[Kryptid]

No, that's not my argument.  I've been searching for the answer for 35 years, because the conflicting answers I continually hear don't make sense.  It feels wrong.  Can't explain it entirely.

This feels right.

I'm not surprised. There are an awful lot of misconceptions about the Big Bang theory.

Well, that's what the big bang implies.

No it doesn't.

Highly condensed energy spontaneously erupting into a universe, creating physics in the process.  That's the way I interpret it.

The Big Bang theory is about the first moments of the Universe, not about what caused the Universe to exist. It does not contain within itself a cause and it certainly doesn't say that space created itself.

Big bang is what I'm quoting.  Yes, I've read it.  I've heard it countless times as well.  Nothing lies beyond the universe. 

The Big Bang theory has evolved over time. It was initially believed that everything was condensed down into a singularity of zero size. Due to quantum mechanics, it is now thought that the Universe was a very small, but finite size. Some propose that the Big Bang was not the beginning of time, but that it is just one phase in a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Others propose that the Big Bang in our Universe was preceded by another Big Bang in a sort of "anti-Universe" where time travels backwards.

We don't have enough information to know what happened before the Big Bang.

[andreasva (OP)]

Which theory are you quoting?

Here's the way I see it.  The big bang hits the rewind button on the universe, and compacts the sum total of the entire universe into a infinitesimally small point of energy.  So, beyond that state is nothing, or nothing yet.  I don't know, it makes no sense.  The fact is, nothing exists in this state, except that point of "energy", because space-time has not been created yet, or gravity, or motion.  It explodes, or inflates, some say by a quantum fluctuation possibly.  Into what exactly?  It is creating itself.  It's nonsense.  You will never convince me that this was the beginning.  I don't even know how anyone could imagine space condensing in this manner.  There's always more space.  You can't just make it go away.  And you ask someone to explain it, and they can't.  The explanation are as varied as grains of sand on the beach.  No one can wrap their head around it.  The simple answer is, it's wrong.   

[andreasva (OP)]

The Big Bang theory has evolved over time.

Yes, and I'm evolving it right out of existence, because it's nonsense. 

I would take the universe right to the bleeding edge of hyperinflation, and stop right there.  Hyperinflation never happened.     

[Kryptid]

No one can wrap their head around it.  The simple answer is, it's wrong.

Just because you can't wrap your head around the simplicity of the answer, doesn't make it wrong.

Ironic.

[mad aetherist]

The main theory behind the BigBang is redshift. Ranzan's best idea is his explanation of redshift being due to the stretching of photons as they approach mass & the stretching of photons as they recede from mass. Praps the cleverest thing i have ever read.  Everyone must read his stuff.
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/Th9(ajaaR)CosmicRSTheory-Ranzan.pdf

[andreasva (OP)]

The main theory behind the BigBang is redshift. Ranzan's best idea is his explanation of redshift being due to the stretching of photons as they approach mass & the stretching of photons as they recede from mass. Praps the cleverest thing i have ever read.  Everyone must read his stuff.

This is somewhere I didn't want to go yet, but I think matter recedes 3-dimensionally inwards.  Everything, including light.  All the matter in the universe is moving inward at a velocity of C or -C.  We are scaling inwards.  The universe has two distinct directions, in and out.  Its direction is 1-dimensional.  We are moving away from each other, inwards, but gravity still pulls galaxies together, but we move inward a little faster.  The gap widens between galaxies as we cool and condense, and trudge steadily inward.  The force of gravity diminishes over time, so we have less influence.  Our motion bends inward at an accelerated rate as gravity loses its grip on distant galxies.  Gravity also becomes more focused locally, like a flashlight beam more or less, the further away galaxies drift apart.  There is no expansion, and no acceleration as perceive in current views.  The redshift is real, but our motion is the opposite direction from what we hypothesized in Hubble.

It's the reason I opt for an infinite wave with a frequency of 1, and continual creation.  Way out in the distant universe creation is ongoing, and matter drifts inward as it cools.  Or maybe, the universe is growing infinitely, so we lose scale in comparison to the sum of the whole.  Like I said, I see a lot of possibilities.  It creates an inward gradient of dense matter towards the outer edge, which thins out towards the center as it cools and condenses.  Matter flows inward.  The center being where ever you're at, but not really a destination.  We're homogeneous.   

I see all the mechanics pretty clearly in my head.  I have a lot written out, much better than I describe here.  Not that it's going anywhere, or anyone really cares mind you.  I'm a nobody.  It makes perfect sense, and fits every observation.  Does not trash relativity one bit.  It skirts this fine line to give a different view of the universe.  It's a very simple and understandable view. 

But, can't prove a lick of it. 

I will say, I am watching dark matter and dark energy experiments very closely.  So far, so good.  Big fat nothing at the moment.  2020 is going to be the test for dark matter.  Not sure if that's important though.  I don't think it would change my view any.  i only suspect it may be flawed, but definitely not necessary in my view of things.  My theory could take it or leave it.  Dark energy would do some damage to my theory.                       

[andreasva (OP)]

No one can wrap their head around it.  The simple answer is, it's wrong.

Just because you can't wrap your head around the simplicity of the answer, doesn't make it wrong.

Ironic.

No, not ironic.  I said simple.

I really do appreciate your comments.

At the end of the day, I'll stick with the mathematical reasoning.

Big Bang could be viewed as 1, because the universe is equal to itself.  The problem is, it expands into a finite universe with a bigger value of 1.  Also, nothing lies beyond the universe according to the theory, which makes no sense.  To get around it, I realize there's a lot of theories making mention of hidden dimensions and such.  It's just really become patchwork of nonsense.  I really thought the Big Bang would have died with acceleration back in the 90's, but low and behold, they added another theory to keep it going.  It's wrong, but science refuses to throw in the towel.  They keep tweaking it because it doesn't work.  And every time they find another flaw, they add another theory.  They've been doing it since 1927. 

I'll stick with my reasoning.

0=0.  If the universe was 0, that would be that, because finite values are mathematically finite. They don't change.
Ι1Ι=Ι1Ι.  If the universe was Ι1Ι, that would be that, because finite values are mathematically finite. They don't change. 
∞=∞  This is the only non-finite solution that makes logical sense. Infinity is variable.  We are infinitely variable.

The whole point of math is to narrow it down to the fewest possible variables.  I've taken the universe down to the lowest possible number of variables, 3.  Neither 0 nor 1 works, because finite values don't work in a variable state.

My answer is mathematically flawless.  How could it not be?  You can not like it, but no one can claim it's wrong. 

There's just no debating it really.  How can anyone argue 0=0, or Ι1Ι=Ι1Ι, or ∞=∞?   

Those are the only 3 values that can be used to describe the universe logically. 

[Kryptid]

My answer is mathematically flawless.  How could it not be?  You can not like it, but no one can claim it's wrong.

Of course I can claim it's wrong because the Universe doesn't have a single value. If it does, then show us how it was measured (with physical devices by the way, not logical arguments). If it isn't measurable, then what you have amounts to philosophy, not science.

[andreasva (OP)]

Of course I can claim it's wrong because the Universe doesn't have a single value. If it does, then show us how it was measured (with physical devices by the way, not logical arguments). If it isn't measurable, then what you have amounts to philosophy, not science.

As I said, my unit of measure is 1 universe.  A hunk of platinum-irridium doesn't have a single value either, yet it is considered 1kg.  The sun doesn't have a single value either, yet it is considered 1 solar mass.  We use objects to compare things to other things all the time.  It's all we can do frankly, because there are no static reference points, just theoretical ones.  There is only 1 universe, and it is equal to itself.

As I said, the universe is infinite, because x=x, so x must be ∞.

It's the only logical value that makes rational sense.   

Unless you want to show me another universe lying around somewhere.

I don't have anything to prove.  The answer is self-evident.   

I don't see that it's any more complicated than that, unbelievably.  Humans want complicated, but the universe is under no obligation to be anymore complicated than x=x. 

[andreasva (OP)]

 

not logical arguments

 

I think we've already tried this over the past several millennia.  I prefer logic.

[Kryptid]

As I said, my unit of measure is 1 universe.

Earlier, you said that the Universe's value is less than 1:

The total universe would be completely finite, because |1|=|1|.  Clearly our universe is not in the on position, so its numeric value is <|1|.   

Here you say that it is infinite:

That position is not a finite value, it is infinite.

So which is it? Is it 1, less than 1 or infinite? If you are so invested in math and logic, you should know that those three values are not equal to each other.

A hunk of platinum-irridium doesn't have a single value either, yet it is considered 1kg.  The sun doesn't have a single value either, yet it is considered 1 solar mass.

So are you talking about mass now?

We use objects to compare things to other things all the time.  It's all we can do frankly, because there are no static reference points, just theoretical ones.  There is only 1 universe, and it is equal to itself.

So how can one Universe have a value of less than one or infinity?

because x=x, so x must be ∞.

You realize that x=x works for any value of x, right?

I think we've already tried this over the past several millennia.  I prefer logic.

Logical arguments are insufficient in themselves to count as scientific. It must be possible to falsify a hypothesis with experimental data in order for it to be scientific. Relativity started out as a logical and mathematical exercise, but it was eventually necessary to test it against reality via experiment. Tell me what experiment could be used to test your theory.

[andreasva (OP)]

Stephen Hawking explains the concept of negative energy in his book The Theory of Everything (New Millennium 2002): "Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less [positive] energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together," he wrote.

Since it takes positive energy to separate the two pieces of matter, gravity must be using negative energy to pull them together. Thus, "the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

This is almost identical to what I'm suggesting.  Almost.

I'm introducing a value of Ι1Ι, in describing the whole of the universe.

Space moves outward infinitely towards Ι1Ι, and matter moves inward infinitely towards 0. Gravity is a negative force in my view.   

So the total energy of the universe is Ι1Ι (virtually speaking), not 0.  The universe is >0, and <Ι1Ι.  The universe cannot be a finite value, or the energy would really be 0.  That doesn't make sense.  Energy is not nothing.

0 and Ι1Ι are potential states, and the potential between them is ΙxΙ. 

We are, by direct observation, infinitely variable.

ΙxΙ=ΙxΙ, so the universe must be ∞.

[Kryptid]

I'm introducing a value of Ι1Ι, in describing the whole of the universe.

The universe is >0, and <Ι1Ι.

ΙxΙ=ΙxΙ, so the universe must be ∞.

There you go again, contradicting yourself by saying that the Universe is one, less than one and infinite all at the same time.

Space moves outward infinitely towards Ι1Ι, and matter moves inward infinitely towards 0.

What does that even mean? How can space and matter (physical entities) move towards numbers (conceptual entities)? When was it ever observed that matter and space move in opposite directions?

We are, by direct observation, infinitely variable.

When was anything infinite every directly observed?

[andreasva (OP)]

So which is it? Is it 1, less than 1 or infinite? If you are so invested in math and logic, you should know that those three values are not equal to each other.

I said Ι1Ι, not +1 or -1.  Although, it's possible I made a grammatical error or two along the way.  0 is naturally an absolute value. We are neither 0 nor Ι1Ι.  We are an infinitely variable analog state.   

[Kryptid]

I said Ι1Ι, not +1 or -1.  Although, it's possible I made a grammatical error or two along the way.  0 is naturally an absolute value. We are neither 0 nor Ι1Ι.  We are an infinitely variable analog state.   

|1|, <|1| and infinity are still all different.

[andreasva (OP)]

When was anything infinite every directly observed?

Every analog state we observe is by definition, infinitely variable. We convert analog to digital to better understand it.  Mathematically, we developed calculus to handle infinite values.  Pi appears to be infinite as well, although we have to make a logical assumption to arrive at that conclusion.   Georg Cantor made a career out of infinity.  It was his life's work.   

[Kryptid]

Every analog state we observe is by definition, infinitely variable. We convert analog to digital to better understand it.  Mathematically, we developed calculus to handle infinite values.  Pi appears to be infinite as well, although we have to make a logical assumption to arrive at that conclusion.   Georg Cantor made a career out of infinity.  It was his life's work.   

You're talking about mathematical concepts, not observations in the physical Universe.

[andreasva (OP)]

|1|, <|1| and infinity are still all different.

Yes they are, which is why the universe is not |1|. 

[andreasva (OP)]

You're talking about mathematical concepts, not observations in the physical Universe.

How about light?  That supposedly lasts forever. Light is also a wave.   

[Kryptid]

Yes they are, which is why the universe is not |1|. 

Oh really? What about the following statement?

I'm introducing a value of Ι1Ι, in describing the whole of the universe.

Looks like a contradiction to me.

How about light?  That supposedly lasts forever.

Only in theory. Nothing has ever been observed for an infinite period of time to confirm it.

Light is also a wave.

Which is broken up into discrete particles called photons.