It's also a song.

I'm a great fan of sine waves, so for me, the universe is like a sine wave. Currently it is known to be getting bigger. After a (very long) time it will reach a maximum size and then start to contract. After another very long time it will shrink to something unimaginably small and there will be another Big Bang when it starts to get bigger again. Time is thus infinite. Next time (and last time) we will have what we now call 'antimatter', they alternate.

Could it be like a giant version of some molecules, which invert regularly after a duration depending on temperature /pressure, and other influences.

Imagine it all the black holes synchronously inverted and spilled their guts into the 'vacuum of space' at the same time.
A billion incendiary technicolor yawns.

Would that be an audio space silent 'big bang' ?

I reckon it would be pretty big at least. And fireworks berserk. Even if silent.

And we know the 'exact' age of the universe, even though it is 'infinite'.
Shouldn't the age be infinite too.
Or are we overstating the size of infinity.
Or unable to see the real extent of size due to our primitiveness ?

Does a black hole look the same on the other side ?

Objects in space do make sound because they do vibrate.
You can't hear sound in space because there is nothing for the wave to move to bring that vibration to your ears.

Nobody know the exact age of the Universe.
We have detected light from a distance of 13.7 billion lightyears away but that only gives the time it took for that light to reach our detectors (13.7 billion years).

Nobody knows how long a photon of light can last.
They can last at least 13.7 billion years but how much longer than that is anybody's guess.

Our science can detect what is called 'redshift'.
Redshift detects objects that are moving away from us.

At our present science understanding, we detect light 13.7 billion years old in any direction which indicates a sphere. Not because the Universe is spherical but because our reference point is relative to our detection limits. This is why it 'appears' we are at the center of a spherical Universe.
We also detect redshifts spherically.

If we detected light on one side of the planet hitting our detectors and light on the other side in redshift, we might conclude that we are in a Universe that has directionality. Expanding from point A to point B.
What we detect is light hitting us from all directions and objects moving away from us in all directions.
This would be a distorted funnel shape.

Infinity only has duration as long as there is something being added to the condition.
If you count to infinity, you can keep counting as long as you add 1 to the number. At some point (unknown) there will no longer be a 1 added which will end the infinity.


Its more of a condition of relativity than primitiveness.

Other side of the black hole?
You mean inside the event horizon?
Sure it will, but I doubt you would be alive to ponder it.

what happened was I took a big pot in one hand and a frying pan in the other hand, slammed them together and it was a big bang

I was boiling some stew on my cooker stir it to quick a vortex peas and carrots couldn't escape (black hole like) gas to high a splatter (big bang like) wait for it now scale this up zillions of time and would you know it it's the eternal perculation you me and your piana will all be subject to these eternal Infinity processes, nature

Don't say anything like that to religious people..HAHA^)

I agree. It's like the majority of Theories out there. Give it time and it will prove its own self wrong.

It definitely was a stretch of imagination to think, a single neutron, the size of the smallest needle point, multiplied in numbers too great to name, caused heat/cold fluxuations and eventually annihilated. Of course, one cannot forget there also was an assumption the Laws of Physics and Singularity were in play.


Then after the KOBE Telescope expedition, they believed the blast happened just for some unknown reason, and that led to the Laws of Physics and Singularity.

Then a series of String Theories.

Intelligent Design.

Alien Experimentation.

After awhile, even those within science were like, why are we even trying because no one knows!!




And now Evolutionists are at a Civil War. We have the Dead-Heads = Darwinism vs a new theology in Biology. The claim, since DNA has made such a huge splash, that Evolution has about 900 million unanswered questions to format a single idealism from it. And the die hard Darwinism followers, want to play coy and act like being lazy is the answer!!

Science has never been so much fun before!!

You also have fire and metal being a key component to force a reaction by your food.

Technically, if everything like metal, including elements like fire, are nothing but series and stages of energy. Then your food in metal should never get to a boiling point.

It's like claiming the keyboard I am using, to type the words you are reading, is acting like magnets to my fingers. When the energy force from my fingers come close enough the keys on the keyboard, it's a retraction like what 2 magnets do when trying to bring them together. Basically, even though it feels like I am making contact to my keyboard, it's actually the energy force of the keyboard and the energy force of my fingers that are contacting without literally touching one another.

The same idealism should apply to cooking.


But since I feel my fingers hurt after awhile, just like your food reaches a boiling point, it's quite obvious there was not much logic in believing all energy forces retracts like magnets!!

Welcome back iam_resurrected and I am sad that it didn't work out.

Reality is difficult for most people.

Most people think the Big Bang was/is the understanding of the Universe according to how we (as humans) see it.
I think this idea is as valid as any other, Not saying it is right but acknowledging that others may give it validity.

I can accept the Big Bang as a possible result.
I don't believe it was the ingraining factor and merely a result of the process that did occur.
I don't for a second believe that big bang was the initializing agent.

If we consider the effects of true absolute zero.
Then we imagine a force (currently unknown to us) that initializes a change of state, and the Big Bang is the product of that state change.
All the 'events' related to what we understand about the Universe actually comes to pass.

We are existing in a Universe in which the big bang is still happening.
The Universe is in an exploding state.
Its the relativity of your understanding that make us believe the big bang was a past event.
We are still in it.

The big bang is a condition not the source case.

If y'all can understand that, you would realize that what we experience is not the actual reality.
The big bang is a result.
The fact that you can personally detect the current big bang should validate this.
Tune your TV off channel.
Chances are, you will get the signal from the big bang,

But hey, lets explore the initialization.
The "Event" that started the Big Bang.
But, hey wait...Nobody is interested.

We can "Detect" light during the initial 'bang'.
There can't be anything else, right?

Something, let me say it again "SOMETHING" initiated the change that became the big bang.
We can't understand those forces so we concentrate on the result because it makes us feel better about it, is easier for others to add delusion .

The reality is, we have no idea how the Universe came to be.
It could be physics, God or random chance.
Personally, I choose to believe that random change was caused by God.
Not the God you think too.
A God that exists beyond the scope of man.

Until the day comes that man can verify the state change that initiated our Universe I will believe that a GOD caused the state change that jump-started the Universe.

Has anyone heard this: I believe in the Big Bang Theory, God spoke and Bang it was . True it might be just a “theory” but so is evolution.

I like how you have put this, and thank you for the welcome back.

But here is an idea I wish to pass by you and see how you feel concerning it.

If there is this BIG GOD, that is not explained correctly, existing. It would be God alone. What would the purpose of being this Ultimate God being alone accomplish, if there was no one to make the claim, "there is this Big God Who created everything and we should acknowledge such!!"

It would seem, the fact that life does exist, that God wanted to be acknowledge. So, how could God be acknowledged if He was not personable? It's ironic that it all boils down to two thoughts. God exists, and God does not exist. One group claims the existence of God, while the other group has spent countless years trying to disprove God. And by all reasoning, those trying to disprove God, have never been successful in their adventures. And the majority of those believing in God, could not prove His existence even if it meant life or death. They just do not possess the intelligence and capability of introducing ideas and proofs to where anyone would buy it.

But this is where you and I would disagree concerning God. I do believe the fact that humanity exists, is proof that God wants to be acknowledged. I do believe He is also personable. After all, He is God. And by all definition and meaning, a God or Supreme Being is capable of being personable to His own Creation.

Interesting logic?
It all hinges on the assumption that life was created.
I do not refer to God as The Big God.

I see God as the infinitesimal force that exists between matter, energy and time.
God is not a he or she.
It has no personality and requires nothing as justification.
It just is.
It caused a change that resulted in the Universe.
It exists as the Universe because it exists between the matter, energy and time that is the Universe.
Its change started a chain reaction the is resulting in the Universe.
Life is but a reaction of matter, energy and time.

Existing between matter, energy and time, it exists in everything that resulted from its initial change, including us, the air you breath, the floor you stand on and the duration of every moment. It exists in the force of atoms, energy and duration.
God is everything, everywhere, everywhen all at the same time.

We are a result of chaotic interactions of matter and energy over duration.

God requires nothing.
God promises nothing.
God "Needs" nothing from us.

God is aware because we are aware.
The Universe (God) is everything, including us.
God doesn't manipulate reality.
Reality merely unfolds as it interacts.
God is beneath, within and the essence of reality, all reality.

So many people think they are separate from the Universe (God) but are formed from God.
We are ALL within God (the Universe).
It is the Alpha and the Omega because it saturates all reality.

In your theory, life has no need to exist. But yet, God felt the need to create this vast universe. Why create a vast universe but not create life? And if the universe being created hinges on life also being created, then God intended it to be as such. And if God intended it being as such, why would not God want to be a part or be known to his creation of life?

Obviously, somewhere in the process of God's mind (who being the ultimate architect, engineer, scientist, mathematician, developer) wanted this vast universe. Then God directs a planet, as Hawkings pointed out (if Earth was less than or more than mere thousandths from the sun that life could not exist) to be in position where the sun could sustain God's Creation of life. That was obviously on purpose by God.

So, it would seem viable to assume God wanted life, just as much as God wanted this vast universe. And that would seem logical to believe that God wanted both for a purpose. This would make God personable to that purpose, specifically to the purpose of life.

I would say, scripture claims when we die, for those who believe, we have access to all of the heavens (space, Heaven itself, other realms unknown). Maybe this is why space is continually growing, for those believers to enjoy after this life...

It doesn't and if left to nature it won't.
Nature will kill you if it gets a chance.


How do you know?
How do YOU know God "Needed" anything?
Another assumption?


So you have a question and immediately apply your own assumption as the answer.
Typical.


Who told you the Universe hinges on life?
Who told you the Universe "hinges" on anything?
Like Reality, The Universe Just Is.
It doesn't care, It needs no justification or glory.
No more than a rock in your yard needs anything to be a rock, it just is.


Again, how can you "know" God intended anything?
Are to privy to its understanding of everything, everywhere, everywhen?
Pretty bold.


This reasoning only has merit if one knows the mind of God.
How can anyone know the mind of God or if God even has a mind?
Isn't it easier to just accept reality as it is and stop trying to force it to select parameters?


Another assumption.
Human minds have reasoning so we attempt to understand reality using reason.
We think God must be the ultimate architect, engineer, scientist, mathematician, developer because we are unable to rectify reality without the reasoning factor. Consider that we are the result of a chain reaction in an unreasonable reality in which we specify reason according to our own understanding of the reality in which we experience. We define the reasoning for something that exists beyond our understanding and when it doesn't fit into our predefined little boxes it must be divine.
But, its all just the natural chain reaction of reality.


To some it does.
To some it doesn't.
What all seem to fail to understand is to reality, it doesn't matter at all.

Again, I understand that some minds find comfort in religion and I have no problem with that if y'all are content.
Where the problems arise is when you try to tell me what I believe is wrong just so you can feel justified.
Its the inability of religion to consider any idea that is not doctrine.
If it were based on personal experience I would understand but to fight, kill and main based on a non-experienced belief is insanity in my book.

I offer alternative ideas on reality and God yet I am wrong without experience to make me wrong.
Yet I experience reality and I know the Universe is a chaotic chain reaction and life in nothing more than an accident of circumstance.
Perhaps when someone dies, a star should explode?
That would be significant, but wait.
People are not the only forms of life we know.
Perhaps when any life dies, a star should explode?
A plant, a worm, a fly, a bacterium?
Perhaps when a life ends a star is born?
We all know from history that when a dragon died a star was born.
Why dragons?
Why not chipmunks?

I hate the idealism of religion. I personally do not belong to any particular sect or specific organization. I base my ideas on what I read from the original scripture manuscripts (Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek), from a variety of Scientific (developments-theories-idealisms)(past-present-future adventures), from Philosophy, Sociology, and theoretical idealisms.

It's not that I believe, amongst every idea combined somewhere there is the right answer. It's more on terms, that every idea introduced, allows me to break it down, in order to understand more where the idea is actually coming from. This is where the truth lies at, to the one introducing the ideas, creatively stem from.

But on terms of God alone, there has to be a general assumption here and there.

We have a vast Universe that continues to grow daily. If God did not want this to happen like it is. It's not difficult to claim, the Universe would not be continually expanding. But since it is, it is a very safe assumption to believe this was the intention God had in mind from word "GO!!"

Since we are agreeing on terms of the idea of God, we probably are on terms of an All Knowing God. Which is a God who knows whatever He decides to begin, He also knows when He will cause it to end. This also would mean, He is well aware that from word "GO" to the "END," what will happen between.

And since life in human form does exist, it is a safe bet that God knew that life would exist. Since God knew that life would exist, He should have known that man would one day, try to figure out if God exists and who God was/is.

No religion actually comes out and claims they have met God and knows somewhat who God is. The Hebrew people do claim, that God wanted a relationship with His Creation. A Relationship vs Religion are two very vast extremes, that are clearly opposite in both thought and meaning. One is idea based, and the other is experience based.
^
This is why I claim God is personable.

But this caused my Faith and Logic to create war between one another.

This is the point, to which I put God to the test, like the Hebrew Scripture instructs to do.

This is where my Faith grew, and my Logic began to verify my Faith because God did prove He is personable.

And I did a case study of basing a fluke compared to consistent results.

And in the end, I know that I know that God is real and God is personable!!


So, where you claim that I am only assuming, I claim that I know for a fact.

Everyone is different in how we decipher or go about in terms of finding proofs. No one can actually see God the same. But everyone can go beyond standard ways of discovering necessary proofs. They just need to understand how. And some would not feel comfortable discovering if God was personable. They are comfortable in believing He is untouchable, unreachable, beyond their efforts to find Him. And that is due to understanding themselves. And in my self awareness and understanding, I know Who God is, and have a Personable Relationship with Him. And for myself, that is my greatest achievement ever!!

And how you explain in your view of who God is, puts me in mind of Einstein, Spinoza, and even Mark Twain!!

Again...This is an assumption.
It fails to consider God may not "Want" anything.
It assumes God cares, what if God doesn't care and just exists without motive?


You are forgetting to consider that God may be aware of everything and understand it all better than we but not care.
For something that could exist everywhere, everything and within everything it could be that this short instant in duration is insignificant to the whole, which it experiences constantly.

From a human point of view, your statements have some merit.
How can any human ever understand anything about God?

Consider this:
Sciptures are supposed to be the word of God written down for man so man can understand.
If God is everywhere, in everything and everywhen, there are not enough humans, scrolls, ink and time to write everything about God from everyone's perspective and lets not forget the 13.7 billion years that have passed in which nobody was writing.
How could anyone, anywhere actually document everything, everywhere according to how they experience it? There are about 7.7 billion people on this planet and God is in everything, everywhere, everywhen for each of them plus in everything, everywhere, everywhen for all places, things, and times in the rest of the Universe.

I can't even grasp God according to Tom, let alone the other 7.7 billion people alive with me right now on this tiny speck of a planet.
How could ANYONE, assume to know anything at all about God?
How could anyone assume to understand everything about the entire Universe and all its history and future?
We are not even sure what caused the Big Bang and can't even agree that it was a Big Bang.
All we know is what we assume from 13.7 billion year old light.

What I am suggesting is the Big Bang is not the start of the Universe but merely a chain reaction condition of something else.

I see your point. And it is true, God could not care at all about what is taking place. He could just let it happen until it gets to the point of time to stop it all.

I then am on the stance that He does care. And thus my position reflects the answers I have stated. But I cannot argue your points, because my views reflect how I choose to see God. I am positive when this life is over, if we die and that is it, or we move onto the next realm, one way or another we will have a definitive answer.

And even though your points are valid, your assessment could also be wrong. But like I have to do, you have to decide how you view God. I see him as personable, you do not. That is the beauty about having our own mind. We create our own hypothesis based upon several factors. But in the end, it still comes down to how we personally choose to believe and view the entire picture.

In all of creation, all time that has ever ticked by, When is a good time?
Could it be that God just isn't concerned with a species that has only been aware for a few million years in billions?


I agree, I could be very wrong.
My point is not the points of argument but the understanding that it is beyond my capacity to know.
To assume anything is merely an assumption.
No actual facts, just hypothesis.

My idea of God exceeds my ability to relate it to you.
It changes every moment I exist.
I have new insight into what I experience.
I witness new realities as they unfold before me.


I am not able to 'view the entire picture'.
I don't have all the facts about anything.
I don't need all the facts, I don't need to know everything about everything everywhen, I am not God, merely a small part of God.

I am God as experienced by Tom.
You are God as experienced by you.
There are parts of God, many parts of God, that have been experienced by nobody but God and those parts are not within my access.
All I know is what I have experienced.
I have never looked out from behind anyone else's eyes.
Nobody has ever looked out from behind my eyes.
But...all our eyes are within this universe and God is everything, everywhere and everywhen.

The topic is the Big Bang.
I acknowledge something happened.
I acknowledge it is still happening.
I'm just saying, it wasn't the "First" thing that happened.