the "singularity" of the Big Bang Theory is pure conjecture. if true, it proves the existence of a point transcending time and space that ultimately proved to be omni potent. Sounds like you just proved god.
one theory of the inflation was that there was a vacuum that was more dense then our current vacuum. at some point that vacuum begain to shed and our univese grew into the void. well grew into itself i guess.
No answer for its physical existence from within itself, unless it was in fact infintely eternal via absence of time, therefore not confined by historical 1dimensional time x 1dimensional lengths.
Therefore, no matter how you reduce this physical Universe, it cannot explain its own origin since it is confined by 1 dimensional finite virtual particles.
The Universe has to find its own existence via explanation 'outside its own existence' i.e. self. 1d time is a measurement of change
I doubt, when the answer is discovered, it is something "outside of existence". "outside of existence" isn't even a useful term. It's like saying, 200 years ago, when nobody could explain why the sun hadn't burned itself out, that the answer would come from outside of its existence. The answer instead came from within, nuclear fusion.
The Universe is not infintely eternal, therefore, it could not have created itself into existence. Something outside this 'closed system" created this '1 dimensional time x 1 dimensional length' byproduct we call a Universe.
What is this Universe expanding towards? If virtual particles are the initial source of this 'mass' Universe, which happens to have risen from within a vacuum state, then these particle are 'supposedly" the source of origins.
No answer for its physical existence from within itself, unless it was in fact infintely eternal via absence of time, therefore not confined by historical 1dimensional time x 1dimensional lengths.
Therefore, no matter how you reduce this physical Universe, it cannot explain its own origin since 'it's is confined by 1 dimensional finite virtual particles.
Furthermore, it has to find its own existence via explanation 'outside its own existence' i.e. self. 1d time is a measurement of change
Our Universe is a 'closed system' which expanded its physical volume of space from WITHIN via 'movement activity' i.e., time x length, which equals a FINITE physical presence of particles from within this closed system.
Now, this expanding closed system was activated into action at the Big Bang. The expansion of energy & matter via particles is 'not' actually borderless, but rather its 'bound by a dimensional area of space."
The Big Bang created a 'space-time grid, i.e., a field of energy, and this physical space-time entity, can actually be altered by the presence of REAL MASS, therefore, space-time has the physical properties of a REAL FINITE ENTITY.
Infinite entities would never be confined by any time confined dimensions, borders or any type of finite lengths, since they all consists of a beginning singularity point.
What passes between the present and the point where it registers in your mind? Time.
A volume of space is composed of physical particles, which requires 'movement activity' between these physical particles via 'time x length, otherwise you cannot create an expansion of finite material, by increasing the dimensional volume of space.'
Energy & matter via particle collisions are finite measurements, which are solely meant for finite material. Is the speed of light not confined by time? Do stars have a lifespan via 'time' as they burn up their nuclear fuel? Of course.
Stephen Hawkings said ","Only if we could picture the universe in terms of IMAGINARY TIME would there be NO SINGULARITIES... When one goes back to the REAL TIME in which we live, however, there will still appear to be SINGULARITIES." Hawking, S.W. 1988. A Brief History of Time, pp. 138-139).
Remember, Space-Time is a real physical entity which can be distorted by mass, which proves that space-time is a real entity. At the Big Bang, you had the expansion of "Space-Time", matter & energy.
If u didn't have Space-Time as a real physical presence, then 'everything would have occurred at the 'same time.'
You see, "space & time" simultaneously create a distance and a dimension between real events.' So, as "something progrsses forward in time, a distance of time & space are moving forward simultaneously.
That's why it is impossible for you to create something without using up any real time. That's why energy, matter, time and space expanded simultaneously at the Big Bang.
Time is an absolute. It is a period of time between 'two events of time', which requires either two finite points- a length of time, an interval between a beginning state & an infinite state. If you notice , there must be a 'finite state' present in order for 'time' to be measureable.
A finite singularity point and an infnite state, can also be measured because 'a period of 'time' elapses between two finite objects, or between one finite object which has an immesurable- ending point.
What came first between the chicken & the egg, ice & water, & finally, energy & matter? Nobody was around in order to observe these entities take form, however we do have their material in order to help us determine whether they are composed of finite or infinte material.
People suggest that Energy is the source of origins, by producing 'supposedly' the first particle, which transformed itself back into energy, & visa versa.
Now, if energy is the source of origins, i.e., infinite,......
..then why is it that this 'source of origins' via energy into matter, uses finite material? In simple terms, how can an infinite house of energy , use 'finite material' in order to discribe & create 'an infinite house of energy?"
That is a complete contradiction in terms. Now back to my chicken, ice and energy examples. so, by not being able to observe these things rise within a primordial state, we cannot tell which of them came first, via chick/egg, ice/watter, or energy/matter. However..
..'what came first doesn't really matter, the real issue is, not what came first, but are any of these things composed of 'infinite' material, because if they are not, then their co-partner is also 'not' infinite by mere default.
Now, if ice is 'finite' & transforms itself into water, & then water transforms itself back into ice, * this cyycle continues in what looks like for an infinite state, does not actually mean that in fact it is 'infinite."
Remember, you must realize that as long as all finite things have a 'beginning start', it doesn't matter how 'infinite things look as we observe them. A beginning start and an infinite end 'still' classifies it as being 'finite' since both ends are not infinite.
Draw a line without crating a beginning point, you see, that shows that if a finite beginning occurs, even without our observation, then that presets thier co-partner via energy/matter, ice/water, chicken/egg as finite too.
Therefore, finite things can either have an 'OBSERVED BEGINNING or an UNOBSERVED BEGINNING."
By simply looking at the 'material', 'partitions', 'variables', equations, lines, dimensions, time, etc., you can tell if it is talking about infinite or finite things.
Now, how can you describe an infinite universe using finite dimensions of space, via a two point line, which is required in order to measure space in between these two FINITE points?
If I have a granade and ten years later I decide to use it, does that imply that the granade/BB is composed of infinite material because it existed prior to the explosion?
Of course not.
Finite material will remain finite no matter how long after the fact it exists & decides to EXPLODE. The real issue becomes the properties of the material, not simply inactive time lapse.
However, if relative variables are used, via time x length, then that can help decide if something is finite or not.
..the problem and the answer to our dilemna is one and the same. The answer must be infinite, yet its something we know about, yet its something we cannot put our hands on since its 'beyond our physical relative experiences, i.e., not filled with 'births and ends' via infinite-eternity.
The universe expands towards nothingness, i.e., THE ABSENCE OF TIME', yet, ironically, 'infinite ALSO is defined as 'THE ABSENCE OF TIME via no birth/beginning & no end/death.
And since we both know that nothingness cannot create something, which violates our own physical FINITE law, i.e., 1st Law Of Thermodynamics, then we know that the answer must be INFINITE, which places 'something eternal' outside this finite universe, thereby creating 'something finte-time, matter, energy, and a +1 dimension -time x length, of space."
God is the only entity which creates 'outside finite time' not 'within it. We understand the 'concept of infinite' but not experienced it. YET.
although I did take physics and thermodynamics in college, give me a day to totally grasp what your saying...I dont want to respond and not have it right....~Raven
"infinite" amount of marbles and can create & give you 'within my infinite state' a +1 marble, that will still leave me with an infinte amount of marble left.
The moment the marble/particle/potential energy becomes 'active' via movement= 'energy force' via KINETIC ENERGY, then this kenetic energy 'moves'via LENGTH x FINITE TIME x energy,which 'exposes a relative beginning point.
Oncea 'finite marble/particle/potential energy, EXISTS, the the 'process' already..
...began. Now, you can hold that marble/particle/potential energy for as long as you want 'before' the Big Bang, but the fact is 'the time confined particle=POTENTIAL ENERGY already exists, in order to create the KINETIC ENERGY via 'movement of ENERGY, which completes the 'TRANSFORMATION PROCESS' of particles=potential energy & enregy=kinetic energy.
So you see, the fact that people believe that the 'particle=potential energy' pre=existed prior to the Big Bang means absolutely nothing,.....
.....since the 'potential energy via particle' has already 'pre-activated' the movement process via length x finite time x energy, therefore a +1 finite time moving process has already began 'without peoples conscent' therefore, the +1 'moving force' actually takes place prior to the Big Bang, but 'ISN'T ACCOUNTED FOR.
But that doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter 'where on a sheet of paper you 'begin a line, and it EXPLODES=BIG BANG in the middle of the line.
.....you can say that it 'pre-existed' for whatever amount of time prior to the Big Bang, and exploded in the middle of a line.
Create a line without creating a finite singularity point. Impossible. So, if the process itself via potential energy/particle pre-existed prior to the Big Bang, you already have a '+1 finite particle present', 'YET' you require 'finite length x time' in order to create ''MOVEMENT' via kinetic energy, and once again '+1 finite variables via 'length x time x energy.
Now, if you have 'potential energy' via particle, which requires 'motion' in order to produce 'kinetic energy (movement),which coincidently requires "another force" to be applied to in order to "move it over a distance" via time x length then that sort of creates your 'dimension' within this energy field, yet' you cannot account for this 'fantom force.
Motion equals activity, and time equals activity, and time equals +1, you once again have a singularity point.
Now, in reference to 'time.' Time as we know it is 'finite', along with everything in it. So obviously your question is 'how can all this occur without time?
It's actually easier than you think, its just that 'all we know is finite entities' and we all consists of 'finite regressions' since we are confined by relative time. So....
Last comment for the night,lol...well on this video...lol....I loved how you debated this because its soooo obvious to me that the Big Bang could have never had a starting point because TIME was neccessary in order to prepare space for the intial BANG. Time must be eternal for the Big Bang to start and my point is that this is impossible by logic.
OK, I hope you will help me address another eroneous argument which is the purpose for my questions. ~Raven
Your arguments definitely disproove the Big Bang relative to Time...I am hoping that you can explain to me an argument for "Time" must be eternal and whatever the universe composed up PRIOR to the Big Bang must have consisted of something eternal to have expanded. I realize that these are impossibilities by logic alone and that is also your argument. I am just basically confused,lol....Help! ~Raven
Man has in his knowledge TIME defined by Matter....I am saying that this wasnt true prior to the Big Bang. Whatever else existed, Time was relevant to that which had always been. ~Raven
Would you agree that as the universe expanded PRIOR to the Big Bang that time existed? If time didnt exist prior to the Big Bang, than how could the Big Bang BANG? There were forces at work in the universe, its just that man does not know what that was with absolute certaintly. My point is that the universe could have never done anything if everything that the universe consisted off, had a starting point. Whether finite or eternal, "something" had to have always been. ~Raven
What is the Universe expanding towards? Nothingness. Nothingness surrounds the expansion. The universe's existence regresses back to a +1 elementary particle.
Prior to a +1 equals 0, since nothingness implies zero, and absence of time.
U cannot have 1 without 0, nor can you have 2 without a 1 as a point of reference.
The BB was a historical event-all events 'only' begin with a +1 and expand towards infinite.
If a +1 particle is first in line, with nothingness around it, ....
And if you progressed from +1 to +5, then you can only regress back to the original beginning +1 state.
Before +1 you have 0, via nothingness, absence of time, therefore zero time. You cannot have a +1 "FINITE" particle existing inside a -1 quantum realm.
A +1 particle begins a +1 FINITE progression towards infinite.
However, you attempt to place this +1 particle within a
(( -1 IMAGINARY DIMENSION)) which exists prior to 0 time, and a +1 finite number. That is simply insane.
The simplistic logic in this presentation may convince a 7th grader, but it is based upon fundamental assumptions. It assumes that a finite universe came into existence uncaused from out of nothing.
Stephen Hawking uses imaginary numbers as an explanatory tool. However, he does not limit his calculations to a horizontal axis (as this video naively does). Hawking introduces a vertical axis as well. This plots the Big Bang as point in SPACE & TIME.
Infinite entities are capable of producing +1, finite byproducts. Infinite minus one = Infinite.
If you have a +1 particle, would it be defined as -1, 0, or +1? So, you have to account for this finite byproduct, which came into existence from a state of nothingness.
Begin a line from a horizontal or verticle position, either way, both introduce a +1 'singularity point.'
Expand the univerese without a +1 point of reference. When the universe regresses back, it only returns to a +1 point.
The BB caused the expansion of finite time, the expansion finite space via relative time x length, and the creation of 'motion' via expansion of space.
What existed prior to zero time? Nothing. What came into existence after zero time? +1 particle, +1 time, +1 motion, +1 dimension via time x length.
U cannot have a pre-existing particle within "zero time' via quantum realm, i.e, nothingness.
Supposedly, the quantum realm existed 'prior' to the Big Bang, without time x length, etc?
"so you agree that NOTHING can create SOMETHING? Wouldnt you call that a miracle?"
No! I do not agree. Of course matter and energy cannot spontaneously appear from 'nothing'. Nothingness and miracles are concepts in the mind. These are not scientific words, they are religious.
Speaking of religious, I notice that youVSmee has made the decision to delete my previous posts which criticized this video.
Shame on you, youVSmee! I had respect for you at one time.
FraminHammer, I dont know what happened to your comments...it wasnt my decision to delete them. I dont delete comments on my channel, ever...but this channel belongs to someone else so its not my decision. Send him a PM and ask him why he did....everyone runs their channels differently...~Raven
the "singularity" of the Big Bang Theory is pure conjecture. if true, it proves the existence of a point transcending time and space that ultimately proved to be omni potent. Sounds like you just proved god.
romney27 5 months ago
one theory of the inflation was that there was a vacuum that was more dense then our current vacuum. at some point that vacuum begain to shed and our univese grew into the void. well grew into itself i guess.
keggerous 2 years ago
gasp!
you did so well, up until about 1:17 , you were talking about "nothing", and then you went and put something in the nothing!
EPIC FAIL!
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
No answer for its physical existence from within itself, unless it was in fact infintely eternal via absence of time, therefore not confined by historical 1dimensional time x 1dimensional lengths.
Therefore, no matter how you reduce this physical Universe, it cannot explain its own origin since it is confined by 1 dimensional finite virtual particles.
The Universe has to find its own existence via explanation 'outside its own existence' i.e. self. 1d time is a measurement of change
youVSmee 2 years ago
@youVSmee
I doubt, when the answer is discovered, it is something "outside of existence". "outside of existence" isn't even a useful term. It's like saying, 200 years ago, when nobody could explain why the sun hadn't burned itself out, that the answer would come from outside of its existence. The answer instead came from within, nuclear fusion.
rddaos 2 years ago
The Universe is not infintely eternal, therefore, it could not have created itself into existence. Something outside this 'closed system" created this '1 dimensional time x 1 dimensional length' byproduct we call a Universe.
What is this Universe expanding towards? If virtual particles are the initial source of this 'mass' Universe, which happens to have risen from within a vacuum state, then these particle are 'supposedly" the source of origins.
What surrounded these V-particles?
youVSmee 2 years ago
No answer for its physical existence from within itself, unless it was in fact infintely eternal via absence of time, therefore not confined by historical 1dimensional time x 1dimensional lengths.
Therefore, no matter how you reduce this physical Universe, it cannot explain its own origin since 'it's is confined by 1 dimensional finite virtual particles.
Furthermore, it has to find its own existence via explanation 'outside its own existence' i.e. self. 1d time is a measurement of change
youVSmee 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheMackQuigleyReport 2 years ago
Our Universe is a 'closed system' which expanded its physical volume of space from WITHIN via 'movement activity' i.e., time x length, which equals a FINITE physical presence of particles from within this closed system.
Now, this expanding closed system was activated into action at the Big Bang. The expansion of energy & matter via particles is 'not' actually borderless, but rather its 'bound by a dimensional area of space."
youVSmee 2 years ago
The Big Bang created a 'space-time grid, i.e., a field of energy, and this physical space-time entity, can actually be altered by the presence of REAL MASS, therefore, space-time has the physical properties of a REAL FINITE ENTITY.
Infinite entities would never be confined by any time confined dimensions, borders or any type of finite lengths, since they all consists of a beginning singularity point.
What passes between the present and the point where it registers in your mind? Time.
youVSmee 2 years ago
A volume of space is composed of physical particles, which requires 'movement activity' between these physical particles via 'time x length, otherwise you cannot create an expansion of finite material, by increasing the dimensional volume of space.'
Energy & matter via particle collisions are finite measurements, which are solely meant for finite material. Is the speed of light not confined by time? Do stars have a lifespan via 'time' as they burn up their nuclear fuel? Of course.
youVSmee 2 years ago
Stephen Hawkings said ","Only if we could picture the universe in terms of IMAGINARY TIME would there be NO SINGULARITIES... When one goes back to the REAL TIME in which we live, however, there will still appear to be SINGULARITIES." Hawking, S.W. 1988. A Brief History of Time, pp. 138-139).
Remember, Space-Time is a real physical entity which can be distorted by mass, which proves that space-time is a real entity. At the Big Bang, you had the expansion of "Space-Time", matter & energy.
youVSmee 2 years ago
If u didn't have Space-Time as a real physical presence, then 'everything would have occurred at the 'same time.'
You see, "space & time" simultaneously create a distance and a dimension between real events.' So, as "something progrsses forward in time, a distance of time & space are moving forward simultaneously.
That's why it is impossible for you to create something without using up any real time. That's why energy, matter, time and space expanded simultaneously at the Big Bang.
youVSmee 2 years ago
Time is an absolute. It is a period of time between 'two events of time', which requires either two finite points- a length of time, an interval between a beginning state & an infinite state. If you notice , there must be a 'finite state' present in order for 'time' to be measureable.
A finite singularity point and an infnite state, can also be measured because 'a period of 'time' elapses between two finite objects, or between one finite object which has an immesurable- ending point.
youVSmee 2 years ago
What came first between the chicken & the egg, ice & water, & finally, energy & matter? Nobody was around in order to observe these entities take form, however we do have their material in order to help us determine whether they are composed of finite or infinte material.
People suggest that Energy is the source of origins, by producing 'supposedly' the first particle, which transformed itself back into energy, & visa versa.
Now, if energy is the source of origins, i.e., infinite,......
youVSmee 2 years ago
..then why is it that this 'source of origins' via energy into matter, uses finite material? In simple terms, how can an infinite house of energy , use 'finite material' in order to discribe & create 'an infinite house of energy?"
That is a complete contradiction in terms. Now back to my chicken, ice and energy examples. so, by not being able to observe these things rise within a primordial state, we cannot tell which of them came first, via chick/egg, ice/watter, or energy/matter. However..
youVSmee 2 years ago
..'what came first doesn't really matter, the real issue is, not what came first, but are any of these things composed of 'infinite' material, because if they are not, then their co-partner is also 'not' infinite by mere default.
Now, if ice is 'finite' & transforms itself into water, & then water transforms itself back into ice, * this cyycle continues in what looks like for an infinite state, does not actually mean that in fact it is 'infinite."
youVSmee 2 years ago
Remember, you must realize that as long as all finite things have a 'beginning start', it doesn't matter how 'infinite things look as we observe them. A beginning start and an infinite end 'still' classifies it as being 'finite' since both ends are not infinite.
Draw a line without crating a beginning point, you see, that shows that if a finite beginning occurs, even without our observation, then that presets thier co-partner via energy/matter, ice/water, chicken/egg as finite too.
youVSmee 2 years ago
Therefore, finite things can either have an 'OBSERVED BEGINNING or an UNOBSERVED BEGINNING."
By simply looking at the 'material', 'partitions', 'variables', equations, lines, dimensions, time, etc., you can tell if it is talking about infinite or finite things.
Now, how can you describe an infinite universe using finite dimensions of space, via a two point line, which is required in order to measure space in between these two FINITE points?
Along with that, you also have time x length.
youVSmee 2 years ago
If I have a granade and ten years later I decide to use it, does that imply that the granade/BB is composed of infinite material because it existed prior to the explosion?
Of course not.
Finite material will remain finite no matter how long after the fact it exists & decides to EXPLODE. The real issue becomes the properties of the material, not simply inactive time lapse.
However, if relative variables are used, via time x length, then that can help decide if something is finite or not.
youVSmee 2 years ago
..the problem and the answer to our dilemna is one and the same. The answer must be infinite, yet its something we know about, yet its something we cannot put our hands on since its 'beyond our physical relative experiences, i.e., not filled with 'births and ends' via infinite-eternity.
The universe expands towards nothingness, i.e., THE ABSENCE OF TIME', yet, ironically, 'infinite ALSO is defined as 'THE ABSENCE OF TIME via no birth/beginning & no end/death.
youVSmee 2 years ago
So, this unknown infinite experience exists beyond our experience, yet 'INFINITE minus "1-13 BILLION,etc," still equals INFINITE.
Our God is the Infinite Source which creates within the realms of 'INFINITE' minus one equals INFINITE.
God created 'TIME' which consists finite regressions. Infinite has NO regressions via no 'beginnings via birth & NO ends via death i.e. ETERNAL.
Eternity is the ABSENCE OF TIME. This universe is confined by time, & time creates timed regressions of history.
youVSmee 2 years ago
And since we both know that nothingness cannot create something, which violates our own physical FINITE law, i.e., 1st Law Of Thermodynamics, then we know that the answer must be INFINITE, which places 'something eternal' outside this finite universe, thereby creating 'something finte-time, matter, energy, and a +1 dimension -time x length, of space."
God is the only entity which creates 'outside finite time' not 'within it. We understand the 'concept of infinite' but not experienced it. YET.
youVSmee 2 years ago
although I did take physics and thermodynamics in college, give me a day to totally grasp what your saying...I dont want to respond and not have it right....~Raven
RadicalComedy 2 years ago
In simple terms, if I have
"infinite" amount of marbles and can create & give you 'within my infinite state' a +1 marble, that will still leave me with an infinte amount of marble left.
The moment the marble/particle/potential energy becomes 'active' via movement= 'energy force' via KINETIC ENERGY, then this kenetic energy 'moves'via LENGTH x FINITE TIME x energy,which 'exposes a relative beginning point.
Oncea 'finite marble/particle/potential energy, EXISTS, the the 'process' already..
youVSmee 2 years ago
...began. Now, you can hold that marble/particle/potential energy for as long as you want 'before' the Big Bang, but the fact is 'the time confined particle=POTENTIAL ENERGY already exists, in order to create the KINETIC ENERGY via 'movement of ENERGY, which completes the 'TRANSFORMATION PROCESS' of particles=potential energy & enregy=kinetic energy.
So you see, the fact that people believe that the 'particle=potential energy' pre=existed prior to the Big Bang means absolutely nothing,.....
youVSmee 2 years ago
.....since the 'potential energy via particle' has already 'pre-activated' the movement process via length x finite time x energy, therefore a +1 finite time moving process has already began 'without peoples conscent' therefore, the +1 'moving force' actually takes place prior to the Big Bang, but 'ISN'T ACCOUNTED FOR.
But that doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter 'where on a sheet of paper you 'begin a line, and it EXPLODES=BIG BANG in the middle of the line.
So....
youVSmee 2 years ago
.....you can say that it 'pre-existed' for whatever amount of time prior to the Big Bang, and exploded in the middle of a line.
Create a line without creating a finite singularity point. Impossible. So, if the process itself via potential energy/particle pre-existed prior to the Big Bang, you already have a '+1 finite particle present', 'YET' you require 'finite length x time' in order to create ''MOVEMENT' via kinetic energy, and once again '+1 finite variables via 'length x time x energy.
youVSmee 2 years ago
Now, if you have 'potential energy' via particle, which requires 'motion' in order to produce 'kinetic energy (movement),which coincidently requires "another force" to be applied to in order to "move it over a distance" via time x length then that sort of creates your 'dimension' within this energy field, yet' you cannot account for this 'fantom force.
youVSmee 2 years ago
Motion equals activity, and time equals activity, and time equals +1, you once again have a singularity point.
Now, in reference to 'time.' Time as we know it is 'finite', along with everything in it. So obviously your question is 'how can all this occur without time?
It's actually easier than you think, its just that 'all we know is finite entities' and we all consists of 'finite regressions' since we are confined by relative time. So....
youVSmee 2 years ago
Last comment for the night,lol...well on this video...lol....I loved how you debated this because its soooo obvious to me that the Big Bang could have never had a starting point because TIME was neccessary in order to prepare space for the intial BANG. Time must be eternal for the Big Bang to start and my point is that this is impossible by logic.
OK, I hope you will help me address another eroneous argument which is the purpose for my questions. ~Raven
RadicalComedy 2 years ago
Your arguments definitely disproove the Big Bang relative to Time...I am hoping that you can explain to me an argument for "Time" must be eternal and whatever the universe composed up PRIOR to the Big Bang must have consisted of something eternal to have expanded. I realize that these are impossibilities by logic alone and that is also your argument. I am just basically confused,lol....Help! ~Raven
RadicalComedy 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadicalComedy 2 years ago
Man has in his knowledge TIME defined by Matter....I am saying that this wasnt true prior to the Big Bang. Whatever else existed, Time was relevant to that which had always been. ~Raven
RadicalComedy 2 years ago
Would you agree that as the universe expanded PRIOR to the Big Bang that time existed? If time didnt exist prior to the Big Bang, than how could the Big Bang BANG? There were forces at work in the universe, its just that man does not know what that was with absolute certaintly. My point is that the universe could have never done anything if everything that the universe consisted off, had a starting point. Whether finite or eternal, "something" had to have always been. ~Raven
RadicalComedy 2 years ago
What is the Universe expanding towards? Nothingness. Nothingness surrounds the expansion. The universe's existence regresses back to a +1 elementary particle.
Prior to a +1 equals 0, since nothingness implies zero, and absence of time.
U cannot have 1 without 0, nor can you have 2 without a 1 as a point of reference.
The BB was a historical event-all events 'only' begin with a +1 and expand towards infinite.
If a +1 particle is first in line, with nothingness around it, ....
youVSmee 2 years ago
....then +1 came into existence from a state of "nothingness." Nothingness equals 'absence of time', absence of time equals " zero time."
Now, since the BB was a historical event, it used up +1 nano seconds in order to record this 'historical event.'
Time = activity. Nothingness = zero time, and zero time =non-activity. The BB was very "active' which used up 'time.' during the BB.
The appearance of a +1 particle, is the first step for producing a "historical event" via time lapse.
youVSmee 2 years ago
And if you progressed from +1 to +5, then you can only regress back to the original beginning +1 state.
Before +1 you have 0, via nothingness, absence of time, therefore zero time. You cannot have a +1 "FINITE" particle existing inside a -1 quantum realm.
A +1 particle begins a +1 FINITE progression towards infinite.
However, you attempt to place this +1 particle within a
(( -1 IMAGINARY DIMENSION)) which exists prior to 0 time, and a +1 finite number. That is simply insane.
youVSmee 2 years ago
The simplistic logic in this presentation may convince a 7th grader, but it is based upon fundamental assumptions. It assumes that a finite universe came into existence uncaused from out of nothing.
Stephen Hawking uses imaginary numbers as an explanatory tool. However, he does not limit his calculations to a horizontal axis (as this video naively does). Hawking introduces a vertical axis as well. This plots the Big Bang as point in SPACE & TIME.
What caused the existence of the finite dot?
FramingHammer 2 years ago
Infinite entities are capable of producing +1, finite byproducts. Infinite minus one = Infinite.
If you have a +1 particle, would it be defined as -1, 0, or +1? So, you have to account for this finite byproduct, which came into existence from a state of nothingness.
Begin a line from a horizontal or verticle position, either way, both introduce a +1 'singularity point.'
Expand the univerese without a +1 point of reference. When the universe regresses back, it only returns to a +1 point.
youVSmee 2 years ago
The BB caused the expansion of finite time, the expansion finite space via relative time x length, and the creation of 'motion' via expansion of space.
What existed prior to zero time? Nothing. What came into existence after zero time? +1 particle, +1 time, +1 motion, +1 dimension via time x length.
U cannot have a pre-existing particle within "zero time' via quantum realm, i.e, nothingness.
Supposedly, the quantum realm existed 'prior' to the Big Bang, without time x length, etc?
youVSmee 2 years ago
"When the universe regresses back, it only returns to a +1 point."
The totality of the universe is what exists. If youVSmee defines existence as "+1", then we might agree that the +1 universe exists.
"The BB caused the expansion of finite time"
Not exactly. The BB was an event in the universe's history. The BB was a consequence, not a cause.
"What existed prior to zero time? Nothing."
This is where you go off the rails. To postulate a 'nothing' is a non-answer.
FramingHammer 2 years ago
FraminHammer, so you agree that NOTHING can create SOMETHING? Wouldnt you call that a miracle? :)
OR if +1 is finite, the starting point than it must be eternal...had to always be, never had a starting place, everlasting time, etc., ~Raven
RadicalComedy 2 years ago
"so you agree that NOTHING can create SOMETHING? Wouldnt you call that a miracle?"
No! I do not agree. Of course matter and energy cannot spontaneously appear from 'nothing'. Nothingness and miracles are concepts in the mind. These are not scientific words, they are religious.
Speaking of religious, I notice that youVSmee has made the decision to delete my previous posts which criticized this video.
Shame on you, youVSmee! I had respect for you at one time.
FramingHammer 2 years ago
FraminHammer, I dont know what happened to your comments...it wasnt my decision to delete them. I dont delete comments on my channel, ever...but this channel belongs to someone else so its not my decision. Send him a PM and ask him why he did....everyone runs their channels differently...~Raven
RadicalComedy 2 years ago
FramingHammer,
I never delete anything. You better check my other videos because I believe you are looking 'at the wrong place.
Please check there before you jump to any conclusions.
youVSmee 2 years ago
Strange. Earlier, RadicalComedy replied to a comment I made on this page.
She asked me about the miracle of something from nothing.
Perhaps it's a YouTube glitch thang. Sorry for biting your head off, youVSmee.
FramingHammer 2 years ago