How can we detect what happened before the Big Bang?
==…
Scientists say that before the “big bang” was nothing: neither
space nor time. In my opinion when we say “space”, “time”
we must define more precisely. We must define more precisely
that we are talk about “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
Is my opinion correct?
====…
First - SRT. (1905)
a)
Take SRT the theory without gravity.
This theory doesn’t have “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
This theory has “spacetime”- other names:
Minkowski spacetime, negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space.
In my opinion all these words hide one true word: vacuum.
b)
One SRT postulate says that the speed of light is constant in vacuum
because the laws of electricity and magnetism predict that light travels
at c = 2.998×108 m/s in a vacuum. But scientists did not specify the
frame of reference in which light had this speed. Therefore was invented
Minkowski spacetime, negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space – all
these words are different names of vacuum.
Vacuum is reference frame for speed of quantum of light and SRT.
(we still don’t know what vacuum is)
Second – GRT. (1915)
Take GRT the theory about gravity.
The gravity masses somehow changed the surrounded “spacetime”
and create “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
There aren’t “space” and “time” without gravity.
Third – The prove.
You can detect my opinion in our Earth referent frame.
How? Try to live without “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”.
Astronauts can live in satellite without “gravity-space” and “gravity-time”
only because they have artificial air. Without artificial air this satellite
is flying coffin. We can live on natural / artificial cosmic satellite /planet
Earth only because Earth has own gravity-space- air and gravity-time.
==…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=====…
Prior to a caused event there is its potential. As there can be no first cause, then the first moments of the big bang will denote what its potential were. That potential was in turn denoted by a previous to universe cause.
Such information may only yield what happens between universes or at the very end of the previous one. But having two existences will tell us that reality composes both and yield its third sphere of entity ~ an infinity with an infinite amount of infinite universes in it probably.
There was no Big Bang. The idea of it began as a joke and has never been any more than that. There is more evidence against the BB than for it. And always has been.
Before BB was no space and was no time.
The situation “no space and no time” have only
one reference frame – vacuum. Vacuum has different names:
Minkowski spacetime, negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space.
Before BB was “singular point”.
This “singular point” has masses.
Where did these masses come from?
The answer can be only one. These masses came from vacuum.
These masses came from cold zero vacuum. Therefore in the
beginning the “singular point“ wasn’t hot. In the beginning the
“singular point” was cold. Very cold. Zero cold.
Its hard enough to debate these things with existing info, let alone with something which contradicts it.
jerkey
No BB and there simply is no time ~ of the universe duration. So there would have to be infinite time, or otherwise we end up with the same first cause cunundrum.
Secondly, if no BB then knowing this universe would be knowing the universe, without exception.
Bottom line, time is a function of consciousness, without consciousness there is no time. When consciousness grows, the amount of existents grows, and time slows.
When time goes infinitely fast division by zero errors occur, and thus it is said that neither time nor consciousness exists during this phase.
i presented somewhat absolute truths, it doesnt matter if the light barrier is broken. These truths pertain to all worlds with consciousness in the way we understand it. Only reason it would change is if the light barrier created A World Which Is Not A World or a similar realm where absolute truths dont apply.
Supposing ‘consciousness’ is energy, and it too, travels. This may account for some of the ideas that Jung talked about in a volume entitled , ‘synchronicity’. Again an idea, perhaps years away from verification and acceptance. And perhaps the velocity of brain waves exceeds that of the speed of light? Why not? An idea has to be proven wrong, before it can be totally ruled out. If one is to talk about ‘consciousness’ then it would be implausible to dismiss any property assigned to it that does not share similarly, those properties with light.
Consciousness and light have a symbiotic relationship, but that does not disqualify them from being both, forms of energy.
The retina is basically converter, it produces the images, which later turn into ideas, which effect people and things. Is this not the energy that imputes that man in the machine we call consciousness?