Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Avinash

Big bang was not the beginning of time

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

 

SHREERÄDHÄKRSHNACHAITANYÄY NAMAH

SHREECHAITANYA MAHÄPRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREENIYTÄNANDA PRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREESHIVASHIVÄY NAMAH

JAY JAY SHREE ADVAITA ÄCHÄRYA

JAY JAY SHREEBHAKTA VRUNDA....

 

 

 

Often times read that big bang was the beginning of time and therefore we should not ask what happened before big bang' date=' because there was no 'before'. According to two physicists (from Cambridge and Princeton universities), the current model of the universe is flawed[/quote']

 

 

as a matter of fact, there has actually been no big bang at all!

 

while tryin'g to gauge age of (Four Headed Brahmäjee's) universe, foolish scientists miss one important logic presented by them only...age of black holes...

 

on one hand they say...age of blackholes cannot be determined (which is also false!), on the other hand, they proclaim to have found age of that universe, which has infinite such black holes...

 

this two arguments are opposite to eachother!

 

more on this issue and other issue regarding time and others can be read from book The True History and Religion of India here:

 

http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/48_the_exact_calculations.htm

 

http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/47_creation_of.htm

 

 

http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/49_actual_age.htm

 

http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/21_intriguing_questions.htm

 

actually, its only futile, not only for us, even for Lord Brahmäjee, to try to understand something which is beyond sense perception...its nothing smarter than act of a foolish child, trying to touch moon and in that pursuit, trying to climb to the roof top...this is the sum and substance of a scientist's phsyche and their foolish endeavors, wasting HIS time and energy! scientists are a little more rebellious and demoniac, nevertheless, though!

 

 

 

SHREENITÄIGAURAPREMÄNANDE....SHREENITÄIGAURAHARIBOL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do you think that Big Bang expansion is impossible? Big Bang expansion is said to have taken place approx 14 billion years ago. Universe is expanding at present. Then, why is it so difficult to believe that it was expanding 14 billion years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do you think that Big Bang expansion is impossible? Big Bang expansion is said to have taken place approx 14 billion years ago. Universe is expanding at present. Then, why is it so difficult to believe that it was expanding 14 billion years ago?

 

 

i must say avinas, u r at a wrong place, may b u should, loitering around nasa corridors, your rebellious and doubting thomas mind wont let u settle in a peaceful Temple!

 

u seem to be a victim of the of neo-athiesm generation. who in the name of science, are only spreading athiesm...whether it is darvinian theory or this bogus big bang stuff.

 

i mean, u can simply mortage ur mind to some few so called scientist, who are inflicted with hunger, lust, desire to be famous etc., who have limited perception, who are fraught with athiesm and rebel towards ShreeKrshna, but u'd feel damned ashamed of having to accept the Pristine Vedic Teachings, which are incomparably higher than this figmentive propositions of foolish observationists!

 

sad indeed!

 

anyway u may read this article online....

 

http://www.internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=973

 

i certainly dont endorse this article, but to a fool, one has to talk in a foolish language! may be u can see some ray of hope...

 

but a piece of advise, pls dont bother us with ur bogus beliefs, u might as well hang ur self among ur like minded athiests!:mad2:

 

 

SHREENITÄIGAURAPREMÄNADE...SHREEGAURAHARIBOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHREERÄDHÄKRSHNACHAITANYÄY NAMAH

SHREECHAITANYA MAHÄPRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREENITYÄNADA PRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREESHIVASHIVÄY NAMAH

JAY JAY SHREEBHAKTA VRUNDA...

 

 

akshar, i see that your post is rubbish,

Sun moon, all are demi gods as per hinduism. They Are Not Gods!.

 

aksar seems to be from svaminarayan sect, these guys consider their guru (user foto) to be a god!:mad:

 

SHREENITÄIGAURAPREMÄNANDE...SHREEGAURAHARIBOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do you think that Big Bang expansion is impossible? Big Bang expansion is said to have taken place approx 14 billion years ago. Universe is expanding at present. Then, why is it so difficult to believe that it was expanding 14 billion years ago? [/avinash]

 

 

Wow, great! Clap clap clap. Asking somebody a question means that I have rebellious, doubting thomas mind.

 

 

This is your thinking that big bang is atheism, not mine. If God wishes, he can create the world in whatever way he likes - including big bang.

Even Darwinian theory is not really atheism. Atheism means "not believing in God." Darwinian theory may be contradictory to your religious belief, but it is not contradictory to theism in general.

 

 

According to you, being interested in Science means hunger, lust, desire to be famous and it also means limited perception. Go and learn get common sense.

 

 

Belief in modern Science is limited perception for you but blind belief in Vedas means that you have a very broad perspective. Hypocrisy!

 

 

Yes, it is sad that you do not have any common sense.

 

 

Anybody who does not agree with you is a fool.

 

 

Any belief, which is not the same as yours, is bogus. Nice definition!

 

If being theist means becoming like you i.e. losing one's way of thinking, becoming abusive and hypocrite, then I hate such kind of theism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHREERÄDHÄKRSHNACHAITANYÄY NAMAH

SHREECHAITANYA MAHÄPRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREENITYÄNANDA PRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREESHIVASHIVÄY NAMAH

JAY JAY SHREEBHAKTA VRUNDA...

 

thanks a lot, avinas!

 

i accepted that kinda reply,

 

 

asking somebody a question means that I have rebellious, doubting thomas mind

 

asking question is not athiesm but when u have access to the Asnwers, it certainly is!

 

 

 

 

According to you, being interested in Science means hunger, lust, desire to be famous and it also means limited perception. Go and learn get common sense.

 

i dont consider science as wrong, the adjectives used are for so called scientist, again u got this wrong!

 

 

 

.If God wishes, he can create the world in whatever way he likes - including big bang.

Even Darwinian theory is not really atheism. Atheism means "not believing in God." Darwinian theory may be contradictory to your religious belief, but it is not contradictory to theism in general.

where ur logic of ShreeKrshna creating the world the way HE likes is acceptable...,

 

what u might not be aware of is ShreeKrshna Himself has revealed the actual process of Creation, in Shreemad Bhägavatam, and that is through Brahmäjee! not some vagrant cacophonic derivatives or sick formulae!

 

 

Atheism means "not believing in God.".

probably, u havnt gotten the definition of thiesm right,

if u at all sincerely believe in ShreeKrshna, why do u shirk to accept HIS teachings?

but as put, this is not athiesm, i think it is foolishness also!

 

 

darwinian theory may be contradictory to your religious belief, but it is not contradictory to theism in general

hieght of obsession! u guys are obsessed with anything imported, even foolishness!

 

darvinian theory is also against the Vedas! and illogical...theory, clearly bypasses the Brahmäjee's agency of copulation-linked mortal world, it says, us humans are modified apes!

 

but it might take some time for u to get this, i was actually more sinful than u, but with HIS grace, i accepted HIS Pristing teachings, and is saved!

 

 

 

belief in modern Science is limited perception for you but blind belief in Vedas means that you have a very broad perspective. hypocrisy

blind beliefs in Vedas is not possible, it is so very logical, that even blind believers get through to the Light!

 

u'd accept 'but' as bat and 'put' as poot, is that blind belief?

obsessed with imported things!

 

might as well watch matrix series (not for devotees, though), may have a hint as to what i mean by limited perception of not science but that of humans...

 

 

 

if being theist means becoming like you i.e. losing one's way of thinking, becoming abusive and hypocrite, then I hate such kind of theism.

well, u might abuse me of being a hypocrite, abusive, having lost way of thinking...its clear to be seen that who is abusive! and i certainly dont mind abusing the athiests...or rather agnostics

 

once more, we can fight out on place u decide, pls. dont spread ur godless virus on this sober, and thiestic discussion portal!

 

in the end, i'm sorry, for coming across u, u better carry on with ur ideas, as ur signature goes...get prepared for the worse

 

but i definitely warn u of not spreading such vagrant theories and beliefs, there upmteen other portals for such concoccted theories,

 

i think it is only hypocricy to claim to be thiest and not believe in ShreeKrshnaa's teachings and search for other theories.

 

not here, pls.

 

SHREERÄDHÄKRSHNACHAITANYÄY NAMAH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. But theories change with time. Our Vedic scholars tried to answer the question of creation and time. But they all changed with progress of civilization. Scientific theories also change with time. Time and space are concepts originating from mind (Chid-aakasam) Out side the World there is no time or space.

 

Brahmanyan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big bang theory is a disgrace towards the creator as it symbolizes accident rather than well planned thinking. Those who state big bang, an explosion caused creation are very much into antisimplicity, these beengs combine fysiology with mathematics thereby denying the psychological elements of the creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Big bang is no longer the predominant cosmological theory, and as such this debate doesn't really rest on solid grounds. Try superstring theory and you're closer to what has prevalence these days.

 

Well as much as I know that most accomplished modern cosmologists love utterly abstract mathematics, kindly check out these perspectives

 

21st Jan 08 .....://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/022108_guest_sjcrothers.htm

 

20th Jan 08 .....://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/goodspeed08/012008_big_bang_cosmology.htm

 

(sorry arent eligible to post live links just yet)

 

I'd love to read your comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was very happy to read this. Often times I have read that big bang was the beginning of time and therefore we should not ask what happened before big bang, because there was no 'before'. But, it never seemed believable.

 

 

According to two physicists (from Cambridge and Princeton universities), there is neither a beginning nor an end of time. They say the current model of the universe is flawed.

 

That model starts with the beginning of time and the so-called Big Bang. The universe then cools and expands, and then in the distant future it will cool to the point when no stars are formed and normal matter breaks down. But the expansion is speeding up, and the current model does not seem to adequately explain why this is happening.

 

The scientists claim their new model can account for this and other things that are difficult to explain. They say the universe is undergoing an endless series of Big Bangs, expansions, contractions and big crunches. There is no end of time and no need to define what existed before the universe was born.

 

Basic flaw of Big-bang is that it tries to explain it on the basis of Physics laws, when Physics law break down at singularity. For example, even the simplest law like conservation of mass can not be satisfied when Big-bang theory is explained. Slowly and steadily science is able to understand about the higher energy, which has nothing to do with atoms or electrons, which are primarily used to explain the material energy. Howver, they still do not appreciate the existence due to thier imperfect senses and EGO....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may,...with my limited understanding, present a theory I've been tossing around in my head for awhile.

 

I think that maybe we could see it somewhat like plate techtonics. Where the earths crust goes in on itself and new earth is formed in the lava flows and volcanoes. Perhaps in the same way, if there are black holes which suck matter into them, there are white holes which spew the same matter back out.Which appear as 'big bangs'...(?) maybe? Which could show how the universe is eternal.Even if there was a beginning, how are we to measure it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes that is a theory that some have put forth. I have no idea. Anyway time certainly predates any universal happening.

 

Hey theist! How ya doin'?

 

I really have no idea either. But, it is fascinating. I don't know how much relevance it as on my life. This is one of those instances where I just accept that God is eternal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it is worth, contemporary physics will never get it right, simply because they have "time" all wrong. And from a science dominated (crippled?) with the baggage of Genesis I, one can expect nothing more.

 

That is not to say that contemporary physics cannot develop new knowledge. It has, and continues to do so. Its practioners just miss the mark in relating what they generate to reality. But not from want of trying. Those who try and invoke different paradigms, particularly as glimpsed in extant hindu documents, sometims may have better luck.

 

The Brahma Astra for instance, can be built, in my most humble opinion - though there is a very narrow window within which that is do able. A window provided by the elegent experiments of Aspect et. al., a narrow window of ca.2.3 mm or there abouts. I would be interested to know if there are hard core physicists here, and whether they can derive this window's dimension as well. This appears after all, an out of the way web site to ask this question, but I will stop by and check often. Sorry, no more clues.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Alain Aspect (born 15 June 1947 in Agen) is a French physicist and alumnus of the École Normale Supérieure de Cachan in France. In the early 1980s, with collaborators in France, he performed the crucial "Bell test experiments" that showed that Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen's reductio ad absurdum of quantum mechanics, namely that it implied 'ghostly action at a distance', did in fact appear to be realised when two particles were separated by an arbitrarily large distance. A correlation between their wave functions remained, as they were once part of the same wave-function that was not disturbed before one of the child particles was measured.

 

If quantum theory is correct, the determination of an axis direction for polarisation measurement of one photon, forcing the wave function to 'collapse' onto that axis, will influence the measurement of its twin. This influence occurs despite any experimenters not knowing which axes have been chosen by their distant colleagues, and at distances that disallow any communication between the two photons, even at the speed of light.

 

Aspect's experiments were considered to provide overwhelming support to the thesis that Bell's inequalities are violated in its CHSH version. However, his results were not completely conclusive, since there were so-called loopholes that allowed for alternative explanations that comply with local realism.

 

Stated more simply, the experiment provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations. This has been called "spooky action at a distance". However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves are inherently random.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect

 

I would say, (quantum) events are inherently 'chaotic'. And if quantum entanglement or quantum correlation is real, a faster-than-light chaotic mechanism must underly physical reality..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beginning of time did not start with the Big Bang. Time started with the primeval Lord Govinda (Kalpataru Krsnah), the controller of time. This is confirmed in Brahma-samhita(5.40): " I worship Govinda the primeval Lord by whose personal effulgence the unlimited brahmajyoti is manifested. In that brahmajyoti there are innumerable universes and each is filled with innumerable planets."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For what it is worth, contemporary physics will never get it right, simply because they have "time" all wrong. And from a science dominated (crippled?) with the baggage of Genesis I, one can expect nothing more.

 

That is not to say that contemporary physics cannot develop new knowledge. It has, and continues to do so. Its practioners just miss the mark in relating what they generate to reality. But not from want of trying. Those who try and invoke different paradigms, particularly as glimpsed in extant hindu documents, sometims may have better luck.

 

The Brahma Astra for instance, can be built, in my most humble opinion - though there is a very narrow window within which that is do able. A window provided by the elegent experiments of Aspect et. al., a narrow window of ca.2.3 mm or there abouts. I would be interested to know if there are hard core physicists here, and whether they can derive this window's dimension as well. This appears after all, an out of the way web site to ask this question, but I will stop by and check often. Sorry, no more clues.

 

Peace.

Time is just a theoretical concept that we use to mathematically describe change. And our perception of time (or sense of time) derives from our perception of irreversible change in this world.

 

A (mostly) hidden quantum mechanism must necessarily underlie our conscious experience of reality, in order to account for 'quantum non-locality' or the effect of quantum entanglement. All manifest quantum events in our world must then necessarily constitute only a small discontinuous subset or fraction of complete reality.

 

I propose that this underlying mechanism or original quantum principle, is like a conscious point or singularity that continuously describes a complex non-linear (chaotic) and faster-than-light trajectory in space. In fact, the speed of such a 'non-local hidden variable', must be almost infinite (relative to the speed of light) in order to produce all our manifest conscious experience as a limited (discontinuous) subset of its continuously changing state or position in space. This subset could be a particular 'phase-projection' of the original chaotic oscillation itself. Our actual consciousness may then simply be a function of a specific frequency or sound that is present in the oscillation, like a specific higher harmonic tone (Om).

 

Anyway, if such a physical scenario is true, then time doesn’t exist as an actual dimension of reality. Only a specific complex sequential order of manifest quantum events exists, which projects all material structure and dictates all perceived change in our world. Such a hypothesis can in theory be verified by a measuring device that detects whether any two quantum events ever coincide exactly. It predicts that there will always be an (infinitesimal) interval between any two quantum events, such as between the correlated wave function collapse of two entangled photons in the experiments of Aspect et. al. Although (much) faster than the speed of light, non-local quantum phenomena can never exactly coincide. Thus, it is predicted that 'spooky action at a distance' is not instantaneous. An experiment to test this might be feasible, if intervals between non-local entangled quantum events are of some measurable magnitude.

 

Sorry, no more clues..:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The beginning of time did not start with the Big Bang. Time started with the primeval Lord Govinda (Kalpataru Krsnah), the controller of time. This is confirmed in Brahma-samhita(5.40): " I worship Govinda the primeval Lord by whose personal effulgence the unlimited brahmajyoti is manifested. In that brahmajyoti there are innumerable universes and each is filled with innumerable planets."

 

There were not even any "Big Bang"...it´s just a fantasy-theory of the "scientists"... :smash:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Time is just a theoretical concept that we use to mathematically describe change. And our perception of time (or sense of time) derives from our perception of irreversible change in this world.

 

A (mostly) hidden quantum mechanism must necessarily underlie our conscious experience of reality, in order to account for 'quantum non-locality' or the effect of quantum entanglement. All manifest quantum events in our world must then necessarily constitute only a small discontinuous subset or fraction of complete reality.

 

I propose that this underlying mechanism or original quantum principle, is like a conscious point or singularity that continuously describes a complex non-linear (chaotic) and faster-than-light trajectory in space. In fact, the speed of such a 'non-local hidden variable', must be almost infinite (relative to the speed of light) in order to produce all our manifest conscious experience as a limited (discontinuous) subset of its continuously changing state or position in space. This subset could be a particular 'phase-projection' of the original chaotic oscillation itself. Our actual consciousness may then simply be a function of a specific frequency or sound that is present in the oscillation, like a specific higher harmonic tone (Om).

 

Anyway, if such a physical scenario is true, then time doesn’t exist as an actual dimension of reality. Only a specific complex sequential order of manifest quantum events exists, which projects all material structure and dictates all perceived change in our world. Such a hypothesis can in theory be verified by a measuring device that detects whether any two quantum events ever coincide exactly. It predicts that there will always be an (infinitesimal) interval between any two quantum events, such as between the correlated wave function collapse of two entangled photons in the experiments of Aspect et. al. Although (much) faster than the speed of light, non-local quantum phenomena can never exactly coincide. Thus, it is predicted that 'spooky action at a distance' is not instantaneous. An experiment to test this might be feasible, if intervals between non-local entangled quantum events are of some measurable magnitude.

 

Sorry, no more clues..:)

You do shed light, and I believe do have it about right wrt entangled photons. But time does exist, no less than space, so we look to "coincidence" & "singularities" in "Time". Matter occupies space, but not Time. Material singularities exist in Time. But exclusionary principles exclude their extension into space (same time, same space"fusion"). Yog gives me the essence of Time: Absent the occurance of events, Time does not exist ("before" & "after" become meaningless). Coming now to the Brahmastra, in the context of Aspect's work, we could generate a Ca40 <---> K40 transformation to resolve a generated photon entanglement. Would be elegent, depending on the Yogi' s level of discipline. As a practical matter, would have to work with photon frequencies. Would any in Desh care to try the Physics?------------ all the clues worth the printing. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the more spiritually inclined, imho, Time began at the transformation of "Ahm Asti" to "Aham Bhavati". A defining primal event resulting in the union of Being (I) and Ego (am). Thus the primary assertion of being, "I am" (the union of "I", the pure being with "am", the assertion of the pure being's free will), set the universe in motion. For what it is worth, in my most humble opinion. From this too, all physics can be derived, with very practical, testable consequences. We come from "Time", to which we should aspire to return.

 

Om Shanti Om to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You do shed light, and I believe do have it about right wrt entangled photons. But time does exist, no less than space, so we look to "coincidence" & "singularities" in "Time". Matter occupies space, but not Time. Material singularities exist in Time. But exclusionary principles exclude their extension into space (same time, same space"fusion"). Yog gives me the essence of Time: Absent the occurance of events, Time does not exist ("before" & "after" become meaningless).

 

Yes, I think you got it. This 'exclusionary principle' (Maya), is the basis of time. We consciously perceive only specific 'material singularities', that occur in a specific sequential order. Hence, the illusion of duality, change and time.

 

 

Coming now to the Brahmastra, in the context of Aspect's work, we could generate a Ca40 <---> K40 transformation to resolve a generated photon entanglement. Would be elegent, depending on the Yogi' s level of discipline. As a practical matter, would have to work with photon frequencies. Would any in Desh care to try the Physics?------------ all the clues worth the printing.

 

What do you mean? Are you proposing an actual experiment? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Before we go any further, I will need to know more of your background. I have worked on this a long time. I just may need to pass on thru until I find myself in the right circumstances, back in our ancient homeland.

What do you need to know? What right circumstances do you mean? After all, this is public internet..

 

If you have found some ground braking scientific answers to religious questions, I would publish the research in a peer reviewed journal, and I suppose we will hear about it in due time. :) If, however, you have questions or uncertainties concerning the subject matter, we can discuss these here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...