing the universe has a personality worthy of the word.

And the fact that there is no objective evidence to support your claim there was no before, and not a clue as to how and why the universe exists, is icing on the top.

Seems to me like you decide what you want your conclusion to look like and reject anything that doesn't fit your biases.

That the universe exists. What exactly is pantheism?

OK, give objective evidence that this is correct.

Certainly knowledge limitation is true for atheists, but for truly religious folk, seek and you will find works.

And here we see the arrogance of the theists.

No, 'seek and you will find' only serves to produce confirmation bias unless you actually seek to show your view is wrong. And, at that point, you are simply doing the scientific method.

 

[Polymath257]

Concepts are not real, whether they be numbers, words, symbols, etc., that are meant represent something real. A religious soul does nor deal in concepts, but reality. I try to convey to atheists that the reality represented by the concept God exists, not because of belief, but through realization. Realization in this context is not conceptual. You will never understand unless you seek with all your heart, mind, and soul for as long as it takes,

Realization simply means you have an experience. But you can misinterpret that experience.

Admitting that you can be wrong is the first step to wisdom.

 

[viole]

Please provide the objective evidence of a BB instead of a self deluded concept of no before the BB, and then you will have my attention.
Have you ever contemplated that there was no beginning of existence, existence is eternal, only the material forms science studies have beginnings and endings?

Well, before being able to do that, I have to set buy parameters right. In order to avoid using terms and concept that might not be understood.

What is your level of knowledge of modern physics? Say, general relativity?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

That is smoke screen and you know it.

No, I know that it is exactly the problem you are having. You are making assumptions (that there was a before the BB) that are actually contrary to the mathematical description that is relevant. The only way to answer is to point out that the question is nonsense.

Instead, I see you asking a nonsense question repeatedly, which ultimately looks like a smokescreen to me.

Here's a question that is *exactly* analogous to your question of what comes before the BB:

What is north of the north pole?

Please give an answer or the theory that the Earth is a globe must be incomplete.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop blaming others for your inability to understand anything of an esoteric nature, Please stop with the inane smoke screen.

I am not blaming anyone for anything. I told you a while ago that you lost the ability to demand evidence until you answered the questions I gave to you. The questions are still there. My offer to do your homework for you if you can be honest enough to admit that you had no clue is still there.

It appears not only to me, and to everybody else, but even to you that you know that you were wrong in your earlier claims. Yet you cannot admit it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More smoke screen, instead of endless repetitively boring inane smoke screen, just answer the question, why and how did the BB happen?

Please, the only smoke that is the wisps coming from your ears. You made obviously incorrect claims. Twice. In one you changed your notation because you realized that you were wrong, even though you denied being wrong several times. Then you quoted a magazine article that you did not understand instead of listening to my suggestion because my suggestion showed you to be wrong. You were supposed to convert the energy that you quoted to its mass equivalence. You never did so. Why was that? Oh yes, because it would have shown that the figure you quoted was not the total energy of the universe.

You are trying to refute astrophysics without even a basic high school level of literacy in physics.
Oh, and let's not forget your failure in understanding how red shift refuted your "tired light" claim.

 

[We Never Know]

The only one pretending to know is the least qualified here. He thinks that his refuted beliefs are right because others do not have all of the answers. He does not seem to understand that we do not need to know everything to understand that some ideas are wrong. He is rather similar to Flat Earthers in that regard. People will probably never have all of the answers. But it is ridiculous to claim that a Flat Earth is reasonable because one's opponent does not know what day of the week that the Big Band happened on.

Who is qualified to know or speak on what we don't know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who is qualified to know or speak on what we don't know?

We are talking about what we do know. What we do know does rule out certain ideas. The only one trying to speak about what we do not know is the one that is denying the Big Bang. In other words, just because we do not know everything about the Big Bang does not mean that it is false. Science deniers often look for things that we do not know and then they pretend that refutes things that we do know.

 

[gnostic]

The evidence for universal existence is existence, it is real do you not agree, otoh, there is no direct evidence of the existence coming from non-existence.

Well, the big bang cosmology don't propose "nothingness", nor "nonexistence", so your claim regarding to BB would be strawman.

During the 1920s, 3 theoretical physicists came up with very similar models of the hypothesis on expanding universe cosmology, because Edwin Hubble discovered in 1919, there were more galaxies than the Milky Way, and that the universe was larger than the Milky Way.

These 3 physicists were

1. Alexander Friedmann (1922)
2. Howard Percy Robertson (1924-1925)
3. Georges Lemaître (1927)

They have similar concept, because each have modified Albert Einstein’s field equations for General Relativity (1915), by adding a metric that provide the exact solution to the explain, mathematically, the universe “expanding”. As the equations were modified for expanding universe model, it was renamed the Friedmann equations, while the metric itself was known today as the FLRW metric (which stands for Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric; “Walker” being Arthur Geoffrey Walker had worked on the metric with Robertson in 1936).

Robertson and Lemaître have (independently) proposed, that the “expanding” universe could be inferred with distant objects (eg distant galaxies) were moving away were observed from the observer and from each other, by observing of the light’s wavelengths were shifting towards the red in the electromagnetic spectrum, hence its known as the Redshift. It was Edwin Hubble who observed the redshift in 1929, through the Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory.

The Redshift together with the Friedmann equations (plus the FLRW metric) became known as the Hubble’s Law, the first observational evidence for the expanding universe model.

Georges Lemaître wrote the Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom, which described the universe was much smaller and denser than it is today, however he described the earliest initial state of the universe being colder, near absolute zero, as ball of cold perfect liquid, hence it became known later as the Cold Big Bang.

However in 1948, another party of 3 theoretical physicists have build upon and modified the expanding universe model:

• George Gamow, a former student of Alexander Friedmann
• Ralph Alpher, a former student of Gamow
• Robert Herman

Gamow with Alpher proposed that the universe was indeed smaller and denser in the beginning, but proposed it was infinitely hot and infinitely dense at the beginning, hence describing the Hot Big Bang (HBB) model.

The Hot Big Bang model have also included Gamow & Alpher proposal that the “atoms” (eg hydrogen, deuterium, helium & lithium) were formed during the Primordial Nucleosynthesis or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

Alpher with Herman proposed the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), occurring after the last scattering of photons during Recombination Epoch (378,000 years after the Big Bang).

The points in all this, Ben, about the Big Bang history lesson, is not only about the universe expanding, but it was also about the origin of atoms, and this origin didn’t form nothing.

Plus, if the universe was very hot and very DENSE at the beginning, then there must be “something” already there. You cannot have “density” with nothingness.

This is way, I find you are falsely proposing nothingness or nonexistent in the Big Bang theory. The theory proposed no such things.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, and you will never understand it differently, as long as you don't understand that real is a concept itself and not real itself.

Ahem...no...the real is what the concept is meant to represent. 'Dog' is a concept, what is on the other side of the concept? You are seeing reality in a dualistic manner, through conceptualization. If you can learn to stop all thought,, only then will the real be present,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, prove this using reason. In particular, prove, using reason, that there was a 'before this universe came into being'.

If you identify God with the universe, then you have the difficulty of showing the universe has a personality worthy of the word.

Seems to me like you decide what you want your conclusion to look like and reject anything that doesn't fit your biases.



OK, give objective evidence that this is correct.



And here we see the arrogance of the theists.

No, 'seek and you will find' only serves to produce confirmation bias unless you actually seek to show your view is wrong. And, at that point, you are simply doing the scientific method.

There was no before, the universe is eternal. The proof is that nothing does not exist, if you think it does, provide the objective proof.

I have no idea what you imagine the reality is that is represented by your concept of God, but it seems odd, can you elucidate? This is just a fact of language similar to say the concept of 'sweat' equating with the concept of 'perspiration'. The reality is forever on the other side of concepts. That is why in religious practice, to realize the actual reality represented by the concept of 'universal reality', one must cease conceptualizing, a cessation of all thought, then and only then is reality present to the mind unadulterated by any conceptualization.

The 'eternal universe' is a concept of the reality represented by the concept. and God is a concept that represents the same reality as the concept 'eternal universe'.

Truth is not anything other than truth, if you don't like it, don't blame the messenger.

As an atheist who does not seek to know what and who he really is in the context of eternal divine existence, you do not and can not know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Realization simply means you have an experience. But you can misinterpret that experience.

Admitting that you can be wrong is the first step to wisdom.

Goodness me, it shouldn't be this hard to convey, there is no duality present in religious realization, there is no you realizing anything, just realization of non-dual beimg. When Jesus said the Father and I are one, that is what he meant.