46 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Imagination can be a route to a viable idea even with a lack of knowledge.

Yes and you are asking us to respect your imagination.

Do you think you have shown due respect to the short piece of help I offered ?

Only you don't seem to have read it very well.

1 hour ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

If such a field existed, before any divergent force that caused any change, there would be no time, and therefore it would be a point of infinite time, and time would become emergent relative to the evolution from this point onwards.

I will get more stick no doubt but I am a stubborn thick skinned primate, so I can easily look past someone calling my rantings sh**t in any form.

I get your frustration, you probably deal with hundreds of us bedroom know-it-alls trying to tell you their crackpot ideas as if they are right. I however don't mind admitting I know sh*t atm, stress atm and am on a steep learning curve.

I said that. It wasn't Studiot. You headed the quote with "Studiot said".

I didn't say anything was sh*t.

On the other hand, let's consider this:

If such a field existed, before any divergent force that caused any change, there would be no time, and therefore it would be a point of infinite time, and time would become emergent relative to the evolution from this point onwards.

So before time, there would be no time, but there would be infinite time, and time would emerge, and then it would proceed as usual. This is like landing upside down after a logical somersault. Not much sense to be found here.

Again, points have no extension, so you can't have anything be "uniform throughout" a singularity.

6 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

You have shut down the idea with only reference to my lack of know-how, and ‘you are simply making sh*t up’.

This isn't quite correct. It's not your lack of knowledge in general. MigL gave you a very detailed post about why your idea doesn't match what we observe. How does your intuition deal with that?

Ideas don't get shut down based on who has them. The idea either stands up to scrutiny or it doesn't.

Your lack of science knowledge causes misunderstandings, but the real problem with any scientific idea is that it HAS to agree with what we've observed. The laws and principles being referred to in this thread have been tested an untold number of times, so any new hypothesis has to take them into account. We don't mind so much that you don't know them, but when your explanation is questioned or shown false, can your intuition magically make your idea suddenly fit the experiments that have been done?

Don't make the rookie mistake of thinking theory means guess.

Sorry, i know you didn’t, that was mistake as I keep getting signed out so sorry for that.

In reply to you I was only trying to answer your post about a singularity being a point in time. I just don’t see time exists at tjis point so it cant be a point in time, nor a point, but a singular field, force, energy. What do you call the state of the universe before the big bang?

‘…. points have no extension, so you can't have anything be "uniform throughout" a singularity.’ ….to be fair would this not say that whatever the state from which all things are formed, inherently need to have a force that forces a change and so kickstart the whole universe.

I think you are saying that such a singularity uniform thoughout cannot exist within the forces dictated by observed science, but this singularity from which these forces emerge, is not bound by them, they have not err chrystalised, been set, formed….

Studiot, I respect your help. I didn't respect your tone but you did say sorry. I have not told you that you are wrong, where you have to me, nor have I said I am ignoring your advice. I just haven’t acted upon it yet. So yes respect my imagination and I will carry on respecting your knowledge.

Hi Phi, oh, i thought he was saying that all tests and observation so far, nor our current understanding could answer what happens when a star collapses into a black whole, or we rewind the universe to a singularity. Neither, probably due to my ignorance, do I see how my idea goes against any of the science already proven/observed.

I think therefore the entire reason I posted here was my intuition feels I might have a helpful way to see things from a different angle (maybe as I am free of the constraints of scientific knowledge).

As pointed out, it is because the math ends up in infinities that don’t work that science knows it has not found the answer. I am, be it backwards, trying to find what we know/observe (the science)can emerge from the infinity that I see as the start of everything.

I thought the place to discuss this was here as I am trying to, and believe my idea does agree with what we/you observe. My observation seems to be blind to many things that would say NO that can't happen, so until I learn them, i will keep an open mind.

Question for everyone, what infinite do you believe in? Something has always existed even before the 13 billion years since the universe is said to have begun, or the infinite nothing, or do you ignore it as science cant do anything about it yet?

Edited September 17Sep 17 by BuddhasDragon23

1 hour ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Question for everyone, what infinite do you believe in? Something has always existed even before the 13 billion years since the universe is said to have begun, or the infinite nothing, or do you ignore it as science cant do anything about it yet?

If It can't be measured, observed in any way, or gives non-sensical results ( singularities/infinities ), it is best to ignore it.
To do otherwise would be guessing ( notice I didn't sat 'making up sh*t' ).

What would have existed before time existed ?
The 'before' is non-sensical; I have no observations, can make no measurements, nor gather any other information, regarding the universe's state prior to the beginning of the Big Bang evolution.
I could let my 'imagination' run wild, make a wild-ass-guess, and say Thanos snapped his infinity-stone-gloved fingers and made it all happen.
Would you be satisfied with that ??

So why would we be satisfied with your imaginative guess ?

Lol, did you like the way I did include your opinion as an option out of my 3.

Errr, why would you be satisfied with my imaginative guess?

satisfied? You should never be satisfied until you can answer everything, let alone my rantings.

Maybe taking a leap of fantasy is worth it.

Maybe coz you being of greater knowledge might see something in the words of fools.

If I had a problem, and no-one else in my field could help, then maybe I would be happy to listen to every crazy fool that had an idea how to help. I would also be prepared to reevaluate my current knowledge in case of errors and maybe see a possible new path based on the fantasy that might prove to be a real solution.

maybe i would even go through one of these ideas and discus showing 1, i understood what they were trying to say, 2 say where they could be right as well as wrong 3 say where there is no way of knowing, 4 define if anything had potential even if of no help at the current time etc etc. I have not forced anyone to accept my idea, nor will I.

As for Thano clicking his fingers, come on, Thanos was born after the big bang so that just wont work will it now, unless he used the time stone to travel back to before, clicked everything into existence and Thanos is god :o

Edited September 17Sep 17 by BuddhasDragon23

3 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

I think therefore the entire reason I posted here was my intuition feels I might have a helpful way to see things from a different angle (maybe as I am free of the constraints of scientific knowledge).

This is fairly common, that feeling after you read a popular science article that the questions posed there represent a mystery that lies just out of reach of even the author. Pop-sci authors are practically required to embellish and make things sound more mysterious and spooky, drawing readers in where dry textbooks can't. But the textbooks are where accuracy lies, and vagueness disappears if you're willing to put in the effort.

The biggest problem with learning science in a non-formal way is that this vagueness and mystery encourages you to fill in the gaps in your knowledge with whatever works, whatever makes the most sense to you. This means your ideas are ALWAYS going to sound plausible, since they're based solely on the science you know stitched together with concepts you make up to explain a given phenomenon. You become convinced that you don't need to study science formally, that it might indeed be a hindrance for your intuition, a "constraint" placed upon you by hidebound academics.

I know very little about drilling for oil. If I read some articles about it, studied it a bit on the internet, do you think I could figure out a better way to extract oil from the ground? Something I could approach a big oil company with, something that took into account all the processes, resources, and experiences required? I think I'd run up against things I didn't know, so I'd look them up and try to figure them out, and if I couldn't understand what they were talking about, I'd use my intuition to make a semi-educated guess. Right or wrong, I'd then base the next steps of my idea on that guess, and I'd keep doing that, perhaps making more guesses and continuing to build an idea on a foundation made of things I know and things I made up. The chances of me discovering something useful that way are pretty small, so wouldn't I be better off using the free resources available to me to learn the knowledge already accumulated about the subject?

11 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

What are you trying to achieve with your posts. At least the others are criticising constructively.

I am also trying to be constructive also.

My point is you need to have knowledge to make meaningful guesses about the unknown questions in science.

In order to think outside the box, learn what is in the box first.

( Not my quote but I thought it appropriate)

Yes, and I have accepted this already, I have only been replying to questions put forwards since.

No need to repeat that message again, thx

Still TBH it won’t change that I trust my intuition on this, my delusional rabbit hole is still pulling me in, but I fall with open eyes and won’t be broken when I learn how wrong I am. Feel bad for scientists that spend their lives chasing their errors until one day a single observation proves them wrong :(

4 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Still TBH it won’t change that I trust my intuition on this,

Your intuition is based on your knowledge and experiences of the world, these will have many things in common with all of us as a species.

That intuition is great for our macro world but not so good and often useless regarding science.

Evolution is completely counterintuitive, QM/QT bears no resemblance to the world we live in.

The beginning of the universe, the thing you are discussing, bears no resemblance to anything you have either read or experienced.

Yes, ignorant me wouldn’t have a clue how to devise a new form of math that can redefine infinity and singularities, not as break in the theories of physics, but as a real tangible quantities. Can’t even comprehend formulating how to handle calculations of infinite fluctuations at infinite points at the same time to illustrate how a uniform singularity would evolve into the universe described by current scientific understanding. I guess my intuition is only based ion 1+1 is 2 then.

3 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

redefine infinity and singularities, not as break in the theories of physics, but as a real tangible quantities

That's a good example, "infinity" is not a quantity, it is a concept.

So my hypothesis should be something like… if singularities or an infinite state are not just concepts, they should be measurable in some way. By formulating math able to cope with infinites and singularities, scientific methods could make predictions of how energy falling/fallen into a black hole become (i think this is the term)a superposition of states, or how in the case of the big bang a uniforms singularity can transition because of fluctuations and predict how such processes would result in the universe we can observe and measure…?

17 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

So my hypothesis should be something like… if singularities or an infinite state are not just concepts, they should be measurable in some way. By formulating math able to cope with infinites and singularities, scientific methods could make predictions of how energy falling/fallen into a black hole become (i think this is the term)a superposition of states, or how in the case of the big bang a uniforms singularity can transition because of fluctuations and predict how such processes would result in the universe we can observe and measure…?

These are much more coherent thoughts.

17 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

By formulating math able to cope with infinites and singularities,

But what makes you think this hasn't already been done in mathematics?

10 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

I guess my intuition is only based ion 1+1 is 2 then.

Is this the problem?

It is a fact that all members here are communicating using real material electrons chips that can only provide a different answer to that sum.

Edited September 19Sep 19 by studiot

1 hour ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

an infinite state are not just concepts, they should be measurable in some way

I would check out set theory and guys like Cantor.

No they are not more coherent thoughts, they are the same, it is just I am learning how to discuss them with fanatics of the scientific method (ps joking), but tbh you guys do sound a touch like the religious fanatics (not joking) but unlike them your fanaticism is based on unwavering logic and reason. My world embraces both, and the truth is often found somewhere between two opposing factions that are so well entrenched. You wont like that will you. Oh well i said now and cant bring myself to delete it.

i have heard of Cantor a d set theory but yeah the math is a big hurdle atm.

why i think it hasn’t happened yet? Coz of the reasons you have stated, singularities and infinities are an inherent flaw in the math and understanding at this point in scientific theory. I disagree, and so am willing to try, you dont seem to be or are looking to answer it with the wrong tools.

21 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

i have heard of Cantor a d set theory but yeah the math is a big hurdle atm

Yes it is not easy. For the record, I am not a PhD I am a BSc and work as a technologist, a lot of the guys on here have higher degrees and doctorates.

So like you, I am still working my way through some of the formalism of these concepts. Sometimes that journey led to a brick wall because I am simply not smart enough to read a text on the subject without support, the mathematics is too difficult for me.

Realising this and the fact that certain subjects are out of touch is humbling but also liberating because I know there is work to be done! Finding this stuff out is real fun but speculation about the beginning of the universe is Usain Bolt level.

"One two three infinity" by George Gamow is a great little book. It gives you a glimpse of the journey Mathematics took in the last 200 years.

34 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

I disagree, and so am willing to try, you dont seem to be or are looking to answer it with the wrong tools.

As i stated before, i am trying to be constructive, positive BUT realistic.

If you use the quote function or reply, I will get an alert. FYI

1 hour ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

No they are not more coherent thoughts, they are the same, it is just I am learning how to discuss them with fanatics of the scientific method (ps joking), but tbh you guys do sound a touch like the religious fanatics (not joking) but unlike them your fanaticism is based on unwavering logic and reason. My world embraces both, and the truth is often found somewhere between two opposing factions that are so well entrenched. You wont like that will you. Oh well i said now and cant bring myself to delete it.

i have heard of Cantor a d set theory but yeah the math is a big hurdle atm.

why i think it hasn’t happened yet? Coz of the reasons you have stated, singularities and infinities are an inherent flaw in the math and understanding at this point in scientific theory. I disagree, and so am willing to try, you dont seem to be or are looking to answer it with the wrong tools.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

It is a fact that all members here are communicating using real material electrons chips that can only provide a different answer to that sum.

Do you honestly find it uninteresting to learn that our whole IT technology rests on devices that do not make 1 + 1 = 2 ?

You computer would not work without these devices.

As regards infinities and singularities, you whole world is surrouinded by them but since you seem unwilling to discuss them I can only think you don't want to know more about them.

Testing testing, Mork calling Orson, come in Orson, come in #1990 this is quantum control.

Studiot, you not all built your own quantum computers then? Wow, thought you guyz knew your sh*t.

Willing to talk about singularities and infinities till the cows come home when someone finds them in the box where the cat was thought to have possibly been.

16 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Testing testing, Mork calling Orson, come in Orson, come in #1990 this is quantum control.

As I honestly do not know what an Orson or a Mork is I am going to do the obvious thing and ask.

What is an Orson and a Mork ?

Twas a program from the late 70s I think, Mork was an alien who came to earth in an egg, played by ronin williams. Orson was his boss (a bit like the big head in 3rd rock from the sun)

Robin Wiiliams

I answered that as a genuine question, but I am also guessing the sarcasm you have exhibited is the true purpose. Ps, i like it

54 minutes ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Willing to talk about singularities and infinities till the cows come home when someone finds them in the box where the cat was thought to have possibly been.

So what do you want to know about either ?

what are they? Why do they differ from black hole singularities or the one at the centre of the universe. Are they still theoretical entities and if not why are their states different from BH etc that allow you to accept them. Do you mean quanta like photons? I got the time if you do.

Ohhh,

Errr quick change of topic, if allowed, but there are voids evident in the CMB, that have existed from inflation. Would dark energy be more abundant in these regions than in the voids in other denser regions, between the dark matter and matter making up the cosmic web, and therefore these areas of space would be expanding faster?

Oops, centre of the universe that was in error, please i aware there is no centre

1 hour ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

No they are not more coherent thoughts, they are the same, it is just I am learning how to discuss them with fanatics of the scientific method (ps joking), but tbh you guys do sound a touch like the religious fanatics (not joking) but unlike them your fanaticism is based on unwavering logic and reason. My world embraces both, and the truth is often found somewhere between two opposing factions that are so well entrenched. You wont like that will you. Oh well i said now and cant bring myself to delete it.

I understand. It makes you feel pretty special to think you've discovered a shortcut that means you don't have to be rigorous about your study of science. You have so much clever that you actually work better without textbooks, and you have the answers to everything that science doesn't know, or at least a methodology that capitalizes on your intuition for any explanation. You insist you're correct in this pursuit of Truth, to the point of calling others fanatical and unwavering.

We're going to have a hard time showing you the specifics of where you're wrong, simply because you won't understand a mainstream critique. You say your "world embraces both", but wrt science, it's more of a brief handshake, isn't it? You haven't "embraced" the study of science as much as you've rejected it. You've embraced using intuition (which is just guesswork without the actual knowledge) rather than take advantage of accumulated human knowledge, and that seems counterintuitive to me. The theories we use today work within their defined parameters, plain and simple. We can predict where an asteroid will be so a spacecraft can be launched to land on it successfully. Can your intuition calculate the height of a geosynchronous orbit?

You may be a bit hung up on infinities and singularities. They basically show us that our maths fail us at extreme distances, densities, and energy levels, but that's not an indication that our theories are wrong, just that our equations stop working. We don't really think the universe goes on forever.

Ooo you know how to twist things out of context dont you. Well done and re read. Said I don't believe i am right, in have an intuition i am. I wouldn't be here if i didn't respect science and those that dedicate their lives to it. As for you opinion of me and my ego, you don't know me do you. I happily don't give a fk about your opinion of me and my ego is only dependent on how lucky i am to be alive. I value scratching my butt equal to any concept of universal theory. Please don't try and imply different.

That doesn't mean i devalue such theory, but i would put money on i appreciate and enjoy scratching my butt more than you would winning a Nobel prize.. never have i heard such a gratuitous use of the word but.

geosynchronous orbit? I would rather put it work calculating how to use the mass of asteroids or other planetary bodies as gravity tractors to speed up the earth without creating too much jerk, snap crackle n pop to tear the planet apart or send the moon flying into space, and at a rate the expanding red giant that will become out sun wont burn the planet to a crisp (ps this is a backup if the natural migration of planet/s is not enough. If you had not realised im talking about increasing the orbit distance of the Earth from the sun.