Thread: Before the Big Bang

As I said, you take contradictions in stride, you will never amount to anything in field of reasoning.

You are right, I cannot comprehend contradictions, as it should be.

Okay... Go on...

...Tell me why you think it is a contradiction...

You actually waited, forcing me to ask an obvious question in order to continue the conversation. That's like spilling orange juice and then leaving it for me to clean up.
Or you can leave your assertion that The Big Bang Theory is a contradiction with no supporting arguments and sound like an idiot.

So tell me why you think it is a contradiction. Don't tell me someone told you that it was, because that is terrible reasoning.

Reread my posts. You want me to keep repeating basic linguistic facts over and over again.

Secondly, you have stated over and over again that with your superior intellect nothing is something--which means you are incapable of anymore linguistic ability than rote repetition. Impossible to demonstrate anything to you.

Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. This means that we have always two predicates. We can abstract form from a thing, but form is not a thing. We can abstract material from a thing, but material is not a thing. i.e. we cannot predicate existence of either form or material difference. See Plato, Aristotle.

There are two primitive branches of logic. Each commensurate with one of the two given elements. i.e. One is always a given, and the other is always applied or supplied to construct something with. If form is a given, which is what we do in tautologics like common grammar, material difference must be supplied. If material difference is a given, such as in geometry, etc., then form must be applied. Since all we can do in a relatiologic like geometry is apply form, i.e. non-difference, no matter what we do, commensurate with the grammar, we add to nor subtract nothing.

Notice that both of these logic systems must invariable state the same thing--because it does not matter which of the elements we start with, the end product is always the same thing.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Reread my posts. You want me to keep repeating basic linguistic facts over and over again.

No, please don't repeat all of that fluff. I was just curious as to why you think the concept of the Big Bang theory is a contradiction, which has nothing to do with all of the camouflaged dribble that you have spouted so far.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Secondly, you have stated over and over again that with your superior intellect nothing is something

Actually, I have not. Please provide a quote where I have used the words "nothing" and "something" in the same sentence, and you may have a point.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

--which means you are incapable of anymore linguistic ability than rote repetition. Impossible to demonstrate anything to you.

Well, you're a doodyhead?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. This means that we have always two predicates. We can abstract form from a thing, but form is not a thing. We can abstract material from a thing, but material is not a thing. i.e. we cannot predicate existence of either form or material difference. See Plato, Aristotle.

There are two primitive branches of logic. Each commensurate with one of the two given elements. i.e. One is always a given, and the other is always applied or supplied to construct something with. If form is a given, which is what we do in tautologics like common grammar, material difference must be supplied. If material difference is a given, such as in geometry, etc., then form must be applied. Since all we can do in a relatiologic like geometry is apply form, i.e. non-difference, no matter what we do, commensurate with the grammar, we add to nor subtract nothing.

Notice that both of these logic systems must invariable state the same thing--because it does not matter which of the elements we start with, the end product is always the same thing.

No no. We were talking about the Big Bang Theory. That's the thing with the singularity, and there was an explosion of some sort, and stuff went everywhere. You were supposed to be supplying evidence against it. Try to stay on track, Phil.

In such situations, I simply have to look up in the sky and say "Damn pigeons." Seriously.


Anyone who has faith in the efficacy of Logic, grammar, etc., must believe that there is no statement or group of statements that are either true or valid that contradicts the original naming convention nor violates the first principle that predication is the inverse function of abstraction.

Originally Posted by Xei

Right, of course; galaxies are all flying away from each other, but if you go back in time, they weren't any closer together. Derp.

Most of the big picture of physics is incomplete. I don't pretend to understand the physics of Penrose's evidence, if it is indeed there, but this needs to be taken with a large grain of salt as there is a lot of evidence on the other side, too; the side that says the expansion of the universe is accelerating and so the universe will never shrink back and be born again.

Never thought I'd see the day when I would actually agree with one of your statements but I certainly agree here.

I remember when the information of Penrose CCC model was introduced last year in Physicsworld.com. I was pretty skeptical then and nothing has really changed. One thing is for certain is that the mathematics behind this model is technically challenging so I'm not even going to go there. In Penrose model you have blackholes forming and evaporating and when they evaporate they send a burst of energy out which ultimately produces rings of lower variants in the CMB. Penrose and another colleague have looked for signatures of these rings of low variants in the CMB and they have claimed to have found a number of these with high statistical significance and not only have they found some but they have claimed to have even found some with concentric rings which is consistent with multiple encounters of blackholes in the same region within clusters of galaxies and in the center of galaxies which is actually very difficult to explain with our standard version of inflationary cosmology.

The evidence of these rings would be significant evidence that favors the CCC model over the inflationary cosmology model. So in short, it just simply means the Big Bang is wrong..lol.

Just kidding, actually my questions are, what is really the strength of this evidence? what are the future test that would establish this as being more compelling? I think these questions are appropriate considering the high sensitive nature of statistics which is by no means a trivial task. Even though statistically Penrose's evidence has some statistical weight behind it. I believe we do need to apply some form of caution, especially considering the fact that 3 other teams have looked for these rings and haven’t found any evidence for them, so to me that kind of puts a caution flag with regards to whether these rings are there or not.

If one team finds evidence for these rings even with high statistical significance and another team does a similar analysis and doesn’t find them, then I believe we need to be very careful about attempting to make any strong conclusions here. The beautiful thing about this is that we have a much higher resolution data set of the CMB that will present itself within the next 4 or 5 years in the Planck data. The Planck satellite would do an even better job of mapping and should produce far better results than the Wmap satellite. So I say lets wait and see what the data presents in the future.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

In such situations, I simply have to look up in the sky and say "Damn pigeons." Seriously.


Anyone who has faith in the efficacy of Logic, grammar, etc., must believe that there is no statement or group of statements that are either true or valid that contradicts the original naming convention nor violates the first principle that predication is the inverse function of abstraction.

If you didn't know the answer, you could have just said so.

I did say, but again you did not hear it, I cannot know for you, no one can.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I did say, but again you did not hear it, I cannot know for you, no one can.

No. I didn't hear you say that you didn't know.
So you don't know why you don't believe in the Big Bang Theory? You just don't like it, perhaps?

You really do want me to start crying, don't you?

Awe man. No.
I still have nothing against you. I'm really just trying to figure you out.
I am interested in your brain.

I think he wants you to learn how to communicate in a way that doesn't confuse the living shit out of anyone who reads your posts and leave them wondering if you really expect anyone to understand what you write.

All I know is either some people do not do a whole hell of a lot of reading or they are reading shit fit for only children.

I love hearing what other people think.
However, I feel that relying on the thoughts and ideas that they have written down in order to implant them as my own thoughts is very limiting. I am full of ideas that are my own. I do read books, but when I do I view them as one perspective; the author's view of the universe.

I once read a book about the Big Bang Theory. I do not believe this theory, but I accept it as a possibility. It's all possible. The only impossibility that I have found is the idea of a good movie, starring Tom Cruise.

Now you done it. Don't knock Tommy!

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Now you done it. Don't knock Tommy!

LOL!!
You're alright, Phil.

...War of the Worlds was okay.

Originally Posted by sloth

LOL!!
You're alright, Phil.

...War of the Worlds was okay.

Emphasis on "okay."

Originally Posted by Xei

By eternal you mean repeated Big Bangs?

Which problems does this solve?

By eternal I mean it never had an origin, that time is cyclical.
I think it solves problems like causality and the endless regression paradox. Im not saying that this is the "truth" Im just saying that when I start to think about it, it makes alot of sense.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

By eternal I mean it never had an origin, that time is cyclical.
I think it solves problems like causality and the endless regression paradox. Im not saying that this is the "truth" Im just saying that when I start to think about it, it makes alot of sense.

This is closer to the truth. However, time is linear, events would be cyclical or as they may say sinusoidal. Material difference, line linearity, plane or space cannot be said to have a boundary. Things are material differences in boundaries, where neither the boundary nor the material difference themselves are things. As Plato pointed out, these two elements one can only name, never predicate of. The same with time. We assert boundaries to make minutes, hours, even moments, but time itself cannot be said to have a boundary--it is a first principle or element.

And, correct, it is the only way to not incur infinite regression and the self-referential fallacy. There were a few early Greeks who understood this.

I disagree with everything that everyone has said.

Originally Posted by sloth

I disagree with everything that everyone has said.

Fascinating. please elaborate.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Fascinating. please elaborate.

NOT Fascinating. please DON"T elaborate.

Originally Posted by sloth

I call a singularity a singularity. I would see zero volume as another way of saying does not exist if I couldn't comprehend the concept. It seems very simple to me, and as I stated, I think it is possible that the singularity was nothing more than the explosion of a superstring.

The fact that you have a hard time believing in zero volume is not evidence that it does not exist.

0 volume is not the same as a singularity. A square has zero volume. A singularity is the absence of space, which is very very different. How can a superstring explode? Superstrings are indestructible, and the superstring theory has pretty much fallen apart, the math started to deteriorate into five separate variations, which were merged into the current M-Theory.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

0 volume is not the same as a singularity. A square has zero volume. A singularity is the absence of space, which is very very different.

Phil said "singularity" and Phil said "zero volume". I did not say that 0 volume was the same as a singularity.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

How can a superstring explode?
Superstrings are indestructible,

Are they? Have you ever tried destructing one? Did we discover everything that there is to know about superstrings, and for that matter.....

Originally Posted by ninja9578

and the superstring theory has pretty much fallen apart, the math started to deteriorate into five separate variations, which were merged into the current M-Theory.

...everything?

So you don't like my superstring big bang idea. What about my black hole big bang idea? It's exactly the same, except that in this one it's a black hole instead of a superstring.
I don't really care, to be honest. I also have my burrito big bang idea. I'll tell you about it sometime.

The basic concept is that the current universe that we see could have originated from another dimension. Say, a fifth dimensional star explodes (or implodes. It doesn't really matter since we're in fifth dimensional terms) out into our area of empty space.

Like this: *shows you*