Big Bangism

Fixed Cross wrote:

I just don't take that step, I don't grant the notion of singularity if it isn't also mono-tectonic.
I understand any quantum field however thin just as manifest as a star or an organism. From such a field, anything can be formed. Anything will be formed, simply because it is possible.
What we know is that there was a seismic event in the cosmos that basically shaped the way it is now. That could have been any collision of axes of gravity, such as black holes, which when they would 'spill their guts' might also cause some kind of big bang and paradigmatic, law-setting causation.
There are lots of things that may very well have other sides, that may be veils to other systems  - we can perceive so little and the math of the superelliptical galaxies shows it.

I am glad you are at least considering alternative possibilities.

I like to stay with the most logical based on my understanding of how nature works.

I'm not saying I'm right. All I'm saying is that there are theories that make a lot of sense to my logical brain and there are others that don't.

The theory of Singularity and Big Bang is pretty logical in my mind. What was Singularity? I have no idea but it must have included all potential of what is now the universe.

Fixed Cross wrote:

I honestly think the Big Bang is purely the reinvention of God in secular terms - but with an even less rational ground.

And you have every right to think this way.

We just need to make sure that the workings of God reflect reality. If there are contradiction then either religion or science is wrong.

Fixed Cross wrote:

There can simply not be a The Whole.

Its a dense contradiction.
There are wholes, many different ones, that is the case.
But to posit a single whole is to contradict the notion of a whole.

It's hard to put in language, just imagine a whole that is not part of something else, and notice how the lines of logic and even cognition blur at the 'edge of the whole' which is obviously an illogical notion. The Whole must be infinite, because if it has borders, it borders on something else. But infinity didnt come out of the Big Bang.

Again I can only reference the concept of "Absolute Nothingness".

Empty space really isn't empty, you know. The space between the objects in the universe are an aspect of the whole.

And while it is presently true that we can never reach the "edge" of the universe because it is expanding faster than the speed of light and we and even our instruments of measure cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

But, if we could identify the "edge" of the universe we could see its expansion into an area that was not previously a part of the universe. Has it expanded into another universe? There are no indications that this is happening.

Basically, the universe is all of time, space, and all contents within. This implies it to be finite.

Fixed Cross wrote:

When I was 12 or so I figured oh cool, they scientifically proved that science can not explain the origin of what it explains. I took that for something very freedom loving.
Only later on I realized people actually tried to pretend that this singularity actually makes sense.

I piss on singularity. It's bullshit, it can take it.

And you are free to believe so. When I was 12 or so I was realizing that all the bullshit people were teaching me was nothing but bullshit with the only purpose of having control over me. I have always been an Anarchist. I enjoy thinking for myself. I enjoy learning about things that are of interest to me and filtering through all the BS to find the fertile seed that will bring forth new life and meaning.

For me the old myths had too many holes, too many unsupportable tenants, too much dogma, and too many fairy tales.

I understand the need for religion in the life of the majority of people. But I also understand the need to understand as best we can the processes of nature.

Yes, you give a bunch of arguments against the Big Bang as origin.
A large "bang" has clearly occurred, but obviously, infinity can not have come out of a singularity, nor is it claimed to have -
the big bang claims are always about a finite amount of energy.


The BB creation-myth is thusly 100% disproven - by itself.

Getting my utter and wholly scientific contempt for BBC (Big Bang Creationism, fuck the network even more) out of the way. Okay, so beyond, as to what the BB really is, Capable talks sense, he must, as he is a legitimate scientist and not a belieber. But what we essentially find is that even if there was a huge explosion from a concentrated point that defies all laws that come into existence by its action, (allah-like behavior) it still must be embedded in an absolute timespace minimum of quantum 'tilt', basic selfvaluing tendency, the skewed symmetry I spoke of on H, the absence of nothingness reflected on itself. So space was already there, but of course the point of concentration must also have already existed, or resulted indeed from an earlier implosion, which in turn simply pushes back the question of origins, implying that the origin of it all is infinitely far back. Which would be a step forward,  if it was acknowledged. I can live with people imagining the sort of bouncing in/explosion that the Hindus call the breath of God. It's less illogical, but it's far from a given (and indeed takesa VO to explain the implosion, by the absolutist tendency of value relation that defies dissolution into chaos by trumping the mere momentum of quanta with their principle, same reason light bends to gravity), and it certainly wouldn't include all of existence - as we run into the same problem of boundaries - it would at the very least be allowing another being to come into manifestation.

Thrasymachus - do you agree with this string of arguments?
If not, where do you see the flaw?
As far as I can figure it out, this is all hard necessity based on the most comprehensive standards of logic and synthesis.

Sorry Fixed. We are done with this discussion. We both are too attached to our beliefs to be able to have a constructive discussion.

Thats okay. Astronomy has been my field since early childhood. Im comfortable and familiar with astrophysics like few are.

Deep dark truth, haha. Home.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Getting my utter and wholly scientific contempt for BBC (Big Bang Creationism, fuck the network even more) out of the way. Okay, so beyond, as to what the BB really is, Capable talks sense, he must, as he is a legitimate scientist and not a belieber. But what we essentially find is that even if there was a huge explosion from a concentrated point that defies all laws that come into existence by its action, (allah-like behavior) it still must be embedded in an absolute timespace minimum of quantum 'tilt', basic selfvaluing tendency, the skewed symmetry I spoke of on H, the absence of nothingness reflected on itself. So space was already there, but of course the point of concentration must also have already existed, or resulted indeed from an earlier implosion, which in turn simply pushes back the question of origins, implying that the origin of it all is infinitely far back. Which would be a step forward,  if it was acknowledged. I can live with people imagining the sort of bouncing in/explosion that the Hindus call the breath of God. It's less illogical, but it's far from a given (and indeed takesa VO to explain the implosion, by the absolutist tendency of value relation that defies dissolution into chaos by trumping the mere momentum of quanta with their principle, same reason light bends to gravity), and it certainly wouldn't include all of existence - as we run into the same problem of boundaries - it would at the very least be allowing another being to come into manifestation.

Thrasymachus - do you agree with this string of arguments?
If not, where do you see the flaw?
As far as I can figure it out, this is all hard necessity based on the most comprehensive standards of logic and synthesis.

Yes I agree with these points. There are a few key logical principles:


1) it makes no sense to speak of a beginning of time

2) it makes no sense to speak of an end/absolute boundary of space

3) nothingness cannot exist

4) if a big explosion did occur, this didn't literally create space itself, it created substance materiality as energetic infusion into the space that was already there (may have therefore created a new kind of space, in which new sort of more derivative laws were the case)


.: there are infinite numbers of big explosions going on, each at a various stage between initial explosion and final dissolution (we don't yet know how to conceptualize the final dissolution but I'm working on that)

.: any being would experience the big explosion it happens to find itself in as "the universe", but every big explosion is a separate "universe" (massive cluster of energy, total of a billion galaxies, etc.)

.: it is possible that it is impossible for perception, information or communication to pass from one big explosion/universe to another; if that is the case then the existence of other big explosions/universes can only be known via logic

.: hypothetically if you were a god and could keep looking further back or forward in time, or further out into space in any direction, you would never find an absolute end (or beginning)

.: the law of thermodynamics which states energy cannot be created or destroyed is an indirect reference to the logical truth-truism that reality is. Period.

But time is an important concept. And it is important that we agree on a means of measuring it.

Minutes, hours, days, years - all important means of measuring activity or all types.

Sure, for the hermit living in a mountain cave time doesn't matter.

But have you ever arranged a meeting with someone where you specified the place but did not specify the time?

Time is entirely relative, and is a measure of one form divided by another form; namely, a ratio.

Ratio themselves become objective, in so far as the number of their ratio is not relative. This objectivity allows them to be used for purely relativistic purposes, namely for self-valuing conscious beings such as ourselves.

Which is to say that "one second" is the same for me as it is for you. But "one second" itself is still a relative unit of time, objectively speaking.

Thus, there is no "time itself", the concept of time itself is merely a linguistic curiosity, a consequence of how we abstract concepts into words in order to speak about them. You can also see this with the concept of "nothingness". Both time and nothingness are concepts/words that can only have a relative meaning: Time with respect to what?, Nothingness with respect to what? Etc.

I can prove that ratios are objective.

Take the diameter of the sun, 864,575 miles. This is an arbitrary measurement, because "mile" is arbitrary. But the sun has a definite size, objectively speaking; even though size is relative just like time is relative, namely "big and small" are value-judgments of comparison only, it is nonetheless the case that objects have a definite size, mass, composition, etc.

This can be demonstrated by taking a ratio using the same unit. For example, the circumference of the sun is 2,713,406 miles. Now we divide:

Circumference / Diameter:

2,713,406 miles / 864,575 miles = Pi

As you can see, "Pi" has no units. Whenever you do a ratio, you have units in the original equation, but they cancel out, leaving you with a result that has no units. Namely, the result is objective, like is Pi for example.

Nothing in your last two posts for me to disagree with.

Objective truth is what it is. The sun is what it is. Our sun is larger than some stars but yet it is smaller than many others. Doesn't matter if the measurements were done in feet or meters.

Actually. space/time is the proper concept to use rather than jut time or space. The two are linked. And this proves that the universe is not static but rather very dynamic.

Yes, relatively speaking all things are relative. (What we each perceive.)

I don't do calculus so I won't understand anything you mention about it. I never could imagine an imaginary number. I eat pies but that about all I do with pies.