Creation of the Big Bang!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I know they exist I just don't know what they are.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If you know they exist, you already know more than any of us do. The concepts seem self-contradictory to me. Why did you bring them to this site, which takes a realism approach to physics and astronomy? -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>One thought being that everything, with the exception of "nothing or Zero", has and needs an opposite in order to exist at all.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Take a look at our idea of reality in <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>, North Atlantic Books, 2nd ed. 1999. You just might find the answers you seek, but in an unexpected direction.

I doubt you will find anything of interest in the direction you are headed. But if you are determined to keep on without considering about other possibilities, we wish you luck. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Am I correct that "Dark Matter" is just a theory?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is indeed correct. There are competing theories, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) or the Meta Model, in which the same data is explained but dark matter does not exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Everything eventually ends, EVERYTHING!, including the universe, at some point will revert back to where it started which is back to the ultimate force of "NOTHING".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

When reasoning from fundamentals, one wrong assumption will lead to chaotic conclusions. This is a case in point.

The ordinary meaning of "universe" is "everything that exists". In the Meta Model, the universe is infinite in space, time, and scale. So the correct equivalent of your claim is that every form or assemblage of particles and/or waves has a starting point and an ending point with a finite lifetime between. However, nothing ever comes into existence from nothingness, nor does anything ever pass out of existence into nothingness. Instead, new forms are continually emerging from smaller constituents, and old forms are continually decomposing or exploding back into tiny constituents.

So forms are finite in duration, but existence of ingredients is infinite for everything. -|Tom|-

You can't arbitrarily "intoduce" zero. According to your theory, it's the beginning and the end, not a variable to be thrown in when the philosophy doesn't add up. But I'd be interested as to where imaginary numbers stand with respect to zero. Also, isn't infinity the opposite of nothing?

Patrick,

Your "theory" is far too vague to respond to. You are proceeding from the assumption that we all have the same definitions of what you are talking about and that is far from the case. I cannot figure out what you are refering to as "nothing" and "infinity". I see no inherent reason mathematical, physical or philosophical why infinity must revert back upon itself. Indeed I have the opposite affliction, I don't see how it could revert back on itself and be infinity. The number line is infinite in two directions and does not revert back on itself. Any number you can name I can add 1 to. 0 is a concept that modifies through history just like other numbers have. I have seen discussions of -0 and heirarchies of 0 considered mathematically.

As for the Big Bang, nothing needs to validate it because there was no Bang to begin with. Causality is only a problem if you have a beginning if there is no beginning there is no causal problem. This is one reason why the Meta Model frees us from a lot of problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>infinity needs "0" in order to exist yet "0" does not need infinity to exist <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't follow this; you could more easily say that infinity requires "something" to exist, since infinity is made up of an infinite amount of "things".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Think of the big bang from the view of the example I gave above, the one about the human egg. Like the egg turning to an embryo, to a fetus, to a human. Does it address the idea of the expanding universe? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, a lot of hypotheses could do that, but the general view here is that there was no big bang (another rather dogmatic hypothesis remember, not actually a "truth").

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"NOTHING" is the name given to the actual entity that represents "0" <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Actually, I think the reverse is true, zero is a mathematical construct to represent nothing, usually denoting the absence of whatever element or physical entity is being considered within a specific frame of reference at any point in time. It only really has a solid (metaphorically speaking!) existence in the world of mathematics, which is used to represent, model or interpret reality. Zero can be used to label an absence of time, space or jelly beans.

I'd be interested to hear a more detailed account of your theory.