Black Astrology : Big Bang, or Creation. How did we get here?

Gorilla

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jan 31, 2009
2,455
1,374
assuming that time and the universe are infinite does that rule out any creation? no beginning, no ending, no creation, no creator?
This is one of the questions I've asked people who believe in creationism and never really got an answer to.

In the opposite situation (assuming the Universe hasn't always existed in some cyclic form etc), I always wondered how they accounted for an infinitely complex being occurring by the very thing they turn their nose up at the mere possibility of -- chance.
 

Gorilla

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jan 31, 2009
2,455
1,374
Wow. Where do I even begin?

The Big Bang is just another miraculous and unscientific creation story itself.

From a scientific perspective, it needs magic to even begin, much less maintain it's narrative.

It even has sacrosanct heroes and a god - a mathematician!
How so?

It is also based upon the firm BELIEF (as opposed to the actual experience) that the universe is expanding.
So, we're not actually experiencing Hubble's observation that pretty much shattered the idea of a static Universe? Einstein's general relativity framework concluded that the Universe must either be expanding or contracting. Unfortunately, he introduced an error into his own work by adding a cosmological factor because he mistakenly viewed his conclusion as impossible. It's kind of funny how things sort of seemed to turn full circle which was hinted at by a previous post in this thread.

The problem with the big bang is that AS a cosmology it is not a coherent natural philosophy, nor does it provide insight into EVERY discipline, including life itself and the human condition. Modern specialized science is a hostile environment to accurate cosmologies synonymous with natural philosophy.
Is this the expectation of what Cosmology should be capable of doing (Anyone is free to chime in on this question. I'm genuinely curious about this way of thinking)?

Einstein misled the world pf physics with his theory of relativity because electromagnetic energy is stored in the orbital substructure of subatomic particles and manifests as their mass. Where then does this leave "gravity?"
It leaves it to be expressed in Quantum Field Theory, which I believe already describes the other three fundamental forces pretty well. The fact that general relativity couldn't hold up well at describing all things at all scales and across all four forces doesn't mean physics hasn't progressed since then.

All things considered, general relativity does a pretty good job for the most part. We still use it to understand gravitational interactions between bodies and their relative paths/positions and people do it pretty well.
 

gogounited

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Feb 17, 2010
867
352
Colorado
How so?

So, we're not actually experiencing Hubble's observation that pretty much shattered the idea of a static Universe? Einstein's general relativity framework concluded that the Universe must either be expanding or contracting. Unfortunately, he introduced an error into his own work by adding a cosmological factor because he mistakenly viewed his conclusion as impossible. It's kind of funny how things sort of seemed to turn full circle which was hinted at by a previous post in this thread.

Is this the expectation of what Cosmology should be capable of doing (Anyone is free to chime in on this question. I'm genuinely curious about this way of thinking)?

It leaves it to be expressed in Quantum Field Theory, which I believe already describes the other three fundamental forces pretty well. The fact that general relativity couldn't hold up well at describing all things at all scales and across all four forces doesn't mean physics hasn't progressed since then.

All things considered, general relativity does a pretty good job for the most part. We still use it to understand gravitational interactions between bodies and their relative paths/positions and people do it pretty well.
Thank you for the discussion. Allow me to respond tomorrow or thereabouts with an answer to your queries.

:)
 

Enki

The Evolved Amphibian
STAFF
Aug 27, 2010
7,992
4,883
The Third Plane of Existence
Occupation
Civil Eng.
Let me add that I kinda suck at this stuff, and while I SOUND like I know what I'm talking about, I dunno jack about these things in experiential ways, I only read and conceptualize from the conclusions of people who are far better than me at the actual research and equations - they draw the conclusions, I only incorporate them into what I think I know.

But I will say this, if you adhere to your education solely, you're being misled by a fragmented version of this science, and all sciences for that matter, because classical education serves the purpose to mislead first and to "educate" second.

Hotep to ya'll who can ask questions beyond what you've been taught - you are the real scientists!

P.
There is no misleading when the universe is expanding outward. This theory of motion can be proven a number of ways. You drop anything in a body of water,and the ripples are going to move outward,not inward. Now if that object wasn't dropped,you would have no waves.

Peace!
 

Enki

The Evolved Amphibian
STAFF
Aug 27, 2010
7,992
4,883
The Third Plane of Existence
Occupation
Civil Eng.
Let me add that I kinda suck at this stuff, and while I SOUND like I know what I'm talking about, I dunno jack about these things in experiential ways, I only read and conceptualize from the conclusions of people who are far better than me at the actual research and equations - they draw the conclusions, I only incorporate them into what I think I know.

P.
I like this.:toast:

Peace!
 

gogounited

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Feb 17, 2010
867
352
Colorado
There is no misleading when the universe is expanding outward. This theory of motion can be proven a number of ways. You drop anything in a body of water,and the ripples are going to move outward,not inward. Now if that object wasn't dropped,you would have no waves.

Peace!
It's a fascinating thing the sub-quantum world. Movement is not limited to expansion, some would would even say expansion is a RESULT of implosion, in fact, some would say expansion is simply a release of implosive "energy."

Considering this, it would be difficult to ascertain whether the universe is actually in the act of expansion or not. This explains why it's not been scientifically proven either, unless you consider the big bang to be some sort of proof.

Energy is always in motion, like an oscillating wave. Consciousness creates standing waves out of this medium but, that does not necessarily imply expansion on a universal level. In this way look at conscious observation as the object dropping - there were waves prior to the drop, you simply could not detect nor measure them, therefore you cannot tell which way they are traveling.
 

gogounited

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Feb 17, 2010
867
352
Colorado
How so?

So, we're not actually experiencing Hubble's observation that pretty much shattered the idea of a static Universe? Einstein's general relativity framework concluded that the Universe must either be expanding or contracting. Unfortunately, he introduced an error into his own work by adding a cosmological factor because he mistakenly viewed his conclusion as impossible. It's kind of funny how things sort of seemed to turn full circle which was hinted at by a previous post in this thread.

Is this the expectation of what Cosmology should be capable of doing (Anyone is free to chime in on this question. I'm genuinely curious about this way of thinking)?

It leaves it to be expressed in Quantum Field Theory, which I believe already describes the other three fundamental forces pretty well. The fact that general relativity couldn't hold up well at describing all things at all scales and across all four forces doesn't mean physics hasn't progressed since then.

All things considered, general relativity does a pretty good job for the most part. We still use it to understand gravitational interactions between bodies and their relative paths/positions and people do it pretty well.
Let's start with magic. Big Bang claims that various gases and such swirled and condensed and finally, exploded. This claim does not explain the creation of our universe, because it cannot explain the creation of these gases, nor their movement prior to condensing. So, are/were they or were they not part of the universe prior to the bang? Where did they come from? How do we address their existence prior to the bang? Magic, of course! God is a mathematician because with the big bang - every time it's proven wrong, a NEW equation magically is accepted as a sort of addendum to the original. This is, to put it simply, making **** up as you go. It's McGod in the form of mathematics.

The universe is definitely not static. In some ways I agree with Einstein, but I don't think the universe is doing either-or , it's a very dynamic system which is maintaining stasis because of both movements, and not necessarily any one at any time. I see it as more of a of a water vascular system of sorts.

Yes, a cosmology should address every and any modality of existence in it's totality. Otherwise, what are we summing up exactly? We cannot say we are separate from the universe. Is anything?

Ancient African cultures knew more about the stars and constellations in our universe than we do today. Indeed, they knew about quantum entanglement, spin symmetry, and plasma displacement in ways we are still discovering with our massive particle accelerators and satellites in space. It's really no wonder that their cosmologies were all-inclusive and valid on a micro as well as macro scale, since everything is repeating infinitely the same design in scalar fashion. Therefore, if a cosmology is correct, it should resonate throughout all of existence as correct and true. Rather than asking why it should, consider why it shouldn't??

According to quantum mechanics, electrons can only exist in an atom in strictly defined orbits, and the shortest distance allowed between the proton and electron in hydrogen is fixed. This is simply untrue and it's been proven in laboratory.

I'm not saying physics has gone nowhere since relativity, but it's growth has been stunted for some time now by vested interests that seek to maintain the status-quo and who continue to claim that free-energy is impossible.
 

Gorilla

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jan 31, 2009
2,455
1,374
Let's start with magic. Big Bang claims that various gases and such swirled and condensed and finally, exploded. This claim does not explain the creation of our universe, because it cannot explain the creation of these gases, nor their movement prior to condensing. So, are/were they or were they not part of the universe prior to the bang? Where did they come from? How do we address their existence prior to the bang? Magic, of course! God is a mathematician because with the big bang - every time it's proven wrong, a NEW equation magically is accepted as a sort of addendum to the original. This is, to put it simply, making **** up as you go. It's McGod in the form of mathematics.
  • The Big Bang wasn't an explosion of matter.
  • Modern cosmogony usually starts with the idea that the universe at this initial stage had all of its energy crunched into a single extremely dense point. What gases are we talking about here?
  • Mathematical frameworks are a tool used by science. Alone, they do not have the final say but they are an important part of the evidence and understanding. Going back to the example of Einstein, the results of his work on general relativity led him to conclude that the Universe is static. Einstein had some pre-conceived expectations and added his work in an attempt to save his model with no real malice intended. However, actual observational evidence showed that the universe doesn't conform to our expectations -- in this case a static universe -- and showed that there is actually some expansion going on.

The universe is definitely not static. In some ways I agree with Einstein, but I don't think the universe is doing either-or , it's a very dynamic system which is maintaining stasis because of both movements, and not necessarily any one at any time. I see it as more of a of a water vascular system of sorts.
It's cool that you have your own ideas about how the universe is, but do you have any evidence or rebuttals that directly apply to the current understanding?

Yes, a cosmology should address every and any modality of existence in it's totality. Otherwise, what are we summing up exactly? We cannot say we are separate from the universe. Is anything?
Cosmology is the study of the structure and natural state of the Universe as it exists today. Cosmonogy seeks to describe the origin. It's unlikely that it's going to contribute explanations at every level, especially when we're talking about the human condition. Cosmology or Cosmonogy aren't going to offer advice on how to improve public health policy or fight poverty. It's just going to fit everything that happens into a bigger context. There are other fields of natural science that will always have some overlap with one another, but I just don't get why people expect cosmology to sum up everything. It's not. I guess this sort of explains why human beings invent gods, assert agency, or claim divine purpose to things.

Ancient African cultures knew more about the stars and constellations in our universe than we do today. Indeed, they knew about quantum entanglement, spin symmetry, and plasma displacement in ways we are still discovering with our massive particle accelerators and satellites in space. It's really no wonder that their cosmologies were all-inclusive and valid on a micro as well as macro scale, since everything is repeating infinitely the same design in scalar fashion. Therefore, if a cosmology is correct, it should resonate throughout all of existence as correct and true. Rather than asking why it should, consider why it shouldn't??
I doubt any ancient culture knew anything about the topics highlighted above and I don't think any less of them because of this. Their beliefs weren't all science. Ancient cultures were full of creation myths and religious beliefs most of the time. Some of them did also produce some early fruits born out of human progress, but to call these ideas scientific or actual cosmological models just seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Modern physics does seem to try to create a "fractal" explanation of the natural universe--but it is only the natural universe. It's not going to conclude whether Zeus prefers Pepsi or Coke.

According to quantum mechanics, electrons can only exist in an atom in strictly defined orbits, and the shortest distance allowed between the proton and electron in hydrogen is fixed. This is simply untrue and it's been proven in laboratory.
Physicists have known about free electrons for a while. I'm pretty sure quantum mechanics doesn't say this either. In fact, quantum mechanics has some interesting things to say about the path particles take with the double-slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment). It's a bit of a mind bender that was performed originally with light and then with electrons in the 60s.
 

Consciousness Raising Online!

Latest profile posts

It's okay to admire otherz, but first, love self. ELEVATE your self-image by having a healthy love & respect for yourself. ✍
1619+400=2019 Jamestown Virginia...end of slavery. (Yes modern miseducation and injustices count as slavery) But no proper reparations will be given since the amount of contributions beyond humanity transcends generations. Our people have history that is equal to trillions of dollars including Melanin research and its supernatural power.
I want my people to be aware of this dilemma regarding the upcoming election... I know politics. Yes Trump is admitting the truth about Black People building this so called country corporation (The United States). But you must understand that what they're planning on doing is to divide and conquer. This is all just for him to get re-elected. He's going to promise reparations and reneg at the last minute.
Ifypedro334 wrote on Jasica Adam's profile.
The best gift to give a baby boy is ??
Lon
Trying to find my way around on this forum. It's not User Friendly
Top