Does The Singularity Exist?

[jayjacobus]

Let's say the big bang is the starting position.
Then sooner or later the Universe will come to a cosmic absolute zero temperature,
then sooner or later the question will arise: "How the Universe can come from T = 0K?"

Your 2nd and 3rd statements do not come from your 1st statement.

You have made a leap in thinking that is not understandable.

[Scott Mayers]

Let's say the big bang is the starting position.
Then sooner or later the Universe will come to a cosmic absolute zero temperature,
then sooner or later the question will arise: "How the Universe can come from T = 0K?"

Your 2nd and 3rd statements do not come from your 1st statement.

You have made a leap in thinking that is not understandable.

He implicitly asserts that GIVEN the universe had some origin from nothing, that singularity as BOUND would be 0K at the beginning as it is already ACCEPTED by the Big Bang theory it would end. But while the end is accepted to gradually approach 0K, the 'bang' at the singularity is opposingly instantaneous because it goes from no energy to infinite energy in no time (and instant 'bang').

Why should that singularity be treated as BOTH scientifically dependent upon observation AND logical when it is neither?

The Big Bang is definitely false but has some other reason for embracing it that has to imply it is political or religious!

You cannot logically INFER completion of a system of reason if you cannot exhaustively cover the all parts of the domain. In this case the inability to logically determine what or how the singularity arose FINITELY by a logical process, you cannot assure that any of the logic BEING USED TO INFER THIS is CONSISTENT. Also, given the INCOMPLETNESS THEOREM's second proof that you cannot use the very logic of the system to prove what it is without being circular, the whole logic inferring a singularity is not LOGICALLY VALID NOR SOUND!

Also, you cannot scientifically INFER a direct observation of being able to infinitely compress something. Not even 'black holes' can be observed to qualify this. And so

Because the alternative Steady State interpertation IS inferred logically and also does not break the laws of physics, this alternative is the ONLY model that can be acceptable [an infinite universe].

I have also proven that the Steady State theory which predominated the signficant intellect has literally only remnant mention for being so significant that its burial is suspect of political intent, rationally likely to be its countereffective power to disprove any need for any religious intervention,...even of the Deistic forms. Furthermore, it is literally impossible to even SPEAK of it within any forum beyond the intentended faulty belittlement of reference to the original thinker's reference to being inspired in thought by seeing an episode of Twilight Zone, there is a clear bias againt it. It is tabooed even more than any religious God as a postulate and such and you get absolutely censored (DELETED) on any scientific domains.

The latter unfortunately can only be 'proven' politically by trying to question it yourself in a science forum. You cannot raise questions about it and it is IMMEDIATELY monitored for any activity on Wikipedia even though it is absurdly 'trivialized' such that you write a question in the discussion sections and they are also deleted. But you can go to many other links and discuss something that are very active yet unnoticed.

I have a theory ...actually a theorem! that disproves the Big Bang and demonstrates reality from very simple logic that posits what and how exactly the shape of all atomic particles are that correspond to all the evidence but because of the political realities, I would not be able to publish without figuring out how to do it from outside. I'm working on it but the very difficulty that others here also have that I do on discussing these issues is hard for many to accept regardless of the logic. People just assume doubt that there could be such an intentional flaw (or possible conspiracy) regarding the general virtue of science given this is even difficult to conceptualize by many asserting no religious favor.

[socrat44]

Singularity is a point of birth, of creation. This point must have mass and energy.
Singularity of Big Bang has infinite density and therefore this hypothesis is wrong

[Scott Mayers]

Singularity is a point of birth, of creation. This point must have mass and energy.
Singularity of Big Bang has infinite density and therefore this hypothesis is wrong

Agreed. But as easily said, there is a political interest in preferring that model. I just made a comment on Veritas Aequitas's thread she wrote discussing another significant topic on new scientific input on 'consciousness' regarding why I think it is getting more difficult for science to simplify thoeries when politics relies on the utility of religion as a tool that requires making theories more 'religious':

Re: Anil Seth: Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?

The Big Bang seems to be imposed as a preferred means to 'save' one of the most signficant factors that can undermine the utility of religion in politics. Thus, politics intervenes in the Standard Model by doing whatever it takes to keep the Big Bang theory at least alive regardless of the clear logic against it.

The competing 'logical' model (or class of models) is the "Steady State Theory" which postulates that when looking back at all times of the apparent evidence that implies a boundary (an apparent singularity), this boundary can only be interpreted as an 'approach'. Thus, we have to default to assume all times as 'Steady' [the same] such that IF we could go back in time 14 billion years (the apparent implied finite age of the universe), we'd still see all galaxies physically like we do now and so it would still appear to be another 14 Billion years further away. This means that the Universe has to be understood as infinite. The 'boundary' is permanently outside our idea of time and space. Thus we cannot speak of what we neither infer scientifially nor logically.

[jayjacobus]

Something cannot come from nothing unless that something was created but, even then, what created the Big Bang must have been something.

One possibility is there was something fundamental, static and simple that always existed. Call that something aether.

Hypothetically, within the aether, there were attractions. The attractions would not be in motion so time was not a factor. But, if the attractions grew, they might have caused the aether to become overloaded and the pressure caused by the build up of attractions caused an enormous release which created the big bang,

The Big Bang could not have come from nothing. My thinking is novel but fathomable.

[Cerveny]

… singularity is like the first grain of ice in a freezing lake, like the first germ of the past in the sea of ​​the future… The birth of causality

[Age]

Something cannot come from nothing unless that something was created but, even then, what created the Big Bang must have been something.

One possibility is there was something fundamental, static and simple that always existed. Call that something aether.

Hypothetically, within the aether, there were attractions. The attractions would not be in motion so time was not a factor. But, if the attractions grew, they might have caused the aether to become overloaded and the pressure caused by the build up of attractions caused an enormous release which created the big bang,

The Big Bang could not have come from nothing. My thinking is novel but fathomable.

You are on the right path, but you just ruined it by ASSUMING there was NO 'time', and then by CONTRADICTING "yourself" when saying the NONE moving attraction GREW. How could this even be a POSSIBILITY, let anyone an ACTUALITY?

[socrat44]

One possibility is there was something fundamental, static and simple that always existed. Call that something aether.

The ether is filled with "virtual particles", both energy particles and passive particles.
Their interaction created quantum gravity, which can evolve into the gravity of stars and planets.
The ether has no "time".
"Time" began with the creation of quantum gravity.