No big bang...

It is fascinating how Big Bang theory has reversed status. At one time, it was derided by "enlightened" individuals because it admitted to a universe with a beginning and potentially an end. This was unacceptable to the "enlightened" because it resembled many religious descriptions of cosmogeny too much.

Now, it it opposed by may religious people--because it is accepted by many irreligious people. If I won't refuse to wear crimson and white merely because it's the colors of the most evil university on all of the earth, then I won't refuse the Big Bang merely because it's adopted by many people who happen to be irreligious.
 
There are a number of models, adapting or opposing the "big bang" one - all very interesting in their own right, not least because there is still no model that adequately addresses known theory and known observations in a way that properly describes them.
 
My understanding of the big bang theory was one of an expanding and collapsing universe banging again and again upon each collapse....

Not quite JudeoChristian notions...
 
Buddhists and Hindus could still hold to their belief in a beginningless and endless cycles of the universe(s).
 
Namaste,

interesting article.

with this as there is already a solution for instantaneous communication with distant bodies which is called quantum entanglement or, Spooky Action at a Distance as Einstein so famously derided it.
Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


in any case, it seems that the current WMAP information provides convincing evidence of the Standard Model:
WMAP 7 Year Mission Results



metta,

~v
 
if you look at the universe in general you won't see it's creation happening by the way of an explosive action as opposed to implosive. of course you have super-novas, hurricanes and volcanoes but the predominance is implosion. a tree can do more work rising it's sap better than any water pump and also silently.

implosion over explosion is so regardless of whether some irreligious types accept it or not. my feeling is that matter etc inflows from the "astral" plane and "sucks" from there into all directions at all "points"....

the human body is slighly alkaline...alkaline being implosive/cooling/suction. it has acidic values to...explosive/heating/expansion, but not predominantly.....

the so-called "laws" of physics break down pre big bang fer a good reason- they know jack...still, of course the theory i'm pro-pounding is prolly wrong to...
 
Namaste chakraman,

thank you for the post.

i'd like to address one part of your post..

chakraman said:
the so-called "laws" of physics break down pre big bang fer a good reason- they know jack...still, of course the theory i'm pro-pounding is prolly wrong to...
Click to expand...

it's good that you put the term "laws" in quotes for, indeed, the so called "laws" of physics are actually called Theories and the term Theory is the highest form of scientific certitude there is, despite the fact that the modern vernacular holds the term to mean something like " a mere theory".

gravity is a theory, for instance.

in any case, on to my point... what breaks down at the event horizon of the big bang is known as "classical physics" which is, in fact, concerned with the larger objects of the universe rather than the really small parts of it.... the physics which address the pre-event horizon spacetime is called Quantum physics, usually termed as Quantum Mechanics. there are, in fact, several different theories with lesser and greater amounts of evidence for the pre-event horizon stuff.

What is Quantum Physics

knowledge is power, study hard, be evil! ;)

metta,

~v
 
Vajradhara said:
the so called "laws" of physics are actually called Theories and the term Theory is the highest form of scientific certitude there is,
Click to expand...

Oh no the law of gravity just ceased to exist and I'm floating awaaaaaayyyyyyyyy


My dictionary and I just read the article in the OP and we now feel so moronic we can't even tie our shoe laces up!! I can accept the Big Bang theory or any number of other ideas on the subject ... one thing I'm sure of is that we will not have the answers in my lifetime so I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it.
 
Muslimwoman said:
Oh no the law of gravity just ceased to exist and I'm floating awaaaaaayyyyyyyyy
Click to expand...

strange thing about the law of gravity is that in science it has no recognised opposite...like + & -, day and night, summer/winter...gravity.....levity?

it maybe nothing without levity. gravity is poorly understood by science. it maybe that earth is kept in it's rotation by the universe pushing in on it from the stars as much as the the sun sucking it to itself....

hi metta, i have read a little (stephen hawking - whether he's regarded as a good source or not, not imo) so have a laymans understanding of big and small science...i believe one of the goals is to unify them....

something i read the other day-

contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, the sun's corona is hotter than the photosphere or chronosphere which are closer to the sun...science cannot, by far, explain everything....

not actually sure where you're coming from and obviously cannot debate on a scientific level. quantum mechanics = small as in atomic etc...pre event horizon is stuff beyond purely the atomic though no? as in quantum mechaincs of my immediate surrounding enviroment do not resemble pre "big bang"...not a great fan of science understanding the world we live, though it has it's place just not the one it presumes...can't even build a single blade of grass...

have read "man or matter" ernst lehrs...one of steiners natural scientist who apparently use emotions and the physical body to understand phenomena as well as the intellect...science uses purely the intellect. my crumbling suede can't remember the details but they had logical answers where science fails, as to the nature of the sun, gravity/levity, the nature of electricity, colour etc...

physical reality does appear to be primarily implosive as opposed to explosive....
 
17th Angel said:
And on the other hand you have Steven Hawkin's who now commits to creation being a result of a big bang.... I find it amazing at how someone with such intelligence could offer such a pathetic and weak hypothesis....
Click to expand...

Please show your physics theories, then, go ahead and show the math. After all, you're a sufficiently skilled physicist to legitimately dismiss Hawkings as "pathetic and weak" and not merely engaging in intellectual masurbation, right?
 
Correct I am not just engaging in intellectual mas-t-urbation, I think myself not above my own station like most... We are only humans LOL there is nothing amazingly special about us to the degree of explaining creation.... Have you ever looked around at anything in nature? How everything works like clock work. Everything even though it seems a lesser being or object even if it has no intelligence or means of communication it knows what it's purpose is... Everything, every little thing intertwines and works in harmony.... Even bull****... Is a complex thing... I know a person who could speak on this for... Hours lol.... Seriously how that one simple and seemingly unimportant thing could have so much depth and wonder lol.... And pretty much everything is like this... So much connected to it... All this from random non living chaos....

These are not things of random events. It is also true life can only come from life... Something which isn't alive... Cannot create life, that at least is something I do know. Not being a Legitmate physicist and all.... lol.

But whatever it was that did create life, had to be living? But from that point on it truly baffles me to think people know the exact thing that created everything.... Everything.... we are but men... lol... Dust specks in this mass universe... It is unbelievable how small we are... How the hell can you know how this was all created... To say Yeah... Random chaotic bang did it... God did it.. Jim did it.... Whatever did it... You have no way of knowing that.... Even if you are a physicist, priest, rabbi, taxi driver... *shrugs*
 
Alex, I sympathise with your attitude even if I do not share it. You have the attitude of someone who is not turned on by such thinking, and it is that which seems to dominate your thinking. I have little doubt that you have interests that leave me yawning in no time. So I would say just because you cannot get into it, do not think that that kind of thinking is not a huge source of inspiration for many people. I am not a Big Bang/Standard Model supporter. There are just too many holes in it now. And as we seem to be sailing through the universe in a "dark flow" it is pretty much blown out of the water. My feeling is the professionals just don't want to admit it until they have a more robust alternative.
 
Namaste my 17th brother from my 17th mother...

Seems like you and Lao Tzu are spending some time together...

as to the 'nature' of things...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top