What came before the Big Bang?

[Ouroboros]

I learn a lot every day and then forget more than I remember, so I think I'm now operating in the hole.

Me too. My brain is like a black hole. Sucking up information but nothing comes out...

With the two expansions, this points to one model that might explain it but it's too early to tell for certain if it's true. This model suggests that this extremely hot and condensed ball, has various charges, but because of the density they had very limited motion. But, some think what might have happened is that certain charges may have gotten close enough to begin to repel each other, and when that happened (1st expansion), bonds were broken that led to the 2nd expansion.

Ah. I'd say this research is an ever expanding field of knowledge (pun intended).

 

[Thief]

One way or another one leads to the other and both would be ever continuing by virtue of whatever currently sustains it. The trinitarians say jesus shares this spirit substance with god and they call it a mystery. I see it as a transformation, it is all the same thing in different forms, spirit is substance. After all, there is something rather than nothing, otherwise god is some void of nothing we spawned from.

Nay.....substance can be dead.
You would contend that substance begets spiritual life?

The singularity came first and beget....God?

 

[godnotgod]

Nay.....substance can be dead.
You would contend that substance begets spiritual life?

The singularity came first and beget....God?

You continue to fooled by the illusion, thinking there are two.

Look at it this way:

The spirit is the substance itself as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation.

When a rope is seen as a snake, there is only ever the rope. There never was a snake from the very beginning. The 'snake' is none other than the rope.

There is no creation. There is no becoming. There was not a rope that became a snake.

There was no spirit that created or became substance.

'Substance' is merely an illusion that spirit projects as real.

We call it maya.

Though they are the same, they are not one, not two.

 

[Thief]

You continue to fooled by the illusion, thinking there are two.

Look at it this way:

The spirit is the substance itself as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation.

When a rope is seen as a snake, there is only ever the rope. There never was a snake from the very beginning. The 'snake' is none other than the rope.

There is no creation. There is no becoming. There was not a rope that became a snake.

There was no spirit that created or became substance.

'Substance' is merely an illusion that spirit projects as real.

We call it maya.

Though they are the same, they are not one, not two.

Look at it this way.....
Can't say "I AM!"....without proof.

"Let there be light!"... is synonymous.

 

[s2a]

With such a stance at hand....
You must then assume substance first...spirit as consequence.
Which leads to death and no continuance.

Not very optimistic.

And it renders all of life as a mystery with no resolve or purpose.

Purpose in existence is a burden any sentient species (and or individual) must assume for themselves as individuals, and is not for any "person" to merely accept or wear like an albatross around the neck...

I find little mystery in that ideal... unless you truly seek some other source/spirit/power/entity to somehow/otherwise bestow that "course/purpose" upon you...

Not everyone assumes futility in existence absent divine purpsoe you know

Will your great-great-grandmother know what your favorite color or pajamas might have been? I sorta doubt it... so if she has no semblance or understanding or recall to even those simple and basic things, what instills your belief that anything you do today will be of any impactful import to her?

What was you great-great-grandmother's favorite color? What was her "reason" for living? What were her hobbies or favorite reads? What examples of her life story do you account as a part of your own current existence and motivations for tomorrow?

Hmmm?

 

[godnotgod]

Look at it this way.....
Can't say "I AM!"....without proof.

You would only say 'I AM' when your experience of it is unmistakeable and beyond the shadow of any doubt. Then there is no need of 'proof'.

'I AM' is about pure being in this timeless Present Moment.

'Proof' is about mere existence in time and space.

If you are an artifact of a creator-god, a clay pot, you exist in time and space, and so are subject to birth and death.

If you are an awakened consciousness, you simply are in this eternal Present Moment. Your being is independent of history, of memory. You are unborn and deathless.

 

[Thief]

You would only say 'I AM' when your experience of it is unmistakeable and beyond the shadow of any doubt. Then there is no need of 'proof'.

'I AM' is about pure being in this timeless Present Moment.

'Proof' is about mere existence in time and space.

If you are an artifact of a creator-god, a clay pot, you exist in time and space, and so are subject to birth and death.

If you are an awakened consciousness, you simply are in this eternal Present Moment. Your being is independent of history, of memory. You are unborn and deathless.

You left out something important.
'You' cannot escape 'you'rself.

You will always have a past....and can be judged by it.
You have a linear existence....and can do no other.

Your continuance after your death may not be yours to determine.
Something Grater might say ...'nay'.

Unless of course....there is nothing Greater than 'you'

 

[godnotgod]

You left out something important.
'You' cannot escape 'you'rself.

You will always have a past....and can be judged by it.
You have a linear existence....and can do no other.

Your continuance after your death may not be yours to determine.
Something Grater might say ...'nay'.

Unless of course....there is nothing Greater than 'you'

How can 'you' escape yourself, when there is no such entity?

We are always at one with the universe, at all times, whether we think we are separate or not.

There is no separate self that lives and dies.

'You' are merely an action of the total universe, just as a wave is an action of the total ocean.

Since there is no separate 'you' that exists, there is nothing Lesser nor Greater than any so called 'you'. Why? Because the universe is Absolute; there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

So stop your worrying and go outside and play.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Over 3,000 years ago, the Torah tells us that When G-d Began to Create - there was the biggest Nothing that ever existed.
Then G-d said: Let there be Light...
And, out of Nothing came Light.
And, in that Light, Time did not exist, And, although I am nothing resembling a physicist, I remember reading something about the speed of light and Red Shift and "time" appearing immobilized to an "outside observer of this phenomenon.
At any rate - the Torah tells us that When G-d Began to Create, there was the most concentrated form of Nothingness (Black Hole) ever and, that it turned into Light (exploded) separating between Nothing and Something...
It would appear that this newfangled theory of "Science," yet in its infancy of about 75 years, finally, after 3,000 years of different "scientific notions" of the State of the Universe and, ridiculing the Torah's notion of the Creation of the Universe, has finally found the Torah to be true.

 

[Thief]

How can 'you' escape yourself, when there is no such entity?

We are always at one with the universe, at all times, whether we think we are separate or not.

There is no separate self that lives and dies.

'You' are merely an action of the total universe, just as a wave is an action of the total ocean.

Since there is no separate 'you' that exists, there is nothing Lesser nor Greater than any so called 'you'. Why? Because the universe is Absolute; there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

So stop your worrying and go outside and play.

I see 'you' are still trapped in your wordplay.
We've been around this burning bush on previous occasion.
Or did 'you' forget?

 

[Thief]

Over 3,000 years ago, the Torah tells us that When G-d Began to Create - there was the biggest Nothing that ever existed.
Then G-d said: Let there be Light...
And, out of Nothing came Light.
And, in that Light, Time did not exist, And, although I am nothing resembling a physicist, I remember reading something about the speed of light and Red Shift and "time" appearing immobilized to an "outside observer of this phenomenon.
At any rate - the Torah tells us that When G-d Began to Create, there was the most concentrated form of Nothingness (Black Hole) ever and, that it turned into Light (exploded) separating between Nothing and Something...
It would appear that this newfangled theory of "Science," yet in its infancy of about 75 years, finally, after 3,000 years of different "scientific notions" of the State of the Universe and, ridiculing the Torah's notion of the Creation of the Universe, has finally found the Torah to be true.

Stick around.
I see kindred spirit.

 

[godnotgod]

I see 'you' are still trapped in your wordplay.
We've been around this burning bush on previous occasion.
Or did 'you' forget?

Well, no. That's why I suggested you go do something meaningless, like play.

 

[godnotgod]

Over 3,000 years ago, the Torah tells us that When G-d Began to Create - there was the biggest Nothing that ever existed.
Then G-d said: Let there be Light...
And, out of Nothing came Light.
And, in that Light, Time did not exist, And, although I am nothing resembling a physicist, I remember reading something about the speed of light and Red Shift and "time" appearing immobilized to an "outside observer of this phenomenon.
At any rate - the Torah tells us that When G-d Began to Create, there was the most concentrated form of Nothingness (Black Hole) ever and, that it turned into Light (exploded) separating between Nothing and Something...
It would appear that this newfangled theory of "Science," yet in its infancy of about 75 years, finally, after 3,000 years of different "scientific notions" of the State of the Universe and, ridiculing the Torah's notion of the Creation of the Universe, has finally found the Torah to be true.

It's still just a whole lotta nuttin', honey! But that's both the secret and the beauty of it. Both Theology and Science will knock themselves out trying to figure it out, but there's literally nothing to figure out!

Isn't it wonderful?

 

[Thief]

Well, no. That's why I suggested you go do something meaningless, like play.

Play....is the actual life.

"Of such as these (children) is made the kingdom of heaven."
....the Carpenter of Nazareth.

 

[metis]

And, although I am nothing resembling a physicist, I remember reading something about the speed of light and Red Shift and "time" appearing immobilized to an "outside observer of this phenomenon.

Even though it is true that an observer has an effect on photons that have not yet been understood, this really has nothing to do with the BB. If we view "time" as sequencing, which it really is in large part, most cosmologists do believe it's quite likely that sub-atomic particles and/or strings were in some limited movement prior to the BB. IOW, the mass of the minute black hole that was our universe was so high and condensed that time barely "moved" by today's standards.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Even though it is true that an observer has an effect on photons that have not yet been understood, this really has nothing to do with the BB. If we view "time" as sequencing, which it really is in large part, most cosmologists do believe it's quite likely that sub-atomic particles and/or strings were in some limited movement prior to the BB. IOW, the mass of the minute black hole that was our universe was so high and condensed that time barely "moved" by today's standards.

Since time and space are linked, the progression of time would be related to the amount of space. In the singularity where everything is jumbled up, the most I can think of is vibrations occurring but not movement across space.

 

[metis]

Since time and space are linked, the progression of time would be related to the amount of space. In the singularity where everything is jumbled up, the most I can think of is vibrations occurring but not movement across space.

That's one of the theories I've run across from some of the research cosmologists, but to go along with the above, one hypothetical possibility is that there was some limited movement whereas some of the charged particles that were polarized ran across some others with opposite polarization, repelled, then breaking the bonds that led to the 2nd expansion within a fraction of a second from the 1st.

This has at least some support as a hypothesis because we now know that both matter and anti-matter existed quite early on, and eventually there was just a slight amount more of matter that led to what we now have.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Even though it is true that an observer has an effect on photons that have not yet been understood, this really has nothing to do with the BB.

??? "an observer has an effect on photons"?

If we view "time" as sequencing, which it really is in large part, most cosmologists do believe it's quite likely that sub-atomic particles and/or strings were in some limited movement prior to the BB.

Quantum fluctuations are not "movement". Also, I'd be curious as to how you are determining what "most cosmologists" think.

IOW, the mass of the minute black hole that was our universe

Our universe wasn't a black hole.

 

[idea]

??? "an observer has an effect on photons"?

the problem with movies like "What the *** do we know anyways?" is that they try to make physics mystical/mysterious and therefore entertaining... instead of just explaining what things like TEM's do (which isn't quite as exciting as the Hollywood version of science)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

??? "an observer has an effect on photons"?

Sure, if they flip the switch on their flashlight.