The What Was, Before The Big Bang

[xyz]

Subatimic particles, I read, existed  before the B.B.

I am unsure of that, but when atomic is mentioned the question has to be, does energy proceed particles,  a bit like what came first a chicken or the egg. Maybe space and energy co-existed in some sort of dormant state and something started a chain of events.

 

If I was to compare to observation , sort of knowing without knowing, I would compare space to a plasma reactor such as a Tokamak. A vacuum with magnetic bottling, that electrons and particles is added to create plasma, a process mimicked on the sun if you ask me, 

In would not be too far fetched to think it possible we and all are nuclear waste in a nuclear reactor. 

However I think infinite space is the most likely. 

[Pmb]

xyz - You're quite correct that I didn't use your balloon analogy since the analogy that you used is quite wrong in that it's not an analogy that reflects expanding space. What you wrote was

 

Space it not of balloon qualities, where we observe the balloon expanding into space.

which is not the balloon analogy that cosmologists use to describe expanding space. The balloon analogy that I used is the correct one.

[xyz]

xyz - You're quite correct that I didn't use your balloon analogy since the analogy that you used is quite wrong in that it's not an analogy that reflects expanding space. What you wrote was

 

which is not the balloon analogy that cosmologists use to describe expanding space. The balloon analogy that I used is the correct one.

I know the other version, and it suggests walls of space by suggesting a balloons surface which is simply just not true.   

[sanctus]

xyz-coherence ;-) You said:

 

 

''nothing'' never existed and can not exist.

 

 

So how do I define space?  I define space as an infinite of ''nothing'' , a place that allows values to exist,

 

You contradict yourself.

[xyz]

xyz-coherence ;-) You said:

 

 

 

 

 

You contradict yourself.

Yes and no with the contradiction, I count all values of actual space has zero, nothing, but class space as something,   a something of nothing, that allows values to exist in and of. 

[Pmb]

xyz - I know the other version, and it suggests walls of space by suggesting by suggesting a balloons surface which is simply not true.

 

If that's what you think then you do not understand the analogy. A 2D occupant in the surface of balloon can walk all over the surface and never hit anything which could be thought of as a "wall." That's the whole point of that analogy.

 

Every time you claim you know the analogy you say something which tells us that you really don't understand it like you did in that comment.

[xyz]

xyz - I know the other version, and it suggests walls of space by suggesting by suggesting a balloons surface which is simply not true.

 

If that's what you think then you do not understand the analogy. A 2D occupant in the surface of balloon can walk all over the surface and never hit anything which could be thought of as a "wall." That's the whole point of that analogy.

 

Every time you claim you know the analogy you say something which tells us that you really don't understand it like you did in that comment.

I understand that your versions and alot of what I read does not compute as logically true. Please define the black background of space yourself in your own words without gobbly gook, explain how something without a physical body can expand such as space, explain how you observe space itself, and this does not mean the redshift of matter, expanding, when obviously space is clear to observation and unseen, it is factual that space is ''transparent'' to light, light that allows sight to penetrate space. 

 

 

added- at first you had a flat earth and then it turned out to be slightly round, and then you tried put a shape to space which will turn out to be shapeless because there is nothing to shape, playing dot to dot with stars and galaxies only tells position relative to us.

 

Things like the ''sauce pan'' is not really a shape , it is a formation of points relative to us that resembles a shape, 

Edited September 1, 2015 by xyz

[Pmb]

The problem is that what you think is illogical is actually valid but beyond your comprehension. People are not raised with such notions in mind or in their experience. That's why on some occasions when physicists make advances in science the layman is unable to grasp it and thus claim it's not true or illogical just as you have done here. The fact is that what I described corresponds to reality, i.e. what is actually measured in nature.

 

Re - flat earth etc/

 

That's a misconception. In most of history it was known that the earth was round.,

[xyz]

The problem is that what you think is illogical is actually valid but beyond your comprehension. People are not raised with such notions in mind or in their experience. That's why on some occasions when physicists make advances in science the layman is unable to grasp it and thus claim it's not true or illogical just as you have done here. The fact is that what I described corresponds to reality, i.e. what is actually measured in nature.

 

Re - flat earth etc/

 

That's a misconception. In most of history it was known that the earth was round.,

You completely avoided the explanation I asked you for and tried to project the point elsewhere, I suggest that it is yourself who is limited to understanding and  not even willing to hear the idea out or any other idea. I am well aware of present information, so ask you sir , why do you defend this with such vigour, when I am only here for debate on a few of my own ideas, I asked for opinion in your own words, can you please define the black back ground of space?

 

 

I define it as more space, and things in this space are relatively to small to see by the distance being greater than our visual limitation boundary. (mass beyond the vanishing point)

Edited September 1, 2015 by xyz

[Turtle]

...If I was to compare to observation , sort of knowing without knowing, I would compare space to a plasma reactor such as a Tokamak. A vacuum with magnetic bottling, that electrons and particles is added to create plasma, a process mimicked on the sun if you ask me,

In would not be too far fetched to think it possible we and all are nuclear waste in a nuclear reactor.

However I think infinite space is the most likely.

You completely avoided the explanation I asked you for and tried to project the point elsewhere, I suggest that it is yourself who is limited to understanding and  not even willing to hear the idea out or any other idea. I am well aware of present information, so ask you sir , why do you defend this with such vigour, when I am only here for debate on a few of my own ideas, I asked for opinion in your own words, can you please define the black back ground of space?

I think we respondents all have read your ideas. This is after all a science discussion site and your subjective opinions and/or descriptions do not meet a scientific standard. No amount of whining is gonna change that.

[xyz]

I think we respondents all have read your ideas. This is after all a science discussion site and your subjective opinions and/or descriptions do not meet a scientific standard. No amount of whining is gonna change that.

 

I think we respondents all have read your ideas. This is after all a science discussion site and your subjective opinions and/or descriptions do not meet a scientific standard. No amount of whining is gonna change that.

You have never truly thought about my ideas or discussed my ideas, I ask you the same question as PMB and ask you to please define the black background of space in your own words.

 

There is 2 options in total finite or infinite.

 

My argument would be that common sense tells me that my vision or vision by device is finite, this would leave an impression of a finite space, but when I look all around me, I see finite measures of objects occupying space, so my common sense tells me that if there was finite space, and the black background was a finite space, that outside of that finite space must logically be more space, or that would mean we live in a space inside of a solid, which even the solid would have to have space after the solid. 

 

So without doubt in my mind space is infinite but what you observe is finite hence the universe is x billion years old. 

Edited September 1, 2015 by xyz

[Turtle]

You have never truly thought about my ideas or discussed my ideas, I ask you the same question as PMB and ask you to please define the black background of space in your own words.

So now you know what I have thought about? And yet again you misrepresent the facts as you did when you claimed you didn't ask a question, because I in fact did read your question and answered it. That constitutes discussion.

 

There is 2 options in total finite or infinite.

 

My argument would be that common sense tells me ...

So again, 'common sense' is not science.

 

So without doubt in my mind space is infinite but what you observe is finite hence the universe is x billion years old.

Not science.

[xyz]

So now you know what I have thought about? And yet again you misrepresent the facts as you did when you claimed you didn't ask a question, because I in fact did read your question and answered it. That constitutes discussion.

 

So again, 'common sense' is not science.

 

Not science.

science is an object falls to the ground, are you saying discussing that is not science?

 

Again you avoid answering , infinite or finite, do I need to explain the difference to you?

[Turtle]

science is an object falls to the ground, are you saying discussing that is not science?

Where have you discussed objects falling and what evidence and/or equations did you present?

 

Again you avoid answering , infinite or finite, do I need to explain the difference to you?

There is no scientific evidence one way or the other.

 

Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk

...

ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite?

 

Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite.

...

[xyz]

Where have you discussed objects falling and what evidence and/or equations did you present?

 

There is no scientific evidence one way or the other.

 

Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk

That was an example of science, does science not understand examples?

 

''There is no scientific evidence one way or the other.''

 

have you ever heard the term knowing without knowing?  Somethings we know without knowing, there does not have to always be a definite answer to know something. 

 

[tex]X³*x³*\infy³[/tex]

 

How many times can you imagine cubing a cube?  what do you imagine is always outside of the cube?  

[Turtle]

That was an example of science, does science not understand examples?

 

''There is no scientific evidence one way or the other.''

 

have you ever heard the term knowing without knowing?  Somethings we know without knowing, there does not have to always be a definite answer to know something. 

 

[tex]X³*x³*\infy³[/tex]

 

How many times can you imagine cubing a cube?  what do you imagine is always outside of the cube?  

Word salad and completely useless for a science discussion.

[xyz]

Word salad and completely useless for a science discussion.

We are talking about before the big bang, which then arrives at the discussion of expansion of space and the said nothing outside of this expanding space, Expanding space physically has to space to expand into, discussion then drifts into logical science, and the logic is if you think there is nothing beyond expanding space, you are technically saying we are inside of a solid, which one is it?