|
Post by jonbain on Jun 3, 2019 19:34:46 GMT
It is appalling how badly thought through the big bang theory is. (1) If all the matter in the universe were concentrated into an object the size of a galaxy, then the force and subsequent velocity from that force, that is required to make it go 'bang' would be radically in excess of light-speed. But according to this theory, such a velocity is impossible. In fact, even if the matter in the universe were in 1/3rd its current volume, its escape velocity would be greater than light-speed. Thus it would have to have been expanding faster than its own laws allowed it to when it was 1/3rd its current volume. ... (2) If all the matter in the universe were in one concentrated point it would in essence just be a gigantic 'black-hole'. But according to relativistic physics - nothing escapes the black-hole. So once more, it could simply not go bang, because of Einstein's laws. The relativistic universe would have been still-born. ... (3) Even we ignore the previous reasons, their 'singularity' would be surrounded by their 'event horizon' - where time has stopped due to all the excessive gravity. So AGAIN, it could not go bang without time moving. ... These are simplified points of a very detailed study which exposes numerous other flaws in contemporary atheist cosmology. I do not disagree with ALL modern cosmology, and I do not dispute the given age of God's Universe as 14 billion years, neither do do I dispute the expansion / inflation theoretical observations. What I am saying is that Einstein's theories are illogical - they contradict themselves, and they are NOT in keeping with basic observations in astronomy. I attempt to reconcile much of modern cosmology and astronomy into a model that has no basic contradictions. This is the essence of it: LOGIC. More here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-big-bang.htm
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 8, 2019 21:24:48 GMT
The big bang is grounded in reality expanding from a point and condensing (eventually) back into one. The big bang, as a process of expansion and contraction is a universal phenomena observed empirically in entropy and negentropy of phenomena or standard expansion contraction of memories or thoughts inherent with consciousness. This expansion/contraction as universal sets the grounding for space as the universal unify median inherent within empirical and abstract "reality" as it requires the movement of one point to further points and back to one point again. The big bang is a constantly occuring process, thus one can have a hindu oriented "eternal cosmos" without contradiction to the Judiac Creation myths grounded in linear time. Do you use the term 'big bang' loosely or literally? Because if you take it literally, then implicit within the 'big bang' is Einstein's relativity, and if you accept that, then you need to go back to the opening post and read that again much more closely.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 10, 2019 17:38:31 GMT
The big bang is grounded in reality expanding from a point and condensing (eventually) back into one. The big bang, as a process of expansion and contraction is a universal phenomena observed empirically in entropy and negentropy of phenomena or standard expansion contraction of memories or thoughts inherent with consciousness. This expansion/contraction as universal sets the grounding for space as the universal unify median inherent within empirical and abstract "reality" as it requires the movement of one point to further points and back to one point again. The big bang is a constantly occuring process, thus one can have a hindu oriented "eternal cosmos" without contradiction to the Judiac Creation myths grounded in linear time. Do you use the term 'big bang' loosely or literally? Because if you take it literally, then implicit within the 'big bang' is Einstein's relativity, and if you accept that, then you need to go back to the opening post and read that again much more closely. Both...all metaphors are grounded in empirical forms and the metaphor (as a means of forming a perception through which the observer "molds" empirical reality) forms the empirical. The big bang is the expansion of being from a point or origin with this "being" eventually condensing again. This applies to all phenomena, abstract and physical, with both being grounded in space. Differentiate the "emptiness" of mind vs that of the empirical senses....it is all "space".
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 12, 2019 18:07:00 GMT
It is appalling how badly thought through the big bang theory is. (1) If all the matter in the universe were concentrated into an object the size of a galaxy, then the force and subsequent velocity from that force, that is required to make it go 'bang' would be radically in excess of light-speed. But according to this theory, such a velocity is impossible. In fact, even if the matter in the universe were in 1/3rd its current volume, its escape velocity would be greater than light-speed. Thus it would have to have been expanding faster than its own laws allowed it to when it was 1/3rd its current volume. ... (2) If all the matter in the universe were in one concentrated point it would in essence just be a gigantic 'black-hole'. But according to relativistic physics - nothing escapes the black-hole. So once more, it could simply not go bang, because of Einstein's laws. The relativistic universe would have been still-born. ... (3) Even we ignore the previous reasons, their 'singularity' would be surrounded by their 'event horizon' - where time has stopped due to all the excessive gravity. So AGAIN, it could not go bang without time moving. ... These are simplified points of a very detailed study which exposes numerous other flaws in contemporary atheist cosmology. I do not disagree with ALL modern cosmology, and I do not dispute the given age of God's Universe as 14 billion years, neither do do I dispute the expansion / inflation theoretical observations. What I am saying is that Einstein's theories are illogical - they contradict themselves, and they are NOT in keeping with basic observations in astronomy. I attempt to reconcile much of modern cosmology and astronomy into a model that has no basic contradictions. This is the essence of it: LOGIC. More here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-big-bang.htm All Is Lava This universe is a bulge from another universe. Its matter erupted at the square of the speed of light and created all our matter, energy, light, and even space itself. There are no contradictions in that theory. The "square of the speed of light" is ambiguous at least, possibly contradictory. For instance, measured in meters/second, then squared we get a different result to if we measure it in km, then square it. If we use the unit of C, then c=c^2 if c =1. So then there is no difference between the speed of light and the speed of light squared. The result is different depending on the units of measurement; but that itself shows a deeper question. It is also problematic because the units themselves get squared, so it is likely not actually a velocity, but m^2/s^2. (Meters squared over seconds squared). So it has the hallmark of a vague guess based on the reality that the speed of light itself has been proven incorrect and far too slow for a velocity of gravity. Google "instant gravity proof" - to see how bad relativity really is.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 12, 2019 20:20:17 GMT
All Is Lava This universe is a bulge from another universe. Its matter erupted at the square of the speed of light and created all our matter, energy, light, and eve It is also problematic because the units themselves get squared, so it is likely not actually a velocity, but m^2/s^2. (Meters squared over seconds squared). So it has the hallmark of a vague guess based on the reality that the speed of light itself has been proven incorrect and far too slow for a velocity of gravity. Google "instant gravity proof" - to see how bad relativity really is. The Corsican Brothers Is Not Possible. Hollywood Only Appeals to Childish Minds.It should go without saying that c² is not the velocity of what we call light, but it is the maximum velocity of a substance from an outside universe. It covers one of our light-years in 3 minutes, going "beneath" it in a fourth-dimensional sense (Time is not a dimension, except in the crippled minds of these nerdy fantasizers). No matter what convoluted explanation Einstein gives for it, e = mc² is the equation of a collision. The first part of the nuclear chain reaction does hit the nearest atom going at a speed of the square of the speed of light. We may never invent a tool that would be able to measure that speed, but the collision resulting from that reaction is slowed down, eventually reaching a mere c, preserving their fantasy that nothing can go faster than that. Results should lead to the conclusion that fission creates an opening to this other universe, but all matter in this universe is partially embedded in the other one anyway. For example, entanglement is not any absent-minded-professor "spooky" phenomenon, it is the same particle going back and forth at c² in the underlying universe and re-appearing at the two points in this universe. It only seems to be two particles. It is a sign of how irrational and frankly, brain-damaged through excessive theorizing Quantum Quacks are that they would believe in one particle being affected by whatever affects its "twin" particle. Suppose someone at the Equator has a twin brother at the South Pole. Can anyone in his right mind believe that the first brother is shivering from cold? But at c², he could travel back and forth alone and be affected that way.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 13, 2019 17:35:44 GMT
It is also problematic because the units themselves get squared, so it is likely not actually a velocity, but m^2/s^2. (Meters squared over seconds squared). So it has the hallmark of a vague guess based on the reality that the speed of light itself has been proven incorrect and far too slow for a velocity of gravity. Google "instant gravity proof" - to see how bad relativity really is. The Corsican Brothers Is Not Possible. Hollywood Only Appeals to Childish Minds.It should go without saying that c² is not the velocity of what we call light, but it is the maximum velocity of a substance from an outside universe. It covers one of our light-years in 3 minutes, going "beneath" it in a fourth-dimensional sense (Time is not a dimension, except in the crippled minds of these nerdy fantasizers). No matter what convoluted explanation Einstein gives for it, e = mc² is the equation of a collision. The first part of the nuclear chain reaction does hit the nearest atom going at a speed of the square of the speed of light. We may never invent a tool that would be able to measure that speed, but the collision resulting from that reaction is slowed down, eventually reaching a mere c, preserving their fantasy that nothing can go faster than that. Results should lead to the conclusion that fission creates an opening to this other universe, but all matter in this universe is partially embedded in the other one anyway. For example, entanglement is not any absent-minded-professor "spooky" phenomenon, it is the same particle going back and forth at c² in the underlying universe and re-appearing at the two points in this universe. It only seems to be two particles. It is a sign of how irrational and frankly, brain-damaged through excessive theorizing Quantum Quacks are that they would believe in one particle being affected by whatever affects its "twin" particle. Suppose someone at the Equator has a twin brother at the South Pole. Can anyone in his right mind believe that the first brother is shivering from cold? But at c², he could travel back and forth alone and be affected that way. Certainly, I agree that the velocity of C as a limit for information is a superstition based on mass media belligerence, and little more. And I am thrilled to talk to one of the very few people that can see thru popular sophistry. It is certainly a great pleasure to talk to you. My proof is here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmHowever, you do not seem to appreciate why I question c^2 as a viable alternative. Its a categorical issue, that if you express c^2 in miles the result is as you say (roughly) one light year in 3 minutes. 3 minutes is roughly 1/186000 of a year. (The exact amount being 169.5 seconds) But if you express c^2 in kilometers it becomes 1/300000 of a year, which is 105.1 seconds, and thus it is a much faster velocity. You really need to work thru the math here, because if you express C in units of light-years, then there is no difference between C and C^2, because both yield 1 when C is 1. This is clearly because C^2 is NOT a velocity at all its units of measurement are m^2/s^2 (meters squared per second squared). Are you saying that C^2 in miles per second is coincidentally correct? You still do not offer detailed proof, other than the certainty that C is just too slow by an exponential amount. If you read carefully the simplified article in the link above, you see precisely my proof that gravity CANNOT move at pedestrian light-speed. But in the following much more detailed article, it is proven with algorithm that gravity has to move FASTER than 1 million times light-speed, at least. Which would be a light-year in just 30 seconds. www.flight-light-and-spin.com/LIGO/analysis-gw150914.htmI can only implore you to read that article to the end, if you find it too detailed, rather skip thru than stop reading. The results should speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 13, 2019 20:27:24 GMT
The Corsican Brothers Is Not Possible. Hollywood Only Appeals to Childish Minds.It should go without saying that c² is not the velocity of what we call light, but it is the maximum velocity of a substance from an outside universe. It covers one of our light-years in 3 minutes, going "beneath" it in a fourth-dimensional sense (Time is not a dimension, except in the crippled minds of these nerdy fantasizers). No matter what convoluted explanation Einstein gives for it, e = mc² is the equation of a collision. The first part of the nuclear chain reaction does hit the nearest atom going at a speed of the square of the speed of light. We may never invent a tool that would be able to measure that speed, but the collision resulting from that reaction is slowed down, eventually reaching a mere c, preserving their fantasy that nothing can go faster than that. Results should lead to the conclusion that fission creates an opening to this other universe, but all matter in this universe is partially embedded in the other one anyway. For example, entanglement is not any absent-minded-professor "spooky" phenomenon, it is the same particle going back and forth at c² in the underlying universe and re-appearing at the two points in this universe. It only seems to be two particles. It is a sign of how irrational and frankly, brain-damaged through excessive theorizing Quantum Quacks are that they would believe in one particle being affected by whatever affects its "twin" particle. Suppose someone at the Equator has a twin brother at the South Pole. Can anyone in his right mind believe that the first brother is shivering from cold? But at c², he could travel back and forth alone and be affected that way. Certainly, I agree that the velocity of C as a limit for information is a superstition based on mass media belligerence, and little more. And I am thrilled to talk to one of the very few people that can see thru popular sophistry. It is certainly a great pleasure to talk to you. My proof is here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmHowever, you do not seem to appreciate why I question c^2 as a viable alternative. Its a categorical issue, that if you express c^2 in miles the result is as you say (roughly) one light year in 3 minutes. 3 minutes is roughly 1/186000 of a year. (The exact amount being 169.5 seconds) But if you express c^2 in kilometers it becomes 1/300000 of a year, which is 105.1 seconds, and thus it is a much faster velocity. You really need to work thru the math here, because if you express C in units of light-years, then there is no difference between C and C^2, because both yield 1 when C is 1. This is clearly because C^2 is NOT a velocity at all its units of measurement are m^2/s^2 (meters squared per second squared). Are you saying that C^2 in miles per second is coincidentally correct? You still do not offer detailed proof, other than the certainty that C is just too slow by an exponential amount. If you read carefully the simplified article in the link above, you see precisely my proof that gravity CANNOT move at pedestrian light-speed. But in the following much more detailed article, it is proven with algorithm that gravity has to move FASTER than 1 million times light-speed, at least. Which would be a light-year in just 30 seconds. www.flight-light-and-spin.com/LIGO/analysis-gw150914.htmI can only implore you to read that article to the end, if you find it too detailed, rather skip thru than stop reading. The results should speak for themselves. Motto of the Lords of Decadent Science: "If It's Weird, It's Wise"I do not understand how objects of the same velocity would have different squares of that velocity if one is measured in miles and the other in kilometers; it seems tautological. Gravitons moving at c² would seem instantaneous using our limited tools of measuring it. The same with entanglement seeming like two objects, rather than one going back and forth at that velocity. From known phenomena, it is most logical to conclude that every object is partially embedded in the universe that gave birth to this one. Gravitons can't be detected here, because they are totally in the previous universe. However, c² shouldn't be automatically accepted as the maximum velocity in that universe, just because c is in ours. Gravitons act at the interface between the two universes, just like the outside walls of a container may be hot when the heat source is completely inside it. Our rational abilities should have detected the commonplace analogies that explain the phenomena discovered in the 20th Century. For example, the quantum leap is analogous with shuffling along a virtual two-dimensional sidewalk, then entering a third dimension (height) by stepping. So the quantum leap requires a fourth spatial dimension, which everything is embedded in and travels there during a quantum leap, in entanglement, and the Black Hole's escape phenomenon, which would be impossible if gravitons existed in this universe. Displacement without motion is borderline insanity. The accusation "absent-minded professor" should be taken literally about these escapist misfits' scientific theories, too. After all, Heisenberg became a Nazi, applying his authoritarian irrationalism in science to politics. Lying little nerds are in denial when they preach that his politics shouldn't be associated with his science. It is well-known that Quantum Quacks are nasty, bossy, and vicious, refusing to allow any objections to their pipe dreams, except by going even deeper into their mania, such as the silly string theory. John Nash was discouraged from entering into that fray; if he had, fighting for his iconoclastic suspicions about it might have kept him from becoming insane.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 15, 2019 21:26:10 GMT
Certainly, I agree that the velocity of C as a limit for information is a superstition based on mass media belligerence, and little more. And I am thrilled to talk to one of the very few people that can see thru popular sophistry. It is certainly a great pleasure to talk to you. My proof is here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmHowever, you do not seem to appreciate why I question c^2 as a viable alternative. Its a categorical issue, that if you express c^2 in miles the result is as you say (roughly) one light year in 3 minutes. 3 minutes is roughly 1/186000 of a year. (The exact amount being 169.5 seconds) But if you express c^2 in kilometers it becomes 1/300000 of a year, which is 105.1 seconds, and thus it is a much faster velocity. You really need to work thru the math here, because if you express C in units of light-years, then there is no difference between C and C^2, because both yield 1 when C is 1. This is clearly because C^2 is NOT a velocity at all its units of measurement are m^2/s^2 (meters squared per second squared). Are you saying that C^2 in miles per second is coincidentally correct? You still do not offer detailed proof, other than the certainty that C is just too slow by an exponential amount. If you read carefully the simplified article in the link above, you see precisely my proof that gravity CANNOT move at pedestrian light-speed. But in the following much more detailed article, it is proven with algorithm that gravity has to move FASTER than 1 million times light-speed, at least. Which would be a light-year in just 30 seconds. www.flight-light-and-spin.com/LIGO/analysis-gw150914.htmI can only implore you to read that article to the end, if you find it too detailed, rather skip thru than stop reading. The results should speak for themselves. Motto of the Lords of Decadent Science: "If It's Weird, It's Wise"I do not understand how objects of the same velocity would have different squares of that velocity if one is measured in miles and the other in kilometers; it seems tautological. Gravitons moving at c² would seem instantaneous using our limited tools of measuring it. The same with entanglement seeming like two objects, rather than one going back and forth at that velocity. From known phenomena, it is most logical to conclude that every object is partially embedded in the universe that gave birth to this one. Gravitons can't be detected here, because they are totally in the previous universe. However, c² shouldn't be automatically accepted as the maximum velocity in that universe, just because c is in ours. Gravitons act at the interface between the two universes, just like the outside walls of a container may be hot when the heat source is completely inside it. Our rational abilities should have detected the commonplace analogies that explain the phenomena discovered in the 20th Century. For example, the quantum leap is analogous with shuffling along a virtual two-dimensional sidewalk, then entering a third dimension (height) by stepping. So the quantum leap requires a fourth spatial dimension, which everything is embedded in and travels there during a quantum leap, in entanglement, and the Black Hole's escape phenomenon, which would be impossible if gravitons existed in this universe. Displacement without motion is borderline insanity. The accusation "absent-minded professor" should be taken literally about these escapist misfits' scientific theories, too. After all, Heisenberg became a Nazi, applying his authoritarian irrationalism in science to politics. Lying little nerds are in denial when they preach that his politics shouldn't be associated with his science. It is well-known that Quantum Quacks are nasty, bossy, and vicious, refusing to allow any objections to their pipe dreams, except by going even deeper into their mania, such as the silly string theory. John Nash was discouraged from entering into that fray; if he had, fighting for his iconoclastic suspicions about it might have kept him from becoming insane. In your previous example, to get an object moving a light-year in 3 minutes you multiplied C by 186000. You were thus using the units of miles. (3 minutes is 1/186000 of a year) If you used km, then you would get a different result. Multiply C by 300 000, and it is not the same thing. Even more radically different if you use meters. See? You have to be very careful of squares and square roots. You also need to multiply the units of measurement which leaves C^2 as not simply distance/time. However your result is not a bad intuition because the result is still within range of a better value than the corporate dogma of Einstein. I am interested to hear about Heisenberg's political angle. That is new to me, but I always found his 'uncertainty principle' an oxymoron, as all he really describes is uncertainty, which is actually a lack of principle. Here is a recent intuitive calculation of mine, which has not been completely analyzed, and is thus still fairly theoretical. Make of it what you will: The universe is 3d hyper-surface on top of a 4d hyper-sphere. (That bit is fairly certain). The next intuitive approximation is that it is rotating at its hyper-equator at about 2 million times the speed of light. ;-j
|
|
|
Post by frumiousb on Jun 16, 2019 12:26:58 GMT
It is appalling how badly thought through the big bang theory is. The problem here is that the 'big bang theory' being critiqued is not the standard model used by cosmologists. The standard model big bang was not an explosion, but an expansion of the metric of spacetime itself, and General Relativity does not prohibit the expansion of spacetime faster than the speed of light. Because spacetime itself was expanding, there was no acceleration of matter through space, so escape velocities are irrelevant. The big bang was not like a black hole because it was not a region of dense matter surrounded by spacetime, it was all of spacetime; i.e. the big bang wasn't a point in space, it was the first moment in the known history of the universe. It happened everywhere because it was all space expanding, and it wasn't expanding into anything. Whether it was finite or infinite in spatial extent, it was everything, there was no 'outside' to expand into. The big bang did have a singularity in common with a black hole, but just as within a black hole event horizon, the singularity is not a point in space but a point in the future, so at the big bang the singularity was not a point in space but a point in the past; i.e. the first moment of time of the universe. So the big bang is essentially time-reversed compared to a black hole. It has sometimes been compared to the theoretical inverse of a black hole, a ' white hole'. If the above examples are representative, it is a detailed study of an 'atheist cosmology' that would not be recognised or endorsed by any contemporary cosmologists in the mainstream. Can you give an example of one of these contradictions? Claims like this often come from a misunderstanding of Einstein's theories.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 16, 2019 20:39:43 GMT
Motto of the Lords of Decadent Science: "If It's Weird, It's Wise"I do not understand how objects of the same velocity would have different squares of that velocity if one is measured in miles and the other in kilometers; it seems tautological. Gravitons moving at c² would seem instantaneous using our limited tools of measuring it. The same with entanglement seeming like two objects, rather than one going back and forth at that velocity. From known phenomena, it is most logical to conclude that every object is partially embedded in the universe that gave birth to this one. Gravitons can't be detected here, because they are totally in the previous universe. However, c² shouldn't be automatically accepted as the maximum velocity in that universe, just because c is in ours. Gravitons act at the interface between the two universes, just like the outside walls of a container may be hot when the heat source is completely inside it. Our rational abilities should have detected the commonplace analogies that explain the phenomena discovered in the 20th Century. For example, the quantum leap is analogous with shuffling along a virtual two-dimensional sidewalk, then entering a third dimension (height) by stepping. So the quantum leap requires a fourth spatial dimension, which everything is embedded in and travels there during a quantum leap, in entanglement, and the Black Hole's escape phenomenon, which would be impossible if gravitons existed in this universe. Displacement without motion is borderline insanity. The accusation "absent-minded professor" should be taken literally about these escapist misfits' scientific theories, too. After all, Heisenberg became a Nazi, applying his authoritarian irrationalism in science to politics. Lying little nerds are in denial when they preach that his politics shouldn't be associated with his science. It is well-known that Quantum Quacks are nasty, bossy, and vicious, refusing to allow any objections to their pipe dreams, except by going even deeper into their mania, such as the silly string theory. John Nash was discouraged from entering into that fray; if he had, fighting for his iconoclastic suspicions about it square roots. However your result is not a bad intuition because the result is still within range of a better value than the corporate dogma of Einstein. I am interested to hear about Heisenberg's political angle. That is new to me, but I always found his 'uncertainty principle' an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms as all he really describes is uncertainty, which is actually a lack of principle. Here is a recent intuitive calculation of mine, which has not been completely analyzed, and is thus still fairly theoretical. Make of it what you will: The universe is 3d hyper-surface on top of a 4d hyper-sphere. (That bit is fairly certain). The next intuitive approximation is that it is rotating at its hyper-equator at about 2 million times the speed of light. ;-j
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 16, 2019 21:05:36 GMT
However your result is not a bad intuition because the result is still within range of a better value than the corporate dogma of Einstein. I am interested to hear about Heisenberg's political angle. That is new to me, but I always found his 'uncertainty principle' an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms as all he really describes is uncertainty, which is actually a lack of principle. Here is a recent intuitive calculation of mine, which has not been completely analyzed, and is thus still fairly theoretical. Make of it what you will: The universe is 3d hyper-surface on top of a 4d hyper-sphere. (That bit is fairly certain). The next intuitive approximation is that it is rotating at its hyper-equator at about 2 million times the speed of light. ;-j If College Students Aren't Paid a High Salary, They Will Go to Grad School With Childish MindsThe Nazis' atomic-bomb scientist's uncertainty, or indeterminacy, fallacy is based on ignorance of the underlying universe, which has to be there because, as even Einstein said (metaphorically), "God does not play dice." Like his anti-rational physics, Heisenberg's directly related politics was based on rejection of reason and the mindless acceptance of unstoppable natural forces directing Germany's destiny. But natural forces are subhuman and wish-fulfilling. All post-classical physics is based on a sick desire for chaos and contradiction. Their goofy smiles when they pontificate on quantum theory indicates a smugness about their escapist degeneracy. And they are authoritarian, just like Nazis. Try exercising independent thought on a Physics blog and you will be silenced by the academic moderators' narrow-minded certainty about the mind candy they are addicted to. At present, I view the combined universes as a ball with a bubble jutting out of it. However, I have tried to fit it into a fourth-dimensional shape. The best I can do is, as in the novel Flatland, imagine how 3D could then be the shape investigated from an extra dimension. So look at a cube. Its sides are invisible from one another. Therefore, the unexplained gravity causing dark-matter theory could be coming from another 4D side of this universe. Also, the corners are points, which may be gateways to that universe. The life force and intelligence may have come from there when our planet passed over those corners. However, I'd rather not get into those speculations, because they stink of the mystical and paranormal.
|
|
|
Post by cynicsanonymous on Jun 17, 2019 4:10:19 GMT
the singularity was not subject to the same laws we are.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 17, 2019 22:37:40 GMT
the singularity was not subject to the same laws we are. The Dark Ages Are Returning, Hiding Their Chaos by Changing Their RouteThe singularity is impossible by any system of laws. What you've been taught is as absurd and dishonest as the Theists' "The Wisdom of God Is Beyond Human Understanding."
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 18, 2019 17:05:39 GMT
It is appalling how badly thought through the big bang theory is. The problem here is that the 'big bang theory' being critiqued is not the standard model used by cosmologists. The standard model big bang was not an explosion, but an expansion of the metric of spacetime itself, and General Relativity does not prohibit the expansion of spacetime faster than the speed of light. Because spacetime itself was expanding, there was no acceleration of matter through space, so escape velocities are irrelevant. The big bang was not like a black hole because it was not a region of dense matter surrounded by spacetime, it was all of spacetime; i.e. the big bang wasn't a point in space, it was the first moment in the known history of the universe. It happened everywhere because it was all space expanding, and it wasn't expanding into anything. Whether it was finite or infinite in spatial extent, it was everything, there was no 'outside' to expand into. The big bang did have a singularity in common with a black hole, but just as within a black hole event horizon, the singularity is not a point in space but a point in the future, so at the big bang the singularity was not a point in space but a point in the past; i.e. the first moment of time of the universe. So the big bang is essentially time-reversed compared to a black hole. It has sometimes been compared to the theoretical inverse of a black hole, a ' white hole'. If the above examples are representative, it is a detailed study of an 'atheist cosmology' that would not be recognised or endorsed by any contemporary cosmologists in the mainstream. Can you give an example of one of these contradictions? Claims like this often come from a misunderstanding of Einstein's theories. as you say you then realize that the concept of "critical density" is irrelevant. There are countless places where critical density and escape velocity are discussed for the purpose of expansion/inflation as part of standard atheist cosmology on every major corporate website. Let me briefly summarize: if the density of the universe was more than critical density, it would collapse, (according to standard theory) due to gravity. Thus its ESCAPE VELOCITY would be higher because anywhere that gravity is a factor, ESCAPE VELOCITY is implicit! Greater density = greater gravity!! But an an earlier stage the universe was said to be far more dense than it is now, thus at those earlier stages, it would be vastly MORE DENSE than the critical density! BINGO!!! So standard theory is hinged upon the escape velocity calculated as a consequence of the density! You clearly need to learn more about what the standard theory is actually calculating, rather than just copy-pasting contradictory sentences. Einstein's theories only bring misunderstanding. There can be no understanding of that which has already just been proved to be illogical. That you refuse to admit it, is a consequence of dogma replacing reason in the atheist cosmology. I am sure your vested interests have replaced reason. A materialist will lie to preserve his immediate material concerns, all the while dooming his off-spring to suffer for his lies. If want more detailed algorithmic proofs than the numerous ones given here, try this: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htmBut I suggest starting with a simpler summary here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htmActually the standard model conflates time & space, at this point, so for you to claim them different is bad copy-paste. But it makes zero difference, because if it was as dense as a 'black-hole' then time would have stopped, and no banging, exploding, gradual inflation, expansion, or any other verb could occur at all, because ALL verbs require time to be moving. Care to shift the goalposts again?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 28, 2019 18:47:53 GMT
Big Bang theory is illogical, because of its illogical first statement that "everything is relatively". If everything is relatively, than there's no knowledge of anything, and if there's no knowledge, there's no way to do any claims about anything.
But - at least we know that we've a formula for non reason knowledge (no knowledge = no making statements).
This last position (about having the formula of non reason knowledge) leads us to another contradiction, and the last one statement about this leads to the next one, and so on, and so on... This "and so on, and so on" is a statement too. And if this statement is true, we're done - we've got another true statement...
Ouch...
After we had implied already three (!) true statements from one not true... we started to think that either we went wrong somewhere, or our travelling wasn't completed. (f) If we were wrong, we would have to admit that "everything is relatively" was true; (g) To complete this task we have to get all the knowledge from what we know about falseness of "all is relatively".
From (g) we can took almost endless lines of negative propositions that are true. As a matter of fact we are able to derive endless lines of negative propositions from any true sentence (an axiom).
And the last one knowledge leads us to conclusion: the foundation of BB theory is impossible to deny, and there's no way to approve it. So, if BB theory is grounded of the sentence "all is relatively", there's no point to deal with it, because the sentence brings us no facts.
|
|
gater
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Likes: 22
|
Post by gater on Aug 11, 2019 18:10:46 GMT
It is appalling how badly thought through the big bang theory is. (1) If all the matter in the universe were concentrated into an object the size of a galaxy, then the force and subsequent velocity from that force, that is required to make it go 'bang' would be radically in excess of light-speed. But according to this theory, such a velocity is impossible. In fact, even if the matter in the universe were in 1/3rd its current volume, its escape velocity would be greater than light-speed. Thus it would have to have been expanding faster than its own laws allowed it to when it was 1/3rd its current volume. ... (2) If all the matter in the universe were in one concentrated point it would in essence just be a gigantic 'black-hole'. But according to relativistic physics - nothing escapes the black-hole. So once more, it could simply not go bang, because of Einstein's laws. The relativistic universe would have been still-born. ... (3) Even we ignore the previous reasons, their 'singularity' would be surrounded by their 'event horizon' - where time has stopped due to all the excessive gravity. So AGAIN, it could not go bang without time moving. ... These are simplified points of a very detailed study which exposes numerous other flaws in contemporary atheist cosmology. I do not disagree with ALL modern cosmology, and I do not dispute the given age of God's Universe as 14 billion years, neither do do I dispute the expansion / inflation theoretical observations. What I am saying is that Einstein's theories are illogical - they contradict themselves, and they are NOT in keeping with basic observations in astronomy. I attempt to reconcile much of modern cosmology and astronomy into a model that has no basic contradictions. This is the essence of it: LOGIC. More here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-big-bang.htm
|
|