Creation of the Big Bang!

heusdens
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3612 by heusdens

Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Come on Rob, you need to go DEEPER! What is a human made of? (hint)E*N*E*R*G*Y! And...Yes, energy was around 1 billion years ago, energy has been around forever.
Also, just because the number "0" wasn't used doesn't mean it didn't exist, they just didn't understand how to use it. The Greeks were/are very, very, very, smart in knowing that "0" wasn't actually "nothing" which is exactly as I have been saying here the whole time. GO DEEPER Rob.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Your whole story of "0" is a bit of nonsense, it just stinks!

Your are saying just the trivial, matter (mass-having) and energy (which I both call matter, the philosophical term) has been there all the time and will be there all the time, as it neither can be destroyed or created. So, existence therefore is matter (wether having mass or being energy, or a field) which is in motion always as its mode of existence, and needs space and time. So, there is no need to go around that, it is just the materialistic viewpoint.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How did you calculate that sum of all the masses and all the energy (transformed into the proper units and using E=mc2 Energy/mass equivalence) in the universe equals "0"?????<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
That, my friend, is a secret.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Well your secret will be very safe.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>42<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Now this is a very intersting answer. Perhaps you could elaborate?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
That, my friend, is a secret!

(you never read hitchhiksersguide to the galaxy?...)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

heusdens
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3701 by heusdens

Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Going further, Heterological sets are not members of themselves since they are Heterological. In that sense and in the mess mathematicians and scientists have created, if we define the set of all things that do not exist as ZERO, zero can not be a member of itself if it exist.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Agreed, "NOTHING" and "ZERO" actually fall into the "EXISTENCE" set. I agree that there isn't anything that does not exist. [JimiProton]"All that could be, is."

Now, where does "existence" reside?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Actually, if you say that anything exists, you are just defining existence in the ontological way. Squares, circles, ideas, sets, theorema's, are all part of such ontological existence.
There is however no place for them (in space/time), since they do not belong to the real world, the material world, but to the world of the mind itself. The mind is based on and formed in the material world.

Apart from the mind "nothing" or "ZERO" has no existence, and that is what makes this a kind of absurd discussion.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

heusdens
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3917 by heusdens

Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So, existence therefore is matter (wether having mass or being energy, or a field) which is in motion always as its mode of existence, and **needs space and time**.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Rob, you are entitled to your opinions and I always respect everyones opinion. Also, I want you to know that I am NOT trying to change your opinion in any way, I'm just trying to help you learn something.

As to the quote above, Energy does not need space or time in order to exist. It is "Energy" which created space and when space was created time came with it. Space and Time are a PRODUCT of energy.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Actually, if you say that anything exists, you are just defining existence in the ontological way. Squares, circles, ideas, sets, theorema's, are all part of such ontological existence.
There is however no place for them (in space/time), since they do not belong to the real world, the material world, but to the world of the mind itself. The mind is based on and formed in the material world.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
It's not about the existence of the number "0" or a "set" of numbers, it's about the *PHYSICAL* "SET" of everything that exists, did exist, or can exist. It's not ontological, imaginary, or existence by definition, it's reality.
"Everything that can be, already IS". Back to your material world, just because it doesn't exist right now doesn't mean it won't exist at some time. (THIS PART IS VERY IMPORTANT)**Things don't *come* into existence, they are simply new products of what already exists. Example: Water is water because hydrogen and oxygen exists. Has water always existed? No. Has water always been *ABLE* to exist? YES, therefore it "IS". Water didn't just *come* into existence from non-existence, it was simply mixing 2 things that already existed.**

So, I leave you with two things:
1) A quote: "Your logic is just very ill!!"
I would have to say the one who is ill is the one who believes things can just come into, and go out, of existence magically, that is not reality! That is delusional.

2) The question from Makis:
"To break this simple proof down you must find another set where "nothing" can belong to. I hear suggestions..."

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Patrick,

Where did I say that I believe that things come in and out of existence from nothing?? I thought that you made this "nothing" hypothese (merely interchanging the notion of "nothing" to mean "everything", which causes a GRANDESQUE CONFUSION of course, because on this ill assumption every possible misconception can be formed (of which the "Big Bang" creation ex nihilo myst is a clear and most notorious example).

I think I did not argue that. Instead, I think that everything that exist, has existed always, and will do so eternally. The only thing that happens is that the shape and form of things continually change.

Well, about energy. Radiation, light, etc. all are a form of energy.
It is clear that electromagnetic radiation only exists if time and space exists. Time and space cannot be created or destroyed.

The universe (that is the word most commonly used for what you call "nothing") is everything that exists. It did not appear at some day, neither will it disappear at some time. It just exists.

Because the universe exists, it is infinite.
If we would assume it was not infinite, then it would have collapsed long ago. Even when it was expanding, to escape from collapse, that asks us to assume that it "suddenly appeared" out of nothing, since if it expands, it must be assumed it ultimately appeared from a state which could not have a predecessor, but that is impossible. Or, there would have to be a "super nature" or "super universe" which on the fly creates new universes.
But THAT contradicts our defition, that the universe is all there is.

Puzzle solved now??

Oh, yes, an infinite universe, is always in the state of forming, moving, and is collapsing everywhere (THAT IS: in EVERY finite scale, but NOT on the INFINITE scale). That is what we see as stars, galaxies, clusters, super-clusters, and so on infinitely (yet, we cannot see infinitely far, cause the light interacts with all matter it must go through, even in the voids, and causes it to become more redshifted, the remnants of that light from the infinite cosmos around us, is known as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation a perfect blackbody at 3 K).

Got it?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

heusdens
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3918 by heusdens

Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Rob, you are entitled to your opinions and I always respect everyones opinion. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
I would be interested in hearing a basis for this:
"Time and space cannot be created or destroyed." How does that apply to light speed in SR?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

What version of SR are you using in your "local frame of reference", mine isn't creating time or space (perhaps I have an obsolete version of SR)?

But serious, SR is not talking about "time and space" creation, but merely the distortion of space/time.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

heusdens
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #3707 by heusdens

Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
SR would state that travel at light speed, time stops. If time stops it most certainly would need to start again, wouldn't it? Also, if it can stop then it must have had a start to begin with, right? Time is just a measurement of space.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I see.

Well evidently you must have the wrong version of SR cause mine tells that in the local frame of inertion time just goes on normally, only not in the way as measured by other observers in other inertial frames of reference.

Time exist despite how we observe it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

heusdens
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #4255 by heusdens

Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob

Patrick

As to the theme "creation of big bang" have you read about open inflation and chaotic inflation?

It deals with this theme from a different perspective.

Here are some good links.

wlap.physics.lsa.umich.edu/umich/mctp/co.../linde/real/f001.htm
Lecture Andrei Linde on "Inflation and String Cosmology"

physics.stanford.edu/linde/1032226.pdf
Article Andrei Linde : "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe"

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.329 seconds