Hallo every body,
First let me introduce my self. I started from technology,moved on to pure science and now I am developing interest in meta-physics. It pains to me to see that science and philosophy,both mean knowledge, still they oppose each other instead of searching for a common point.
Let us see. Science says things started from a point of concentration of mass and energy, and there was a big bang, a fission. Believes in ex-nihilio creation.
Vedantic scool of Indian phylosophy says, thing began by fusion of consciousness with nature. Thing is both will result in Big-bang. Here a priory creation is preached.
Another thing. There is no need to fight on creation v/s evolution. Even the holly Bible also says that universe is creation but life has evolved through the union.
Gopalanand saraswati
Hallo every body,
First let me introduce my self. I started from technology,moved on to pure science and now I am developing interest in meta-physics. It pains to me to see that science and philosophy,both mean knowledge, still they oppose each other instead of searching for a common point.
Let us see. Science says things started from a point of concentration of mass and energy, and there was a big bang, a fission. Believes in ex-nihilio creation.
Vedantic scool of Indian phylosophy says, thing began by fusion of consciousness with nature. Thing is both will result in Big-bang. Here a priory creation is preached.
Another thing. There is no need to fight on creation v/s evolution. Even the holly Bible also says that universe is creation but life has evolved through the union.
Gopalanand saraswati
Hello and welcome Gopalanand saraswati to the toequest forum,I send you greetings from the UK to you,I agree fusion not fission that is the way of uninfication.
warmest regards michael.
__________________ Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself?
The center is defined by a measurement in all directions to be of equal length.
Thus indicating the center of a sphere with that length as a radius.
This observation however is a result of what appears to be the expansion of space, that results with an event horizon, that is generated by the appearance that the edge is moving away at light speed, resulting in an end of perception. This maximum distance can be indicated by a finite number, that will indicate this maximum of perceivable distance. This maximum of perceivable distance also defines a maximum amount of time for light to travel this distance. Thus the existence medium is defined by a maximum space that in turn defines a maximum time. This put all observers at the center of both time and space. The eternal HERE NOW. Also note that the finite numbers indicating both time and space as finite, is ALWAYS THE SAME. It is unchanging indicative of infinity. Thus the finite number becomes infinitely the same finite number.
This looks to me to be a (((steady state))) of an infinitly finite continuios creation in frames of quantum time and space.
The eternal ticks of our creation clock.
John.
Hallo every body,
First let me introduce my self. I started from technology,moved on to pure science and now I am developing interest in meta-physics. It pains to me to see that science and philosophy,both mean knowledge, still they oppose each other instead of searching for a common point.
Let us see. Science says things started from a point of concentration of mass and energy, and there was a big bang, a fission. Believes in ex-nihilio creation.
Vedantic scool of Indian phylosophy says, thing began by fusion of consciousness with nature. Thing is both will result in Big-bang. Here a priory creation is preached.
Another thing. There is no need to fight on creation v/s evolution. Even the holly Bible also says that universe is creation but life has evolved through the union.
Gopalanand saraswati
Welcome to the forums. I indeed agree that philosophy and science should have close links and overlapping areas, like in the old days of the greek philosophers/scientists. However, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore, and both camps are very much distinct.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy your time here, and look forward to your posts around the forum.
__________________ ~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
Dear John and others,
Thanks for joining me in my journey in the persuit of truth. For Jhon, I would like to put few more points in this thread.
1. If perception is to be the only basis of your knowledge, then your knowledge will automatically get limited by the speed of light. Also, the knowledge will expand at the same speed. But remember that space is not like a baloon with a outer skin and vacuum within. It is like a vessel full of rattling pabbles, always at motion.
2. The only data we have in support of theory of expanding universe is RED SHIFT. But is this shift constant? Then there is no accelaration, only linear velocity. As every object is in motion, the relative velocity has to be considered. Mind you we are inside the vessel full of pabbles. Imagine the picture. There is no center, no boundry, only the time ellasped from the time T0, the Big-bang, and speed of light.
The question is- why do we assume that the space empty?
Further- Technological knowledge is creation, scientific knowledge is evolution. Philosophy should look at cause and should not indulge in theology or mysticism. I AM HENCE I THINK. (sum hinc cogito)
with regards,
gopalanand
Dear John and others,
Thanks for joining me in my journey in the persuit of truth. For Jhon, I would like to put few more points in this thread.
1. If perception is to be the only basis of your knowledge, then your knowledge will automatically get limited by the speed of light. Also, the knowledge will expand at the same speed. But remember that space is not like a baloon with a outer skin and vacuum within. It is like a vessel full of rattling pabbles, always at motion.
2. The only data we have in support of theory of expanding universe is RED SHIFT. But is this shift constant? Then there is no accelaration, only linear velocity. As every object is in motion, the relative velocity has to be considered. Mind you we are inside the vessel full of pabbles. Imagine the picture. There is no center, no boundry, only the time ellasped from the time T0, the Big-bang, and speed of light.
The question is- why do we assume that the space empty?
Further- Technological knowledge is creation, scientific knowledge is evolution. Philosophy should look at cause and should not indulge in theology or mysticism. I AM HENCE I THINK. (sum hinc cogito)
with regards,
gopalanand
Hello Gopalanand:
First let me say welcome to Toequest. I hope you enjoy the communication here as much as I do.
The post you read about the steady state of the universe is incomplete as it stands. In order to see this the way that I do, it is necessary to see the rest of the multiverse and the membrane that our experiance medium exists upon.
Also note:
The idea of a shell around our universe has not been disproved either. It could well be that the edge of the universe is at absolute zero. Where all motion including light comes to a stop in the Bose-Einstein Condensation.
The more that we learn, the more we become aware that we know very little.
We can not prove or disprove much of anything YET about our existance medium. Yes we could even be in a shell.
John
Hi John,
Thanks for giving attention to my question. Actually I am a little too old, aged 74, to play with this internet game. Now that slowly i am learning the rules, i have started enjoying it. Yesterday i was scolded for duplicating the submission. actually i was not sure if my submission was successful in the first attempt.we in india call it teaching old parrot.
The main reason for my raising this question is that a fission starts from a point, and fusion can start from infinity. Then your assumption that this universe is within a black hole sounds resonable. both steady state and big bang can be reconciled. Am i going in some direction?
The more you learn the more you become aware of your ignorance.
with best wishes
GS
Re: Big Bang: fission or fusion 
Re: Big Bang: fission or fusion 
Linear Mode
