sthitapragya wrote: ken wrote:
I never intended to call the big bang an 'actual' explosion. Explosion is just a simple word I use. The word 'bang' seems to suggest a loud noise. The word 'big' seems to suggest the bang was a massive noise, like in a huge explosion. So the words 'big bang', in of themselves, seem to suggest an explosion also, for me anyway. What was the intent and purpose for using the words 'big bang'?
If the big bang was not in fact an explosion, but was in fact a quantum fluctuation, which caused singularity to rapidly expand, then at the point of quantum fluctuation in the big bang, with the "insane temperatures and pressures" and with the rate and speed of expansion, this, relative to anything a human has experienced previously, was like a massive 'explosion', for lack of a better word.
All the explosions I know of begin with 'temporary change in the amount of energy in a point', similar to what is sometimes referred to as a quantum fluctuation, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang), then that change in energy causes everything at that point to rapidly expand, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang), usually with a loud bang, (like i imagine what took place in the big bang). Some bangs are bigger than others, but all explosions act, and react very similar.
I do not challenge singularity rapidly expand in the big bang with subsequent inflation, creating the present-day universe.
What I do challenge however is the way some people suggest that just because they do not know what was happening prior to singularity, and do not know that what caused singularity, then the universe must of began, at singularity. I do not challenge the view that there was absolutely no time nor space AT singularity and I gave reasons why there could be no time nor space thus no events AT singularity. I do challenge however that that in of itself does not mean there was not time and space still going on, around singularity itself. I suggested and have explained what could have been happening before the big bang, with proof of the present day universe and black holes as evidence. I challenge the use of the word multiverses instead of using the One word universe, and explained why. I challenge people when they use words like "in the beginning" as though it is correct. What I challenge most is the way people think. I especially like to challenge that what people think, and thus challenge the words they write and speak, which then negatively affects the way they look at, and therefore see, things.
If people feel like they want and could challenge me, then challenge me on anything. I love the challenge and would love to be challenged on my view that the present-day universe is still the exact same universe that was in existence prior to the big bang. The more I get challenged on my words and views then the more I learn and improve.
Well, like I said, you need to read.
Read what exactly.
I have already implied that I am not really that enthusiastic about the minor details. I am not disagreeing with what is already out there and that I am only adding onto what is already known.
sthitapragya wrote: You still say that an explosion is like the big bang expansion.
I used the words,
to me, and I used the word 'like',
similar, not the exact same. In other words, "to me an explosion is similar but not the exact same as the big bang expansion". Is that clearer? If so, then as I said previously, "I love to be challenged" and "The more I get challenged on my words... ...then the more I learn and improve. So, thank you.
If anything I say, including the above, is still not clear, then please keep challenging me. I truly am loving and enjoying the challenge.
sthitapragya wrote:There are a lot of sites which explain the difference between and explosion and expansion. Explosion needs existing space. Here there was no space to explode into.
Who says there was no space?
At the end of a black hole there is singularity, right?
Black holes AND singularity exist NOW, right?
There is space existing NOW, right?
If space is the distance
between matter, and if there
appears to be no other matter, besides singularity, then there would
appear to be no space, right?
However, we know that there is space and time because if there was no space and time there would be no universe and if there is no universe there would be no black holes, and if there are no black holes, then there would be no singularity. So even though there
may appear to be no space there
in fact actually always is.
sthitapragya wrote:Expansion is literally the space between things increasing such that the scale changes.
The scale of what exactly actually changes here?
If, as you say in your previous quote, there was no space for singularity to explode into, and now, in this quote you say 'the' space between things increases, then how do you propose space came into existence if space did not exist prior?
sthitapragya wrote:The objects dont move away from each other. The scale simply changes.
The scale of what exactly, again, simply changes?
sthitapragya wrote: The explanation of expansion is so counter intuitive that it takes a lot of re-reading to understand.
The explanation of expansion is so intuitive to me when looked at from a certain perspective, i.e., the open Mind.
sthitapragya wrote: As long as your premises are based on a wrong understanding of the big bang theory, which in itself is a misnomer and was used sarcastically by a physicist who never accepted the theory, there really is nothing to challenge.
What exactly is my supposed WRONG understanding of the big bang theory?
And, what are my premises that are based on a wrong understanding of the big bang theory?
It appears, from what you have written, that you have had a lot of trouble understanding the big bang theory. Do you have a fully understanding of the big bang theory now? If not, then could it be the case that what appears to you as "my" wrong understanding of the big bang theory actually not really be the case?
I really hope you can clear up "my" wrong understanding of the big bang theory for me.
sthitapragya wrote:You claim your theory begins where others left off. That Implies that you assume the big bang theory to be true. Since you seem to suggest that you are taking this forward, your theory would have to be consistent with the original model. That is where the problem is. Like I said, you need to re-read the theory.
I am not taking this forward. I am taking this backwards, beyond singularity, and then forwards again. I thought that was obvious. Just maybe you need to re-read what I have said exactly.
My view is NOT inconsistent at all with the, so called, "original" model. On that note, I wonder how much of the latest model of the big bang theory is EXACTLY the same as the original model is?
What is the problem exactly? In other words, what is the question you want to pose for a solution. I do not see any problem here anywhere.
Also you say, "That is where the problem is", whereabouts exactly? I just want to make sure I am understand you right. If were I think you say it is, again, my views are not (that much?) inconsistent with the general idea of A big bang.
sthitapragya wrote:Also you are arguing with the wrong person. We both seem to suggest the same thing. I have also said that whatever existed during singularity was in such a state that we cannot possibly intuit what it was.
I have already shown what 'I' intuit the state the universe was in, during singularity. I thought that was obvious. What you call "My Theory" is NOT interested at all in what existed
during singularity,
within singularity, what I am interested in is what was happening
at singularity and what was
before singularity, i.e., what caused/created singularity.
If you mean by 'arguing',
disagreeing, then I am certainly NOT disagreeing with you. What do you mean by 'argue'? I think there never could be a 'wrong person' to 'argue',
logically reason with EVER.
By the way what is the same thing that we both seem to be suggesting?
sthitapragya wrote:So we can only say that it was existence in another state.
That is what 'you' call it. I do not, so that is NOT what "we can
only say". Please try not to think that others can not know more or have different knowledge from that what is written in the books you read only.
sthitapragya wrote:You seem to be suggesting a theory of what the existence really was.
'Is' would be a better word, but 'was' will do for now. Yes I am suggesting what the existence really was/is. That is, the exact same existence that exists now, i.e., the universe, just in another shape and form. Just to make it very, very clear.
sthitapragya wrote:Since your theory can neither be confirmed nor denied by anyone, including any physicist since it theorizes a situation beyond a point where the laws of science breakdown, it can only remain a theory for your satisfaction. It has no real relevance because it can never be proved to be true or false.
But "My theory" can be confirmed, or denied, by anyone.
If this is being read NOW, then there is an observer.
If there is an observer, then the existence of the universe is already proved true.
If the universe exists NOW, producing black holes and singularities, then there is confirmation. For any and every one.
If there is singularity at the end of a black hole, then it would be safe to say that the black hole helped in the creation of singularity.
Things from the universe that enter a black hole are re-formed and re-shaped through infinite density into singularity.
What happens to singularity at that time a black hole ends?
Where is singularity now?
What could have happened to singularity?
The answers to these questions we may not have, yet. The reason for why we do not know the answers, I have already supplied. But I will reiterate:
At singularity there is no space, without space there are no events, and without events measurements can not be made, so there is also no time. There can be no observer if there is no space/time continuum.
However, what we have observed and thus do know is:
Quantum fluctuations cause singularity to rapidly expand in, what is known as, "the" Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day universe.
And,
In the present-day universe, we can observe how singularity is created and what singularity is created from.
By looking back we can observe creation
from singularity.
By looking forth we can also observe creation
of singularity.
An observer can only truly observe in the HERE and NOW. But imagine, as an observer, looking infinitely, and not stopping at singularity. You circle the infinite universe, for lack of better wording, in the moment. You were pre-sent to end up here back in the present. Looking beyond singularity, back and forth, you will always end up HERE, in the NOW, back where and when you began looking. This end, however, (long), is just the beginning. If 'you' are reading this, then 'you' are an observer. Creation, Itself, in action, is observed in the HERE and NOW.