Really? Why? Since we know that the BBS singularity did stop being "eternal" when it exploded.
Where?
Where? How?
Origin of the universe
- Thread starter pluto2
- Start date
I use the speed of light or C as the reference to begin the universe. The reason I use C is because it is the only reference that is same in all references. All finite reference are relative and create the twin paradox. Only C is exempt from that subjective factor. Instead of being one of many, I chose the only one.
One question I am always asked is what does the C reference or C-space look like so it is easier to understand? If we start at finite reference and accelerate to the speed of light, the universe will contract until at C it appears as a point/instant. This is only true of the finite universe in C-space. This is not C-space. The concept of the multi universe in many dimensions would imply many such distinct points that are not the same point, but which might touch each other to allow possible movement between dimensions and universes. As such C-space is simply composed of endless points without the limits of time or space. Ant point could be a universe or one that is about to be created.
To create a new universe, all we need to do is focus on a point in C-space. This forms a connection from C-space to a finite universe. The next step is to increase entropy of that point by magnifying the point. The magnification of the point will make it appear to grow similar to the reference of C---> C-. It will also cause an increase in entropy.
One way to see how entropy will increase during the magnification is to look at a period at the end of a sentence. It looks round and black. If we magnified this period we would now look, less than perfection, due to pixelation and tonal variation. The entropy will increase relative to normal reference via the magnified reference. There are more degrees of freedom in the period when magnified. With out magnification of the point in C-space, we have entropy by no primordial atom yet. We need to convert entropy to the BB.
The way this can be done is via another analogy called supercooling. This is where we cool a material below it freezing point with the material still a liquid. For example, water will freeze at 0C but we might supercool to -10C and still have a liquid. This is very unstable because the entropy in the liquid is much to high at that temperature. It should have lower entropy as a solid not a liquid. Any slight motion and the entropy will collapse and the solid forms, quickly.
Here is the model. We are in C-space. We concentrate on a point and then magnify it to increase the entropy. We sort of over do this magnification, supercooling the finite universe until there is a collapse in the entropy potential. This is analogous to decelerating from C to less than C. The energy output from the entropy collapse gives off energy, causing the BB.
Although this still has unanswered question, it does move the bar back to before T=0, which is better than questions at T=0+, using finite references paradoxes.
One question I am always asked is what does the C reference or C-space look like so it is easier to understand? If we start at finite reference and accelerate to the speed of light, the universe will contract until at C it appears as a point/instant. This is only true of the finite universe in C-space. This is not C-space. The concept of the multi universe in many dimensions would imply many such distinct points that are not the same point, but which might touch each other to allow possible movement between dimensions and universes. As such C-space is simply composed of endless points without the limits of time or space. Ant point could be a universe or one that is about to be created.
To create a new universe, all we need to do is focus on a point in C-space. This forms a connection from C-space to a finite universe. The next step is to increase entropy of that point by magnifying the point. The magnification of the point will make it appear to grow similar to the reference of C---> C-. It will also cause an increase in entropy.
One way to see how entropy will increase during the magnification is to look at a period at the end of a sentence. It looks round and black. If we magnified this period we would now look, less than perfection, due to pixelation and tonal variation. The entropy will increase relative to normal reference via the magnified reference. There are more degrees of freedom in the period when magnified. With out magnification of the point in C-space, we have entropy by no primordial atom yet. We need to convert entropy to the BB.
The way this can be done is via another analogy called supercooling. This is where we cool a material below it freezing point with the material still a liquid. For example, water will freeze at 0C but we might supercool to -10C and still have a liquid. This is very unstable because the entropy in the liquid is much to high at that temperature. It should have lower entropy as a solid not a liquid. Any slight motion and the entropy will collapse and the solid forms, quickly.
Here is the model. We are in C-space. We concentrate on a point and then magnify it to increase the entropy. We sort of over do this magnification, supercooling the finite universe until there is a collapse in the entropy potential. This is analogous to decelerating from C to less than C. The energy output from the entropy collapse gives off energy, causing the BB.
Although this still has unanswered question, it does move the bar back to before T=0, which is better than questions at T=0+, using finite references paradoxes.
Glad YOU asked me these questions RE: my last post! . . . .now (Mr Moderator!) the best way I can answer your queries, without being accused of self-promotion or trolling by Prometheus, is to refer you to my hypothesis (Google: EEMU Hypothesis). Won't repeat ad nauseum here. You should only link/read there if you are really interested. You might also look-up some of my earlier Sciforum posts (Search: wlminex).
BTW DWDy, I think the term "word salad" was first used/reserved by AlexG . . . he should therefore be acknowledged.
Regards
So did you have an opinion or were you just into kicking? Did you watch the video with Stephen Hawking? Was that who you are aligned with?
Nothing at all before the Big Bang
All time, Space Energy and Matter has been formed after the Big Bang only.
Nothing needed to start it off, it was a purely spontaneous event.
The only reason Energy can exist is that it is balanced by an equal amount of negative energy.
Is that it?
@Dywyddyr (re #102 being word salad):
See, posts like #102 just encourage me to proceed full speed ahead.
This idea is not in variance with regard to the paradox. It does obviously require that the universe be in two states at once: the eternal one, and the temporal disintegrating one.
I guess one other possibility is that there is no eternal precursor. There is just a bloom @t=0+ and, before that, at precisely t=0 there is absolutely nothing.
I am pursuing this, not to flog a dead horse, but because you seem to have another idea of eternity – perhaps a semi-eternity - or maybe I am wrong to try use the term “eternity” at all.
I enjoy reading your posts and nearly fell over laughing at your post #42. Talk about timing.
Say more about your statement, beginning with “timelessness”. What do you mean? (I am following you to EEMU as I post this)
See, posts like #102 just encourage me to proceed full speed ahead.
Yes I realize that’s your position…so requiring the BBS to coexist in two states would impose a paradox. And for this reason, you say reject the idea. OK I see that. But I don’t see how the eternal ceases to be eternal, without creating the same paradox. I think that’s what you are tacitly positing (because you’re too wiley to give me a verbose answer!)
This idea is not in variance with regard to the paradox. It does obviously require that the universe be in two states at once: the eternal one, and the temporal disintegrating one.
I guess one other possibility is that there is no eternal precursor. There is just a bloom @t=0+ and, before that, at precisely t=0 there is absolutely nothing.
I am pursuing this, not to flog a dead horse, but because you seem to have another idea of eternity – perhaps a semi-eternity - or maybe I am wrong to try use the term “eternity” at all.
I enjoy reading your posts and nearly fell over laughing at your post #42. Talk about timing.
I myself am trying to avoid the purely philosophical by moving to a speculative pseudoscience. I am also trying to avoid the complexities behind presuming BBS, or even BB without S. It is kind of a silly OP anyway, as cast, but the underlying meaning behind it is one of the big unsolved questions.
Say more about your statement, beginning with “timelessness”. What do you mean? (I am following you to EEMU as I post this)
In other words: you can't show your contention.
Yeah, right. Earliest found usage -
AlexG: 03-03-11
Me: 07-30-09
Wellwisher posts specious crap (without ever supporting it) and expects it to be taken as serious. It's drivel.
Full speed at what? Getting a proper education?
It stops being "eternal". I've said this numerous times.
Now you're getting it. It may be timeless while it's "there", but then it stops being so.
If you would properly educate me on this one factoid concerning eternity, sure, why not? I didn't think we had broached any subject yet that draws from the wells of academia. I was trying to get you to expound on how eternal becomes eternal prime.
I still contend that you're making a mistake assuming that the BBS was "eternal".
It may have been "timeless" while it existed, but it's merely wordplay to claim that one of necessity equals the other.
Well OK then back up just to the notion of timelessness. How is that not the same as eternal?
@Aqueous - once again I'm amazed by the depth you are willing to take your thoughts. I sit here thinking - can't match that. But I am still wanting to follow you and now you have said "eternal prime" so what does that mean to you?
Please.
No, I was just the first to use it about you.
. . . . then to be really honest . . . you should have referenced Dywy as the originator!
(MODerator):Methinks we are getting 'off-topic' from the OP with this bickering about "word salad" . . .your action appreciated.
Last edited:
Dywy wasn't the originator, he just used it before me here.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophasia
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophasia
and often seen in internet cranks.
@Aqueous - once again I'm amazed by the depth you are willing to take your thoughts. I sit here thinking - can't match that. But I am still wanting to follow you and now you have said "eternal prime" so what does that mean to you?
Please.
I should have been more clear. I meant "not eternity". If an object lies outside of spacetime, I have no choice but to consign it to eternity. It has no clock, it therefore has no beginning or end, and never changes.
This would appear to be implied by assumption that the BBS creates spacetime. Dywyddyr may be able to show me how this is fallacious reasoning, and that would settle it for me. (I think.)
He says it ceases to be eternal at the moment it explodes. OK, but all that says to me is that he and I define eternity differently, although I think it's more a matter of him feeling I am forcing the notion of eternity into the discussion. To me it is the same as timelessness, but he may have a reason for disagreeing on that.
So we have the notion of the BBS as eternal then becoming not eternal (eternity prime). I guess I could have said temporal.
I disagree that once the object is eternal, it ceases being eternal. I am forced instead to consider the scenario that it never ceases to be eternal, but it also splits off into a second reality in which it is not eternal, but an exploding equivalent of the eternal form, latched onto the arrow of time as disintegrates into the form we call the universe.
Delusions of grandeur? You're the furthest thing from a mod.