|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 21, 2019 12:29:12 GMT -7
where did the singularity come from?
can science tell us that? what it was and why it was?
can science answer that?
no
so all one can do is speculate and declaring science cant measure it means nothing. of course they cant.. its the unknown
|
|
|
|
Post by bussit on Nov 21, 2019 12:38:03 GMT -7
Just because there some things we don't understand, that's not a good reason to accept wild speculation about the answers, especially when they run counter to things about reality that we do know.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadphishbiscuits on Nov 21, 2019 12:43:45 GMT -7
Just because there some things we don't understand, that's not a good reason to accept wild speculation about the answers, especially when they run counter to things about reality that we do know. Isn't this how all things that become understood start out? |
|
|
|
Post by bussit on Nov 21, 2019 12:52:19 GMT -7
It's perfectly fine to wildly speculate, just not to accept that speculation as reality just because it sounds cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 21, 2019 12:56:39 GMT -7
Just because there some things we don't understand, that's not a good reason to accept wild speculation about the answers, especially when they run counter to things about reality that we do know. agreed. but how do we know what existed prior to the big bang or just after it? thats what we are talking about. billions of years ago. you really think we have an accurate representation on the big bang theory.. hmmmm it is a theory right? Science cant even confirm thats what happen so how can rule Open hand out? you cant really
but we dont know the unknown so you need a starting point to work off of. my belief as stated many times is believe as little as you can as belief can skew new data when it comes in.
and as I said, quantum physics dont work in classical and classical in a quantum level. they conflict.. so what do we really know? if a so called law only works in certain situations, then how robust is that law?
whats your opinion on the divide between classical and quantum. which is right?
|
|
|
|
Post by bussit on Nov 21, 2019 13:05:44 GMT -7
Like I said, we don't know one damn thing about the universe prior to the big bang.
I cannot unify classical physics and quantum mechanics. You should know this because I don't have a Nobel prize.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 21, 2019 13:10:01 GMT -7
It's perfectly fine to wildly speculate, just not to accept that speculation as reality just because it sounds cool. agreed. its also perfectly fine to mildly speculate as well. and accepting a theory cause its cool is a little weird for sure. to me its more about how a theory fits in with everything else like a puzzle.
First rule of LordK. believe as little as you can.. it skews interpretative of any future data.
and what is your opinion on the Scientific conflict on quantum and classical physics. which science is right?
as I said neither classical laws break down on the quantum level and quantum laws dont really work on a large scale.
is science confused?
and how again do you know for sure what was happening during the time of the big bang? especially given Scienists cant even agree thats what happened.
but we do know open hand must be wrong?. that sounds like wild speculation for sure
|
|
|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 21, 2019 13:14:50 GMT -7
Like I said, we don't know one damn thing about the universe prior to the big bang. I cannot unify classical physics and quantum mechanics. You should know this because I don't have a Nobel prize. i do know this. so then Open hand may be right on prior to the big bang, that is if the big bang even took place which is another thing Science cannot agree upon
so Science doesnt even know then! yet you can claim Openhand is just wild speculation when you just effectively told me you dont know and you cant be sure which set of physics laws were at play during the big bang.
thats my point. you dont really know.. I dont really know and you are relying on physics to rule something out, yet dont even know which physics is applicable during the big bang. classical or quantum
that confused me and I was just looking for clarification.
I have it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bussit on Nov 21, 2019 13:39:22 GMT -7
Classical physics and quantum mechanics are both right
|
|
|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 21, 2019 14:49:50 GMT -7
Classical physics and quantum mechanics are both right I would not disagree at all.. Im about paradox
the question at hand is which system was at work during the big bang or perhaps something entirely new which split off into two systems.
that was my point, if you dont know which system was at work then you cant really rule out something that you thinks violates classical physics can you? those rules may not have been at play.
it was billions of years ago., we dont really know. we can speculate though 
and of course, the big bang is just a theory
|
|
|
|
Post by bussit on Nov 21, 2019 16:07:08 GMT -7
The big bang is a just a theory in the same way that gravity is just a theory
|
|
|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 22, 2019 7:56:03 GMT -7
The big bang is a just a theory in the same way that gravity is just a theory perhaps but i can see gravity at work now in a pretty stable environment. the Big Bang, its a mighty fine theory which Im fine with but .....
|
|
|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 22, 2019 8:14:30 GMT -7
also, i was reading this: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/10703130/Proof-of-the-Big-Bang.htmlAccording to Prof Andrew Jaffe, a cosmologist at Imperial College London, this is – almost – proof that inflation theory is correct. “Inflation is the only way we know of to produce gravitational waves in the early universe,” he says, adding that although there are other possible explanations, they are “less compelling”.
based on only way we know? that doesn't sound very scientific, it fits, its the only way we know, that must be it.
and I really like this concept: What if though, at the moment of explosion outwards, you also have implosion inwards that happens just afterwards, with an ever-so-slight delay. The dynamic sets up standing waves of vibration. So the Universe progressively moves to a place where it is breathing out and in, at the same time. Thus you have the basis of the manifest Universe. You have a dynamic equilibrium in constant flux. It's a postulation that can satisfy science and spirituality.
string theory is about vibrations so this fits in with that as well.
nobody really knows that the laws of physics were in the first instant of inflation. there was no scale.
clearly from out viewpoint the universe stabilized into classical and quantum physics, in that first crazy instant of reality, anything could have been going on. we dont really know. we can measure whats left and theorize but chances are we will never really know
|
|
|
|
Post by EllisD on Nov 22, 2019 9:45:58 GMT -7
I'm slowly coming to accept the theory of multiverses. Who needs the limitations of reality anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 22, 2019 10:15:45 GMT -7
I'm slowly coming to accept the theory of multiverses. Who needs the limitations of reality anyway. the multiverse really sits well with me.
as I feel that all that can exist, exists as potential/concpet and you would need a multiverse to get the job done. we are just lens of of the singular consciousness, more a coordinate system I suspect
the whole hologram, simulation concept kind of fits into that.
when you think about it, do concepts need a mind to think of them? or are they just eternal, need no physical place to exist or mind.. they are exist on there own as potential
so we may just be a concept illuminated by a lens of the singular consciousness broke down and partitioned into bazillions of lens, each a soul or whatever
here but not here which avoids creating something from nothing which is impossible I feel. creating something from a potentiality field however is not
|
|
|
|
Post by bussit on Nov 22, 2019 11:38:41 GMT -7
Actually, the nothing you speak of is a "potentiality field"
|
|
|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 25, 2019 7:19:28 GMT -7
Actually, the nothing you speak of is a "potentiality field"
im real big on all that is is a potentiality field. its a paradox somewhat as it is something but yet nothing. And I feel that the paradox is essential to defining reality
you cant create something out of nothing but you can from a potentiality field
this also leads to the whole hologram simulation theories.
we are a simulation running in a potentiality field out of necessity to in indirectly define that which cannot be defined aka the void, though a label dont really work but for purposes of discussion, the void
|
|
|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 25, 2019 7:20:13 GMT -7
all we are is a concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by bussit on Nov 25, 2019 9:26:39 GMT -7
I just want to make it clear that a potentiality field isn't nothing. True nothing is the absence of even that potentiality field.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordkundalini on Nov 25, 2019 9:48:29 GMT -7
I just want to make it clear that a potentiality field isn't nothing. True nothing is the absence of even that potentiality field. agreed. true nothing cant even have the label of nothing.,. its an odd concept.. the absence of everything. i giggle when I think about it. I always call it the void which is still a label but you have to use some kind of proxy to discuss it
your post of Actually, the nothing you speak of is a "potentiality field" kind of threw me
but we are in agreement
|
|
