So. the Big Bang looks to not be a fact. Now what?

It can't contribute.
It IS the answer.
Either something is or it isn't.
The complexities, questions, are in the "is" state.
There are none in the "isnt" state.

 

I disagree.
I can imagine nothing.
I dont have to reference it by what is in "something".
There is no "is".
There is just "isnt".

 

"Nothing" is not ANYTHING like a side of a coin.

"Nothing" is nothing. It's not even anything like a perfect vacuum in our universe, which is still FAR from being "nothing".

 

Indeed. I completely agree.
Except that the concept of duality is absolutely fundamental to existence. For every state if being there is the opposite.
For every "yes it is there" there is a "no it is not".
You cannot get away from it. One state immediately demands the other to be true.

 

The problem comes when you talk about objects moving between "nothing" and "something".

"Nothing" has no space, no time, no information, and nothing else that "something" requires. That's the definition of "nothing".

These requirements have to be acquired. Yet there is no possibility of "nothing" acquiring these requirements. And, if there IS a source of these requirements, that source would be the answer - not the "nothing", as "nothing" would contribute in absolutely no way.

 

Nothing is the exact mirror of something.
The POTENTIAL for something is always there. Things are, or they are not. But they contain the same things.

Imagine antimatter. Both matter and antimatter contain the same elements but are in two different states.
Being and not being.
IMO the flip has something to do with this. If the universe were dominated by antimatter, it would always have the potential to become matter.
If antimatter can become dominant, maybe that it the flip trigger.

Interesting to think about, no?

 

I e never believed the Big Bang theory. The idea that two rocks collided then all the sudden made intelligent life from nothing sounds way more stupid than a god. Personally I believe there are things in this universe far too large for our minds to grasp. Possibly dimensions that that we can see. Maybe even cages we're walking in that we are not able to grasp. Hell, we could be in the matrix. I don’t know. But we definitely do not have a grasp and never will have a grasp on where we came from or how it all began.

 

So you are able to see nothing? No black, no white, no color of any kind, no shape.... just nothing? I find that difficult to believe. Especially when a highly respected scientist says you can't. Even if you think you are seeing nothing, you don't know that, since no human that has ever lived has seen nothing.

 

That doesn't mean nothing doesn't exist.
It just means there is a failure of imagination.

 

Sigh.
IT IS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
For God's saké.
It is both.
Not either/or.

 

There is literally nowhere in the universe where nothing exists.

 

the laws of our physics break down before the big bang, therefore another explanation is required, as in time does NOT exist therefore "before" is not a relevant question, there are excellent discussion panels on the internet discussing the various types of "nothing", as of now we only known our local "backyard"

 

Yes, this is certainly a great example of why gathering your information by watching Youtube vids written by people who have no science credentials, but have agendas they want to promote.

- Right off the bat, the clown in that vid suggests that the "big bang" gained popularity due to that comedy show!!! How profoundly STUPID can that guy possibly get? The theory has been the leading theory of physicists for a LONG time. The comedy show was pure entertainment, choosing a name that they thought would connote science with a tilt toward sexy.

- There is real evidence from separate perspectives that each confirm the early expansion of our universe. So, let's remember that this theory is solidly based on evidence. There is NO other competing theory that has the solid, real world credentials of the big bang cosmology, or explains our observations of our universe as this theory does.

- Finally, physicists studying this part of cosmology do NOT agree that the JWST images refute the big bang theory. We have to learn to consult physicists when the issue is physics.

 

--and then u go on to describe a bunch of failed attempts (that I presumably failed at) for seeing nothing.

OK, I'm willing to stipulate that you may very well be an authority on failing to imagine nothing. and I won't fight u there. Where we do part company is w/ ur deciding that u know what I'm thinking. There's absolutely nothing I could possibly say that you couldn't turn around and say something else ridiculous like "u don't mean that because what ur REALLY thinking is..."

Let me know when ur willing to believe that I have thoughts that u don't know about.

 

I have a hard time believing you can do what a respected astrophysicist says a human can’t do. I don’t believe our brains have the ability to turn off shades of grey when we close our eyes. There is no mechanism to do so.

 

Nothing is outside our frame of reference, so is hard to imagine. For example you can't say " space-time wouldn't allow it" because there would be no space-time
But that doesn't mean it cannot be.
I merely suggested it as a mind game, but one based on one of the fundamental truths about reality. So I thought it worth tossing around.

 

--and that's ur choice.

Look, I could go out and find some other "respected astrophysicist" who said that people think of nothing all the time, but if u've decided u know what I'm thinking regardless of what I SAY I'm thinking then u can turn right around and say that my "respected astrophysicist" wasn't as good as urs. Like I said, pse let me know when ur willing to accept the fact that I have thoughts that u don't know about.

Hey guy, I got no interest standing around while u have some interesting convo w/ urself. Sure lots of folks play by themselves all the time (although I understand too much can make u blind), but this business if u supposedly knowing what I'm thinking is tedious. I'd really like to get back to focus on the nature of space/time.

 

Indeed. The orthodoxy though would have had us believe that their answer was the answer. As in "settled science" and all that BS.. Except when actually more fully investigated, that story just doesn't add up anymore. But the orthodoxy hasn't been removed. Looking at what gets taught in schools hasn't been updated, and science teachers are still blathering on about the big bang... Oh well.

I agree, we don't know. and isn't that the beauty of life? Looking for those answers?

 

When we talk about philosophy then we focus on what makes sense. When we're into science we need to pay attention to what IS.

It seems that what we're looking at (scientifically speaking) is that we're in a space/time that began about 13.8B years ago. Remember that at the big bang EVERYTHING was moving at the speed of light. Time does not move for something at the speed of light. That means at the beginning, time (meaning the time you and I enjoy) did not yet quite exist and our space time did not exist. Yet.

That means we can't ask stupid questions like "what happened during the week before that day that the big bang happened on?" What IS seems to be the fact that "before" was something that didn't happen until 13.8B years ago. In the same sense we can't ask (equally stupid) questions like: "where was the big bang, was it next door or way across town?" Everything began at the big bang, and that includes both our next door AND all that stuff across town.

Somehow all this really isn't that complicated to me. What is pretty hard for me to understand is all the morons who want to quarrel about it.

 

That's a good beginning.

For me the next step is looking at what IS in order to find out whether the way I made sense out of reality matches up w/ what's in front of my face. What I'm looking at is the fact that a whole lot of things are moving away from each other. That would mean that if today, things are farther away from each other than they were yesterday, then the week before they were even closer.

You see where this goes? It's what folks noticed about a hundred years ago. How do we handle this?

 

Evidently, if you watch the video, they explain that this hasn't actually been the case. I suggest watching the video and see what questions for you they answer.

 

quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive, it defines thing at the quantum level which defy our common sense macro observations, for instance, just the concept of "nothing" as been mentioned virtual particles are created from "nothing" all the time, and now we get into the area of "zero-point energy"....but more to the point, about one hundred years ago the debate was between a "steady state" universe and one with a beginning and a jesuit priest/astronomer proposed the "big bang" theory...all of science rely s on repeatability and measurement. we measure "speed" by redshift and determinations of gravitational attraction, since the original theory has come into being, newer discovery's have come along, dark matter, dark energy and so on, these newer phenomenon are not fully understood and may very well have had effects we have overlooked

 

So I wrote that vacuum is not "nothing", but the densest packing of matter.

 

Your wanting me to see the video kind of suggests that you can't make enough sense of it to put it into your own words. Then again I may be wrong.

Sure I saw the video, and then I also looked at what NASA had to say as well as the more direct rebuttal from Science.com. That all is a big food fight that I'd really not want to be involved in. My preference is studying philosophy to see what makes sense and to study science to see what is.

 

Others might disagree w/ the idea of describing it as being "the densest packing of matter", but you and I can agree that there's a lot going on in a cubic nano-meter of intergalactic vacuum.