I think that Big Bang theory really sux.Cannot believe that its dominant theory about the origin of universe.It is product of Hawkings imagination.

I'm pretty sure it predates Hawking. In fact, many old mythologies involve the universe being born in a big messy chaos of fire; the ancient Greeks discussed the possibility, as did the Chinese and others.

I am aware that the Big Bang is only a theeory. But what is your preferred model of the origin/nature of the universe?

Ha! Big bang I laugh at thee! Muwhahahhaha. :)

I think that it would make more sense that the universe has always excisted, and will always continue to excist... Please prove me wrong.

hehehe,well agree with counslercoffee,it makes more sense.Maybe God created universe,no one will ever find answer on that...so better stupid hypotheses non fingo.

Guys,

It may makeyou happy to believe in some theory other than the big bang, but scientists compare theory with observation to decide what is true. There is abundant evidence for the big bang theory, including the observed expansion of the universe, the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium, the observed cosmic microwave background radiation... The list goes on and on.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that the universe has always existed, and no indisputable evidence for God.

Use 'scientific' logic.
If you can't ask the question 'what happened before the big bang' then why should you be able to ask the question 'how did the universe begin'
It's like asking 'what colour is the universe' or 'how big is the universe' or 'how fast is it going'.

I say that every part of the universe is in motion (a space time continuem), that no part of the universe can be without motion.
This means that the universe cannot begin because it would have had to have zero motion.

It might be possible for immense parts of the universe to globulate and then disintegrate, by mans standards these parts could be considered as the detectable universe, but by the standards of the universe these parts are mear specks.

The question 'what is the origin of the universe' is not the same question as 'how did the universe begin'.

The universe's origin is in motion. Seems to be a good enough answer to the question.

I think we should start a stupid questions thread.

kaduseus:

<i>If you can't ask the question 'what happened before the big bang' then why should you be able to ask the question 'how did the universe begin'</i>

Because the universe had a beginning. It's just that there was no time before the beginning. We can always ask what happened after the beginning, because time exists then.

<i>It's like asking 'what colour is the universe' or 'how big is the universe' or 'how fast is it going'.</i>

The universe is apparently beige (on average). Nobody knows how big it is. It goes different speeds at different places.

<i>I say that every part of the universe is in motion (a space time continuem), that no part of the universe can be without motion.</i>

Einstein said that any local part of the universe can be said to be without motion.

<i>It might be possible for immense parts of the universe to globulate and then disintegrate...</i>

How? What would cause that?

<i>The question 'what is the origin of the universe' is not the same question as 'how did the universe begin'.</i>

Perhaps you're right, depending on how you use the words.

<i>The universe's origin is in motion. Seems to be a good enough answer to the question.</i>

The big bang theory goes into just a little more detail. :)

<i>I think we should start a stupid questions thread.</i>

Why?

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Ha! Big bang I laugh at thee! Muwhahahhaha. :)

I think that it would make more sense that the universe has always excisted, and will always continue to excist... Please prove me wrong.

If its always existed then the universe would have frozen over by now,and if it was going to always exist then it will eventually freeze anyway,once a star has burnt out,thats less heat in the universe.

Thats a simple answer.

Red shift shows our universe to be expanding,so we know everything is moving away,like we are all round a blown up balloon.

These are the 3 things that support big bang theory:
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
Cosmic Microwave Background
Hubble Expansion

Why not consider what happens in/with the universe as some cyclic process (expansion-implosion) in an endless repetition?

Originally posted by ProCop
Why not consider what happens in/with the universe as some cyclic process (expansion-implosion) in an endless repetition?
Because this model (the yo-yo model) is inconsistent with observation.

- Warren

Hi ProCop,

That could very well be, unfortunately we will never, ever(*) be able to find out what happened before the Big Bang.

(*) Disclaimer: according to current physical theories :).

But my personal opinion is that even a cyclic universe is very improbable. First of all it would contradict recent findings/hints that the universe is doomed to expand forever, and secondly, for a universe to grow to an adequate size (like ours), to be able to sustain life, ... requires such a precise configuration of a number of parameters that it seems very improbable to me that after a "big crunch" all parameters are just finetuned AGAIN to give birth to a new, properly expanding universe. If just one parameter (e.g. gravitational constant, or electron charge) slightly varies, then the universe will collapse too fast, expand too fast, ... (fill in other doom-scenario's here)...

Luckily we won't be around to ever witness that :)

Bye!

Crisp

Actuelly Nietzsche came with this idea of "Eternal Return of the Same". His reasoning is hard to beat: (pharaphrased): if there was an infinity of time before now then the "now" must be in the final stadium of its development (cq endless long time passed before "now"). Since "now" obviously has some development waiting, it only can be that it circulates around endlessly in endlessness (this endlessness includes perfect (random) repetition of our lives and this universe - Nietzsche believed).

If anything was an actual infinite it would have to repeat itself hence the symbol for infinity. Therefore I see two possibilities:

1. Infinite universe - Eternal recurrance. Pros: No need for a cause. Issues: Entropy.

2. Finite universe - Big bang(s). Pros: Evidence. Issues: How can an event occur in a timeless state to initiate a big bang?

I always trust evidence so currently big bang theory is the only rational thing to believe until someone comes along with some new evidence.

*Edit for spelling

To pro-cop
Er no,cos there couldnt have been TIME before the big bang cos there was nothing,nothing as in no space-time,no 3d,no 4d,no atoms,particles,movement etc

However superstring theory suggests there may be 10 dimensions,
and that the universe was originally 10 dimensions except somehow 4 broke off,while the other 6 wrapped into the 4 producing the big bang,
the idea is that the 4 dimensions we know of space-time
is actually a vibration of string type structures that are so small no atom smashers can see em,well not yet anyhow.

You could think of all these strings as a musical instrument,space-time in effect is the music being played by the strings:
light,gravity,time,atoms everything basically,the strings are the working space.

The idea is that degrees of freedom like the electric charge of an electron will then arise simply as motion in the extra compact directions.

Youd be best to buy some books on the subject if you wanna know more.
Im not a scientist im afraid.

There are some questions we cannot answer. We are just vermin living on a great machine. We need the operating instructions of the machine.

Let me take in a expert in mysteries, Sherlock Holmes: he said something is the sense: if you look at a problem and all logical explanations fail to solve it, you must look at the illogical ones.

If nothing can create something than it is not nothing, because a potential of creating something would have to be contained in nothing so nothing as such is non existant. By this reasoning something always existed because something exists now.

Consquently because something exists it has been existing always which cannot be so without infinity.

Thus we have something and infinity (basis ingredients for what we experience as an universe).

This something can be static or non static. It is non static because we experience it as such.

As non-static the something moves. We experince the movement within it.

If it moves endlessly (as we have proved by reasoning) this movement makes it changeable. (we experience the change).

The change can be random or organised. (we experience it as organised change).

If the change is organised than than it has a pattern.

If it has a pattern it can be repeated.

So here you have a "theoretical proof" of cyclicism of the universe, and I even din't have to use Sherlock's formula.

well one of the latest theorys is this,copied from a website as a rough rundown on the theory:

Current physics says that we are above critical mass, so that everything ends in a black hole. The law of entropy also dictates that this must happen, and so does Einstein's formula.

We know that we are still under half way to the big crunch (so there is at least another 15 billion years to go) because light from distant stars is being red shifted. Once space stops expanding, when the gravity slows everything down and reverses things, space will then start to shrink. This will cause blue-shifting of the farthest galaxies, which for a period of time will look like they are standing still (this happens from the moment half-way is reached).

Classical singularity based big-bang physics would mean that about one year before the Big Crunch is when galaxies overlap, and an hour before a merging of black holes and a super-exponential increase in entropy. But refined, modern black hole maths shows us that when large black holes at the center of galaxies merge, the Big Crunch occurs in a sudden instant of Planck Time (1x10-33 seconds), and also cuts short entropy's rule.

In the same instant (because there is no period of time short than Planck Time), the Big Black Hole becomes a White Hole, and Einstein's model continues to be effective describing the white hole, with an entropy level that has been effectively reset during the black hole merger. "Black holes have no hair" is a reference to the fact that objects in a black hole lose all attributes and definition, including entropy.

The masterpiece is as this. Without the need for an actual singularity, the Universe bounces from a Big Crunch into a Big Bang, with the resultant setting of constants (speed of light, gravitational constant, Planck constants, etc).

This type of universe requires no time as such, just gravity controlled expansion/contraction leading to a change in the current state of the BODY, and requires no outside forces or maintenance, i.e., it is self-sustaining. With no limit to time, and a resetting of entropy at the instant before collapse (which is the same instance of the start of inflation that marks a big bang, the cycle is infinite and there cannot physically be an "end" or a "start" to everything, as entropy does not signal from one universe to the next.

James R
Because the universe had a beginning. It's just that there was no time before the beginning. We can always ask what happened after the beginning, because time exists then.
My personal thoughts are that this is conjecture, and that is pure desire on the part of certain groups of men to adopt these theories based on observations that have been poorly interpreted.
Tell me why a 'well renowned scientist' would get a medal from the pope?
I don't like 'scientists' telling children that the hiss they hear when listening to sea shells is the sound left over from the big bang, this isn't science, it's indoctrination of the worst kind.

Einstein said that any local part of the universe can be said to be without motion.

I've not finished reading relativity yet (I printed some of the equations in the wrong place - bartleby.com) but I have an understanding of relativity and the statement doesn't really hold true, but then again it's a difference in interpretation.
I see 'motion' at different scales, a glass of water may not seem to be in motion to an observer, but the atoms and molecules are in motion and the glass and observer are travelling in orbit at 66,600 mph(leaving out the velocity of the sun around the galactic center).
The einstein statement is more to do with calculating local events rather than a general statement of the nature of space.

I think a bang theory at a 'local' scale, within a universe that always existed, would suit both camps, that way we wouldn't get multiverse theories, or the problem of God jump starting the universe.
Just kidding, i'm anti-creationist and think the big bang theory is a load of old tosh. And I don't care what interpretations and so called evidence you have, it's a rubbish idea, it's always been a rubbish idea and it always will be a rubbish idea. :D

Originally posted by kaduseus
My personal thoughts are that this is conjecture, and that is pure desire on the part of certain groups of men to adopt these theories based on observations that have been poorly interpreted.
Ah, the International Scientific Conspiracy... they get 'em every time, don't they?
Tell me why a 'well renowned scientist' would get a medal from the pope?
Who are you talking about?
I don't like 'scientists' telling children that the hiss they hear when listening to sea shells is the sound left over from the big bang, this isn't science, it's indoctrination of the worst kind.
I don't believe any scientist has ever told anyone the sound in a seashell is the sound left over from the big bang..........
I've not finished reading relativity yet (I printed some of the equations in the wrong place - bartleby.com)
You don't "read relativity" anymore than you "read culture."
but I have an understanding of relativity and the statement doesn't really hold true, but then again it's a difference in interpretation.
You apparently really don't have the understanding you think you do.
I see 'motion' at different scales, a glass of water may not seem to be in motion to an observer, but the atoms and molecules are in motion and the glass and observer are travelling in orbit at 66,600 mph(leaving out the velocity of the sun around the galactic center).
66,000 mph eh... relative to what?
The einstein statement is more to do with calculating local events rather than a general statement of the nature of space.
Which Einstein statement? The one that Galileo made?
I think a bang theory at a 'local' scale, within a universe that always existed, would suit both camps, that way we wouldn't get multiverse theories, or the problem of God jump starting the universe.
Mmmmhmm... I see.
Just kidding, i'm anti-creationist and think the big bang theory is a load of old tosh. And I don't care what interpretations and so called evidence you have, it's a rubbish idea, it's always been a rubbish idea and it always will be a rubbish idea. :D
Oh, and this is the kind of science you'd rather us 'scientists' practice, eh?

- Warren

kaduseus:

<i>My personal thoughts are that this is conjecture, and that is pure desire on the part of certain groups of men to adopt these theories based on observations that have been poorly interpreted.</i>

What's your preferred interpretation?

<i>Tell me why a 'well renowned scientist' would get a medal from the pope?</i>

Who are you talking about?

<i>I don't like 'scientists' telling children that the hiss they hear when listening to sea shells is the sound left over from the big bang, this isn't science, it's indoctrination of the worst kind.</i>

I don't like it either. In this case, it's wrong. The hiss you get when you tune your TV to static, on the other hand...

<i>I see 'motion' at different scales, a glass of water may not seem to be in motion to an observer, but the atoms and molecules are in motion and the glass and observer are travelling in orbit at 66,600 mph(leaving out the velocity of the sun around the galactic center).</i>

Einstein's point is that there is no "absolute standard of rest". I can say, as I sit in front of my computer, that my speed is zero. Alternatively, I can say I'm travelling at 1000 km/hr as the Earth rotates, or at 30 km/second as the Earth goes around the sun, or at 200 km/s as the Sun orbits the Galactic centre. It's all relative. You can pick any point as going as zero speed and relate everything else to that.

<i>I think a bang theory at a 'local' scale, within a universe that always existed, would suit both camps, that way we wouldn't get multiverse theories, or the problem of God jump starting the universe.</i>

What do you mean by "local", in this context? And how could a big bang occur in a universe which always existed, seeing as the big bang is an explosion of spacetime itself, rather than an explosion of matter in a pre-existing space?

<i>Just kidding, i'm anti-creationist and think the big bang theory is a load of old tosh.</i>

So, you're not a creationist and also not a big-bang theorist. What are you then? I suppose you have a great new theory of your own (?)

So, you're not a creationist and also not a big-bang theorist. What are you then? I suppose you have a great new theory of your own (?)
Yeah! it's the 'you can't add 1 to infinity' theory.
Me is a francis bacon fan, ever read his books?
Newtons second book is good, his first is boring and his third was an argument with god.
I prefer einsteins space-time thingy to aether models, but don't like teachers who miss out the 'appears'(relative to an observer) word from his work.
Hawkings is a man with a pope medalion.

Ah, the International Scientific Conspiracy... they get 'em every time, don't they?
No the 99 idiots and 1 clever man doctrine, democracy.
What, you want me to shout WOO-WOO?

Oh, and this is the kind of science you'd rather us 'scientists' practice, eh?
So you believe in the big bang theory then? It's the only way to think?
I wish I could afford to pay alot of money to be conditioned into thinking physics works most of the time but sometimes you just have to make it up.
How much money do you 'scientists' make for juggling numbers.

I don't mind all this poor science, at least your making really big telescopes, high energy accelerators and coming up with really wierd mathematical functions because wether your right or wrong you've got something out of it, even if you don't know what it is yet.
Your also a funny lot because your so adiment that you know how the universe began yet can't explain in plain english why it's c^2 and not 2c^2 without saying 'it just works out like that'.
AND when it comes to gravity you go 'it's a curve in space time' - woo-woo.:D :D :D

Originally posted by kaduseus
I prefer einsteins space-time thingy to aether models, but don't like teachers who miss out the 'appears'(relative to an observer) word from his work.
Every experiment ever designed and conducted has agreed with the theory... what's the relevance of an adjective related to human perception?
Hawkings is a man with a pope medalion.
His name is Hawking.
No the 99 idiots and 1 clever man doctrine, democracy.
What, you want me to shout WOO-WOO?
WOO-WOO?
So you believe in the big bang theory then? It's the only way to think?
It's certainly not the only way to think. Typical of many non-scientists, you are sure that scientists are dogmatic. You are wrong, at least in general. Few scientists will really say that we understand much of anything, and zero will say we understand everything. On the contrary, there are a great many open questions in science, and scientists welcome theories which may explain the puzzles. However, there are many issues which are effectively closed cases. Newtonian motion, electromagnetics, and most of quantum theory are effectively closed cases. The models agree so well with experiment that it is wasteful to consider every alternative crackpot theory that pops up. The best someone can hope to do is develop a mathematically equivalent representation of the existing model, and there's currently no need for alternative representations. The existing representations provide the tools the scientists need to accurately and easily predict the outcome of experiment.
I wish I could afford to pay alot of money to be conditioned into thinking physics works most of the time but sometimes you just have to make it up.
You're going to have a really hard time convincing anyone that scientists 'make it up.' If you're going to make such horribly insulting statements about people you don't know who work in a subject you don't understand, you should really try to at least support those statements. At the moment you appear only as one of many uneducated crackpots who think the scientific community is just a bunch of wankers pushing works of fiction.
How much money do you 'scientists' make for juggling numbers.
Not much at all, unfortunately. Most scientists work out of a sort of altruistic hope of perhaps bettering humanity by discovering more about the world around us.
I don't mind all this poor science, at least your making really big telescopes, high energy accelerators and coming up with really wierd mathematical functions because wether your right or wrong you've got something out of it, even if you don't know what it is yet.
Once again, you'll have to give some real evidence of this 'poor science.'
Your also a funny lot because your so adiment that you know how the universe began yet can't explain in plain english why it's c^2 and not 2c^2 without saying 'it just works out like that'.
Ask any physicist how the universe began. Go on, ask one. You know what he'll say? He'll say "well, I don't really know at all. Our best guess right now is the Big Bang model, which fits experimental evidence rather well... for the most part."
AND when it comes to gravity you go 'it's a curve in space time' - woo-woo.:D :D :D
This is a perfectly acceptable model that properly predicts the outcomes of a huge variety of experiments. Why do you dislike the model? For reasons of aesthetics? Do you really think the universe has some obligation to work the way you'd like it to? Seems to me like your own ego is interfering with your ability to see reality.

- Warren

I think that Big Bang theory really sux.Cannot believe that its dominant theory about the origin of universe.It is product of Hawkings imagination. I think this message from you may be evidence of multiple universes coinciding, because in your universe Hawking invented the Big Bang, and in our universe he didn't, but here we are discussing it.

George Lemaître, a Belgian priest was the first to propose that the Universe began with the explosion of a "primeval atom" back in 1927 after observing the red shift in the light from distant nebulas.

kind regards
Paul

""including the observed expansion of the universe, the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium, the observed cosmic microwave background radiation...""

really ... the dominance of the BB is a historical mistake
the existence CMBR had been predicted BEFORE the big bang (even the correct value - but I do not suspect that any of you know this :) )
and it was this that desided that the BB became the leading theory - and not for the reason you cite

all the 'evidence' you give can equally be explained by other models
but no one cares about those simply because the battle has long ago been desided in favour of the BB
and the BB gets funded!! yes yes, loads of cash

really ... the dominance of the BB is a historical mistake
the existence CMBR had been predicted BEFORE the big bang (even the correct value - but I do not suspect that any of you know this )and it was this that desided that the BB became the leading theory - and not for the reason you citeHave you got a reference for this claim please?
all the 'evidence' you give can equally be explained by other modelsWould you care to name some of those models, and post some references for them too, please?but no one cares about those simply because the battle has long ago been desided in favour of the BB and the BB gets funded!! yes yes, loads of cash"Nobody" being whom exactly?

kind regards
Paul

Assis, A.K.T. and M.C.D. Neves. 1995. The Redshift Revisited. Astrophysics and Space Science 227: 13-24

Can you please quote the relevant extract from the article, c'est moi? I don't have a copy of that journal handy right now.

The Big Bang theory is in no way correct, owing to the fact that meteors now don't explode at random times, and life is magicaly produced. Mytheory, as shown in Theory of Existence of Plains, time had always gon on, and for some uknown reason, perhaps because of all te loss of dietic powers, the Plain was split, casting th Etheroi away into Darkness, whille this started a chain reaction that continues to this day.

Maro:

<i>The Big Bang theory is in no way correct, owing to the fact that meteors now don't explode at random times...</i>

That's irrelevant. The big bang has nothing to do with meteors.

<i>... and life is magicaly produced.</i>

The big bang has nothing to do with the development of life. (How is life magically produced, anyway?)

<i>Mytheory, as shown in Theory of Existence of Plains, time had always gon on, and for some uknown reason...</i>

How can we tell if your theory is right and the big bang is wrong? Can you suggest an appropriate observation or experiment?

I don't like it either. In this case, it's wrong. The hiss you get when you tune your TV to static, on the other hand...
James,

Just curious, what is the hiss that we get when we tune the TV to static?

here is a sugestion of why I do not believe in the big bang theory or the jesus christ/God theory.

here is a link

http://www.aambury.freeserve.co.uk/QUESTI~1.HTM

:D

<i>Just curious, what is the hiss that we get when we tune the TV to static?</i>

Well, part of it is the echo of the big bang. Part of it is radio noise from all kinds of sources, both terrestrial and extraterrestrial.

Well, part of it is the echo of the big bang.
Wow. Way better than Discovery Channel. :)

If there ever was a Big Bang (read a beginning) of all then there must be also a Big End (read a conclusion/end). On an another level it means finity and infinity. You can (seemingly) escape the necessity of this division by cyclicity but cyclicty means infinity. Simply stated if the universe is finite then BB - BE scenario and if it is infinite than there was no BB (and consequently no BE will happen)

Originally posted by ProCop
If there ever was a Big Bang (read a beginning) of all then there must be also a Big End (read a conclusion/end). On an another level it means finity and infinity. You can (seemingly) escape the necessity of this division by cyclicity but cyclicty means infinity. Simply stated if the universe is finite then BB - BE scenario and if it is infinite than there was no BB (and consequently no BE will happen)
Uh... please do us all a favor and learn about big bang cosmology before opening the pie hole.

- Warren

Endgame of the universe. Everything flies from the near and the far away to the spot where it all began. The speed encreases. Planets and galaxies change first in flamy smog then in flux of proto-matter. Bits and peaces of what used to be the universe all aim at a tiny point of the begining. Then comes an extreme light of thousands of suns and in the span of one nanosecond all the light disappears into the total darkness: the Big End.

I think personaly that whatever we can imagine the future of the universe will be the real thing will go beyond that.

Originally posted by §lîñk€¥™
I think this message from you may be evidence of multiple universes coinciding, because in your universe Hawking invented the Big Bang, and in our universe he didn't, but here we are discussing it.
It has been known for a long time that if a large group of people simultaneously post messages to each other about a particular topic, some people will agree with each other and some will disagree with each other. The agreement causes various ideas to become more popular and accepted, while the disagreement will cause ideas to be controversial and subjects of debate. The acceptance or controversy that accumulates around each subject will fall into a predicable, repeating pattern.

While it has long been believed that the acceptance or controversy of the various subjects results from interactions between people's messages, recent sociological research has lead to the discovery of a bizarre and seemingly inexplicable phenomenon: the patterns of acceptance or controversy over various topics will appear even if people post messages one at a time, individually, and have no knowledge of each other's respective posts. It appears that the people who post messages are somehow able to debate with each other even when they should seemingly have no knowledge of each others messages. How are people who post individual, solitary messages, with no knowledge of the other postings, able to debate each other? It remains something of a mystery. The phenomenon completely violates all current sociological theories of human interaction. While the implications of this bizarre behavior are only now beginning to be understood, it is clear that sociology will have to develop a completely new model to explain human interactions.

Procop:

<i>If there ever was a Big Bang (read a beginning) of all then there must be also a Big End (read a conclusion/end).</i>

Why?

<i>Simply stated if the universe is finite then BB - BE scenario and if it is infinite than there was no BB (and consequently no BE will happen)</i>

Not acording to general relativistic cosmological models.

Originally posted by ProCop
If there ever was a Big Bang (read a beginning) of all then there must be also a Big End (read a conclusion/end). This is the sort of teleological half-logic that held European science back for hundreds of years during the dark ages.

Well you cannot begin an infinite process at some point. The nature of infinity is endlessness. If something ( BB) begon a process (the universe) this process must end (otherwise it couldn't have began).


eg.:

1/ fill an endless space with baloons. There will be an endless number of them ever encreasing, the endlessness will accommodate them.

2/ fill not endless space with baloons. At a moment it will be full and you wil have to stop.

3/ switch baloons for events....

Well you cannot begin an infinite process at some point.

Why not?

The positive number line starts at 1 and goes to infinity

here is a sugestion of why I do not believe in the big bang theory or the jesus christ/God theory.

Hmm, nothingness. My question - how big is nothingness and how long does it last?

According to the site you posted it had no time and it had no dimensions. So when and where is/was it?

I think this is a severe case of the inability of language to describe leading to erroneous statements.

Nothing is NOT a thing. It is "no" thing. No time and no space is not a place or time. It is an absence of both. If time and space do not exist then "no" thing exists.

Nothing never existed.

Conclusion: the universe (time and space) has always existed. From our perspective "always" is approx. 15 billion years.

kind regards
Paul

Slinkey,

Are you arguing for or against the big bang?

Nasor said....
It has been known for a long time that if a large group of people simultaneously post messages to each other about a particular topic, some people will agree with each other and some will disagree with each other. The agreement causes various ideas to become more popular and accepted, while the disagreement will cause ideas to be controversial and subjects of debate. The acceptance or controversy that accumulates around each subject will fall into a predicable, repeating pattern.Funnily enough I said something similar to this about a year ago on Usenet. What you are basically treating people as are quanta, and using a kind of Feynman's "sum over trajectories" to explain the resulting dominant idea.

In short, I agree. :)

kind regards
Paul

C'est moi posted:
Assis, A.K.T. and M.C.D. Neves. 1995. The Redshift Revisited. Astrophysics and Space Science 227: 13-24

For those who haven't found this here is a link to it:
Redshift Revisted - Assis and Neves (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/Assis.Neves.pdf)

It's in pdf format so you need Acrobat to view it (or a compatible viewer).

Interesting paper although I don't quite see how it invalidates the big bang.

kind regards
Paul

James R posted to myself:
Are you arguing for or against the big bang?Let's put it this way: I'm not against it.

I'm an interested layman who has certain intuitions about the implications of time and space having a start point. I understand this to be a grey area for human thinking because we are steeped in a world of cause and effect within the backdrop of space and time. Considering space and time as a "thing" in itself is a difficult conceptual leap which I feel misleads people into making (what I feel are) erroneous statements such as "the Universe came from nothing".

kind regards
Paul

The positive number line starts at 1 and goes to infinity

Positive numbers are a subset of the full set of numbers. There is "a begin of infinity" in subsets as you suggest - a sort of endless ornamental repetition, but that is not what I meant. I see sets -1/1, matter/antimatter, begin/end as balanced (without its counterpart they are uncomplete). So in my view an universe which begon and wil not end is incomplete.

Procop,
Aren't you talking about potential infinite vs. actual infinite? I mean, are you saying a potential infinite can exist but you reject the idea that an actual infinite can exist?

Aren't you talking about potential infinite vs. actual infinite? I mean, are you saying a potential infinite can exist but you reject the idea that an actual infinite can exist?

Nice idea. Is not all infinity "potential" and dependent on other infinities? At least partialy: eg. you canot have any infinite process without infinite time. Time would then be the basic infinity, and all other infinities would be dependent on it. Since time stops at the speed of light time is not infinite and thus nothing other is.

It only makes sense that men interested in nothing beyond sex, would create a god after their own image who would initiate the world with a big bang.


...

On another note, why would you reasonably disagree with the big bang theory? I like it, but then again, science has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. :bugeye:

Well you cannot begin an infinite process at some point. The nature of infinity is endlessness. If something ( BB) begon a process (the universe) this process must end (otherwise it couldn't have began).
<HR>
You assume the Universe is infinite. Why?

The question is really what was "before" and what will be "after" if we assume a finite process. The current problem seems to be determining if there was a "beginning" at which the universe began to expand (i.e., from the point of the big bang) -- in some sense nothing has really 'expanded', since space doesn't really 'exist' in its own right, i.e., in an absolute sense we cannot know if space 'exists' since all our measurement frames are 'within' the space we are talking about. The other problem is determining if it will expand infinitely, or whether it will contract to a point once more. Although, our perception of 'distance' is really an illusion -- its the curvature of space that gives space its 'distance' according to R. That implies that space doesn't expand or contract, it simply becomes more or less curved within itself, while remaining an infinitesimal point forever. It only makes sense to talk of an 'expanding' space when we are sure that there is a 'container' for that space, otherwise, from the point of view of something 'outside' that space -- the 'space' may still appear to be a point, whose internal configuration keeps changing. :bugeye:

You assume the Universe is infinite. Why?

There is no real universe. Well a structure. (Theorethical structure) Independent of anything. GundamWing came with a hologram metaphor. Thats OK with me. It's good help to visualise...Lets say this structure is a binary string. Random binary string would do. The string (the possibility of this string doesn't need space, dimensions whatever). This random binary string can in "our"world be burned into a DvD and played on a DvD player. There is some chance that if we would play this random binary string we would see the universe (supposing that the 0s and 1s would randomly come into such an order). (Some Scipots here suggested that a random generator in infinity of time would produce a word for world copy of the collected works of Shakespeare). Why not a random binary string of collected curved space with the familiar content?

Matther is the problem in time travel. If it exists with it's mass then I am wrong. But nobody here proved that it exists, well that it is "perceptible". DvD is perceptible to. DvD strings are perceptible even though they do not have "mass".

Time is an attribute outside the strings. Strings do not need it. Mind does. To percieve, mind follows the strings. Mind's movement happens in time. Strings do not happen. Strings are. They cannot "not be".

That's why I propose infinity as basis on which timeless strings "sleep" while mind rambles around.

what does the universe have anything whatsoever to do with G strings?

and who's mind are you referring to?

certainly not mine!

:eek:

and as far as i'm concerned you haven't proposed anything at all. What are you talking about? string theory mixed in with all sorts of metaphors on mind sitting on a string, etc. -- this could never be worked into a theory of any sort because you can't stick 'mathematics' to non-tangible concepts such as 'mind'. We barely understand how neurons interconnect to produce simple behaviors, let alone consciousness. Agreed, there are elaborate theories of "quantum consciousness" being tossed around -- but please, these are just plausible models for what those little microtubules do (besides providing support and molecular mechanics, which technically is one of their 'main' functions as neuroscience understands it) which really explain nothing about 'consciousness' as such. There are too many leaps in these 'theories'... let's stick to "baby steps". :bugeye:

Originally posted by GundamWing
and as far as i'm concerned you haven't proposed anything at all. What are you talking about? string theory mixed in with all sorts of metaphors on mind sitting on a string, etc. -- this could never be worked into a theory of any sort because you can't stick 'mathematics' to non-tangible concepts such as 'mind'. We barely understand how neurons interconnect to produce simple behaviors, let alone consciousness. Agreed, there are elaborate theories of "quantum consciousness" being tossed around -- but please, these are just plausible models for what those little microtubules do (besides providing support and molecular mechanics, which technically is one of their 'main' functions as neuroscience understands it) which really explain nothing about 'consciousness' as such. There are too many leaps in these 'theories'... let's stick to "baby steps". :bugeye:
Eventually, you'll learn the lesson that you just can't argue with ProCop. His theories are like The Blob. No matter what sense you throw at them, the theories just envelop and digest it, yet never change form.

- Warren

and as far as i'm concerned you haven't proposed anything at all. What are you talking about? string theory mixed in with all sorts of metaphors on mind sitting on a string, etc. -- this could never be worked into a theory of any sort because you can't stick 'mathematics' to non-tangible concepts such as 'mind'.

Not talking the string theory. I use a string as an example of structure. A stone is an example of structure which can be punctually described. This description can be played on a descriptor. Mind is a stucture too. Mind is a descriptor. It can "read" stone. Can happen without both having mass. (Hologram mind in hologram world)

so basically you're saying mind is like a computer that is being fed with binary information -- like those old punch card programmable computers early on? :bugeye:

or are you implying that the "mind" determines "how real" a physical object is -- i.e., it interprets "physicality" as "mass" and projects it as "solidity".... ?

your analogy is still quite a bit unclear... :confused:

Well I was reflecting on this effect (from my DvD piece)

Imagine a film box in which a role of film is rolled in. The movie which it contains is made from the beginning to the end and is now printed in plastic and will not change. You cannot see it all at once – but if you follow the tape with a small light (your brain?) all the way through you will experience the movie. You need time for that experience, but the movie itself doesn’t need time. It is ready and done.

There is the movie/reality and mind watches/follows it. The reality/movie doesn't have to be real. Being then is watching the reality/movie.

So how is your 'theory' different from all the existing philosophies...?

I have spend almost an hour reading this thread, and I find most of the posts interesting and some of them very entertaining.
Subject, are you for or against the Big Bang theory (BBt).
I think we can assume that we are all born with some amount of predjudise or pre disposition toward certain veiwpoints, finite vs. infinite, Big Bang vs.Steady state. So when we read evidence for and against a certain theory we tend to agree with the evidence that support our veiwpoint and dismiss the contrary evidence never mind how convincing it might be. (In 2001 the pope said it was OK for catholics to beleive in the BBt. He was just moving genesis back 14 billion years in time. But he had to have a beginning).
The BBt is so entrenched that it is accepted as virtual truth in most of the scientific community and the public. Until a few years ago, dispite some nagging concerns,I had also accepted it. But as my interest in the subject grew, and as my retirement provided more time
for more study, my problems multiplied and doubts increased. Cosmology articles would mention a problem here and there, but invariably they would be explained away by inventing new theories (hypothesies) such as inflation, black holes, dark matter, dark energy etc.etc. none of which are proven, they have to be taken on faith.
I would like one of the proffesional experts on this forum to explain to us doubters, why they constantly tell us that one of the best proofs of the BBt is the 2.7 Kelvin back ground radiation ?
Anyone who has studied the history of astronomy knows that the 2.7 Kelvin was predicted as the background temperature of the universe by several astronomers (Guillaume 1896,Edington 1926, McKellar and Herzber 1941, Finlay and Max Born 1953) long before Penzias -Wilson actually found that temperature to be correct with their new radiotelescope in 1965
These early astronomers had no radiotelescope to confirm their prediction. They were working on the - then accepted assumption - that the universe was in a steady state (as did Einstein when he formulated his theories) they thought that there must be a certain lowest temperature, above zero, prevailing in the universe. They used theoretical calculations along with a limmited amount of observations to come to their prediction. I would imagine that those ealy astronomer (who were still alive in 1965) would look at each other and say "amazing, we were right on, that proves the universe is steady state after all" WHY did most astronomers join Penzias-Wilson in exclaiming, "this is the echo of the BB ? rather than admitting it could just be the background temperature of the universe.
The way I see it, it proves nothing, one way or the other.

apolo:

A single piece of evidence, in isolation, rarely provides unequivocal support for one theory over another. The big bang theory is the best cosmological theory we have right now, not simply because of the microwave background temperature, but because of all the other observations which also support it (and which do not support a steady-state theory).

Maybe the Big Bang could be substituted by a White Hole (oppostie of Black Hole). The curved space has no centre so it can be that the universe could have been produced by such a phenomenon. Basically there would not be much difference in the observations so far.

So how is your 'theory' different from all the existing philosophies...?

It substitutes the matter with something of non matter quality("substance" in my theory is info/data, Newton laws apply in this info world on basis of probability/possibility). Why should my theory differ from whatever?

Originally posted by ProCop
It substitutes the matter with something of non matter quality("substance" in my theory is info/data, Newton laws apply in this info world on basis of probability/possibility). Why should my theory differ from whatever?

A theory that isn't different from an existing one isn't a new theory to be claimed. Secondly, the universe as a 'movie' idea has been around for some time in the philsophical circles. There's nothing novel about this idea to say that matter is really 'non-matter' -- the fact that atoms are mostly empty has been well known for some time. At least that is what I think you are referring to -- when you say 'non-matter' you mean 'non-physical' or 'non-substantial'. The idea that the physicality (solidity) of objects has no meaning is not different from the current view. And putting 'newtons laws' applied probabilistically? -- say what?? :confused:

Originally posted by ProCop
Maybe the Big Bang could be substituted by a White Hole (oppostie of Black Hole). The curved space has no centre so it can be that the universe could have been produced by such a phenomenon. Basically there would not be much difference in the observations so far.

>> which observations are those? how do you know this? <<


...and the idea that the big-bang was really a white hole --- read that somewhere in a popular book about Kerr (something on rotating black holes, wormholes, and what-nots) I think.

Perhaps the question you are asking is: Is there any evidence to indicate that the big bang was a white-hole (the complement of a black-hole)? Rather than, "Maybe the big-bang was really a white-hole". Interesting question, any takers?

And, what do you mean by "curved space has no center"?? If there was a big-bang that would be the 'center'; otherwise, if you take the weighted average across all the mass in the universe, you could find a 'center of mass' i'm sure... can't you? (assuming they can calculate how much mass there is in the universe, they must have a way for calculating center of mass as well? or no?). Perhaps you could get away with some kind of estimate of the volume / density (kind of like they estimate densities using Monte Carlo). Again, haven't the foggiest how they might do this, but no doubt, it should be possible.

What I would like to know is this... how does one determine the 'geometry' of the universe? What kinds of information are required, what kinds of astronomical evidence are required, etc.? :bugeye:

A theory that isn't different from an existing one isn't a new theory to be claimed. Secondly, the universe as a 'movie' idea has been around for some time in the philsophical circles. There's nothing novel about this idea to say that matter is really 'non-matter' -- the fact that atoms are mostly empty has been well known for some time. At least that is what I think you are referring to -- when you say 'non-matter' you mean 'non-physical' or 'non-substantial'. The idea that the physicality (solidity) of objects has no meaning is not different from the current view. And putting 'newtons laws' applied probabilistically? -- say what??

Ok. You can take my theory as a fancy a solliptistic dreamlike. What is different in my piece - please note I do not call it theory any more - is that you are not the solipstic who dreams it. This solipsistic universe of somebody else has to provide a credible solipticism for a scientist like chroot so that he/she can "believe it" Therefore Newton.

...and the idea that the big-bang was really a white hole --- read that somewhere in a popular book about Kerr (something on rotating black holes, wormholes, and what-nots) I think.

Because I see the universe as a hologram produced/hologrammed(pernamently) by the possibility to be produced (info/data contains all that's possible in a hologram-like form (inclusive hologram-like mind)) there is no question within my model for the necessity of Big Bang or Whilte Hole(s). But WITHIN the logic which hologram of possibilities presents it is a major point. Since I came to hologram model in variating on Everett theory it is of concern how the multiplicity of "worlds" got into this present state. (If everything possible is possible, why is it possible this way?). Eg. the data/hologram transcription of the stone contains all what a stone would contain ditto the universe. Advantage of such model is that at some point when we get to the code of the hologram, we would be able to change/operate on the hart of the hologram. (EG. we would be able to step into an another universe/time without leaving the room).

Originally posted by §lîñk€¥™
Hmm, nothingness. My question - how big is nothingness and how long does it last?

According to the site you posted it had no time and it had no dimensions. So when and where is/was it?

I think this is a severe case of the inability of language to describe leading to erroneous statements.

Nothing is NOT a thing. It is "no" thing. No time and no space is not a place or time. It is an absence of both. If time and space do not exist then "no" thing exists.

Nothing never existed.

Conclusion: the universe (time and space) has always existed. From our perspective "always" is approx. 15 billion years.

kind regards
Paul
Q: Hmm, nothingness. My question - how big is nothingness and how long does it last?
A: Nothingness has no size and no time.

Q: According to the site you posted it had no time and it had no dimensions. So when and where is/was it?
A: Nothingness wasn’t anywhere; nothing has no time.

§lîñk€¥™ STATEMENT: I think this is a severe case of the inability of language to describe leading to erroneous statements.
My REMARK: When you say “the inability of language to describe leading to erroneous statements,” Do you really mean to say: “the lack of vocabulary to describe erroneous statements.” There is nothing in school that will teach you how to use your brain in this way. This is some of the most abstract thinking you will ever encounter. I do not mean to insult your intel, but If you really understood the concept of nothing you would see that our beliefs of the beginning are really the same.

Quote: Nothing is NOT a thing. It is "no" thing. No time and no space is not a place or time. It is an absence of both. If time and space do not exist then "no" thing exists. Remark: It is the absence of everything. There was Nothing (ZERO, Zilch, Nada, Cipher, Nil, Naught) and then their was something. At this point everything happened: time, energy, mass, motion, light, temperature, sound, thought…etc.

quote: Nothing never existed.
Remark: That is correct.

Conclusion: the universe (time and space) has always existed. From our perspective "always" is approx. 15 billion years..
Do you really think you are approximately 15 billion years old? Only someone who existed at that time would know this. The nothing theory is just a theory. As is the theory that the universe has always existed. Furthermore, you state that 15 billion years (in our perspective) = infinity, which is not true, infinity = infinity. So if you believe the universe is 15 billion years old, then the nothing theory is correct as being previous to the beginning. I think both of our theories are the same thing, it is the way you look at them (as I will explain). You might just be uncomfortable thinking in abstract terms. Maybe you didn’t read the whole web site that I mentioned, or you must not understand what they were trying to explain.

You are correct that time and space does not exist inside the nothing. The nothing theory is just an abstract view of what existed before existence (which was nothing). Before there was something there was nothing, this means time did not exist; no area, objects, colors, light, energy, life, and size existed; one can’t even describe nothing to be solid black, since black is be something. I’m just trying to paint a picture for you. It is not possible to comprehend what nothing truly is because thinking is something.

If you were to read more on the theory of nothing, you would have read that at the moment that something existed 'nothing' could have never existed. There is no length of time to know how long NOTHING lasted because that would suggest something inside the nothing to measure the nothing. By this information you could say the universe has existed for not an infinite amount of time but may continue to exist infinitely, going on forever but starting at a point.

In conclusion, unfortunately we will never know the outcome of the universe because we only exist for a small fraction of time.

Originally posted by Nasor
This is the sort of teleological half-logic that held European science back for hundreds of years during the dark ages.

I agree,

"just becouse there is a beginning of somthing doesn't mean there has to be an end, and if there is no end to something, dosn't mean there has not bean a beginning."
jeremy

Originally posted by Boris2
Why not?

The positive number line starts at 1 and goes to infinity

this would be the second opinion that agrees with the concept: that before there was something there was nothing.


thank you Boris2

Originally posted by ProCop
Positive numbers are a subset of the full set of numbers. There is "a begin of infinity" in subsets as you suggest - a sort of endless ornamental repetition, but that is not what I meant. I see sets -1/1, matter/antimatter, begin/end as balanced (without its counterpart they are uncomplete). So in my view an universe which begon and wil not end is incomplete.

Another theory I thought of < which I recently found out exists< is that the universe expands, then retracts inside of itself (creating a beginning), then expands into the new parallel plane, then retracts inside of itself (creating a beginning), then expands into the new parallel plane, etc. etc.

This would mean that each cycle is finite (expanding then retracting) but the entirety (expanding, retracting expanding, retracting expanding, retracting ) is infinite.

Example

Finite 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Infinite 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (BANG) -1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 (BANG) 1 2 3 4 5 6...

(BANG) = the big band / creation / Oblivion or nothing concept theory

If any one has a reply to this or any of my other posts please copy/paste and e mail to me at PFCGrogan@aol.com.

Originally posted by pfcgrogan
this would be the second opinion that agrees with the concept: that before there was something there was nothing.
thank you Boris2

The positive number line was also an artificial construct. Natural things have neither 'beginning' nor 'end' in all sense of those words. You can argue that humans have a finite life time, I would argue that your atoms and molecules have always existed since the 'beginning' if that existed, and that they will continue to exist in some form or another until the 'end' if there is such a thing.

The placement of zero on the number line is a human conception that is convenient for allowing us to do mathematics -- its not some fundamental reality that we can use as an example of something with a finite beginning point and no ending point.

Technically the 'real number line' starts at -inf and goes to +inf, we just choose to ignore -inf because we can't comprehend what -inf means (but that's as comprehensible or incomprehensible as +inf) or for the sake of a 'logical argument' we pull things like this out as 'proof'.:bugeye:

Furthermore, if all atoms and sub-atomic particles are really just 'variations' of the 'void' that is space-time, when did atoms come into 'existence' per se? Does perception imply existence? Does existence imply perception? I think not. The universe has never really truly 'come into being' and so there is really nothing ever that has been done, or to be done. More or less, the most logical conclusion is that all this is void *shunya* (sanskrit for the absence of 'something', which cannot be 'labeled' as 'nothing' for a label implies 'something'). :eek:

"just becouse there is a beginning of somthing doesn't mean there has to be an end, and if there is no end to something, dosn't mean there has not bean a beginning."

If you invert this concept it will read:

"just becouse there is an end of somthing doesn't mean there has to be a begining, and if there is no begining of something, dosn't mean there has not bean an end."

Originally posted by ProCop
If you invert this concept it will read:

"just becouse there is an end of somthing doesn't mean there has to be a begining, and if there is no begining of something, dosn't mean there has not bean an end."

dear god, what is your point? Inverting sentences around is neither logic nor math -- where are you taking these arguments? :rolleyes:

dear god, what is your point? Inverting sentences around is neither logic nor math -- where are you taking my arguments?

Please leave the god out of this (not religion forum).

I just thought it would point out the absurdity of speaking of begining and end on the scale of endlessness:

An anology which is maybe more illustrative (and easily to imagine) is the 2D space of a surface of an orange. It is endless. Artificially you can point a begining at some place (and an end (the same place?)) but it has no begin and no end.

Endlessness is beginningless.

Originally posted by ProCop
Because I see the universe as a hologram produced/hologrammed(pernamently) by the possibility to be produced (info/data contains all that's possible in a hologram-like form (inclusive hologram-like mind)) there is no question within my model for the necessity of Big Bang or Whilte Hole(s). But WITHIN the logic which hologram of possibilities presents it is a major point. Since I came to hologram model in variating on Everett theory it is of concern how the multiplicity of "worlds" got into this present state. (If everything possible is possible, why is it possible this way?). Eg. the data/hologram transcription of the stone contains all what a stone would contain ditto the universe. Advantage of such model is that at some point when we get to the code of the hologram, we would be able to change/operate on the hart of the hologram. (EG. we would be able to step into an another universe/time without leaving the room). That's a unique one

How do you change the hologram if is 'pernament'?

Originally posted by Persol
That's a unique one
How do you change the hologram if is 'pernament'?

I wouldn't say its a "unique" one. It's the holographic theory of the universe rehashed quite poorly, and probably horribly misunderstood from the looks of it. The original theory came about as a result of David Bohm's speculations. He was a protege' of Einstein and a damn good physicist in his own right. I have always been a fan of his holographic theory, because it logically makes enormous sense. :)

What somewhat annoys me about ProCop is that he seems to blatantly borrow this holographic concept, stick it into his DvD verson of life, and rehash out some nonsensical terminology in the name of some magical new theory. Throughout this discussion, i've not heard him once give even a sliver of credit to Bohm or his original ideas. This is partly the reason i'm probing this guy on his details. The other part being that I can't understand anything he's saying. :mad:

I mean, if you're going to borrow someone's theory and say its your amazing new idea -- you better have some details down that weren't in the original theory, or its called plagiarism. So that's our word of the day kids.

I will say that this idea of his seems to have a flavor of multi-verses added in there for dramatic flair.

Here's the original idea from whence all this speculation arose:

>> http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html
>> http://www.2think.org/hii/thu.shtml
>> http://twm.co.nz/holoUni.html
>> http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm
>> http://www.thesatirist.com/books/TheHolographicUniverse.html

Originally posted by GundamWing
...and rehash out some nonsensical terminology in the name of some magical new theory....

The other part being that I can't understand anything he's saying. That's the reason I thought the theory was 'unique'. Most theories are readable, even if you aren't an expert.

haha.

Originally posted by ProCop
If you invert this concept it will read:

"just becouse there is an end of somthing doesn't mean there has to be a begining, and if there is no begining of something, dosn't mean there has not bean an end."


when you inverted my quote you changed the meaning. Im not sure what point you were trying to make. this was my quote and inverting it does not do anything accept make a new quote that is now yours.

it is only my opinion that "just becouse there is a beginning of somthing doesn't mean there has to be an end, and if there is no end to something, dosn't mean there has not bean a beginning."

read the last part of your quote: and if there is no begining of something, dosn't mean there has not bean an end."

you said "doesent mean there has not been an end" Infact it does mean there has not been an end, we still exist. 'do we not?

by the way (Doesent) is spelled like this: ( Doesn’t )

Originally posted by ProCop
Please leave the god out of this (not religion forum).

I just thought it would point out the absurdity of speaking of begining and end on the scale of endlessness:

An anology which is maybe more illustrative (and easily to imagine) is the 2D space of a surface of an orange. It is endless. Artificially you can point a begining at some place (and an end (the same place?)) but it has no begin and no end.

Endlessness is beginningless.

Poor analogy

The universe would be more like the inside of a basketball.

You shouldn’t use 2D objects to support your theories of our 3D universe.

Not borrowed:

My DvD theory excerpt:

1) First I must dispose of time as co-existing element of space. Imagine a film box in which a role of film is rolled in. The movie which it contains is made from the beginning to the end and is now printed in plastic and will not change. You cannot see it all at once – but if you follow the tape with a small light (your brain?) all the way through you will experience the movie. You need time for that experience, but the movie itself doesn’t need time. It is ready and done.
2) Imagine a box of some size which is densly filled with miniscule points.They are structured similarly as the cells of my computer screen but they have the third dimension of depth. The box is now a structured quantity of points. These points are capable of taking on different qualities similarly to the computer screen cells which can take on different colors. Imagine the movie from the previous paragraph in 3D version.
3) Translate this image of 3D box to include the Universe.
4) Step yourself into this box en mingle with the points there. In such a way you wil became an actor in this movie. Your body has translated itself into points, and your mind watches (the movie) the Universe from the inside: your are the part of its structure which is made from the points.
5) Points can take on any form possible (in the way the mind experiences them).
6) In Everett Theory the universe splits into two if you get two choices (both happen simultaneously) – I have always had some problems in visualising this in Everetts Model, because it means that there is an infinity(?) of universes along one another. eg. From reading Everet you can conclude that there are on this very moment universes (paralel to ours) where eg. 11 september DIDN'T happen (Everett himself used Kenedy for this instance in his time)... I thought there must be a possibility of a different model which would provide the possibilities to happen without such consumption of space (or dimensions)...and what I am presenting here is an alternative which could also enable different possibilities to happen. When you come to a moment of choice (in the movie) your mind will follow one scenario in the space of points while the same mind will go on at the same place following the second scenario. (You experience only one scenario at the time even though you are playing in both of them. These scenarios are coded differently so that they never mingle: if in a moment of choice: theatre or concert in one scenario you go to the theatre and in other to the concert (and you wil never meet yourself again).
7) The structure of point contains all possibilities of what CAN happen. Points are the vehicle for these happenings and mind experience these happennings.
8) Imagine the movie is a DvD (not analog but digital). You actulaly don`t need the points for your world to happen. There is a sense giving sequence of numbers (a POSSIBLE world). Such sequence of numbers can exist without space and time. There is then a THEORETICAL universe to be experienced as real (in a digital to analoog proces).
9) Generally mind experiences the model as an actual happening and is not an outside observer. But there indeed is some duallity involved in the moments when the mind in the model observers itself. (quite a problem here). DvD player cannot play itself. Mind then would have to exist also in the form of a string too to be able to have a look at itself. Is not likely, and it is also difficult to let this "stream of mindstrings" flow together with the real thing. I that it is better to put some symetry element into the model, in the form of a inversion (mirror) capacity (in strings or in the DvD) which would enable the Mind to look at itself. This should then invert the DvD into strings and strings into DvD for moments of selfreflection Anyway it is unavoidable to confront the moment when observer/scientist observes simultaneosly himself observing himself (an instance of spontainious symetrificacion (in inversion) of the model).
10) Mind organizes the perception of existence. You may agree, that if the universe in which we reside didn't existed at all, a theoretical possibility of it would exist, regardless anything. This theoretical possibility includes all other possible universes and what ever else can be coded in strings and playd on the next generations of DvDs. These strings (possibilities) were not created. Strings have always existed (not in potencial but fully).
11) Problem with incorect strings: would the incorrenct string stop the DvD player with a "fatal error" screen? But if there are errant strings (freedom of Choice) then my model is going to collapse ....because the mind follows the possible structures of the theorethical universe - if it comes againts an errant string it would not know it is ERROR and would make it true and all would colapse (for the mind...) An oponent of this reading said non-readable strings (freedom) are of God, mind wouldn't collapse reading them it would onlly NOT UNDERSTAND them..
12) As to determination (which some readers see in this model) I must recognise it is getting pretty close to it. If I dispose of these "errant" strings, I am disposing of "accident" in my model, and thats bad. But the global picture (of my thesis) is not discredited by this.

I liked the "hologram" term, WudhamWing came with that. I thought that also my DvD Theory can be described as such (I am not stealing (that blatant)).

How do you change the hologram if is 'pernament'?

The hologram doesn't change:



Re:GoddammedWing
I do not know how to explain this more graphic: you percieve change, because you are moving between the (different) states(editted P: state =hologram) of the universe (editted P: state=hologram) which are states (states do not change). (Imagine a big hall full of domino stones (editted P: one domino stone is one state of the hologram), push one and consequently (in a wave) they all fall. The top of the wave of the falling stones is you moving (metaphorically through the "states"). Now the same metaphor. The domino stones (editted P:domino holograms) do not move/fall but you wave through the hall the same. You are the time. Only you move.)

I understand your analogy procop because I agree with such a view myself (partly, not all), its not a new idea just so you know; however, until you pen something more solid down as to the specifics of what your model would propose (in terms of mathematics and the 'fundamental' constants of the universe), and why it is better than another model, it remains philosophical conjecture as to the workings of the universe and mind's role in that universe. Not only are you speculating on how mind works, but you offer no testable hypotheses. That's the problem. :rolleyes: One immediate problem is that this implies that there is neither free will, nor deterministic mathematical laws (since you're watching a 'pre-made' movie in essence). You shakily add that your mind 'goes through' both realities, but only experiences one, why would you add that? It neither resolves the dimensionality problem, nor does it make the previous model better (in fact, it was better in its original form when there were multi-verses and that mind could travel all possible paths, independently and experience in each of them is different). :bugeye: