Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

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

I will take that as a no, you have no objective evidence of the moment of the BB, nor the reason why or how it began.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Pretty much just claims that make a person feel good but no one ever agrees on the details or has anywhere close to a reliable method behind their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will take that as a no, you have no objective evidence of the moment of the BB, nor the reason why or how it began.

Why would one need evidence for that? You need a valid reason to demand such evidence and since you do not understand even rather basic physics how would you even recognize evidence if it was given to you?

Unrealistic demands also free others from providing you with any evidence if they have it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

I keep explaining, concepts are not real except as acting like sign posts to 'point' to some real aspect of reality. The concept of 'north pole' is a point on the planet, to ask what is north of north is nonsense. I am asking for objective evidence for why and how the theoretical BB began. You seem to be telling me that "there was no why and how of the BB, it just happened, end of story, it is unscientific of anyone to be curious as to why and how the universe came into existence".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Boy you can harp on.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Why and how did the BB begin? Objective evidence only please?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

So how and why did the BB occur, according to your knowledge?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Pretty much just claims that make a person feel good but no one ever agrees on the details or has anywhere close to a reliable method behind their beliefs.

As an atheist, you have never sought to know what and who you really are in the context of universal existence, so you only have your personal beliefs.

 

[We Never Know]

Why and how did the BB begin? Objective evidence only please?

Equal questions....

Why and how did a god begin to exist?
Before creating the universe, what did a god exist in?

Objective evidence only please!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Boy you can harp on.

That is because some people cannot learn and yet oddly enough they think that their opinion matters.


Have you ever considered have a proper discussion? You might learn something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As an atheist, you have never sought to know what and who you really are in the context of universal existence, so you only have your personal beliefs.

Just keep telling yourself that. As usual you would be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why and how did the BB begin? Objective evidence only please?

What good would "objective evidence" that you cannot understand do for you?

 

[Polymath257]

There was no before, the universe is eternal.

Define 'eternal'. I might agree with you, but there are several interpretations.

If 'eternal' means 'for all time', then the universe being eternal is consistent with it having a beginning.

If 'eternal' means 'for an infinite amount of time', it isn't clear that this is the case.

The two are very different concepts, with one word often used for both. That creates confusion.

The proof is that nothing does not exist, if you think it does, provide the objective proof.

And I would agree. When do you think it is claimed otherwise? If there is no 'before', then 'before' does not exist as well.

Just like there is no 'north of the north pole', and that means that 'north of the north pole' does not exist. There is nothing there because it doesn't exist.

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.

Whatever *that* means.

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.

Uh huh. Not thinking allows one to see/be the truth. I got ya.

r definition of God as the universe doesn't make

Your conception of an eternal universe is not the same as an eternal universe. Your definition of God as the universe doesn't mean everyone else changes their language to suit your biases.

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

I'm not blaming the messenger. I am simply pointing out why I think your viewpoint is wrong.

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.

Well, perhaps we disagree about definitions. I don't think the universe has a personality, and I think it an abuse of language to call something 'God' that doesn't have a personality.

That said, of all theisms, I am probably closest to pantheism.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

OK. So? There is only one universe and we all are one with it. Yawn.

 

[Polymath257]

I keep explaining, concepts are not real except as acting like sign posts to 'point' to some real aspect of reality. The concept of 'north pole' is a point on the planet, to ask what is north of north is nonsense.

Good. That is the point.

To ask what is 'before the BB' is nonsense.

I am asking for objective evidence for why and how the theoretical BB began.

And I am pointing out that the question is (possibly) nonsense, just like asking what is north of the north pole.

You seem to be telling me that "there was no why and how of the BB, it just happened, end of story, it is unscientific of anyone to be curious as to why and how the universe came into existence".

No. I am saying that asking for a reason why it happened is nonsense. There is no 'before the universe' even if the universe had a start.

You seem to be so wedded to the idea of an infinite time that you can't even imagine that time itself might be finite. And, if that is the case, it both started and there is no process by which it started. There is no 'how and why' because asking for such is literally a nonsense question.

Think about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. So? There is only one universe and we all are one with it. Yawn.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Equal questions....

Why and how did a god begin to exist?
Before creating the universe, what did a god exist in?

Objective evidence only please!

The universal existence/God is eternal, time is a human mental construct that helps him to understand the ever changing manifested reality. Iow, there is no beginning, only manifested things have beginnings,.....and endings.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is because some people cannot learn and yet oddly enough they think that their opinion matters.


Have you ever considered have a proper discussion? You might learn something.

Seriously, you do not understand the underlying unity of all the exists, aka God, science is fine when it does what it is meant to do, understand reality, but if the science is driven by atheism, it will fail.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just keep telling yourself that. As usual you would be wrong.

So what and who are you in the context of eternal universal reality?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What good would "objective evidence" that you cannot understand do for you?

Try me, please just provide the objective evidence of the very beginning of the universe.