Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, you don't understand that you are the causal source of God, because your thinking is so true, as it causes God to exist. That is how Objective, Rational and What Not you are. You are greater than God, because your proof causes God to exist.
That is your level of argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't understand that what you think can't cause something independent of your brain, but that is what you do.
I know something is impossible in my thinking, therefore it is impossible independent of my thinking.

That is the trick and along as you don't understand that, this is your trick, you consider as True.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You don't understand that what you think can't cause something independent of your brain, but that is what you do.
I know something is impossible in my thinking, therefore it is impossible independent of my thinking.

That is the trick and along as you don't understand that, this is your trick, you consider as True.

Can you put that into proper English, I can still not understand what you are trying to convey?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you put that into proper English, I can still not understand what you are trying to convey?

If you in effect say that the universe is objectively X, then it can't be so, just because you think that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you in effect say that the universe is objectively X, then it can't be so, just because you think that.

Perhaps, but it might be, not because I think it, just that it is reality. And you are free to have a different opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps, but it might be, not because I think it, just that it is reality. And you are free to have a different opinion.

The problem is that reality is an abstract compound concept in your mind. In practice in all of the debates there are no reality unless there is someone to claim that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem is that reality is an abstract compound concept in your mind. In practice in all of the debates there are no reality unless there is someone to claim that.

But it is not. you may be judging my mind based on yours'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But it is not. you may be judging my mind based on yours'.

Well, yes. That is the point. It is "my mind" as yours. You don't actual do no mind really objective. You just keep subjectively claim it is objective, but don't do that other than claiming it subjectively.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, yes. That is the point. It is "my mind" as yours. You don't actual do no mind really objective. You just keep subjectively claim it is objective, but don't do that other than claiming it subjectively.

I'm sorry, I only now am aware that English is your second language. I am finding it somewhat difficult to understand what it is you are trying to say, but let me say this, you may be also having difficulty understanding what I am trying to convey. To be sure, what I have been trying to convey with respect to 'realization' as opposed to 'conception' is that the latter involves primarily thought, while the former involves primarily the cessation of thought, ie., meditation. Even most English speakers would probably not understand what I am talking about, it is quite an esoteric practice based on Zen.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry, I only now am aware that English is your second language. I am finding it somewhat difficult to understand what it is you are trying to say, but let me say this, you may be also having difficulty understanding what I am trying to convey. To be sure, what I have been trying to convey with respect to 'realization' as opposed to 'conception' is that the latter involves primarily thought, while the former involves primarily the cessation of thought, ie., meditation. Even most English speakers would probably not understand what I am talking about, it is quite an esoteric practice based on Zen.

No, I understand that when you meditate you do something I don't do. I get that. You then claim you are doing that when you are not meditating.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I understand that when you meditate you do something I don't do. I get that. You then claim you are doing that when you are not meditating.

No, when I am meditating, I sit alone undisturbed. Because I have been meditating daily for many decades, mostly my mind will still easily, but when I am engaging socially, or on a forum like this, my thinking mind is active, however it obviously reflects the understanding realized from the many years of meditation practice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, when I am meditating, I sit alone undisturbed. Because I have been meditating daily for many decades, mostly my mind will still easily, but when I am engaging socially, or on a forum like this, my thinking mind is active, however it obviously reflects the understanding realized from the many years of meditation practice.

Yes, so you say, but you don't actually do it objectively. You just say you do it.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so why is Red Shift through Compton scattering a part of university physics?

And you do realize this is taken into account when discussing the BB, right? It's called the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect.

But, instead of producing a red shift, it actually produces a blue shift on the CMBR because of the high energy electrons in galactic clusters. This SZ effect is of great interest to cosmologists because it produces anisotropies in the CMBR and can be used to determine the Hubble parameter.

Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, no, the specifics of tired light simply don't work. The scattering effect is well known and well understood and is even useful in the BB context to determine important information.

 

[Polymath257]

No, when I am meditating, I sit alone undisturbed. Because I have been meditating daily for many decades, mostly my mind will still easily, but when I am engaging socially, or on a forum like this, my thinking mind is active, however it obviously reflects the understanding realized from the many years of meditation practice.

I'm sure your insights are so valuable.

 

[Polymath257]

Ya think, try not thinking, that is harder.

No, it actually isn't. I find it rather trivial, in fact. Just close down the mind and live in silence.

You can't do that? I've been able to do it since I was a kid.

But then, I have very little internal monologue and no visual imagination in the standard sense.

 

[Polymath257]

Work in progress, watch this space.

Ditto.

We can agree on that, you can have your existence with a beginning and I will go with the no beginning.

I'll go with the evidence and the theory that fits it the best.

 

[Polymath257]

SZ, you did not take the astrophysicists who wrote about TLT seriously, but now you do because it is BBT. Now of course these BB astrophysicists would use the BB theoretical model of the universe to calculate dark energy mass, but it is all based on the abstract, conceptualized reality, but since in reality, the universe is infinite and eternal, their model is not correct, the mass of the universal dark energy is actually infinite.

TLT has been considered and it simply doesn't work.

Read a TLT paper and stop at the first point they say something *known* to be wrong. That is usually when they treat scattering.

 

[Polymath257]

Chinese science is not generally published in western science journals, so little coverage in the west.

Because a beginning implies something from nothing, and that is impossible.

No, it does NOT imply that. I have pointed it out many times and you continue to say it again and again.

At least the universe multi-universe theory is possible, it avoids the beginning from nothing nonsense and seems to be taken seriously by many scientists? What's your view of the multiverse theory?

It's a possibility, but testing it is going to be tough.

The universe is infinite, ergo universal mass is infinite, simple logic, no calculations needed. Calculations based on a finite universe that began from nothing can not be correct because the universe is infinite.

Logic is useless if the initial assumptions are wrong. In particular, ALL logical possibilities have to be considered and you have routinely missed many simply because of a bias and misunderstanding of a 4D spacetime.

 

[Polymath257]

This is not a horse race, and human science on this planet has a long way to go given some still think the universe came from nothing. BB theory of a beginning to existence of the eternal universe has little credibility except to the true believers. The reason the BBers probably think this way is that it seemed the easiest way of getting God out of the equation, instead of God being the cause, nothing became the cause.

Ding ding, wake up, the universe is eternal without a beginning, hence the multiverse theory is moving up the field.

Go to the pre-print clearing house, arxiv.org, and you will see many oriental authors and papers from all over the world.

The reason the BB model is accepted is not because of theology, but of simple physics. It fits the data much better than any alternative. Philosophy is at that point irrelevant.

A multiverse scenario is a natural consequence of some versions of quantum gravity. So it is certainly a consideration. The big problem is testability. No version of quantum gravity is tested *at all* at this point.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, so you say, but you don't actually do it objectively. You just say you do it.

It works like this, in the first still mind meditation state, there was a realization beyond my previous belief. Then continuing to meditate daily over the years, the realization gets deeper, and over the decades deeper still. Naturally everything I do or say nowadays reflects all that has been experienced subjectively in the meditation state and relevant objective experiences associated with the subject of existence.