On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:55:16 AM UTC-4, garshagu wrote: > > So from did the particles come to converge at a point to cause the big > bang? > Particles must have existed and occupied some space before embarking > on a convergence. > We may end up with ring theory or a chicken and egg metaphor. > Did Big Bang create particles or particles converged and BigBanged? >
I think neither. The Big Bang makes more sense if we turn it inside out. It is spacetime which shatters the singularity of mass-energy from the inside out, not an explosion of matter into an unexplained space. The appearance of particles is part of our naive realism because we ourselves are part of what I call the Big Diffraction. The Big Bang is not an event that happened within time and empty space, it is the hub of the wheel of time which creates space continuously, within itself. There was never anywhere for the singularity to Bang into, and there never will be. Space is the 'illusion'. >From an absolute perspective, space and time are only the nothingness which defines everythingness as somethingness. Craig > Mike Atovigba. > > On 9/8/12, episte...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> < > episte...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > ============================================================================= > > > Today's Topic Summary > > > ============================================================================= > > > > > Group: episte...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics > > > > - Our Modern Scientific Philosophy. [1 Update] > > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/d1756df8ba774b71 > > - The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass [2 Updates] > > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/a9aeae524a34409a > > > > > > > ============================================================================= > > > Topic: Our Modern Scientific Philosophy. > > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/d1756df8ba774b71 > > > ============================================================================= > > > > > ---------- 1 of 1 ---------- > > From: "socr...@bezeqint.net <javascript:>" > > <socr...@bezeqint.net<javascript:>> > > > Date: Sep 08 08:15AM -0700 > > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/20d98ab532653d23 > > > > Our Modern Scientific Philosophy. > > =. > > The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton. > > Question. > > Where did electron and proton come from? > > Answer. > > Electron and proton came from big bang. > > Question. > > Where the did big bang come from? > > Answer. > > The big bang was created when all electrons and protons > > and all another particles were pressed into a singular point. > > ==.. > > If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are an ignorant man. > > =. > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================= > > > Topic: The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass > > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/a9aeae524a34409a > > > ============================================================================= > > > > > ---------- 1 of 2 ---------- > > From: archytas <nwt...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > > Date: Sep 07 08:05PM -0700 > > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/a98898979956020e > > > > There's a maths theory that challenges one conservation law we're all > > used to. The full paper is at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.5078v2.pdf > > and it's by Ma and Wang. In a sense they rework Einstein to account > > for dark energy and matter. The paper concludes: > > > > Fifth, the scalar curvature R of space-time obeys: > > R = > > 8πG > > c3 T + . > > Consequently, when there is no normal matter present (with T = 0), the > > curvature > > R of space-time is balanced by R = . Therefore, there is no real > > vacuum in the > > universe. > > > > The familiar equation corrupts in cut and paste. The last line is of > > interest.. > > > > It also seems hey claim: > > > > that the energy-momentum tensor of normal matter is no longer > > conserved and that new gravitational field equations follow from > > Einstein's principles of equivalence and general relativity, and the > > principle of Lagrangian dynamics, just as Einstein derived his field > > equations. Wang says the new equations were the unique outcome of the > > non-conservation of the energy-momentum tensor of normal matter. > > > > On 31 Aug, 05:47, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > ---------- 2 of 2 ---------- > > From: "socr...@bezeqint.net <javascript:>" > > <socr...@bezeqint.net<javascript:>> > > > Date: Sep 08 01:29AM -0700 > > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/bde1040b5155e9b9 > > > > We are setting limits on things that we don’t have > > a clue about ( for example: c=1, T=0K ) . > > From these two parameters (c=1, T=0K ) was started > > all modern speculations in Physics ( SRT, QT, GRT ). > > > > ==. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > > episte...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > epistemology...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/DELQv_3DrwQJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
