|
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 joustos on Jun 3, 2019 20:46:02 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.htmYou implicitly state a contraposition: atheistic and theistic [creationistic] cosmology. I am against both, for I think that the universe is eternal, eternally changing [in flux], without a beginning or an end. The universe (also called God by some people)is infinite in time and space, and dynamic by nature. In the course of time, it contracts and expands; individuals are formed and disintegrated; and so forth. Colliding electromagnetic forces will form black "holes" which eventually explode and are called cosmic bangs, but there is no single Big Bang, no original beginning of our universe, or, so to speak, of original sin. A state of innocence or of nothingness has never existed.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 3, 2019 20:56:15 GMT
Wait a second, so one of you is saying that the universe is eternal meaning it always existed and forever will exist? But even things in the universe have a beginning an end. Each galaxy, star, and planet has a beginning and an end. So why would the universe be an exception to everything else in space when everything else has a beginning and an end? The odds of that are nearly impossible.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 3, 2019 22:10:29 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.htmYou implicitly state a contraposition: atheistic and theistic [creationistic] cosmology. I am against both, for I think that the universe is eternal, eternally changing [in flux], without a beginning or an end. The universe (also called God by some people)is infinite in time and space, and dynamic by nature. In the course of time, it contracts and expands; individuals are formed and disintegrated; and so forth. Colliding electromagnetic forces will form black "holes" which eventually explode and are called cosmic bangs, but there is no single Big Bang, no original beginning of our universe, or, so to speak, of original sin. A state of innocence or of nothingness has never existed. So long as you refute Einstein's Relativity there is nothing illogical in what you say. The point being that if time stops at the event horizon, then the singularity could not go: Bang. As to the concept of beginning or end, perhaps it would be more meaningful, semantically, to distinguish between many universes, and one multiverse. So even though the multiverse may have no end or beginning, it would still be useful to describe each universe as having a beginning or ending - in your model. From what I can ascertain, I see no evidence for contraction (though it may still be hidden). Thus each universe gives rise to numerous next universes in the same way that a tree grows seeds for future trees. With consciousness being the fundamental essence which imposes order in the chaos of the death of the universe. So many millions of years from now, humanity would have figured out how to carve off pieces of 4d space, and actually create entirely new self-sustaining universes. As this universe dissipates into entropy, the vital souls of immortal beings then simply migrate to the next universe. Each subsequent universe being modeled on the previous one. And this is how our universe was actually itself created.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 3, 2019 22:19:14 GMT
Wait a second, so one of you is saying that the universe is eternal meaning it always existed and forever will exist? But even things in the universe have a beginning an end. Each galaxy, star, and planet has a beginning and an end. So why would the universe be an exception to everything else in space when everything else has a beginning and an end? The odds of that are nearly impossible. It all depends on how you define 'universe'. If we define it in terms of space, then in all-time, there could be numerous universes following on from one another. With each one's death leading to the birth of the next. But if you define universe in terms of time, it all gets trickier. For time to have a definite end, we have to postulate nothing thereafter, which would be impossible because God is just smarter than that. But we could talk about 2 dimensions of time: Human-time, and God-time. So we would be like flat-landers living in a superficial version of the fully-rounded 'real time' of God. This way the universe has a beginning and end, but all-time itself, which is quite different to time as we know it - does actually have infinite existence.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 3, 2019 23:56:57 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.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 4, 2019 0:07:21 GMT
Wait a second, so one of you is saying that the universe is eternal meaning it always existed and forever will exist? But even things in the universe have a beginning an end. Each galaxy, star, and planet has a beginning and an end. So why would the universe be an exception to everything else in space when everything else has a beginning and an end? The odds of that are nearly impossible. The Same Logic Has to Apply to Both Sides Those are variations built on something that always was and always will be. They are sequential processes continually being derived from an eternal foundation. If you can accept that for God, you wouldn't allow the objection that everyone else is born and dies, everything else starts and ends.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 4, 2019 0:17:23 GMT
You implicitly state a contraposition: atheistic and theistic [creationistic] cosmology. I am against both, for I think that the universe is eternal, eternally changing [in flux], without a beginning or an end. The universe (also called God by some people)is infinite in time and space, and dynamic by nature. In the course of time, it contracts and expands; individuals are formed and disintegrated; and so forth. Colliding electromagnetic forces will form black "holes" which eventually explode and are called cosmic bangs, but there is no single Big Bang, no original beginning of our universe, or, so to speak, of original sin. A state of innocence or of nothingness has never existed. So long as you refute Einstein's Relativity there is nothing illogical in what you say. The point being that if time stops at the event horizon, then the singularity could not go: Bang. As to the concept of beginning or end, perhaps it would be more meaningful, semantically, to distinguish between many universes, and one multiverse. So even though the multiverse may have no end or beginning, it would still be useful to describe each universe as having a beginning or ending - in your model. From what I can ascertain, I see no evidence for contraction (though it may still be hidden). Thus each universe gives rise to numerous next universes in the same way that a tree grows seeds for future trees. With consciousness being the fundamental essence which imposes order in the chaos of the death of the universe. So many millions of years from now, humanity would have figured out how to carve off pieces of 4d space, and actually create entirely new self-sustaining universes. As this universe dissipates into entropy, the vital souls of immortal beings then simply migrate to the next universe. Each subsequent universe being modeled on the previous one. And this is how our universe was actually itself created. If You Can't Let Go, the Self-Appointed Authorities Won't Let YouReally, you should totally reject both Postclassical Physics and its previous illogical explanation, theism, instead of trying to save any of that authoritarian irrationalism. So, time is not a dimension; there are no Black Holes as entities contained within this offshoot universe, no event horizons, etc. And space is a substance still being created by the original eruption that created this offshoot.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 4, 2019 0:26:03 GMT
Wait a second, so one of you is saying that the universe is eternal meaning it always existed and forever will exist? But even things in the universe have a beginning an end. Each galaxy, star, and planet has a beginning and an end. So why would the universe be an exception to everything else in space when everything else has a beginning and an end? The odds of that are nearly impossible. there could be numerous universes following on from one another. With each one's death leading to the birth of the next. God-Time Is Propaganda of Those Who Want to Represent Some Higher PowerThere you go again. Why should one have to die before another is born? The universe ours came from still exists and still affects ours. Time as a dimension is a misunderstanding copied from the claim that God can know the future, which is impossible because the future doesn't exist in some parallel time-frame. It exists only in the present; there is not some future already happening now, waiting for us to get to it.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 4, 2019 14:28:01 GMT
Wait a second, so one of you is saying that the universe is eternal meaning it always existed and forever will exist? But even things in the universe have a beginning an end. Each galaxy, star, and planet has a beginning and an end. So why would the universe be an exception to everything else in space wh.en everything else has a beginning and an end? The odds of that are nearly impossible. Happy Birthday, Elizabeth. We are all familiar with things which did not exist before; they had a beginning. The children of animals, and artifacts, clearly had a beginning, but they were formed out of something which existed already and possibly grew out of (by assimilating) existing things. All such things are subject to corruption or disintegration; they are mortal, they reach an end. However, they do not vanish; they provide the materials out of which something new is formed. (To put it in terms of Aristotle, the "primary matter" is that which persists through transformations. It has neither beginning nor end.) While individuals come and go (through the natural recycling process), their collection in time (their totality, the universe in time) has neither beginning nor end. Because of the transformations of individuals, we can say that at any moment in time, the universe is new (had a beginning): it is perpetually renovated. There is still a problem: consciousness, for there are novelties in the mind, but what is new does not come from the corruption of something that had been there but, rather, from memories, from what had been preserved. We do not have a science of the mind yet...…….
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 4, 2019 15:03:10 GMT
Wait a second, so one of you is saying that the universe is eternal meaning it always existed and forever will exist? But even things in the universe have a beginning an end. Each galaxy, star, and planet has a beginning and an end. So why would the universe be an exception to everything else in space wh.en everything else has a beginning and an end? The odds of that are nearly impossible. Happy Birthday, Elizabeth. We are all familiar with things which did not exist before; they had a beginning. The children of animals, and artifacts, clearly had a beginning, but they were formed out of something which existed already and possibly grew out of (by assimilating) existing things. All such things are subject to corruption or disintegration; they are mortal, they reach an end. However, they do not vanish; they provide the materials out of which something new is formed. (To put it in terms of Aristotle, the "primary matter" is that which persists through transformations. It has neither beginning nor end.) While individuals come and go (through the natural recycling process), their collection in time (their totality, the universe in time) has neither beginning nor end. Because of the transformations of individuals, we can say that at any moment in time, the universe is new (had a beginning): it is perpetually renovated. There is still a problem: consciousness, for there are novelties in the mind, but what is new does not come from the corruption of something that had been there but, rather, from memories, from what had been preserved. We do not have a science of the mind yet...…….
Thank you So you're saying everything had a beginning whether it's the universe, animals, artificial or whatever it may be. Then, yeah I totally agree. But what is formed from when when humans die? I mean a human can reproduce but that's during its life. What can their body do after death? It will literally vanish away with time.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 4, 2019 21:36:14 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.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 8, 2019 20:48:42 GMT
thesageofmainstreetSure there are no contradictions here, so long as you use the word 'created' very loosely, because you imply the matter already existed, so it then only took its current form as a 'creation'. However, the square of the speed of light idea, requires more than just a claim, and it is quite certain where you obtained the inspiration. As for e=mc^2, I speculatively suggest the the c^2 aspect is arbitrary, and have researched its origins extensively without substantial results. From what I can tell, if he had used q^2 where q is the speed of sound, then we would just have had a different unit of measurement. If you have a better answer than this, I would be happy to hear it, because, as I say, that is the best speculation I have found as to WHY the formula uses c^2. All his other formula have been entirely disproved, so it is a suspect, albeit fairly open question.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 8, 2019 21:00:36 GMT
thesageofmainstreetWell the opening post certainly does not only reject most of post-classical physics, but actually entirely disproves most of it. However, as a systematic logical positivist, I take each claim in turn, and treat them all with equal amounts of respect and rigorous logic. I see no reason to reject expansion in it raw form as Hubble observed/calculated. Those observations are largely independent of any other theory; being simple observations. The same is true of the age of the universe, but its just more accurate to say that The universe as we know it, consisting of galaxies, is at least 13 billion years old.Again, that is a very simple set of observations that are not dependent on any specific post-classical theory, like relativity. As for Theism, that is quite another matter. The laws of physics are authoritarian. Somewhere out there is a meteor or comet whose destiny it is to obliterate all major life-forms on Earth. Its trajectory exists, though we know not those details. You do not get more authoritarian than that, and it is a fact that cannot be disputed in principle. But! The nature of mind is not physics, and with mind, we can overcome any physical authority. This is how I envision the Trinity: God, the Father: The laws of physics - you cannot dispute them in their true form. God, the Son: The nature of mind - this is our essential ally. The Holy Ghost: Everything else - that is mystical and unknown.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 8, 2019 21:21:52 GMT
thesageofmainstreetLife and death are often just semantic devices. When A tree gives off seeds, and then dies, we say one ends, and another begins, but there is no definite line between the seed and the tree, or the compost that provides nourishment for the new seedling to grow in. The universe ours came from still exists; sure. But does it exist in a way in which we can inhabit? I'm not so sure at all. It seems to me that Mind (or God or Angels) created this universe for a purpose. And that can be understood by closely examining our own universe to see where it is heading. My calculations show that all stars will eventually become extinguished, as Hydrogen forms heavier and heavier elements, so the stars expire, go nova, and form planets made of such heavier elements. Planets can support life-forms, but not without hydrogen-based stars to support them. These un-shining bodies are actually literally 'dark matter'. Please do not assume my usage of that idea is the same as most others, that terminology has been abused into so much sophistry, that many people have rejected it out of frustration. I too had at one point rejected it until I found my way to the original idea, and deciphered its true meaning using original principles. Those details are here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/dark-matter.htmBut the point being, that the previous universe has 'died' in the sense that it is effectively compost for this universe. By 'death' I do not mean that it has ceased to exist entirely. That is impossible as we all hopefully know that energy cannot be destroyed. It is just a semantic device to say "it is dead to us". We cannot use it to live in. But yes, our universe is fueled by the continued expansion and energy of the previous one. But! There is still zero evidence for contraction, other than as an inductive inference or pattern based on the principle of cyclic processes fairly widely evident. But there are also process that are not cyclic, but linear. Still, a fairly open question. ... I agree with your sentiments on time. God cannot know the future entirely, though We can and do often predict the future as potentials and probabilities with quite good accuracy. The argument from Theology, is that a universe that is unpredictable is vastly aesthetically superior than a dull old predictable one. God would be much happier getting surprises than monotony for Christmas. The argument for an unpredictable universe from philosophy is based on the proof of free will, outlined here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/chapter/pandora-1.htmBut what of the Soul, dear fellow? Do you reject the existence of God but hope for a Soul? Do you accept the transmigration of a free spirit from life to life? Can you prove your answer which-ever way you sway?
|
|