Follow us on X (fka Twitter) for news, articles, and discussions with other followers: Some scientists claim …
source
Follow us on X (fka Twitter) for news, articles, and discussions with other followers: Some scientists claim …
source
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur.
•___________________This is begining point.
As I understand light travels through space as what we see in the night sky or through other verious scientific devices used to dectect said light wave lengths that can not be seen with the naked eye.
As I look and precieve time here on Earth as being a construct made and invented as well as measured by instruments so as to pick up on the Cosmic understanding of precieved time, i.e. The Atomic Clock, still does not answer the question of my understanding of the Big Bang as to wheather or not it just suddenly began, and if so the time scale and direct corrilation between speed and distence traveled in a vacum such as space is so fast that as we try and make any measurement of it just can not be done at this time. Our understanding is limited by our lack of evidence that points to another level of knowledge and understanding relative to the cosmological constant and the speed of light over mass in a three-diamensional world. That being the known and quite limited viewable Universe. It like the cusor blinking on you're screen, How fast does that blink from one to the next? 0.00000000008ths of a second. How far could you travel in that amount of time? All the while I understand the Big Bang such as it has been stated, has traveled a much greater distence at greater velocities then the example given over a vast amount of empty space that as my understanding leads me to believe has always been in exsistence, as far as I know and understand the phallocies of time are held to, in any manner of the term, being used to explain something that is misunderstood as to the very concept of the equations being used to discribe another all to different concept of time. Sumantics of wordage compounds the issue more over when esteemed members of the issue at hand say let me begin by saying…You misunderstand the difinition of the word.
Not yet.
What is the worst and best that can happen if atheists ask to muslims to prove the claim that the Quran was memorized?
He said we can prove inflation because of the cosmic microwave background. That’s just not true. The cosmic microwave background required a theory, that is inflation, and it doesn’t work well.
you've got the money fix your tooth
9:37 "homogenous goop." I assume he's referring to the aether.
Some guys say that when God or metaphysics is brought up, the discussion no longer is of science. I'm starting to realize those kinds of men are stuck in a little sandbox and only care to deal with the things they can play with and control….if anybody, therefore, mentions God that will cause them to complain saying " don't wake me up don't wake me up, i want to do science." If you can't touch it, it ain't science. If you can't control it, it ain't science. If it remains a mystery, do away with it and instead deal with what you can prove wrong and know of. How dare they think they can mess with our nihilistic mathematics. Ain't got no time for philosophers.
When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you
The discussion is partly about a very small early universe – grapefruit sized. What was outside the grapefruit. Within what was it so small?
I like his aside, about 4 minutes in, specifying that he's talking about the observable universe not anything (outside? beyond?) that, because "we believe the universe is infinite" … maybe that's an important caveat to ask more about.
Yes, I believe it did like an air bubble in a glass of champagne, comes to existence then burst at the surface, then an other one appears and disappears…like that for eternity, no beginning no end.
A billionth of a second is far too fast for us to experience, so it’s fair to say that in that short time interval we don’t have a sense of being. The problem is that the time frame we are aware of such as 1 second feeling like 1 second, is joined together by by extremely short time intervals where we don’t have a sense of being, so how do we have a sense o being at all. We also need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being even if we just picture something in our heads. If 100 years go by without us having any sense of being, to us it would seem like a blink of an eye, because we wouldn’t have any memory of not having a sense of being, such as an extremely short time interval.
If a group of people were individual zero dimensional points that mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point without any dimensions, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be one individual point. If zero dimensional points were not in any particular space or not separated by any space, they would be separated by time, each being zero dimensional universes. Our sense of being is zero dimensional, so does that mean we could be individual zero dimensional points. If we don’t have any sense of being such as in an extremely short time interval, we wouldn’t exist, not even being zero dimensional points. What if only two multi point points exist. One was the digit one that all numbers up the number line really are, and the other was a gap or boundary that separates numbers. How do we stop more than 2 points existing. Now let’s say there are 20 scattered points. Now you are an individual point with a consciousness of 20, so by imagining these 20 scattered points you are looking at yourself as a an individual point with a consciousness of 20. Now let’s say there are 90 other individual points mixed in with you. The 90 other points might also think their the ones theorising 20 scattered points. Now let’s say there are a number of scattered points you don’t know how many. You can’t count something you don’t know is there, neither can you count infinity. You can mix an infinite number of zero dimensional points points together because they are zero dimensional. So if you don’t know how many scattered points there are, dose that mean you a looking at the point your in not as a number conscious point, but looking at it as the fact there might be an infinite number of individual points mixed in. An infinite number of individual zero dimensional points should be able to be mixed in to make one single zero dimensional point. There would be no order of how many individual zero dimensional points would be mixed in to form one single zero dimensional point.
Let’s say you have two colours that exist on one side of the tennis court, and the other side of the net you have two colours that don’t exist. Each colour one side of the net could each be part of two systems. Each colour that exists could also be a colour that was originally a colour that never existed that has has already crossed over the net from the other side to become a colour that does exist. So the two colours that exist could be part of two systems. The two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net could also be part of two systems. If we look at the two colours that exist from above the court with our head pointing away from the other side of the court, we may see red on the left and blue on the right. But we don’t see the spaces they take up because the spaces don’t contain any colour. What if the space the red colour was in on the left was the blue colour on the right, and the space the blue colour on the right was in was the red colour on the left. And what if the empty spaces thought they were the colours and the colours were the empty spaces they were filling up. Their is on point to make here. Both the empty spaces and colours that are filling them up are both from two systems, the empty space originating from the other side of the net as a colour that does not exist to cross over the net to become a colour that does exist, and the colour that is filling the spaces up is part of the system that is home on the side of the net it’s on. There is also two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that is also part of the same two systems. The reason the empty space the red colour on the left is in could be the blue colour on the right, is because a colour can’t fill up a space that is the same colour as it is. So we are looking down at the two colours that exist with the top of our head Pointing away from the other side of the net, and we see a red square on the left and blue square on the right. Now if we look at the two colours that exist from underneath the tennis court still with the top of our head pointing the same direction, could we now see a blue square on the original left and red square on the original right, now seeing the empty spaces being the actual visible colours. Now when the two colours switch spaces with each other, in a way the spaces are moving to because they are now entering different colours thinking they are different spaces. A way we can see the two colours one side of the net and spaces they fill all move together without seeing the spaces still, is if the two colours move over the net in a straight direction, and the two spaces they leave move diagonally over the net to the other side of the court. But shouldn’t the two colours now be two colours that don’t exist? If the two colours and new spaces they are in turn into each other once they cross the net, the colours now being spaces will have to change colours because a colour can’t fill an empty space that is the same colour. The side of the net the colours and spaces have crossed over to becoming each other in the process are meant to be for colours that don’t exist, but now becomes the side of the net for colours that do exist. The original two colours that don’t exist and the spaces they fill, and the two colours that do exist along with the spaces they fill, have all crossed the the net to opposite sides, thus the opposite becoming original sides.
So if we look down on the court and see red on the left and blue on the right, then we look from underneath the court and see blue on the original left and red on the original right because we are now focusing on the empty spaces as being the colours, is that because by actually observing from underneath the court we are causing the colours and spaces to cross the net turning into themselves. When we see some thing cross the net we observe the outcome. But by observing the two colours from underneath the court and seeing the outcome (if) the two colours cross over the net, could we be actually causing the two colours to cross over the net. Therefore by looking underneath the court, we are actually looking across the net to other side of the court. The structure of the theory is an empty space can’t be the same colour as the colour that fills it up. If we look at the two colours from above the court, could the reason that we can’t see the empty spaces be that we are looking at the future where the other side of the net is on, and where the two colours that don’t exist are located. which are two colours that don’t exist that are at the other side of the net as the two colours that do exist are on their side of the net. They say particle physics is based on symmetry. What kind of symmetry? If you have 10 different things, what makes them the same thing is that they are all in the same category as being a different thing. All numbers are really just a digit one a certain way up the number line. But the gaps or boundaries in between the numbers look like a truly different thing altogether. Logic is based on numbers, but can we create a new kind of logic based on gaps and boundaries in between numbers.
Atheists ruled out God because they think it is just a fairy tale…..
… yet, instead, Atheists prefer to believe that there Consciousness came from EXPLOSION of Unconscious NOTHING ( BigBang ) worst than all the fairy tales in the world…
… it is just amazing how demonic possession can turn Atheist's brain into vegetable… so sad..
I had a 1 and a half year NDE you would love consulting me, I was low on oxygen and stopped existing. I found no god in the process of dying.
9:16 to me the fascinating thing is that okay that before inflation the universe was homogeneous like everything was put in the blender and stirred up it wasn't really put in it started in the blender state and with time it formed the clumps that's the miracle of inflation is to show that it quantum microscopic quantum fluctuations of this homogeneous goop turn into clusters of galaxies and galaxies and stars and then we can look at the structure of the large scale structure of the universe and see the exactly the mathematical expression in the large that resulted from those small flunctuations and it matches up that's just amazing for phyiscists particular to those who are astronomy physcists are so confused that we don't know that the universe is heading up an evolutionary process or down a degragational process since the end of the inflationary epoch.
brilliant
Physics of nonsense ?
No space-no time yet there was quantum of fluctuation.
But it was a miricle of The God (Allah SWT) Will likes the birth of Prophet Isa@Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) of The Virgin Maryam@Mary (PBUH)!
It's turtles all the way down…
He concluded by saying, "That is just amazing." What is amazing in all that he said? I didn't hear even a whisper of anything amazing in everything he said. Rather he was fighting so as not to be pinned against the wall. People have to fight to avoid self deception. It's a personal choice. It's up to him to choose to think whatever he wants to think.
Did matter preexist the Big Bang?
Talk on Nature (not Univese)
Did Nature begin? There will be many beginnings and many endings in Nature.
"Did the Universe Begin?"
AccordIng to ATHEISTS, the answer is yes, "the Universe begun when Unconscious Nothingness magically exploded into unconscious pieces that later on turned ALIVE and AWARE free to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster"…
…the obvious insanity of ATHEISTS' Theory above is more than enough evidence that the only logical choice of belief to explain the origin of our "Aware Existence" could only be an Aware Almighty Source or Aware GOD…..
..now, if you love to look like an incoherrent funny clown, then join with ATHEISTS' funny theory… it is always your choice..
Science and Zen have merged
But then you pretty much end up with 3D image entities, moving across a pixel medium
Trying to quantify and objectify everything is an impediment upon self. What comes into time dies in time, i.e. mass and magnitude. Quantifying and objectifying everything is a reification of general relativity and mind. In trying to understand how all of phenomena has come to be isn't understanding That which is immanent and transcendent. The great metaphysicians did greatly consider qualities and properties but not from the perspective of trying to understand phenomena in itself but God. Because there is harmony, qualities, beauties, balance, providence, law, and the good that all beings seek, they used these as catalyst to try and touch That – God. What do you believe you're after with all of your inquiries if God is occluded?
Questions direct and modify our inquiries in many ways. Persons want to understand the universe but not God? All of the qualities, forms, harmony and beauty isn't the universe, nor is it science, it's the Divine. You want to understand a cake while indifferent in even considering the baker or maker, that which give it form, beauty, qualities?"
People will mock God saying he's just imaginary, right…. where do you think the very abstract thought of imagination, its function and practicality arised from? Humans being transient are far more imaginary than the imaginary God.
I become ever more of the mind that linear/seqeuntial time did begin….but this was not the defacto beginning or existance.
I become ever more convinced, that the vacuum energy background was the substrate upon which dynamic time could exist beforehand and linear time be founded upon.
So that the corporeal could manifest out of the aetherial.
The next episode's question: Did universe?
Long stareWhere did it all come from? At some point it perhaps came from nothing. But then what is nothing and how do you explain it. The thing is, we will never know unless perhaps there is some sort of afterlife and it’s all revealed (maybe revealed) Maybe a supreme being/entity. But where did that come from, if it ever did come from anything. How could something always be. Physics will never, never have these answers. I like it when they say things like “it’s not important “ when they don’t have an answer for it.
we biological humans invented time; it is a useful way to manage daily life knowing that all biological life has a built-in death sentence. that is all there is to it. ya' gonna die, Bro!
Don't we all human "begin" with first single couple..!! Physics don't have the answer but embryology does
More balloon farts.
Did the Universe Begin? My gut says it may not have a beginning.
If our universe were infinite, how could there be more universes? Wouldn't our occupy all the space?
A.I will discover quantum gravity equations. We seem to have reached the limit of our understanding.
Is there a situation when time doesn't exist at all. I am not saying time is not but a moment when time doesn't exist at all for our whole existence.
Empty space has always existed, the Universe began when it first started producing gas that created stars.