What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

I ....did not create myself.
I.....am not my own handiwork.

So who are you?

'No thinker of thoughts' is a ridiculous statement.

Is there a wind-blower of the wind? Or is there just wind?

Is there a flow-er of water, or just flowing water?

Is there a waver of the wave, or just waving itself?

That you assume a thinker of thoughts means you did not understand Keirkegaard's critique, though you said you did.

You said: 'I think, therefore I am'. But why do you need validation of your being? Isn't being itself validation enough? To require validation means there is some doubt; it means you don't have faith, though you say you do. It means you don't have an understanding of your own nature.

 

[Tiapan]

From a existentialist point of view.

Billions of years of black cold nothing then.

The universe was created the second I was born, it lasts about 100 years, full of color, warmth, sights and smells and then will disappear the moment I die. Life is just an amazing dream.

Followed then again by billions of years of cold nothing.

Moral: follow your dreams and don't waste a day.

 

[Tiapan]

Personal Observation ... there are virtually no stationary objects in the universe and many, especially celestial bodys all spin. Even the immovable Egyptian pyramids have quite a high velocity as the earth rotates in space.

Birch, P. Nature Vol 298, No.5873, pp.451-454, July 29 1982

"...the universe is rotating with an angular velocity of approx. 10^-13 radians per year"

- this is a minuscule velocity but if this is true...

Consider an ice skater spinning, as she pulls her arms in, she spins faster, conversely as she lifts her arms she spins slower.
This is an example of the one of the universal axioms of science ie the conservation of angular momentum law.
As the skaters radius (arms) decreases, the rate of rotation must increase to maintain the same angular momentum.

Now consider the universe as we understand it. From the Hubble red shift of stars, we see the universe is currently expanding, and recent evidence suggests this process is accelerating. Now if we look backwards in time we see the universe expanded from some central point and had its birth in an extremely hot soup of boiling quarks in a period of rapid expansion over 300,000 years that has been labelled the "big bang".

Now if the universe is as estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old, consider the furthest point a photon of light, the fastest particle, could reach since it left the "big bang" ie the edge of our universe, so this gives us a universe of maximum size 27.4 billion light years across ie a radius of 13.7 billion light years. Looking backwards in time the radius must have been less than today, so the rate of rotaion must have been faster to maintain the angular momentum. if we go back the full 13.7 billion years we see the entire universe rotating at an extremely high velocity in a small volume of space. if we do the maths this works out to around 30,000 km at 0.001 seconds after the "big bang" initiated. If the radius was less than this then the outer reaches of the system would have to exceed the speed of light to maintain angular momentum, this would violate the speed of light limit.

If the universe appeared out of nowhere, the current idea, then I must ask the question where did this massive angular momentum come from?
You cannot godlike suddenly add that much momentum because of the systems inertia which would require an equally massive force to accelerate it to speed over time, but there is no evidence for such a force.

The one obvious answer to me is, the only way you can get that amount of massive angular momentum is from a previous collapsed spinning universe.
An oscillating universe, expanding contracting.....

This seems to contradict the currently observed universe which appears to be an accelerating expansion to its frigid end as it drifts into infinite space. I have another explaination for this but thats another topic for another day.

I believe the angular mmomentum of the universe today if it exists would be evidence of physics BEFORE the "big bang".

Cheers

 

[godnotgod]

From a existentialist point of view.

Billions of years of black cold nothing then.

The universe was created the second I was born, it lasts about 100 years, full of color, warmth, sights and smells and then will disappear the moment I die. Life is just an amazing dream.

Followed then again by billions of years of cold nothing.

Moral: follow your dreams and don't waste a day.

Throughout the entire scenario you outline, consciousness must be present that experiences it all. Otherwise, there is no 'black cold nothing'. Besides, maybe its a black velvet smoothness. In either case, there must be some kind of nothingness for the warm, colorful somethingness to exist against.

 

[Tiapan]

Throughout the entire scenario you outline, consciousness must be present that experiences it all. Otherwise, there is no 'black cold nothing'. Besides, maybe its a black velvet smoothness. In either case, there must be some kind of nothingness for the warm, colorful somethingness to exist against.

Consciousness requires glucose, oxygen and a working cardiovascular system, when they are not present consciousness is lost.
Cheers

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Throughout the entire scenario you outline, consciousness must be present that experiences it all. Otherwise, there is no 'black cold nothing'. Besides, maybe its a black velvet smoothness. In either case, there must be some kind of nothingness for the warm, colorful somethingness to exist against.

I'm afraid I don't understand, could you explain?
How does consciousness affect matter?
I understand, we wouldn't be able to classify matter, or be able to observe characteristics without consciousness, but even if we couldn't, the matter would still HAVE those characteristics.
So what part does consciousness play

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness requires glucose, oxygen and a working cardiovascular system, when they are not present consciousness is lost.
Cheers

Who sez?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm afraid I don't understand, could you explain?
How does consciousness affect matter?
I understand, we wouldn't be able to classify matter, or be able to observe characteristics without consciousness, but even if we couldn't, the matter would still HAVE those characteristics.
So what part does consciousness play

How can the universe be a 'black, cold nothing' unless it is experienced via consciousness as such? In fact, the 'black, cold nothing' is none other than consciousness itself.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

How can the universe be a 'black, cold nothing' unless it is experienced via consciousness as such? In fact, the 'black, cold nothing' is none other than consciousness itself.

I can only agree with that insofar as the descriptors are poorly chosen, and relative.
If instead of "cold", an actual temperature was given, and "nothing" was better defined (as nothing has no temperature) then I can't follow you.
Observance of traits aren't what cause traits, in the macroscopic world.
If something is hot, or cold, or green and nothing is around to see it, then there may be nothing to define it as green, but the characteristics that make it green still exist.
Otherwise, that's like assuming if a blind man were to go into a room, and turn the lights on, by himself, the room would remain in blackness.
So I'm not sure what the consciousness in your example is required, for something else to have characteristics.

 

[Tiapan]

Temp Equals 4K

 

[Tiapan]

What came before the Big Bang?
A previously collapsing universe, during one of many cycles in a perpetually oscillating universe.
Proof: Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. See previous post

 

[godnotgod]

I can only agree with that insofar as the descriptors are poorly chosen, and relative.

Yes, exactly. I was taking off on what had already been chosen as description.

If instead of "cold", an actual temperature was given, and "nothing" was better defined (as nothing has no temperature) then I can't follow you.
Observance of traits aren't what cause traits, in the macroscopic world.
If something is hot, or cold, or green and nothing is around to see it, then there may be nothing to define it as green, but the characteristics that make it green still exist.
Otherwise, that's like assuming if a blind man were to go into a room, and turn the lights on, by himself, the room would remain in blackness.
So I'm not sure what the consciousness in your example is required, for something else to have characteristics.

The blind man's consciousness is perceptual consciousness, or lack thereof. It alone cannot create the darkened room. It is ultimate consciousness that is beyond perception, and out of which all phenomena and their characteristics arise and subside.

 

[godnotgod]

What came before the Big Bang?
A previously collapsing universe, during one of many cycles in a perpetually oscillating universe.
Proof: Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. See previous post

How is Angular Momentum understood as Angular Momentum? In order to detect momentum of any kind, don't we have to see or detect it against something that has no momentum, and if so, what is that 'something'?

 

[Tiapan]

How is Angular Momentum understood as Angular Momentum? In order to detect momentum of any kind, don't we have to see or detect it against something that has no momentum, and if so, what is that 'something'?

Not necessarily you can determine it without reference to a background eg measure the centripetal force, no lights required.

 

[godnotgod]

Not necessarily you can determine it without reference to a background eg measure the centripetal force, no lights required.

So now we have centripetal force to deal with, which must be understood against a passive non-force, and so on. The background to all movement of any kind is something that is changeless. Were it not for the state of changelesness, how else would you determine movement?

 

[Thief]

So now we have centripetal force to deal with, which must be understood against a passive non-force, and so on. The background to all movement of any kind is something that is changeless. Were it not for the state of changelesness, how else would you determine movement?

By allowing a secondary point!

 

[Tiapan]

If the universe is 13.7 billion years old then the furthest any part of it could now reside in, is the fastest particle ie a light photon. If it commenced its journey at the inflation ("Big Bang") then travelling at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years means the furthest extent of the universe is 27.4 billion light years in diameter. So what is beyond? What is it expanding into? Nothing. It is this Nothing that is the background frame of reference you seek but being nothingness it may be hard to detect.

Cheers

 

[godnotgod]

By allowing a secondary point!

Both of which are 'moving' against a background.

 

[godnotgod]

If the universe is 13.7 billion years old then the furthest any part of it could now reside in, is the fastest particle ie a light photon. If it commenced its journey at the inflation ("Big Bang") then travelling at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years means the furthest extent of the universe is 27.4 billion light years in diameter. So what is beyond? What is it expanding into? Nothing. It is this Nothing that is the background frame of reference you seek but being nothingness it may be hard to detect.

Cheers

Nothingness cannot be 'detected', except by the presence of 'something', just as space cannot be detected were it not for solids, and vice versa, in both cases. The thing is, nothing is already in place, as default, prior to the emergence of anything. You don't have to detect it; it is a passive state, and being passive is the reason it goes unnoticed, as our tendency is to focus on the foreground, rather than the background. Of course, within your meaning, even scientific instruments are incapable of its detection. Consider a fish born into the sea: it does not know it is in the sea, yet the sea is all around it and even inside of it. The fish's primary focus is on the foreground, ie; food, predators, etc. But were it not for the absolutely still background of nothingness, the universe in Angular Momentum cannot exist. Physicists are just now taking a hard look at nothing as the source of the universe itself. (Of course, mystics have said so all along.) See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[Tiapan]

Birch, P. Nature Vol 298, No.5873, pp.451-454, July 29 1982

"...the universe is rotating with an angular velocity of approx. 10^-13 radians per year"