Before Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, this was in reference to a completely different subject. I'm still wondering what that silly word game is all about.

As far as the rest of this goes, I'd suggest reading up on the big bang theory, among other things. You seem to be confused on parts of it, but I'm definitely not the one to explain the intricacies of physics.

Hi mball1297, sorry that my reference to maturity or lack thereof offended you, it was meant to reflect the fact that the subject of cosmology is not a frivolous one as far as my interest is concerned, and if you want to discuss the Big Bang Theory such as is reflected in commentaries on it as provided by such scientists as Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, etc., then please don't ask me to reread stuff that is "old hat" to me, please feel free to just go ahead now and question me on points that you see me presenting that are not clear or seem unreasonable to your understanding, there is no other reason for my being here on this thread.

FWIW, that is not to mean that my understanding is more important than yours, but an honest and involved discussion will shed "light" on those areas that either of us lack clarity of understanding.

 

[Whathell]

"Before the big bang" is somewhat oxymoronic as the various dimensions of Reality manifested in the Big Bang -- including time.
Before the BB there was no matter, no energy, no time, no antimatter. "Before" presupposes the existence of an effect before its cause.

You wrote:
["Before the big bang" is somewhat oxymoronic as the various dimensions of Reality manifested in the Big Bang -- including time.]

No. These are assumptions to the model.

For instance, time may exist irrelevant to the event's occurrence. I can easily state -T (on some current known time factor base).

Example:

T = -12 seconds before the BB or T = -12 nanoseconds before the BB just as well as I can state T = 12 nanoseconds into the BB event (again, if said event even existed in the first place ...it's just a science model)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

0 + 0 = 0, or Nothing + Nothing leaves Nothing in the case of BB also, correct?
Or must this logic change for BB?

Hi Whathell, thanks for a stimulating, successful and revealing thread.

 

[Gunfingers]

So i just read the wikipedia article on time, specifically how it relates to the big bang.

Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The gist of it seems to be that while there may have been "time" beforet he big bang, it doesn't matter because it has no way to affect us. There are also mentinos of planck time and planck temperature, both of which would cause physics as we know them to not make sense for the first few moments of the universe.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball1297, sorry that my reference to maturity or lack thereof offended you, it was meant to reflect the fact that the subject of cosmology is not a frivolous one as far as my interest is concerned,

No, it's not, but the discussion of the existence or non-existence of non-existence is a frivolous one. That's what that comment was directed at.

and if you want to discuss the Big Bang Theory such as is reflected in commentaries on it as provided by such scientists as Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, etc., then please don't ask me to reread stuff that is "old hat" to me, please feel free to just go ahead now and question me on points that you see me presenting that are not clear or seem unreasonable to your understanding, there is no other reason for my being here on this thread.

FWIW, that is not to mean that my understanding is more important than yours, but an honest and involved discussion will shed "light" on those areas that either of us lack clarity of understanding.

Well, if you've read them and still don't understand it well enough to not be confused on some of the points, then I'm afraid I'm not going to be much help. They explain it much better than I ever could, and they answer questions that you seem to still be confused about.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

*Sigh* Someday..... sometime....... in the future, people will get it that the big bang theory has nothing to do with ultimate origin.
In the meantime, I would humbly suggest researching and studying the theory so that you don't appear like this....:foot:

Exactly......:yes:

:clap

 

[Autodidact]

But getting back to your Big Bang theory, it is not possible for me to have any faith in it as it stands where there is no scientific knowledge that can explain how the Big Bang came to be.

This is wrong. A theory explains what it explains, which is amazing, astounding, tremendous progess. The fact that it doesn't explain something else is NOT a reason not to accept it. The only valid reason to object or reject it is that it is or is not supported by the evidence. I have no personal knowledge, and barely grasp what that might be, but the physicists tell me it looks like it is, and I have insufficient expertise to challenge them. Therefore I accept it.

 

[Autodidact]

You wrote:
[Are you hard of understanding? Non-existence is not the opposite of there being nothing; it's the same.]

0 + 0 = 0, or Nothing + Nothing leaves Nothing in the case of BB also, correct?

Or must this logic change for BB?

What are you talking about?

Would you like to learn the quote function? I would be happy to teach you. It's polite to conform to forum standards, and not at all hard to learn.

 

[Autodidact]

You wrote:
[There was never a beginning to this process, nor will there ever be an ending]

Then when a the bible states Yeshua/Jesus is Alpha and Omega it is also a valid concept to you ...even though we have never experience in nature a case of no beginning or ending, correct?

No, because there is no evidence for it.

 

[YmirGF]

No, because there is no evidence for it.

I still don't get why, "We don't know!" is not a good enough answer. Oddly, some see that as an opportunity to inject any ludicrous explanation they see fit.

 

[madhatter85]

OK, well then, just look into it a little more. Again, check out A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. He gives some good explanations. Because they do not mean it's literally infinite.

then he should not use the term infinite. if it is not truly infinite, math can be used to explain.
there is no in-between. It is either finite, or infinite. If it's finite.

A lot of what Hawking has to say is conjecture because he simply doesn't know.

 

[YmirGF]

A lot of what Hawking has to say is conjecture because he simply doesn't know.

That clearly demonstrates the objectivity of the man, which is a lot more than can be said of theists with their largely delusional notions. As a rule, theists do not say, "Well, we could be wrong."

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Most of the advanced science we "know" today is Conjecture.

What seems advanced science today, certainly contains a great deal of what will be considered myth by future generations.

The Big bag falls into this category; not that it happened, but why and how and what occurred.
No one knows any of these things for certain.
There might well be a before, or an at the same time as, or a circularity.

To believe that God was involved is as reasonable as believing that he was not.
But what did he Do?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it's not, but the discussion of the existence or non-existence of non-existence is a frivolous one. That's what that comment was directed at.


Well, if you've read them and still don't understand it well enough to not be confused on some of the points, then I'm afraid I'm not going to be much help. They explain it much better than I ever could, and they answer questions that you seem to still be confused about.

Hi mball, its not a matter of confusion about the theory, it is just that IMHO it is just plain wrong. It should be clear to you in my post concerning an eternal infinite cosmos and my understanding of the concept of time, the concept of the cosmology that meets with my present understanding is different to the one proponents of the Big Bang Theory believe in.

And it so happens that the weakness IMO of the Big Bang theory centers on the particular conceptual model of time employed in the theory. As explained before, the conceptual model of time that meets with my understanding is that "time" has no intrinsic reality except as mental conceptual construct of the mind.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi mball, its not a matter of confusion about the theory, it is just that IMHO it is just plain wrong. It should be clear to you in my post concerning an eternal infinite cosmos and my understanding of the concept of time, the concept of the cosmology that meets with my present understanding is different to the one proponents of the Big Bang Theory believe in.

And it so happens that the weakness IMO of the Big Bang theory centers on the particular conceptual model of time employed in the theory. As explained before, the conceptual model of time that meets with my understanding is that "time" has no intrinsic reality except as mental conceptual construct of the mind.

Please show your math. Thank you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please show your math. Thank you.

Hi Autodidact, Lol, your mind gets in the way of intuitive understanding.

There is no math necessary to show that the concept of time is a mental construct that merely represents the duration of the persistence of existence. Now in this case, my use of words/concepts is a temporary expedient to explain to you that my understanding of cosmology is as non-conceptual as practically possible and that the transcendent mysteries of the cosmos can't ever be known by the mortal mind through persistent conceptual thinking.

True understanding is not based on concepts, but is a synthesis of reality itself. Please understand that concepts, ideas, math, theories, etc., whilst very appropriate for dealing with material existence, actually obscure the efficacy of our intuitive faculty of direct non-dualistic awareness of the whole reality. Concepts are mental constructs that are meant to represent reality but they are not the reality they represent, they are just symbols. When the conceptualizing mind is "juggling" mental images, it "masks" the actual reality for which the concepts symbolize.

A mind in a state of quiescence is the way to develop the intuitive faculty which allows non-conceptual apprehension of the arcane and mysteries that can't be penetrated by the dualistic conceptual approach. Now this is not to say that one is better then the other, but rather in some areas the conceptual approach is the appropriate one and in others the it is the non-conceptual one.

 

[Whathell]

Hi Whathell, thanks for a stimulating, successful and revealing thread.

Why thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Autodidact, Lol, your mind gets in the way of intuitive understanding.

There is no math necessary to show that the concept of time is a mental construct that merely represents the duration of the persistence of existence. Now in this case, my use of words/concepts is a temporary expedient to explain to you that my understanding of cosmology is as non-conceptual as practically possible and that the transcendent mysteries of the cosmos can't ever be known by the mortal mind through persistent conceptual thinking.

True understanding is not based on concepts, but is a synthesis of reality itself. Please understand that concepts, ideas, math, theories, etc., whilst very appropriate for dealing with material existence, actually obscure the efficacy of our intuitive faculty of direct non-dualistic awareness of the whole reality. Concepts are mental constructs that are meant to represent reality but they are not the reality they represent, they are just symbols. When the conceptualizing mind is "juggling" mental images, it "masks" the actual reality for which the concepts symbolize.

A mind in a state of quiescence is the way to develop the intuitive faculty which allows non-conceptual apprehension of the arcane and mysteries that can't be penetrated by the dualistic conceptual approach. Now this is not to say that one is better then the other, but rather in some areas the conceptual approach is the appropriate one and in others the it is the non-conceptual one.

That's what I figured. I wouldn't reserve my plane tickets to Sweden if I were you.

 

[YmirGF]

That's what I figured. I wouldn't reserve my plane tickets to Sweden if I were you.

Agree 100%, it's just more abject drivel touted as being reasonable thought.

 

[madhatter85]

Some philosophies present Time as something that does not exist at all, that there is only the present. Where time is a concept that is only understood by the linear left brain. as a way to categorize, arrange, and prioritize events that have occurred.

Inherently, memories exist spatially and the left brain constructs the "time line" of the events and orders them. It is my understanding that in people with long term memory problems, the left brain has difficulty, or is unable to apply a coherent time line to sort memories.

Anyways, naturally the brain is wired to order memories for our benefit, but we are also able to view things spatially.

If things naturally exist spatially then time does not exist, nor would time "travel" be possible. This would explain why during time dilation tests both clocks are able to maintain constant communication with each other. If "time", in the sense proponents of the Big bang use, was created with the big bang, every time something traveled at a higher velocity, they would not be able to communicate with anything else in the universe because they would not be on the same time plane