What was the Big Bang

[james blunt]

I have to guess that there's a `now` somewhere ?
But we are `moving`, aren't we ?

Now is everywhere, there is no simultaneity. Now is infinite, time is memory, future does not exist, time exists now always , we are in a loop of now's but we still age, we age relative to now which has already past by time you read on. Writing can move forward at any speed like counting time which is not there. You record the past of now , not the time that does not exist.

 

[`mud]

hey Sus,
Do you read your stuff ?

 

[ChristineM]

Not quite , zero point pressure is a miracle of mechanics to create something.

Δk0 = t where k0 is any given point of space and t is time.

i.e Gods miracle

P.s Hello again Christine, somebody important.

But k is not zero. Ahh different ks, my k is kelvin and across the universe the value is around 2.7k therefore 0k is nowhere near universal even if it does exist in nature, without 0k you have no zpp

 

[ChristineM]

Now is everywhere, there is no simultaneity. Now is infinite, time is memory, future does not exist, time exists now always , we are in a loop of now's but we still age, we age relative to now which has already past by time you read on. Writing can move forward at any speed like counting time which is not there. You record the past of now , not the time that does not exist.

Prove infinity

Time is a measurement of entropy.

The future becomes now

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So you are a follower of god of the gaps?

No, that is where "gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." Since I claim there's absolutely no evidence for or against any theory of how the universe came to be, and given that there's only two possibilities (see above), there are no gaps to be taken as evidence for or against.

I know of 28 hypothesis which are mathematically sound, some actually have physical evidence to back them up, not one requires a god. In fact any claim of god magic is just that, a claim.

To what hypotheses are you referring, and especially what evidence ante-Big Bang? I know of none regarding the impetus for the Big Bang that aren't 100% speculation, that is, guesses. I think all the many worlds theories are bunk. I don't say they're wrong, but they're essentially a form of kicking the can down the road. A series of Big Bangs and Big Chrunches, still begs the question, so what?

I used to think that such a perfect absence of evidence for a cause of the universe or remnants of a pre-Big Bang environment, ruled out spontaneous creation. You would expect there would be something, but their absence makes it seem purposeful. But then, I keep reminding myself, we can't use an absence of evidence, as evidence--back to 0-0. Still, I can't help wonder if that isn't the equivalent of a divine wink.

 

[ChristineM]

No, that is where "gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." Since I claim there's absolutely no evidence for or against any theory of how the universe came to be, and given that there's only two possibilities (see above), there are no gaps to be taken as evidence for or against.



To what hypotheses are you referring, and especially what evidence ante-Big Bang? I know of none regarding the impetus for the Big Bang that aren't 100% speculation, that is, guesses. I think all the many worlds theories are bunk. I don't say they're wrong, but they're essentially a form of kicking the can down the road. A series of Big Bangs and Big Chrunches, still begs the question, so what?

I used to think that such a perfect absence of evidence for a cause of the universe or remnants of a pre-Big Bang environment, ruled out spontaneous creation. You would expect there would be something, but their absence makes it seem purposeful. But then, I keep reminding myself, we can't use an absence of evidence, as evidence--back to 0-0. Still, I can't help wonder if that isn't the equivalent of a divine wink.

Science makes no claims about what is unknown, that is the trait of religion. There are actually several possibilities of how this universe came about, as i said in my previous post, none are proven and are therefore gaps in knowledge that many religious people fill with god.

Just as your claims of god magic are speculation. I did provide one link to [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing a few pages back, that is a speculation based on maths and knowledge of vacuum bubbles in QM. But i favour the hypothesis of Dr Mersini-Houghton version of a multivers because this universe shows physical evidence collision between universes.

Why do you feel absence of evidence (not completely true) indicates purpose, surely, unless you have preconceived ideas, the absence of evidence shows the cause is unknown (i use "cause" for want of a better word considering causality as we understand it had not coalesced at that time... Same could also apply to the word "time")

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Science makes no claims about what is unknown, that is the trait of religion. There are actually several possibilities of how this universe came about, as i said in my previous post, none are proven and are therefore gaps in knowledge that many religious people fill with god.

Science does not fill them in with God, which, again, is merely a possibility. And you're gonna have to explain your several possibilities with something more specific.

Just as your claims of god magic are speculation. I did provide one link to [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing a few pages back, that is a speculation based on maths and knowledge of vacuum bubbles in QM. But i favour the hypothesis of Dr Mersini-Houghton version of a multivers because this universe shows physical evidence collision between universes.

There's no ante-Big Bang evidence for that version of spontaneous, which, again, is nothing but a rejiggering or relabeling of a spontaneous creation.

Why do you feel absence of evidence (not completely true) indicates purpose, surely, unless you have preconceived ideas, the absence of evidence shows the cause is unknown (i use "cause" for want of a better word considering causality as we understand it had not coalesced at that time... Same could also apply to the word "time")

I'm merely saying it's completely unlikely that something with an unguided cause, would produce something that gives off no evidence of what happened. But as I also said, a lack of evidence is not evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Science does not fill them in with God, which, again, is merely a possibility. And you're gonna have to explain your several possibilities with something more specific.



There's no ante-Big Bang evidence for that version of spontaneous, which, again, is nothing but a rejiggering or relabeling of a spontaneous creation.



I'm merely saying it's completely unlikely that something with an unguided cause, would produce something that gives off no evidence of what happened. But as I also said, a lack of evidence is not evidence.

Correct, that's what i said, science doesn't fill the gaps with god, religion does.

To be fair, if you consider god to be a possibility then you need to provide similar evidence that you are asking of me. I provided one link to a scientific paper that you have not bothered reading otherwise you would not mock it as a rehash of spontaneous and now you expect more???

As i said, there is evidence that you refuse to recognise.

 

[james blunt]

Correct, that's what i said, science doesn't fill the gaps with god, religion does.

Science does the fill the gaps with God , God = Space

The words are synonymous.

 

[ChristineM]

Science does the fill the gaps with God , God = Space

The words are synonymous.

Your opinion is noted and duly ignored due to no workable hypothesis, no theory, the 100% lack of evidence and not a single occurrence of god magic ever observed.

Also the attributes you give for god are not valid in reality.

 

[james blunt]

Your opinion is noted and duly ignored due to no workable hypothesis, no theory, the 100% lack of evidence and not a single occurrence of god magic ever observed.

Also the attributes you give for god are not valid in reality.

Noted but incorrect. In scientific method if an individual piece of physics cannot be explained by physics, then that something becomes a mechanical miracle.
Now miracles are beyond science, but if we can explain ''who'' made this miracle or was a part of this miracle, do you not agree , no matter which angle we look at, that something is the miracle creator of substance?

Quite obviously you have not read any of my work on the internet. Although not published I have the theory of everything which explains , well everything.

God is the original word used for space, however space is unexplained, we can't create or destroy space. We can't fragment space, like we can do with energy, we can't displace space.
Space is amazingly cool and without space which is nothing, the opposite being something, could not exist.

Energy and space is all that exists.

BUT, If somebody could form substance in that space, i.e new life, they are all in affect Gods.

You would not understand my theory if I gave it. I have gone beyond ''God'' to get my answer.

Past you and beyond,

You do not know whom I am.

 

[james blunt]

The Theory of Reality

Introduction

Reality arouses ones curiosity when we consider the state of things as they actually exist. Thought provoking, as if a puzzle with many different components to consider. Components that are the elements and content of the Universe, some content being more mysterious than other content.
Some content, being difficult or maybe impossible to understand, maybe even beyond the level of human intelligence. The theory of reality , will discuss in depth , reality. What is real and what is make believe, what is subjective and what is objective, possibilities and impossibilities.
Thus being said , the theory of reality will be primary focused on the past and present science of physics, where objective truths will be shown that opposes some subjective past/present naive science. The theory of reality shall be mainly focused on two golden principles:

i. Possible

ii. Impossible

There will also be consideration for axioms, things that are self evidently true are generally true regardless of opinion of subjective belief. Additionally, there will be concerns towards possible ostensible content, stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily true.
The primary goal of this book, is to correct the present understanding of the Universe, to show logical inaccuracies , correcting science firstly , then secondly as a condition of the first, defining ''God''.

The format of this book shall be written in an unusual style, at times it will be story like, other times it will be more formal. I will now begin with the first chapter, Back in Time.

Chapter One - Back in Time

The elders of the village gathered around the fire, it was an important evening as Jeremiah was about to make a huge revelation of importance to the village elders. The elders sat gazing into the fire , silence amongst them as they wondered with anticipation, what was so important? that Jeremiah had called for such a meeting of urgency. After a while , a figure of a man appeared from the shadows, at long last it was Jeremiah .

Jeremiah walked over to the fire and picked up a burning stick, then turned facing towards the elders.

''Elders of the village'' Jeremiah loudly says,

'' In my hands I have a stick, the stick is on fire, we made the fire by using flints, we have ingenuity''.

The elders of the village sat in silence, the crackling of the fire deafening to Jeremiah's ears.

''What do you mean by ingenuity Jeremiah '' ? eventually replied one of the elders.

'' I mean, we are not the same as a camel or a rock, we are inventive and creative, we are smart! '' explained Jeremiah.

The elders whispered among themselves what seemed forever , Jeremiah could see the frustration on their faces and he knew he needed to say something. After some thought , Jeremiah shouts out with shaking breath,

''how did we get here''?

The elders stared at Jeremiah in shock , then one by one began to applaud Jeremiah.

''Please tell us more Jeremiah of this great new wisdom you have found'' said several elders.

''Please , please'' they begged , '' what do you call this new wisdom''?

Jeremiah took a deep breath, '' I will call it creation and creation shall be the study of all things''.

The elders nodded with acceptance, the journey had begun.

 

[ChristineM]

Noted but incorrect. In scientific method if an individual piece of physics cannot be explained by physics, then that something becomes a mechanical miracle.
Now miracles are beyond science, but if we can explain ''who'' made this miracle or was a part of this miracle, do you not agree , no matter which angle we look at, that something is the miracle creator of substance?

Quite obviously you have not read any of my work on the internet. Although not published I have the theory of everything which explains , well everything.

God is the original word used for space, however space is unexplained, we can't create or destroy space. We can't fragment space, like we can do with energy, we can't displace space.
Space is amazingly cool and without space which is nothing, the opposite being something, could not exist.

Energy and space is all that exists.

BUT, If somebody could form substance in that space, i.e new life, they are all in affect Gods.

You would not understand my theory if I gave it. I have gone beyond ''God'' to get my answer.

Past you and beyond,

You do not know whom I am.

Oh i understand, you live and think a fantasy life a with no relationship to reality.

 

[james blunt]

Oh i understand, you live and think a fantasy life a with no relationship to reality.

Yes delusional is reality, you got a problem with that you are all delusional?

It is I that is sane and all of you that is mad.

 

[james blunt]

 

[james blunt]

The strongest mind is the most truthful mind
For my mind is strong and truthful
For I am and you are...

 

[ChristineM]

Yes delusional is reality, you got a problem with that you are all delusional?

It is I that is sane and all of you that is mad.

Surely you mean everyone is mad and you are the only sane person in the world, your psychiatrist tells you so.

 

[james blunt]

Surely you mean everyone is mad and you are the only sane person in the world, your psychiatrist tells you so.

I am my own psychiatrist and in being this, I have diagnosed your subjective virus . I have repaired my own system , I await command coding from the Vrillians before my next move. The others are coming and I need to be ready, they may want to devour my brain to ingest my spirit. No I am not sane, but I do not have the subjective virus at least. Monkeys will always be monkeys, when the monkeys from thereafter come to fight the monkeys, I am going to be a tortoise and hide in my shell so neither monkey can eat my brain.

 

[ChristineM]

I am my own psychiatrist and in being this, I have diagnosed your subjective virus . I have repaired my own system , I await command coding from the Vrillians before my next move. The others are coming and I need to be ready, they may want to devour my brain to ingest my spirit. No I am not sane, but I do not have the subjective virus at least. Monkeys will always be monkeys, when the monkeys from thereafter come to fight the monkeys, I am going to be a tortoise and hide in my shell so neither monkey can eat my brain.

Whatever turns you on

 

[james blunt]

Whatever turns you on

Explicitly predictable actions are the ready meals of thought, microwave information in a needless state of conversation. My study of these mere mortal earth creatures is astonishing, I expected much more in all this time. Well the consciousness state is just a chaos of words and thoughts compared to the solid of a brick. In confusion there is an illusion my dear, perhaps I have decided to be disliked so am going to go wicky wicky wack and jump around.