Big Bang: Time
=.
Big Bang is seriously taken by cosmologists and according
to current cosmological scenarios:
a) In the past, maybe 50 or 100 billion years ago, the Universe
as whole reached its maximum radius.
b) It took another 50 or 100 billion years when the Universe
as whole came to singular point.
c) Today we see the Universe at age 13,7 billion years.
Question.
Why do cosmologists say: “Before Big Bang there was no time”?
===…
Socratus.
Because on the whole, they are ontological idiots. They didn’t and don’t know what time is.
Ergo: there was no time when Big Bang could have conceivably happened. That argument does not defeat a thought of singularity, a timeless singularity, from which the timeless universe emerged. Why does emergence have necessarily be tied with a sequence of indiscernible events? Because it’s tied to a paradigm of experience, which is phenomenologically & absolutely reductive. (The only support for Russell’s Principia is Wittgenstein’s positivism, it’s theory of resemblances lacks the dynamic to refute semblance as dependent on criteria of the paradigms). Therefore, it fails, on the absolute level, however works on the phenomenal level, for a similar reason , as Newton’s theory of gravitation works on the physical, but not on the -meta physical level. We are beyond phenomena as the absolute criteria, even in Esse est Parcipii. The existential leap has been super ceded by sign systems. Inocious tendencies, underlying motives.
Seems more like a grab of a bunnie out of a hat, then a real motive behind a anti hypothesis, just as suspect.
Besides, Your thesis subscribes to a principal idea of singularity, how you get there is of secondary importance, so why the fuss? There is nothing in principle to refute, and the dynamics in any case are unknown. It’s a case of another Either/Or, No?
I’d assume because time and space can be perceived as being the same thing in different ways.
If space didn’t exist prior to the big bang – the big bang explosion is believed to have created space and everything in it – then time doesn’t exist either.
Time is just a measure of change; the distance between one state and another. If ‘things’ haven’t yet come into existence, then there’s no time between them or their states.
.
If before BB was no space and was no time but was only MATTER . . . .
. . . then . . . in which structure the MATTER was existing?
==========…
einstein-online.info/spotlig … gularities
Perhaps the most drastic consequence of Einstein’s description
of gravity in terms of curved spacetime geometry in the framework
of his GRT is the possibility that space and time
may exhibit “holes” or “edges”: spacetime singularities.
Over the edge
Unfortunately it is not so easy to give a precise meaning
to what this means. In other physical theories,
singularities are defined as some kind of “pathological behavior” . . . .
einstein-online.info/spotlig … gularities
My opinion.
GRT – when the masses curved surrounded spacetime into local sphere
then this sphere (star, planet) has its own gravity-time and gravity-space
and surrounded spacetime (zero infinite vacuum) looks as “holes” - no time,
no space . . . singularities. . . . many - many singularities . . . an infinite
space of singularities . . . and . . . .zero infinite zero-vacuum has
infinite “emptiness” that is equal to infinite density (of so-called singularity)
=============.
Socratus.
===============…
Spacetime seems to be a hyperdimesnional entity, as it’s “curve” is not actually a curve of xy and z, but of omega dimension, concerning aether. Therefore all diagrams of Einsteins gravity space time are retarded and fall flat. According to the diagrams, objects would curve around Earth rather than fall towards it.
So laugh all you want at my theories which say aehter is real, and that atoms are hyperdimesnional. Pick one or the other, cuz both theories have hyperdimensional concepts, only difference is my theories are better and truer than Einsteins, because Einstein poorly explains his curve, which is equal to the abstraction of a graph, a depiction of reality, but removed from the physical. Mine is an actual explanation and diagram of reality.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssWmFzy2XG8[/youtube]
Except that newtons theories dont explain everything
Newton said that
“truth is ever to be found in simplicity”
( for example in two and three dimensional systems)
“and not in the multiplicity and confusing of things.”
( for example in “hyperdimensional concepts “ )
====…
well that reminds me I forgot an important concept of mine which is cassette theory, i will make a new post about it.
And don’t forget to use Occam’s razor in your theory.
=======.