Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Yeah, but you haven't do that is your writing about the universe as presented here.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ya think, try not thinking, that is harder.

I think I won't think too much about that...I guess it's better to think than not think. Often if a person says he wasn't thinking, it means he made a mistake.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ya think, try not thinking, that is harder.

Ha ha. Is that called Nirvana?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

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

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.

I know, but I see it differently to you, a beginning from nothing is impossible.

But the testing of a beginning from nothing is even more tough.

But I can only go with my own realization, the universe is infinite. I have not missed understanding of 4D spacetime, saying something along the lines of "the continuation of 4D spacetime" is just a result of my inexperience in discussing the subject. However I do acknowledge your great assistance in helping me understand its usage in the scientific context. Kudos Polymath.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ha ha. Is that called Nirvana?

Eventually, but it is also a "The Father and I are one" state, or "Samadhi", etc..

 

[Polymath257]

I know, but I see it differently to you, a beginning from nothing is impossible.

And I agree. I have stated that many times. Nothing is an impossibility. But it is possible to have a beginning that is not 'from' at all.

But the testing of a beginning from nothing is even more tough.

Not as difficult as you might think. Look a the data and see what math fits.

But I can only go with my own realization, the universe is infinite. I have not missed understanding of 4D spacetime, saying something along the lines of "the continuation of 4D spacetime" is just a result of my inexperience in discussing the subject. However I do acknowledge your great assistance in helping me understand its usage in the scientific context. Kudos Polymath.

Your realization was the common view about 150 years ago. Modern cosmology changed that (along with modern math, I would note). There are more logical options that those with a Euclidean bias can see.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Thank you.

Simple? Please explain how and why the universe came into existence according to BB theory.

A multiverse scenario is compatible with my understanding of reality, I predict it will eventually replace the untested BB from nothing theory,

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you.

Simple? Please explain how and why the universe came into existence according to BB theory.

It did not 'come into existence'. That is a meaningless phrase. The universe of spacetime simply exists. There is no 'coming' or 'from'. Just 'is'.

A multiverse scenario is compatible with my understanding of reality, I predict it will eventually replace the untested BB from nothing theory,

The BB theory has been extensively tested! What do you think all the tests on the CMBR are about? What do you think that trying to measure deuterium abundances is about? What do you think that trying to find BAO is about? It is ALL about using the detailed theory to make predictions and test them according to the data acquired.

The BB scenario is accepted because it fits the data better than any alternative. When and if we have a tested theory of quantum gravity, that may change. And if that theory of quantum gravity implies a multiverse, the multiverse scenario will become more accepted. Right now, it is more philosophy than science (and yes, that is a negative).

 

[Polymath257]

The universe is not the surface of a sphere, it is infinite space without a surface.

A higher dimensional analogy of the surface of a sphere is a definite possibility. It would have the property that no matter which direction you choose (up, down, left, right, back, forth, or other), if you continue in a straight line, you will eventually arrive back at your starting point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Serious science is investigated by other scientists. Regardless of which country that it comes from. You made an extremely weak excuse, as if Google scholar only counts western citations of articles. The problem is that almost all of your ideas have been wrong here and you cannot learn because you will not own up to your errors when they are explained to you. All that you have going for you are ignorance and self imposed blindness. The ostrich defense does not really work. Even ostriches know that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I agree. I have stated that many times. Nothing is an impossibility. But it is possible to have a beginning that is not 'from' at all.

Not as difficult as you might think. Look a the data and see what math fits.

Your realization was the common view about 150 years ago. Modern cosmology changed that (along with modern math, I would note). There are more logical options that those with a Euclidean bias can see.

That is a cognitive conclusion. There is another version, nothing is unknown, because as far as we can tell, that to know, is somebody knowing something. Thus you can know nothing, because you always know something.
We are doing philosophy now and not science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Eventually, but it is also a "The Father and I are one" state, or "Samadhi", etc..

Lol possibly if one misunderstands them.

 

[YoursTrue]

A higher dimensional analogy of the surface of a sphere is a definite possibility. It would have the property that no matter which direction you choose (up, down, left, right, back, forth, or other), if you continue in a straight line, you will eventually arrive back at your starting point.

Oh boy here's a question. We know we are born. We didn't just appear full grown as an infant. The question is: is DNA alive? We know, of course, it's there but is it alive?I don't know the answer, just wondering what scientists think about this. If you may know.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Although the different religions pose a problem because of their soothsayers and imaginings, yes, I agree that many scientists attempt to construct a model without a need for God by deliberate intent.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since I accept the panetheistic view of God as being all that exists, unmanifest and manifest, it amounts to the same thing, only God created things have beginnings. I know that JW are big on the name YHVH, but what is on the other side of the name is what is important. From NT, "What the human eye has never seen, what the human ear has never heard, what the human mind can never conceive* of, that is what awaits those who love God/YHVH."

* Conceive in this context is to imagine, to think about, scientific studies.

It is important because of His distinct relationship with certain individuals and groups described in the scriptures. Some of us enjoy life more than others because of circumstances. The future awaits and it is just as the scriptures say...life without end, no pain, no sorrow, peace.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since I accept the panetheistic view of God as being all that exists, unmanifest and manifest, it amounts to the same thing, only God created things have beginnings. I know that JW are big on the name YHVH, but what is on the other side of the name is what is important. From NT, "What the human eye has never seen, what the human ear has never heard, what the human mind can never conceive* of, that is what awaits those who love God/YHVH."

* Conceive in this context is to imagine, to think about, scientific studies.

Pantheistic view of God? Can you please try to explain how you see that and more importantly, why?

 

[YoursTrue]

Eventually, but it is also a "The Father and I are one" state, or "Samadhi", etc..

Now that you mention you are a polytheist, I suppose that means you believe in many gods?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although the different religions pose a problem because of their soothsayers and imaginings, yes, I agree that many scientists attempt to construct a model without a need for God by deliberate intent.

That would be dishonest. Now I have seen dishonesty rewarded among the religious quite often. I do not know of any apologists that are not Liars for Jesus. Creationist sites lie all of the time. There is a big reward for dishonesty among them But in the sciences dishonesty can end a career. It is one of the few unforgivable sins of science. That is an extremely serious charge. What is your evidence for it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Wrong, SZ is Subduction Zone!

Actually, while there may be a SZ blue shift effect, the overall result is a CMBR red shifted all the way to the microwave band, as I understand TLT.

So please keep an open mind and let the facts determine science, not erroneous belief.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm sure your insights are so valuable.

Aw shucks...