Gettin' In Tune

I am comfortable with eliminating the notion of "Before" and of "Time". Does this still eliminate the 'impetus' of the Big Bang? Maybe I am still living in a flat world and viewing the Big Bang through anthropocentric lenses, but how could the explosion of the Big Bang happen without an impetus or energetic force?

My simple question is, how did the explosion occur?

Og

This is the question about our existence that all religions should ask.. What modern theistic religions do is to presuppose that it is simply true (as causality applies in their lives and they are used to it).

Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on high energy particle accelerators to bring together particles with MASSIVE energies much like those found at the beginning of the universe in order to see how matter behaves under those circumstances.

This is why science is the one true religion. It is the one that addresses our source in a manner that could be conceived of as meaningful.

(I'm saying "I don't know" to your question, but what is clear is that modern religion has only the most local and tiny ideas about the answer)

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Gettin' In Tune

Now I have been thinking and what to throw some thought out there about Time.

How can you eliminate time? If the Big Bang theory is true, then that implies that all the universal matter was consolidated. That does not necessarily imply that this consolidated matter was in a stationary state.

Take earth for example. Earth is a ball of matter, but inside the core of the earth there is movement and doesn't this movement implies the existence of time?

Even if the Big Bang theory is true, how can we know that the universal consolidated matter was not in flux? Wouldn't flux imply time?

Am I making sense?

pseudonous

If I remember correctly what I learned from a few television programs, isn't the big bang theory that the universe was originally one point. There was no matter or energy or time at this point. It was basically nothing. Then this point which being a point had no dimensions began to stretch. Simultaneously, energy was produced as a natural result of the space stretching. Now that there was energy, time also began. Also, since the ratio of the volume change of the universe versus the volume of the universe was initial so great the universe started of very hot and cooled as it became bigger. As the universe cooled matter formed and the universe we see around us is the result. In this case, the first cause of the universe was literally nothing. Of course, this comes from television and was probably meant to be entertaining more than educational.

Gettin' In Tune

Very interesting theory. Do you remember what program it was?

What CAUSED the stretching?

sisterX

What caused it indeed! That is the billion dollar question. I can't understand how one can say the universe has no cause when it had a beginning. I think i even read og say that it is infinite. Based on what evidence? Why should it have occured? And why does the universe contain a planet that statistically should not exist (earth) which happens to have all of the ideal conditions for life?

__________________
"But as for me (I believe) that He is Allah, my Lord, and I shall associate none as partner with my Lord." Surah Al-Kahf verse 38. Holy Quran

Og

No.. the point of this thread is that this is the provincial question that is not derived from an intuition of the behavior of the cosmos.

Did you miss the first link? Do you not get the notion of gravitational time dilation? It's an OBSERVED fact.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Og

Another demonstration of your lack of intuition for the nature of the universe. You don't understand the size scales involved or the properties of material at these scales (i.e. different than the one you directly inhabit). This perspective is called "provincial" (i.e. of peasants or commoners). Mary Poppins labeled these types of people as not being able to see past the nose on their own faces.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Jayhawker Soule

It is also the "provincial question" of cosmology, although I agree that "cause' is a term ladened with difficulty. And this difficulty is not limited to First Cause arguments but permeates quantum mechanics - radioactive decay being a case-in-point.

Jayhawker Soule

Please show me the statistics.