My take on th Big Bang

how random.

Your assumption of a multiverse is simply another exercise in pure imagination within a vacuum of knowledge, similar to that which caused Man to invent religion.

Your further assumption of the necessity that some sort of self awareness was required to spark the creation of our universe is similar fantasy.

Space/time, energy and matter DEFINE the physical reality of the universe, there is nothing virtual about it, unless we deliberately make it so through technology. We humans can create it virtually, but we remain immersed within a physical reality.

A voila, religion is born.

 

What do "they" have to do with anything?

The burden of proof is upon you as it was you who made the above claim. So again I challenge you to prove that I am assuming that all people will share the same definition of 'truth' as I have in mind.

Its a direct quote from your OP. "What is your religious perspective on the word "truth"?"

 

I didn't assume the concept, invent it, or imagine it. That "vaccuum of knowledge" is a growing number of highly qualified experts.

As if the startup of the big bang theory is not full of fantastic assumptions and unexplainable arbitrary chartering thru successive ranges of possibilities?

It is defined by the rule set applied to the space-time granular functionality. Space-time is a conceptualized process. Other realities similar to ours have one or more parameters of different values. We are surely immersed in the physical reality that it seems to erect, and it's not easy to see thru it. The idea of its virtual nature is anathema to you. Let's see how long you can cling to a paradigm that is becoming obsolete.

Calling it a religion makes it easier and more compelling for you to reject it. Yours is perhaps like the fear that authority will revert from pure science back into the hands of priestcraft. However, the new perspectives don't seem likely to become a threat to upend sensibility to the point of a throwback to the iron rule of churchdom.

 

Just recently some scientists suggested that various irregular "scars" on the bubble of our universe (at the boundary, the source of the background microwave radiation) are evidence of interactions with other universes. I don't recall if such are considered signs of former or ongoing activity.

The new paradigm is easily embraced by both theists and nontheists, once the concept of larger digital conscious domains is accepted, although the common ground may labeled differently between the two.

 

Have you ever considered that the background radiation is simply noise from the stars?

 

Your kidding around right?

AboveAlpha

 

So trillions of stars don't make any noise?

 

The stars formed about 400 million years after the Cosmic Dark Ages.

And, the "time" concept must be thought of in the same way as when an atom bomb changes matter into raw energy, in a split second.

 

No noise in space.

They do emit a variety of Electromagnet Signals though...but not sound.

We can see to the edge of the Universe...as at a distance of 13.4 Billion Light Years and within 279,000 Light Years of the Big Bang....after that a wall of Background Microwave Radiation blocks all light.

There are approx. 100 Billion Galaxies in our Universe each Galaxy having anywhere between 50 Billion and 500 Billion Stars as a part of each one thus Trillions of Planets.

Given Earth and it seems Mars supports life or did support life....IT IS A MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY FOR NO OTHER LIFE OR EVEN NO OTHER INTELLIGENT LIFE TO EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE.

Because of what I do....and the JOBS I take on....every now and then I must be informed due to a NEED TO KNOW basis.

Because of this I can tell you with 100% Certainty and not hope or think or guess but KNOW FOR CERTAIN....Human Beings are NOT the only Space Faring Race of Intelligent Life Forms in the Galaxy never mind the Universe.

AboveAlpha

Planets are in the Trillions.

 

Nah,...

Energy is what existed before the material universe was form out of it.

Energy does not exist in a "void."
Energy needs no Space nor time, but matter requires both.

The waves of energy were transformed into a material cosmos by a first cause "Observer" which collapsed those wave functions,... instantaneously.

 

How many times are you going to post this mistaken concept.

OBSERVATION....or an OBSERVER....is not required or necessary for the Big Bang or to assign or collapse wave functions.

Example....a TREE falls in the woods and no one see's it happen or knows it happens....DID IT MAKE A SOUND?


OF COURSE IT DID!!!

STOP talking nonsense physics!!!

AboveAlpha

 

When you detect background radiation you are detecting noise even if it's not conventional sounds. So the stars could be the source of all of that background radiation (noise).

 

It remains a vacuum of knowlege. The argument that the hypothesis was created and shared by some "highly qualified experts" is
simply presenting the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

"highly qualified experts" testified at the heresy trial of galilleo.

"highly qualifed experts" before hubble did not believe that "nebula" were actually galaxies.

Not even remotely close. The big bang theory is supported by both observation and mathematics that are wholly consistent with the theory. That is why the original hypothesis has been elevated to theory status within the scientific community.

Way to mix philosophy with science.

There isn't any debate about the existence of virtual particles as they are a well established proven element of quantum/particle physics.
They most certainly do not substantiate any claim of other realities.

You stated:
It’s less troubling to just go with the flow and be existential with a multiverse rationale, which, although it is a big picture viewpoint, does not make us privy to what any pattern further upscale represents.

I guess you missed the parallel between what you have expressed above and the nature of all religion.

"less troubling" - never heard of this determinant in science, but it is pervasive in religion.

"be existential about a hypothesis" - is the basis of all religion.

"big picture viewpoint" - ditto every religion.

"not privy to any upscale pattern" - "no man can know the mind of god".

nice strawman.

 

No. And neither has any cosmologist or astrophysicist.

 

Just 'suggested'... they did not say we have "PROOF". tsk tsk.

"accepted" with or without PROOF. Got it.

 

Hold on now. Are you saying a bear craps in the woods?

 

"The void" or "the absolute" is more of a placeholder phrase than a void in the very strictest sense. In other words, it is the absence of subdivision and manifesting parts; it is oneness, etc.

In this sense an absence of space and time is a void, relatively, even though energy may be present.

Sticking energy out there all by itself seems awkward. That seems strange, I never heard of that or thought of it that way. It doesn't jive with the notion that God is consciousness and the Devil is energy; those are the two horns (present in five out of seven levels/planes, i.e. the "beastly" ten horns of Revelations). Therefore the "void" must contain both energy and consciousness as a unity.

The big bang theory is supposed to start as "creation from nothing." Now this jinx factor will need to be clarified.

Waves of energy in the absence of space and time? This may be too much to ponder.

 

Proof of other universes existing is far out of reach. The armchair/blackboard activity provides thriving livelihoods nevertheless.

We'd be up the creek without a paddle if we couldn't get good mileage out of a proponderance of evidence that still falls short of genuine proof. We don't even know what energy is, yet we seem to know all about.

 

Well it's obvious that they don't know very much.

 

Irrelevant blather. Their books have been published and are highly regarded as shown by personal endorsements in a long list of professionals whose excellent qualifications are clearly given. This “vacuum of knowledge” is racking up prominent converts who acknowledge the digital consciousness magnitude, but they still hold out against the virtual reality construction.

There have been theories fallen by the wayside that were highly regarded in their heyday. That’s part of the legacy of science.

Virtual particles are not included in any investigation of other realities or aspects of virtual reality. If mixing philosophy with science gets at the true nature of reality, so be it. Suitable refinements ought to develop.

The parallel with religion is too far out of context. The suggested use of multiverse rationale is simply a way of putting the big bang theory aside. The big picture viewpoint is being addressed by prominent scientists in no way concerning religion. Whatever the multiverse arrangement represents is unknown because it is beyond the range of perception of those who have entered the realms of other realities (nonphysical universes), not because we can't know the mind of God.[/QUOTE]

Not entirely, in view of some of your obvious squirming.

 

Those are some mighty revealing terms and statement there Gelecski. Interesting indeed.

 

I think you have that backwards.

 

I guess you don't recognize the logical fallacy of appeal to authority even when its pointed out to you. It does not make your argument.

Perhaps you can provide a link to some of these authorities that accept this notion of a digital consciouness.

I find it rather interesting that you cannot comprehend that attempting to describe what came before the creation of our space/time/energy/matter is nothing more than speculation and imagination. There is NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT KNOWLEDGE. THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTATION THAT CAN BE CONDUCTED. THERE CAN BE NO OBSERVATIONS IN SUPPORT. In my neighbourhood that is called a vacuum of knowledge.

Yes, like the earth was flat, our solar system was geocentric, heavier than air flight was impossible, etc. etc.

Those "theories" could not stand up to the rigourous application of the scientific method. A marvellous testament to the integrity of the process and the willingness to change when facts are presented.

It isn't like a religion where when a myth is proven to be scientifically impossible, the adherents nontheless cling to it.

Virtual reality is a construct of man. other realities are at this point nothing but speculation of man.

Perhaps you should re=examine the difference between empricism and rationalism before claiming that philosophy and science can mix.

M theory and the like do not put the big bang theory " aside".
They are strictly attempts to devine what came before the big bang. Two vastly different areas of investigation.

I didn't say that theoretical physicists were involved in religion. What I responded to was YOUR statement and pointed out exactly why it could be interpreted as religion.

As to other realities, so far, apart from speculation, some slick math, and vivid imagination, NONE have been proven to exist.
As to "non-physical" universes that is as appropriate an explanation of god in heaven as any.

And while I'm an atheist, any theist would insist that we cannot know what came before or what is in the non-phyiscal universe of heaven because we cannot know the mind of god. Might want to brush up on your religious studies.

what exactly is "not entirely" when it comes to a logical fallacy? One can't offer up half a strawman or just a bit of circular logic.

 

OK....before I continue....I have to ask you this.

Do you know what SOUND or NOISE actually is....and how it is created and how it travels and how it cannot travel through Empty Space?

Also....do you actually know what the Background Microwave Radiation is?
Do you know it exists all around us beyond the furthest star in the furthest away Galaxies beyond the furthest Galaxies there exists a Massive Wall of Background Radiation at a distance of 13.4 Billion Light Years....each Light Year is about 6 Trillion Miles....as well as this is how far Light will travel as a velocity of 186,282 miles per SECOND...in one year.

Beyond this wall of Background Microwave Radiation is a MASSIVE SEA OF SUPERHEATED PLASMA....that is 379,000 Light Years Thick....and after that is the BIG BANG.

Now understand....think of say a Basket Ball.....and say the Earth and our Sun are located inside this giant basketball....this is not a truly accurate representation of our Universe as far as Space-Time Dimensionality...but I am using this refference to make you understand.....we are not looking back in space and time at a single point.

Thus...the Basketball represents our Finite Universe....the area inside the Basketball represents Space-Time and all the Stars, Planets, Moons, Galaxies...etc within it.....the SKIN of this basketball INSIDE THE BASKETBALL represents the BACKGROUND MICROWAVE RADIATION.....the thickness between the inside skin and the outside skin represents 379,000 Light Years thick of Superheated Plasma....and the OUTSIDE SKIN of the Basketball represents the BIG BANG!!!

Some people think when we look for the Big Bang we look at a central Universal Point....NO!

When the BIG BANG...or WHITE HOLE.....exploded and as it's ejected Quanta and eventually Mass expanded and it continues to expand at an ACCELLERATED RATE....it CREATED AND CONTINUES TO CREATE MORE SPACE-TIME!

So.....please give me some kind of answer so we can clear this matter up please.

AboveAlpha

 

Ref. Post #124:

Thanks for the time you spent on your explanation.

The problem with it is that you have encapsulated the universe within your wall of background radiation. You say that there was a Big Bang (aka as "explosion") that resulted in the cosmos but at the same time the "explosion" was limited by a wall of radiation. It's like scrambling an egg but then putting the result back into a complete egg shell.

We know that stars are like giant nuclear furnaces that emit all kinds of particles, even forming solar winds that travel through the solar systems. I contend that it's this solar activity that is the radiation some people claim is the background radiation. That's why it's everywhere because the stars are everywhere.