“Why not wait till we can move off third blue ball and clear this solar system before making absolute judgments? ..i think we might better spend our time trying to solve the time space riddle that we experience every day.”

In my opinion this is all simple stuff for those that try to understand which is not hard at all. Those that cannot understand must wait until they can. Understanding is not difficult if you pay close attention to the definition of the words being used. There is no time space riddle. Nothing in all of reality, I believe, is complicated at all. Everything that exists can be explained with uncomplicated words including both types of relativity and quantum mechanics. The mechanisms of biology are probably the most complicated science today but still are totally logical, where today’s explanations in physics and cosmology are not.

T.I.

Einstein had a lot of interesting and valuable ideas but unfortunately a lot of logic went out the window with his theories which still have validity but their explanations are not very good at all for really understanding what is involved. The same thing is true of Quantum mechanics. It’s completely full of B.S. but the mathematics and statistics are the best predictive system for the quantum world because the system is based on many decades of observation. The verbal part, quantum theory however, is just a big joke that in 50 years will be laughed at by all — according to me.

Your statement “There was no “Space” as we think of it, nor “Time” as we think of it, as both were a result of the “Big Bang” is a good one. You could have left out “as we think of it” as both were defined by the beginning entity. You could leave out the Big Bang also as a fantasy– according to me. Space-time is also a simple principle to understand: A point in space at a particular time. What would be the meaning of this same point in a different time frame? It would have no meaning and would again need to be defined as a relative position. There is no such thing as a point excepting as a relative position to matter which is continuously moving relative to other matter.

“I’m not at all sure of the seeming validity in this idea that as ’space’ expands, or increases it’s volume over time, that the ‘arrow of time’ travels in one “direction.”

You’re right about that Pat. Time has no arrow. Time simply means an interval of cause and effect sequences. It’s only the not-so-bright mathematical idea that it is something in and of itself that gets scientists into trouble concerning the simple understanding of it. Time as a changing relative condition of matter, however, is an indispensable mathematical tool. The expansion of space is another idea that will be laughed at in about 50 years. Space is simply the volume that matter occupies and has no characteristics of itself that are not defined by the matter which occupies it.

Pure energy is another one of those laughable concepts. Energy is simply the relative motion of a substance which is moving relative to the field which contains it such as E.M. radiation. Much of what physics teaches today is partly or totally wrong –according to me. The problem is that everything seems complicated to them, but in reality everything is simple. Eventually they’ll figure it out.

The last statements that you made T. I. are all pretty much true with one small exception. The fusion of elements with larger atomic numbers than iron all require energy for atomic fusion rather than giving off extra energy. The result is that for these heavier elements the newly fused nuclei are all heavier than the combined weight of the elements that were needed for their fusion.

respectfully, forrest

Any chance we can get back to a discussion of science?

Respectfully.

I’m not at all sure of the seeming validity in this idea that as ’space’ expands, or increases it’s volume over time, that the ‘arrow of time’ travels in one “direction”, and then subsequently, when ’space’ begins to contract, or decrease in volume over time, the ‘arrow of time’ must suddenly (ok, prob not so suddenly) reverse it’s “direction”. I tend to think that the arrow of time simply curves along with space, and for those sentients existing within it, time would seem to continue in the same “direction” that we perceive it to travel now. Clocks aren’t going to change their “direction” and wind backwards. I’m not gonna’ put ketchup back in the bottle every time I eat a hot dog. And I’m pretty sure I’m not gonna’ regurgitate the hot dog I ate when the universe was expanding.

You also bring into the discussion the idea of matter/energy: “if all the mater/energy that ever existed”…….

As with space-time, matter and energy really can’t be separated.
See E=MC^2.
When the events AFTER t=0 are discussed relative to Big Bang OR Big Bounce, in intervals of t that are incredibly tiny, we know that at the temperatures that are thought to have existed in those first moments, matter as we know it really didn’t exist. The first instants of the birth or perhaps re-birth of the universe likely consisted of a nearly homogeneous soup of space-time and energy. As this space-time increased in volume, the energy within it cooled. At some significant time later, this nearly pure energy field, a thermal field if you will, cooled sufficiently that in slices of t<0.000000000001 (an arbitrary number) quantum effects took place in which some of what we might call “thermions” essentially condensed into electrons, gluons, and quarks (the mathematical representation would be difficult for someone such as myself to comprehend to any significsnt degree) which when brought together compounded to become hydrogen nuclei and free electrons (and some small amount of deuterium and possibly even helium were compounded later, but still long before the first stars). I think it might border truth to say that this is when we truly had the beginning of the concept of a thermal/electro-magnetic field. It’s likely that at the earliest moments of the t scale that the ‘gravity field” did not exist. It would seem that it should not be possible to invoke gravity until there was “matter”. The concept then of “inflation” is a bit easier to swallow without a gravitational field to resist it. ‘Nuff said ’bout that. Just one more comment.

You mention: “the lighter an haver elements would also have been reproducing them self”. The elements don’t reproduce themselves. All the elements (those which are naturally occuring elements) except hydrogen and some small amounts of helium, are manufactured by stars. And just as we discussed earlier about matter condensing from the primordial form of energy, we can turn that around and show that in the fusing of lighter elements into heavier elements within stars of all types, the resulting mass of a fused (heavier) element is less than the total mass of the fusing elements … and that difference in mass is shown to be mass that has been converted into energy.

There’s a lot of stuff out there. Keep looking up.

Although I don’t adhere to the Big Bang model at all I do agree with one of the mainstream ideas of the theory, that the universe is finite. Whereby “What happened before the Big Bang” for the same reasons that I have given could be a meaningless question unless you may be considering the possibility that the universe is infinite.

Lots of good comments lately,

Kuhne,

Whether right or wrong, all theories should be able to provide simple answers to any questions without the hemming or hawing by those explaining it. Often these answers are hypothesis where alternative hypothesis are also available. Those theories/ hypothesis that can not easily do so are probably lacking in their predictive ability. Every “why” question concerning the universe should be easily answerable without hesitation.

Like “why must there have been no cause for the beginning entity? or, why was it not possible for the beginning entity to have started from nothing. Both of these questions are extremely easy to answer based upon the definition of the words themselves, as well as very simple logical principles. The first question “why must there have been no cause for the beginning entity? The word “beginning” means the first, it could have had no cause otherwise it would not have been the beginning.

The second question “why was it not possible for the beginning entity to have started from nothing, or that nothing was its cause.” The answer is simply that nothingness is not a possible state of reality, something like “an immovable atomic particle” , And the principle in logic that something cannot come from nothing — yet the universe can certainly be finite and have had an initial cause. I think your ideas on this matter are based upon insight which is often not the case for others that espouse dogma.

Anthony,

If the answers to these questions require deep thought and are not easily understood by you then you may have been listening to dogma too long without regard to your personal logical inquiry. In my opinion if an explanation is not generally simple and logical, without contradicting observations and continuously changing details, then it’s probably the wrong explanation or theory.

Spencer,

Your question, I think is a good one. If the Big Bang is the correct model of the cosmos, and if something existed before it, then its cause must also be explainable or else it could be part of some kind of infinite cycle of some kind. If there are other universes their beginnings must also necessarily be explained, otherwise the theory is at best incomplete. There’s only two choices, either the beginning of the universe was finite or infinite — either it had a beginning or it did not.

respectfully, forrest