## Does The Singularity Exist?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

socrat44
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:45 am
socrat44 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:08 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:06 am If energy and matter require space and time, they cannot exist PRIOR to them.
!?!?
-----
I try to carefully write and why I included the explanation that you either missed or need to review with more care.

But for clarity, Energy is a measure of a quantity of change in position of some mass. It is a 'derived' concept that uses MASS and SPACE as its dependant concepts. E = mc^2 has 'm' as the mass' and 'c', a velocity constant that is itself derived of distance (== space) and time (==space in a different dimension). This establishes energy as necessarily requiring SPACE and TIME to define it.

Since Mass is just 'matter', and matter both occupies SPACE as well as convertible by E = mc^2 to energy, then, all our physical descriptors are absolutely dependent upon the existence of SPACE and TIME apriori. You cannot thus HAVE a fixed quantity of energy and matter PRIOR to the existence of both space and time.

Is this clearer on this question for you?
if there are matter and energy then there should be
a frame of reference where they should exist
(am i wrong?)
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2158
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

socrat44 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:55 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:45 am
socrat44 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:08 am

!?!?
-----
I try to carefully write and why I included the explanation that you either missed or need to review with more care.

But for clarity, Energy is a measure of a quantity of change in position of some mass. It is a 'derived' concept that uses MASS and SPACE as its dependant concepts. E = mc^2 has 'm' as the mass' and 'c', a velocity constant that is itself derived of distance (== space) and time (==space in a different dimension). This establishes energy as necessarily requiring SPACE and TIME to define it.

Since Mass is just 'matter', and matter both occupies SPACE as well as convertible by E = mc^2 to energy, then, all our physical descriptors are absolutely dependent upon the existence of SPACE and TIME apriori. You cannot thus HAVE a fixed quantity of energy and matter PRIOR to the existence of both space and time.

Is this clearer on this question for you?
if there are matter and energy then there should be
a frame of reference where they should exist
(am i wrong?)
More correctly, I used the definitions of matter/energy to show that the concept of a Big Bang singularity lack meaning and makes it at best a 'virtual' point. And further given that the MEANING of the concept of "Big Bang" versus "Steady State" is about AT MINIMAL, whether the actual appearance of 'converging space' as you go back in time to a point is REAL or simply VIRTUAL. The Steady State proponents labled the real singularity interpretation as 'Big Bang' because it implies an instantaneous BANG of a fixed (and thus, 'special') quantity of matter/energy (which is defined necessarily as derived by the term, "space") into existence. It requires not merely SOME finite acceleration from nothing to something but an INFINITE acceleration.

Modern post-interpretation of Steady State in any medium extant today sells it as ONLY about whether the distant space represents a 'hot' origin versus 'cold'. While Hoyle and other proponents of the past may have asserted this, it would not be DEFINING of the theory and so not essential to even assert or deny whether there were or are points that are 'hotly dense'. It CAN, for instance, be true that a local part of space from our vantage point BE 'hot' but the significant feature of distinction is about whether the point is literally real or not.

Because it cannot LOGICALLY be possible for a singularity as such, then ANY approach to such an apparent point has to be PRE-establish whether the point IS real BEFORE one can assert the appearance of ANY evidence that could interpret distant space phenomena as representing actual heat or not. That is, it is UNSCIENTIFIC to declare an interpretation of Big Bang as valid when it cannot LOGICALLY determine whether the singularity is or is not real. As such, it defaults to a mere 'appearance'.

An interpretation of the CMBR as representing a literal space that was 'hot' is premature for instance because it PRETENDS that the Big Bang is 'logically true' in order for that interpretion of the phenomena to be acceptable. But the Big Bang is ILLOGICAL on the FOUNDATION of reasoning where the Steady State is not. As such, one requires seeking an interpretation based ONLY upon what is defaulted to NOT break the LOGIC. And this means we have to seek an interpretation of the phenomena as BASED upon a time when things were the same as things appear true locally to us WITH PRIORITY!

That the Big Bang faulters on logic suffices to discredit it from the start. But yet, it has been granted an exception to logic as though it has NOT been logically dismissed DEDUCTIVELY. Yet, the provisional declaration of the CMBR as MEANING heat at a mere 4 degrees Kelvin when such temperatures anywhere can NEVER be literally measured as 0 K, is odd given that it SHOULD be the case that we measure an average 'heat' signature that is at best 'close to' 0 K and is most likely REGARDLESS of the theory about singularities. And this is a mere INDUCTION. IF something is disproven DEDUCTIVELY, no amount of post INDUCTION could re-allow it as 'measureably' possible later. YET, the Steady State, though NOT logically dismissed deductively as the Big Bang, it has been deemed 'disproven' on MERE 'INDUCTIVE' assumptions and some POST-theoretical claims about what the temperature 'should' be. It has been declared (but not proven) that some presumed IMPLICATION of Steady State theory 'predicts' something specific about temperature. So, if Hoyle, who happens to be one of the founders of the suggested Steady State theory, were to propose, say, that the temperature may be 3.3 degrees, his credit to such extra possible presumptions do not require he has to be CORRECT in his 'guess'. He doesn't 'OWN' the Steady State reality should it exist and so if he is wrong about some extraneous factors that could be incorrect, how does it imply that the theory itself is wrong? This is like discrediting some famous science theory if he happened to have turned out to be a pediphile independently.

Regardless, Steady State is formally logical while the Big Bang is a magical interpretation proven illogical deductively. Big Bang, whether the universe was or was not hot in the past, cannot save that theory. Also, even if Steady State is/was/will-be proven false for whatever reason deductively later, it still doesn't leave whatever theory left behind as true and more valid when it is already dislodged on logical grounds. This is the rationale of the religious: If you cannot disprove the existance of God by some proposed theory, it doesn't permit one to assume it true for lacking some other hard proof of causation. So when I hear someone assert that Steady State has NO explanation for some observed phenomena, it doesn't mean any left over proposed alternative that IS popular suffices just because it happens to propose some 'fit' in a part of its conjected story. If it is NOT Steady State, it would still NOT be the Big Bang's magical, "...and then all of a sudden God popped X quantity of energy and a 'space' that is somehow treated less 'real' than matter or energy.

Space is itself energy or we could not even see ANYTHING through it! If it lacks energy, you cannot observe such points (Such points CAN exist logically and what may be the 'expansion' when they go from lacking energy to having it. The DENSITY of energy is what is constant and conservable meaning that AS space is 'added', it brings with it energy of some constant represented by its 'volume' alone.
socrat44
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:45 am More correctly, I used the definitions of matter/energy to show that the concept of a Big Bang singularity lack meaning and makes it at best a 'virtual' point. And further given that the MEANING of the concept of "Big Bang" versus "Steady State" is about AT MINIMAL, whether the actual appearance of 'converging space' as you go back in time to a point is REAL or simply VIRTUAL. The Steady State proponents labled the real singularity interpretation as 'Big Bang' because it implies an instantaneous BANG of a fixed (and thus, 'special') quantity of matter/energy (which is defined necessarily as derived by the term, "space") into existence. It requires not merely SOME finite acceleration from nothing to something but an INFINITE acceleration.

Modern post-interpretation of Steady State in any medium extant today sells it as ONLY about whether the distant space represents a 'hot' origin versus 'cold'. While Hoyle and other proponents of the past may have asserted this, it would not be DEFINING of the theory and so not essential to even assert or deny whether there were or are points that are 'hotly dense'. It CAN, for instance, be true that a local part of space from our vantage point BE 'hot' but the significant feature of distinction is about whether the point is literally real or not.

Because it cannot LOGICALLY be possible for a singularity as such, then ANY approach to such an apparent point has to be PRE-establish whether the point IS real BEFORE one can assert the appearance of ANY evidence that could interpret distant space phenomena as representing actual heat or not. That is, it is UNSCIENTIFIC to declare an interpretation of Big Bang as valid when it cannot LOGICALLY determine whether the singularity is or is not real. As such, it defaults to a mere 'appearance'.

An interpretation of the CMBR as representing a literal space that was 'hot' is premature for instance because it PRETENDS that the Big Bang is 'logically true' in order for that interpretion of the phenomena to be acceptable. But the Big Bang is ILLOGICAL on the FOUNDATION of reasoning where the Steady State is not. As such, one requires seeking an interpretation based ONLY upon what is defaulted to NOT break the LOGIC. And this means we have to seek an interpretation of the phenomena as BASED upon a time when things were the same as things appear true locally to us WITH PRIORITY!

That the Big Bang faulters on logic suffices to discredit it from the start. But yet, it has been granted an exception to logic as though it has NOT been logically dismissed DEDUCTIVELY. Yet, the provisional declaration of the CMBR as MEANING heat at a mere 4 degrees Kelvin when such temperatures anywhere can NEVER be literally measured as 0 K, is odd given that it SHOULD be the case that we measure an average 'heat' signature that is at best 'close to' 0 K and is most likely REGARDLESS of the theory about singularities. And this is a mere INDUCTION. IF something is disproven DEDUCTIVELY, no amount of post INDUCTION could re-allow it as 'measureably' possible later. YET, the Steady State, though NOT logically dismissed deductively as the Big Bang, it has been deemed 'disproven' on MERE 'INDUCTIVE' assumptions and some POST-theoretical claims about what the temperature 'should' be. It has been declared (but not proven) that some presumed IMPLICATION of Steady State theory 'predicts' something specific about temperature. So, if Hoyle, who happens to be one of the founders of the suggested Steady State theory, were to propose, say, that the temperature may be 3.3 degrees, his credit to such extra possible presumptions do not require he has to be CORRECT in his 'guess'. He doesn't 'OWN' the Steady State reality should it exist and so if he is wrong about some extraneous factors that could be incorrect, how does it imply that the theory itself is wrong? This is like discrediting some famous science theory if he happened to have turned out to be a pediphile independently.

Regardless, Steady State is formally logical while the Big Bang is a magical interpretation proven illogical deductively. Big Bang, whether the universe was or was not hot in the past, cannot save that theory. Also, even if Steady State is/was/will-be proven false for whatever reason deductively later, it still doesn't leave whatever theory left behind as true and more valid when it is already dislodged on logical grounds. This is the rationale of the religious: If you cannot disprove the existance of God by some proposed theory, it doesn't permit one to assume it true for lacking some other hard proof of causation. So when I hear someone assert that Steady State has NO explanation for some observed phenomena, it doesn't mean any left over proposed alternative that IS popular suffices just because it happens to propose some 'fit' in a part of its conjected story. If it is NOT Steady State, it would still NOT be the Big Bang's magical, "...and then all of a sudden God popped X quantity of energy and a 'space' that is somehow treated less 'real' than matter or energy.

Space is itself energy or we could not even see ANYTHING through it! If it lacks energy, you cannot observe such points (Such points CAN exist logically and what may be the 'expansion' when they go from lacking energy to having it. The DENSITY of energy is what is constant and conservable meaning that AS space is 'added', it brings with it energy of some constant represented by its 'volume' alone.
"Steady State" properties cannot be kept in the "hot" systems . . .
sooner or later systems will come to the thermal death . . . but
according to the Quantum theory the thermal death of the Universe is impossible . . .
in the Universe the condition of the ''Steady State” doesn’t exist . . .
as the ancient Greeks said "everything flows, everything changes"
-----
bahman
Posts: 5228
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

seeds wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:30 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:51 pm Something as you described that makes room for an ever-expanding universe is not nothingness, instead is empty space.
In a way, yes, but it's not the same sort of empty space that we and the cosmologists see between the stars and planets (as viewed from "inside the bubble" depicted in the illustration)...

No, the space that exists between the galaxies, stars, and planets on the inside of the bubble is allegedly not empty. but is made up of a field of interpenetrating information that underpins the "fabric" of what we call "spacetime" and binds the entire universe together into a seamless and unified whole.

While, on the other hand, the absolute nothingness that we've been discussing (i.e., the "black area" in the illustration) is totally empty of anything whatsoever, and is not a part of the spacetime fabric that binds the phenomenal features of our universe together.

So, yes, it can be loosely thought of as being similar to "empty space," but not the kind of (not so) empty space that the cosmologists speak of.
_______
How can you prove that the total energy/mass of the universe is finite? The amount of energy/mass should be finite in order to have a expanding universe inside nothingness.
bahman
Posts: 5228
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:02 am
bahman wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:59 pm
Cerveny wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:45 pm
…glad to hear the voice of reason…
Glad to hear that you agree.
I know that you already know my take on this from prior discussions. An "Absolute Nothingness" is essential for "Totality" (a metaphysical term of the absolute all); It is NOT directly true of a particular Universe other than with respect to Totality as a whole. Note that also an 'absolute' nothing happens to 'equal' a Relative Nothing that a particular Universe can possibly have but that no "ORIGIN" could occur without the 'absolute'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:02 am Then our Universe has to be treated as "infinite" (or "infinitesimal") as it approaches a singularity (even if it may not) because we cannot 'scientifically' measure existence beyond the time and space we are trapped into intepreting reality.
We either have nothingness that does not have any geometry or infinity. So there is a sharp transition between nothingness to infinity at the beginning, Big Bang. The picture that cosmologists provide is simply wrong.
socrat44
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

bahman wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:14 pm We either have nothingness that does not have any geometry or infinity.
So there is a sharp transition between nothingness to infinity at the beginning, Big Bang.
The picture that cosmologists provide is simply wrong.
We does have a cosmic nothingness that does have an infinite 2D geometry
---
“‎In modern physics, there is no such thing as “nothing.” Even in a perfect vacuum,
pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed.
The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction.
Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real.
The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed
by experiment to a high degree of accuracy.”
― Richard Morris
---
/ Casimir Effect , Lamb shift , vacuum fluctuations . . . /
-----.
vacuum-nature.jpg (3.55 KiB) Viewed 340 times
seeds
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

socrat44 wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:58 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:14 pm We either have nothingness that does not have any geometry or infinity.
So there is a sharp transition between nothingness to infinity at the beginning, Big Bang.
The picture that cosmologists provide is simply wrong.
We does have a cosmic nothingness that does have an infinite 2D geometry
---
“‎In modern physics, there is no such thing as “nothing.” Even in a perfect vacuum,
pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed.
The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction.
Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real.
The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed
by experiment to a high degree of accuracy.”
― Richard Morris
socrat44, you are referencing the (not-so-empty) vacuum that exists on the inside of the bubble,...

...not the "absolute nothingness" that is represented by the blackened area on the outside of the bubble.
______
Cerveny
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

I can see 4-D growing sphere as a condensing History/Past, its 3-D surface as (live/extending) Presence and the rest as undefinemd-D unordered, not caused yet “Future” - The Past crystallizes from the Future
bahman
Posts: 5228
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

socrat44 wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 10:58 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:14 pm We either have nothingness that does not have any geometry or infinity.
So there is a sharp transition between nothingness to infinity at the beginning, Big Bang.
The picture that cosmologists provide is simply wrong.
We does have a cosmic nothingness that does have an infinite 2D geometry
---
“‎In modern physics, there is no such thing as “nothing.” Even in a perfect vacuum,
pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed.
The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction.
Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real.
The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed
by experiment to a high degree of accuracy.”
― Richard Morris
---
/ Casimir Effect , Lamb shift , vacuum fluctuations . . . /
-----.
vacuum-nature.jpg
I am talking about the beginning when there was a sharp transition between nothing and something/infinity.
Cerveny
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

Something can't appear in "Nothing." "Nothing" can't even be turned into something, because "Nothing" doesn't exist in principle…
socrat44
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

seeds wrote: Sun Sep 05, 2021 6:34 pm
socrat44, you are referencing the (not-so-empty) vacuum that exists on the inside of the bubble,...

...not the "absolute nothingness" that is represented by the blackened area on the outside of the bubble.
______
To create "bubble" needs force?
Which force created the “cosmic bubble"?
God?
Casimir effect, Lamb shift, vacuum fluctuations . . . will destroy the God's “cosmic bubble" from every side
------
Hermit Philosopher
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
Location: By the seaside
Contact:

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

socrat44 wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:54 am… /Singularity is not a physical object, it is a mathematical entity. It arises when the denominator is zero./…

Dear socrat44,

Remember that Singularity is not zero, but +/-0.
That is; Singularity is not “nothing”, it is “anything”.

The implications of that difference, alter our reflections upon existence and our concept of reality.

Humbly
Hermit
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2158
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

socrat44 wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 11:02 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:45 am More correctly, I used the definitions of matter/energy to show that the concept of a Big Bang singularity lack meaning and makes it at best a 'virtual' point. And further given that the MEANING of the concept of "Big Bang" versus "Steady State" is about AT MINIMAL, whether the actual appearance of 'converging space' as you go back in time to a point is REAL or simply VIRTUAL. The Steady State proponents labled the real singularity interpretation as 'Big Bang' because it implies an instantaneous BANG of a fixed (and thus, 'special') quantity of matter/energy (which is defined necessarily as derived by the term, "space") into existence. It requires not merely SOME finite acceleration from nothing to something but an INFINITE acceleration.

Modern post-interpretation of Steady State in any medium extant today sells it as ONLY about whether the distant space represents a 'hot' origin versus 'cold'. While Hoyle and other proponents of the past may have asserted this, it would not be DEFINING of the theory and so not essential to even assert or deny whether there were or are points that are 'hotly dense'. It CAN, for instance, be true that a local part of space from our vantage point BE 'hot' but the significant feature of distinction is about whether the point is literally real or not.

Because it cannot LOGICALLY be possible for a singularity as such, then ANY approach to such an apparent point has to be PRE-establish whether the point IS real BEFORE one can assert the appearance of ANY evidence that could interpret distant space phenomena as representing actual heat or not. That is, it is UNSCIENTIFIC to declare an interpretation of Big Bang as valid when it cannot LOGICALLY determine whether the singularity is or is not real. As such, it defaults to a mere 'appearance'.

An interpretation of the CMBR as representing a literal space that was 'hot' is premature for instance because it PRETENDS that the Big Bang is 'logically true' in order for that interpretion of the phenomena to be acceptable. But the Big Bang is ILLOGICAL on the FOUNDATION of reasoning where the Steady State is not. As such, one requires seeking an interpretation based ONLY upon what is defaulted to NOT break the LOGIC. And this means we have to seek an interpretation of the phenomena as BASED upon a time when things were the same as things appear true locally to us WITH PRIORITY!

That the Big Bang faulters on logic suffices to discredit it from the start. But yet, it has been granted an exception to logic as though it has NOT been logically dismissed DEDUCTIVELY. Yet, the provisional declaration of the CMBR as MEANING heat at a mere 4 degrees Kelvin when such temperatures anywhere can NEVER be literally measured as 0 K, is odd given that it SHOULD be the case that we measure an average 'heat' signature that is at best 'close to' 0 K and is most likely REGARDLESS of the theory about singularities. And this is a mere INDUCTION. IF something is disproven DEDUCTIVELY, no amount of post INDUCTION could re-allow it as 'measureably' possible later. YET, the Steady State, though NOT logically dismissed deductively as the Big Bang, it has been deemed 'disproven' on MERE 'INDUCTIVE' assumptions and some POST-theoretical claims about what the temperature 'should' be. It has been declared (but not proven) that some presumed IMPLICATION of Steady State theory 'predicts' something specific about temperature. So, if Hoyle, who happens to be one of the founders of the suggested Steady State theory, were to propose, say, that the temperature may be 3.3 degrees, his credit to such extra possible presumptions do not require he has to be CORRECT in his 'guess'. He doesn't 'OWN' the Steady State reality should it exist and so if he is wrong about some extraneous factors that could be incorrect, how does it imply that the theory itself is wrong? This is like discrediting some famous science theory if he happened to have turned out to be a pediphile independently.

Regardless, Steady State is formally logical while the Big Bang is a magical interpretation proven illogical deductively. Big Bang, whether the universe was or was not hot in the past, cannot save that theory. Also, even if Steady State is/was/will-be proven false for whatever reason deductively later, it still doesn't leave whatever theory left behind as true and more valid when it is already dislodged on logical grounds. This is the rationale of the religious: If you cannot disprove the existance of God by some proposed theory, it doesn't permit one to assume it true for lacking some other hard proof of causation. So when I hear someone assert that Steady State has NO explanation for some observed phenomena, it doesn't mean any left over proposed alternative that IS popular suffices just because it happens to propose some 'fit' in a part of its conjected story. If it is NOT Steady State, it would still NOT be the Big Bang's magical, "...and then all of a sudden God popped X quantity of energy and a 'space' that is somehow treated less 'real' than matter or energy.

Space is itself energy or we could not even see ANYTHING through it! If it lacks energy, you cannot observe such points (Such points CAN exist logically and what may be the 'expansion' when they go from lacking energy to having it. The DENSITY of energy is what is constant and conservable meaning that AS space is 'added', it brings with it energy of some constant represented by its 'volume' alone.
"Steady State" properties cannot be kept in the "hot" systems . . .
sooner or later systems will come to the thermal death . . . but
according to the Quantum theory the thermal death of the Universe is impossible . . .
in the Universe the condition of the ''Steady State” doesn’t exist . . .
as the ancient Greeks said "everything flows, everything changes"
-----
The intepretation of the LIGHT that we receive at a distance by the Big Bang proponents is the "Cosmic Background Radiation" (It is inferred by the assumption THAT the phenomena measured represents what would occur IF Big Bang were possible. IF Big Bang is wrong, the interpretation inferred as background radiation is probably wrong. The interpretation is one meant to 'fit' with the theory regardless of it being provably inconsistent deductively. Since observations are inductive and inductive arguments do NOT guarantee the validity of its conclusions, any conclusion based upon inducing what some phenomena represents is WEAKER than the power of the deduction that demonstrates the CONTRADICTIONS with certainty.

As to a whether phenomena CAN demonstrate whether the CMBR represents heat, this CAN occur, ...even if rare among the totality of space because the Cosmological principles postulated (of both theories) do not mean specifically literal homoegeniety or isomorphism or everything would be perfectly SYMMETRIC upon looking out in space. That is, the principles speak about the general appearances but do not dismiss the uniqueness of what we see as potentially being unrepresentative of what one could see in some OTHER place or time. The bell curve represents the 'general' phenomena of the principles and so it COULD be possible even in a Steady State theory for our LOCAL place to have concentrations of unusual heat. This is because the ends of the bell curve, though very unusual, are nevertheless allowed logically, just as one could win the lottery at great odds against them but the possibility of SOMEONE winning the lottery at all could be very likely.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2158
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

bahman wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:14 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:02 am
bahman wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:59 pm
Glad to hear that you agree.
I know that you already know my take on this from prior discussions. An "Absolute Nothingness" is essential for "Totality" (a metaphysical term of the absolute all); It is NOT directly true of a particular Universe other than with respect to Totality as a whole. Note that also an 'absolute' nothing happens to 'equal' a Relative Nothing that a particular Universe can possibly have but that no "ORIGIN" could occur without the 'absolute'.
I cannot respond to mere disagreement or lack of understanding of what I said. What in particular are you not understanding?
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:02 am Then our Universe has to be treated as "infinite" (or "infinitesimal") as it approaches a singularity (even if it may not) because we cannot 'scientifically' measure existence beyond the time and space we are trapped into intepreting reality.
We either have nothingness that does not have any geometry or infinity. So there is a sharp transition between nothingness to infinity at the beginning, Big Bang. The picture that cosmologists provide is simply wrong.
We might agree on this latter point but speaking across one another. I hold that a Steady State type theory is the case which fits with an infinite space. My argument with respect to Totality being permitted to 'originate' from an absolute nothingnes is about ALL POSSIBLE UNIVERSES collectively. Particular universes, even our own, CAN possibly have an 'origin'; I disagree with the interpretation that we could prove (nor disprove) an origin. I base this upon an extension of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem: A logical system cannot be used to 'prove' itself and, where a system is sufficiently complex enough to include a universal domain, the system of reasoning (or some particular "logic") cannot resolve all proposed problems.

Science is a 'logical system' meant to discover the factors manifesting our Universe's reality. So we cannot prove a time 'when' no time nor space existed and the phenomena interpreted as Cosmic Background Radiation COULD possibly exist in a Steady State reality even if rare among all possible Universes. We may not be able to prove nor disprove the very interpretation of the phenomena that is declared to represent some space and time as EXTREME heat. But since the Big Bang's interpretation requires speaking of a system of Nature's logic as EVOLVING, this implies that the very logical interpretation of the space in the past is distinctly NOT our LOCAL system of reasoning. Thus, whatever distinctly different laws of physics that permits all matter and energy to be compress-able is NOT true of our LOCAL physical system of reasoning. This makes the Big Bang interpreation require being exceptionally able to defeat the Incompleteness theorem without justice.

This suffices to assure us that the Big Bang is false. Whether Steady State may possibly be false is irrelevant as it does NOT permit supplanting the lack of explanation with what is left over. If Steady State type theories are incorrect, then it doesn't permit a win for the already existing theories. It would have to be neither!
socrat44
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

### Re: Does The Singularity Exist?

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:33 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:14 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:02 am
I know that you already know my take on this from prior discussions. An "Absolute Nothingness" is essential for "Totality" (a metaphysical term of the absolute all); It is NOT directly true of a particular Universe other than with respect to Totality as a whole. Note that also an 'absolute' nothing happens to 'equal' a Relative Nothing that a particular Universe can possibly have but that no "ORIGIN" could occur without the 'absolute'.