Jonesy

I'll probably be laughed at, but I'm open to reading ANYTHING. So, try this, what I read just yesterday:

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip" target="_blank">www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip</a>

(password 'free', to open the Acrobat Reader file that you unzip)

Although not provable (obviously), when you read from a logical perspective, there are some interesting sequences given in the above book. It is interesting indeed, although it is difficult to take it seriously OVERALL. But as I said, there is some nice logic in this book regarding what MAY HAVE hapenned prior to Big Bang (and after). But I guess everyone has opinions and some write them down for others to read, no matter how weird or "outta here".

Jonesy

Um, you lift off the earth and if you continue, you go into the atmosphere, etc... pretty obvious, isn't it? what's your point?

seanie

Jonesy

Are you on commission?

This book that you read 'just yesterday'.

I think you've mentioned it before.

atrahasis

How is it more logical than the rest???

What if i said the creation theory is also logical...
What i'm saying is, get info, give links and tell us more....we can only scrutinize a theory even its yours or no yours if present it to us...

Thats the way we work around here::::::You don't just wake up and make a claim which you can't support.


[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

Apikorus

Jonesy, above is not the same as North. Verstehe?

Paul2

by any chance did you happen to read the rest of my message? based on the theory that time and space started at the big bang, you can logically assume that there was nothing before the big bang because there was no "before".



i found a bit more on this subject. if time is defined as being measured by things changing and if there is nothing to change then in a sense there is no passage of time. maybe someone else here that is educated in the field can shed more light on the subject?

eh

The word prior, by definition, requires time. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say here.

Why? The big bang no more needs a cause than a god or something else. It is not an event in time, but the minimal moment of time. Why do you insist a God changes anything?

Of course not. It assumes the big bang is indeed the starting point.


There is no reason to demand that the BB was the start of the entire universe. But if we say the universe was caused by another universe, god, other force or whatever, we are left with the task of explaining the beginning conditions of said entity. Since we have no evidence of them, we just try to explain the beginning of this universe. No external explaination seems to be needed.

It's just the definition you can get from GR. It's not something invented by Hawking on a whim.

Jonesy

So what's your point anyway? Once you reach a limit at the north pole, you can 'expand' your horizons and simply lift off - the fact that there is a north pole is not a limitation anymore.

The fact that there 'was' a big bang - necessitates input to 'cause' the explosion. Once that basic first notion is understood, next step is to figure out the inputs and how they may have gotten there in the first place. That there were 'inputs' is not disputed. What may be disputed is the origin of the inputs and their composition/workings. And the very existence of any inputs suggests design, since the explosion was actually very complicated (obviously). Try reading this for a broad picture (no details) of what may have happened:

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip" target="_blank">www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip</a>

(password 'free')

Also, quote from history:

"People doubt everyone and everything, except their own ignorance". (no idea where it came from)

It's only when people stop applying 'instinctive dismissive society-induced ignorance' to any new and 'far out' sounding ideas that they can truly think for themselves and make their own decisions even if 99% of other people think otherwise. But most choose to adopt the society-based general 'this sound nuts' approach to any new 'strange' ideas and so these ideas don't get checked out and people simply don't want to know. Otherwise they are scared they will look stupid in front of family, friends, i.e. 'society'. For most being part of society overrulles logical thinking. We want to belong and so we choose to behavge and think like the rest so new ideas are hard to develop /explore.

Even Einstein said "the majority of the stupid is guarrantedd for all time". Simply, the majority is stupid collectively and the best ideas always come from smart people seen as crazy by the 'majority'.

We need to wake up and think for outselves than adopt society-induced patterns of thinking and reacting to new ideas.

atrahasis

Now we agree???

Apikorus

Jonesy, your thinking is simplistic. The surface of the earth is topologically a two-dimensional sphere. A 2-sphere can be defined and coordinatized (on patches - no global nonsingular coordinate system can be applied, as a consequence of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem), and a metric (i.e. geometry) imposed without recourse to reference to other dimensions. The earth's surface inherits a geometry by virtue of its embedding in a higher (three-) dimensional space. Mathematically, there is nothing which lies North of the North Pole. It is like asking for the letter before "A" or the U.S. President who preceded George Washington.

Standard Big Bang cosmology posits that the Universe is described by a (space-time) manifold similar, in some ways, to a sphere. It is often said that we are living on the three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional balloon. Our time coordinate, which essentially describes the radius of our balloon, does not extend into the indefinite past. Time had a beginning, and at t=0 the radius of our balloon - the size of the Universe - was zero. Within this picture, it is meaningless to ask what happened "before" the initial singularity (the Big Bang) - just as meaningless as asking what lies North of the North Pole, or where is the end of a circle.

There are of course numerous theories which seek to extend this standard picture, which is defective in that it is purely classical and does not address quantum effects in gravity. But it is difficult to have any intuitive grasp of quantum gravity.