Creation of the Big Bang!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(from Jimi)
As to the "could be" question, that is a temporal limitation only... I should have said that, in time, "whatever can be is, was, or will be." Please attempt to disqualify this claim.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I agree with the statement, I cannot disqualify it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Does nothingness cancel existence?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
No, existence temporarily overtakes and occupies "nothingness".

**I should have done this earlier but I need to make a clairification.**

In this thread I have termed "ZERO" and "NOTHING" as an entity which actually is "existence", it's just the lowest form of existence. The term "NOTHING" was used because of its association with "ZERO". The entity I labeled "NOTHING" *is NOT* non-existence. When I refer to "nothingness" I am referring to true and absolute non-existence. To reduce confusion I will only refer to the entity as "ZERO".
Think of it as a balloon, "ZERO" is the balloon itself and existence is the air inside. The balloon is surrounded by "nothingness".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

When arguing about this in a materialistic approach, which states that "all there is" is eternal moving/transforming matter, which has time and space as mode of existence:
In this concept the term "NOTHING" or "ZERO" would be referring then to "an emtpty" frame of time and space with no matter (or energy, which is another form of matter) in it, which is materialistically seen an absurdity.
The term "nothingness" would apply to an equal absurd concept of the non-existence of matter, space and time.
Every kind of "existence" must be based on some form of matter and movement as well, that inclused the concept of "nothingness" in your brain, which could be best described as a short-circuited neuron pattern in your brain.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Looking for something new to ponder? Ponder this, it's what I have termed "The ZERO or NOTHING Theory" and it is mathmatical proof for the creation and existance of everthing which includes the big bang.
The basic premise behind the theory is that "NOTHING" is actually everything and that "Nothing" is the THE most powerful force to ever exist. "Nothing" is the creator of everything and "Nothing" is ulimatly eternity. Everything began from "Nothing" and everything will end at "Nothing". Look at it from a mathmatical standpoint:

*Zero/nothing is the beginning of all numbers and zero is the end of all numbers therefor zero is the beginning and zero is the end. Numbers are infinite only in one direction but ultimatly have an ending, all numbers end at some point and that point just so happens to be the point they originated, "ZERO". "Zero" is the point where negative ends and positive begins or it is where positive ends and negative begins, whichever positive or negative "Zero" still exists by itself.

*Zero is the only number that can exist by itself. Other numbers can't exist unless a number preceeds them.(ex. you can't have the number 4 unless you have the number 3) The same is true with regards to positive and negative numbers, if negative numbers didn't exist then positive numbers wouldn't exist either, they would simply just be numbers. Again, "Zero" can exist without the aid of any other enitity.

In order for anything to exist it must have an opposite in order to validate its existance. "Zero" is the only exception, ironically "Zero" is the opposite of something which validates something but is not dependent on something.(examples: light doesn't exist unless there is dark, up doesn't exist unless there is down, good doesn't exist unless there is evil)

"NOTHING" started billions of years ago and created two things, those two things multiplied and created multiple things, and so forth and so on. This was the creation of everything. Mathmatically, what is 0^0 equal to?

In order to validate the big bang, something had to create it. Ultimatly it had to be or could have been the initial creations of "NOTHING".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I hope you see that you theory that everyting came out of nothing, is just what in theological terms is defined as "the creation".
The concept you give of "nothing" is a mere artefact of human thinking, and not based on the real world. A world in which nothing exist is a mere absurdity, as well as the notion that from "nothing" "everything" comes into existance.

Then for the big bang, the very idea that in one very instance everything came into existance out of nothing, is a nonsense concept.
This is where physics got blind, and came into the field of Idealism in its purest form, and apply (theoretical) physics as to serve the idea of a "creator" or an "act of creation".

Where this whole thing started of course are the experimental facts about far away galaxies, which seem to move away from us at increasing speeds, the further the galaxie is located from us.
Wether these far away galaxies in fact are moving as the theory tells, can not be directly asserted or proofed, we just see a doppler-red shift. These facts need to be explained of course.

The Big Bang theory (even when we let out the mythical "act of creation" part) explains this as an expanding universe.
In some variants of the Big Bang theory this idea of "expanding of the universe" is not just seen as the movements of the galaxies and other astronomical objects from each other (as comining from a point of a big explosion), but as the very "expaning of space" (where the concept of "space" in this case is used as if it would be a material entity of itself, rather then the mode of existance of matter) itself.
In some magic form, this expanding of space only takes place between galaxies and clusters, and not within them. The latter would make this rather nonsense, since our instruments would also expand in exactly the same way, and therefore no red-shift would be detectable.

Not only is the Big Bang theory based on the rather mystical concept of "creation" also the contradictions of the Big Bang theory are tremendous. Take for instance the fact that the calculated age of the universe, seems to be smaller then the age of some observed galaxies and stars.

It is clear that the misconception of the Big Bang theory must be replaced someday (and not just fixed, everytime new observed data indicated that the theory is wrong).
A good starting point would be to replace the conception of "creation" with the concept of eternally moving matter in infinite space, a world without a beginning or end, and without any limit.

quote:
___________________________________________________________________________
A good starting point would be to replace the conception of "creation" with the concept of eternally moving matter in infinite space, a world without a beginning or end, and without any limit.
___________________________________________________________________________

Here is an agreement.

As stated previously, the title of the forum "The Creation of the Big Bang," assumes creation.

Remove time, even as a contituent of SR (quantify time as one quantifies all other dimentions), and the theory is reduced to simple creation.

This points to the question of contingency.

"Zero" can only make a claim of passivity, upon which creation worked, as Michaelangelo worked on a block of marble. The marble itself was an entity, already in the possession of Michaelangelo. In this way of thinking, the universal "marble" was already in the possession of the creative agent. And in the fractal order of things, this is physically harmonious with observations; since, if matter is continually impinging on sovereign "empty" space, it still operates under the same laws.

Our inability to quantify all of existence does not require that we leap to the idea that "Zero" should carry the day. That is a short-cut.

No one using the term "infinity" places a limit; but that is what "Zero" does. Use, rather the term "reciprocally infinite" (ie. 1/infinity).

quote [jimiproton]:
___________________________________________________________________________
The marble itself was an entity, already in the possession of Michaelangelo.
___________________________________________________________________________

Reiterated, Michaelangelo possessed the marble; the marble did not possess Michaelangelo.

The idea is that "nothingness" already belongs to a predisposition to exhibit the laws of the Universe. It therefore belongs to the set of "existence" in a temporally-potential aspect.

We have not yet defined "Zero."

Does that fact alone make it sovereign?

There are many other things that have not been defined... as many things as have not yet entered human imagination, and which are never-the-less real.

Evading human definition does not constitute sovereign existence.

ZERO is only in the minds of primitive minds like ours. We needed to invent ZERO in order to justify our reality.

An observer can never prove that ZERO is the state of any system since there is always something else that he may be missing the presense of, and he may not know what it is. (Meno's paradox).

Likewise, if God really exists and He created everything from ZERO, then that was really not ZERO since God existed in the first place.

The paradox: as soon as you define ZERO, it ceases to exist. Simply because you did created it! It is a purely Heterological concept created by minds that still live in a state of unresolved paradoxes.

Furthermore, ZERO is used losely to describe inexistence of states one is observing or measuring and not the total states that may be present.

Therefore, I agree with TVF that you cannot have creation from ZERO.

Just the presence of a mechanism for creation defies the idea of ZERO and creates a logical contradiction, rigth there.

In that case, I propose a reformulation of your hypothesis as the "Theory of Nothing Plus", with "zero plus" as its prime element. The search still continues for the smallest particle, although Dr Ricardo Carezani has proposed a candidate in the "pico-graviton", which has theoretical mass of 1 X 10^-81 Kilograms. This little particle is similar in concept to the graviton, but constitutes the starting point for all mass. Carezani's theory (called autodynamics) postulates that all matter absorbs some pico-gravitons and basically this is what "builds" mass in the universe, a hybrid of your Nothing+ creating Everything theory!

Autodynamics has a healthy disrespect for GR and builds a lot of its mathematics from Newton's original equations. The beauty is, the mathematics actually predicts and accurately models phenomena which relativity stumbles over, e.g. perihelion advance, moon slow down and recession, Pioneer spacecraft slowdown, pendulum slowdown during eclipse. The model also dispenses with all the speculative nonsense such as black holes and worm holes.

For more detail on this theory, check out

[url] www.autodynamics.org/ [/url]

There's a layman's and a physicist's section, although the mathematics for the egg-heads isn't too taxing!

Who knows, Patrick, you and Dr Carezani may have the same basic idea, once you tighten up your terminology!
<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>