Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote...
in message om...

. . . i have no basis from which to
accept that there is such a thing as an infinite consciousness
within me. Those who have supposedly reached this level
of so-called enlightenment are apparently self-deluded. It
is the epitome of hubris to think that humans are capable of
anything more than what we can accomplish in our lifetimes...
however long those lifetimes may be.

It is sufficient to know that your consciousness has the reach even
beyond the universe. What is beyond(!) universe?

I disagree. It is *not* sufficient just to "know" this. If my
consciousness has this power, this "reach" even beyond
the universe, then knowing this must be *much* more
than mere blind acceptance of this as fact. For once you
go to try to prove this to yourself, you find out either that
you have been temporarily delusional (and the truth snaps
you out of it), or you don't find out a thing... you simply
wind up in a mental health institution... or you commit
suicide.

So i must ask you to be very careful, Shastry, should you
ever attempt to prove that you yourself have this power.

Wouldn't want to lose you!

It is from this singular consciousness the whole universe 'seems' to
originate as illusory. As such, there is no need of creation and
evolution for such an illusory universe.

And so, bigbang(or other) creation and evolution can neither be
persued in science nor can they be taught as science in schools and
colleges.

You seem very sure of yourself on this part. And cheers
to you for your persistence. But as i have mentioned many
times... this is all part of your personal delusion. No one,
NOBODY on Earth knows the makeup of the real universe.
We have not experienced it yet.

We have only that which we can measure, Shastry. If
we cannot measure it, then it has only a shadow of
meaning. If it can be derived, then you are halfway
"there." If it can be measured, then you have "arrived."

You cannot depend only on the measurements, the nature of the universe
has to be known at first to determine how far can they be depended
upon.

There may be more truth in this your statement than science
would care to accept. However, *if* the alternative is to sit
around all day praying and meditating, or "contemplating" my
smelly belly button, then i'm afraid that i would prefer to do
the measurements.

One can only derive a singularity using pure mathematics.

Singularity is not derived it occurs at zero point.

A singularity most certainly *can* be derived by math and by
science. This is how we originally theorized the existence of
singularities in nature, which then led us to reverse time and in
our minds envision the Big Bang origin of the universe. You,
my friend, would have never even heard of the word "singularity"
if it hadn't been for its origin in astronomy. And this brings me
to an interesting point...

If astronomy had never invented the term "singularity," what
would you be calling it in this conversation?

So the first half of our trek is done. The second half is
trickier, for we must find a meaningful way to measure
a singularity, and then we must find a singularity and
measure it.

Measurement of singularity?

If this sounds odd to you, it is because we have not yet come
up with a way to sense a singularity in nature. Yes, we have
designed ways that we think allow us to find and measure
things like neutron stars and black holes, but these are not
technically singularities... they are natural objects that seem to
be very similar... sort of "almost" singularities. Yet until we are
able to firmly theorize what happened in the first few
nanomoments of the Big Bang and before, we will stay in the
dark where measurements of a real singularity are concerned.

To accept the existence of a singularity
without painstakingly measuring it to confirm its actual
properties is to chase after wild geese, while the family
stays at home and starves.

How can anyone measure singularity?

Our gut feeling is that we are on the right track when we
study things like neutron stars and black holes. Closer
studies of such natural "almost" singularities might shed
light on what to look for in a real singularity. Frankly, it
is my unscientific insistence and opinion that the search
for a singularity in nature, and therefore the theory of a
singularity erupting into a Big Bang type of creation, is
as productive as a castrated bull.

Such theorizing is just too cut and dried, and yet too
complex and difficult to understand to be the natural
way our universe came into being.

So just as it is meaningful to know the origins of the
great river that sustains the population, it is meaningful
for science to learn the origins of the universe. And it
is natural for people to impart their ideas to students
in hopes that one or more of them will build upon this
knowledge and win victories for all humanity.

One cannot win victories on delusory teachings.

Then, since victories *have* been won over the past
centuries of human existence, we must conclude that
these teachings are not delusory. We must conclude
that the more we learn about what you are calling
"illusory" and "delusory," the better equipped we are
to fight and to win the battles of humanity.

And if you are proposing that we sheeply accept that
this is not true, then what is your alternative? What
future actions are you suggesting that we members of
humanity take to fall into this, your own version of how
the universe works and how we must behave?

What victories can you bring to the world that may
spring from your esoteric and mysterious singularity?

What victories can you bring to the world which deludes you as to
believe in (bigbang or other)creation and evolution?

And so, wake up and smell the.....in creation and evolution!

S S Shastry

These subjects, "big bangs" and in general, creation
and evolution (religion and science) inject a "tension"
into people. If nothing else, they compel people to
think. And there is much good in thinking... i think.
Don't you think?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
a Secret of the Universe...
so please don't breathe a word of this--
the Moon above will smile perverse
whene'er it sees true lovers kiss;
(breathe not a single word of this!)

Paine Ellsworth

From Painius (to Shas):

If astronomy had never invented the term "singularity," what would you
be calling it in this conversation?

It looks like he's lifted the term 'singularity' from the modern lexicon
and used it synonymously with the _object_ of the ancient yogic
disciplines. Namely, a 'yoking' or a union with the Absolute, Atman, or
'the Divine'. It's a state of blissed-out consciousness variously called
'Samadhi', 'Satori', Shakti, 'Holy Ghost' etc. etc.
Ol' Shas however, comes across tellng *about* that
state while never having experienced it.. much like a blind man, blind
from birth, talking *about* sightedness while having never having had
sight.
In short, Shas sounds like a Westerner who's taken a
Hindi name and is trying to "play guru" without having a clue how to
achieve the experience of Singularity he espouses. oc

From Painius (to Shas):

If astronomy had never invented the term "singularity," what would you
be calling it in this conversation?

It looks like he's lifted the term 'singularity' from the modern lexicon
and used it synonymously with the _object_ of the ancient yogic
disciplines. Namely, a 'yoking' or a union with the Absolute, Atman, or
'the Divine'. It's a state of blissed-out consciousness variously called
'Samadhi', 'Satori', Shakti, 'Holy Ghost' etc. etc.
Ol' Shas however, comes across tellng *about* that
state while never having experienced it.. much like a blind man, blind
from birth, talking *about* sightedness while having never having had
sight.
In short, Shas sounds like a Westerner who's taken a
Hindi name and is trying to "play guru" without having a clue how to
achieve the experience of Singularity he espouses. oc

(snip)
Now, from my posts in this and connected thread, it is up to you to
recognise the singularity as real, the universe as illusory and so,
its creation and evolution as delusory, without mixing them up adding
to your confusion. Your arguments about the measurements,
unfortunately, cannot make the illusory universe, real. As such,
delusory creation and evolution are inevitable in the illusory
universe.

And so, Painius, wake up and smell the.......in creation and evolution
of the universe.

S S Shastry

(snip)
Now, from my posts in this and connected thread, it is up to you to
recognise the singularity as real, the universe as illusory and so,
its creation and evolution as delusory, without mixing them up adding
to your confusion. Your arguments about the measurements,
unfortunately, cannot make the illusory universe, real. As such,
delusory creation and evolution are inevitable in the illusory
universe.

And so, Painius, wake up and smell the.......in creation and evolution
of the universe.

S S Shastry

(Bill Sheppard) wrote in message ...
From Painius (to Shas):

If astronomy had never invented the term "singularity," what would you
be calling it in this conversation?

It looks like he's lifted the term 'singularity' from the modern lexicon
and used it synonymously with the _object_ of the ancient yogic
disciplines. Namely, a 'yoking' or a union with the Absolute, Atman, or
'the Divine'. It's a state of blissed-out consciousness variously called
'Samadhi', 'Satori', Shakti, 'Holy Ghost' etc. etc.
Ol' Shas however, comes across tellng *about* that
state while never having experienced it.. much like a blind man, blind
from birth, talking *about* sightedness while having never having had
sight.
In short, Shas sounds like a Westerner who's taken a
Hindi name and is trying to "play guru" without having a clue how to
achieve the experience of Singularity he espouses. oc


It is unfair to make personal remarks on me while you, Shep, are
unable to understand the real meaning of singularity and its
relationship with the illusory universe. In fact, it is you who is
playing guru misunderstanding the ancient wisdom.

What is singularity after all? Is it not nonduality? If the present
day physics has not recognised it appropriately, you cannot say the
word is lifted from the misinterpreted singularity of physics.

Well, one can only know the things as they are. What do you mean,
repeatedly, by experiencing singularity? You cannot experience the
singularity. In singuarity there is neither the observer nor the
observed, only the singularity which already follows when you know
that the universe is illusory. One cannot be blind to this knowledge
looking for mysterious experiences which are never even meant. And so,
there is knowledge and not the experience of singularity of the blind
by birth or not.

S S Shastry

(Bill Sheppard) wrote in message ...
From Painius (to Shas):

If astronomy had never invented the term "singularity," what would you
be calling it in this conversation?

It looks like he's lifted the term 'singularity' from the modern lexicon
and used it synonymously with the _object_ of the ancient yogic
disciplines. Namely, a 'yoking' or a union with the Absolute, Atman, or
'the Divine'. It's a state of blissed-out consciousness variously called
'Samadhi', 'Satori', Shakti, 'Holy Ghost' etc. etc.
Ol' Shas however, comes across tellng *about* that
state while never having experienced it.. much like a blind man, blind
from birth, talking *about* sightedness while having never having had
sight.
In short, Shas sounds like a Westerner who's taken a
Hindi name and is trying to "play guru" without having a clue how to
achieve the experience of Singularity he espouses. oc


It is unfair to make personal remarks on me while you, Shep, are
unable to understand the real meaning of singularity and its
relationship with the illusory universe. In fact, it is you who is
playing guru misunderstanding the ancient wisdom.

What is singularity after all? Is it not nonduality? If the present
day physics has not recognised it appropriately, you cannot say the
word is lifted from the misinterpreted singularity of physics.

Well, one can only know the things as they are. What do you mean,
repeatedly, by experiencing singularity? You cannot experience the
singularity. In singuarity there is neither the observer nor the
observed, only the singularity which already follows when you know
that the universe is illusory. One cannot be blind to this knowledge
looking for mysterious experiences which are never even meant. And so,
there is knowledge and not the experience of singularity of the blind
by birth or not.

S S Shastry

Hi Painius A singularity comes out of our ability to trace the evolving
done by gravity back in time. It takes us to the very beginning of
creation. When space and time were a point. We call this point by
giving it a name,and its name is "singularity" Painius thinking back
in time is like running a motion picture backwards lets go back
where gravity has created an "accretion disk" We visualize this disk as
a cloud of matter swirling around(vortex) and going into a
blackhole(yes) Now lets go with this added ending thought. The
accretion disk has squeezed matter so hard that it takes up no room as
relative to the macro universe. This infinite small size is inside the
inner dimensions of the quantum fabric of space. It fits Bert PS
I'm using the word matter here,but thinking only of sub-microscopic
particles that make up the structure of quarks.

Hi Painius A singularity comes out of our ability to trace the evolving
done by gravity back in time. It takes us to the very beginning of
creation. When space and time were a point. We call this point by
giving it a name,and its name is "singularity" Painius thinking back
in time is like running a motion picture backwards lets go back
where gravity has created an "accretion disk" We visualize this disk as
a cloud of matter swirling around(vortex) and going into a
blackhole(yes) Now lets go with this added ending thought. The
accretion disk has squeezed matter so hard that it takes up no room as
relative to the macro universe. This infinite small size is inside the
inner dimensions of the quantum fabric of space. It fits Bert PS
I'm using the word matter here,but thinking only of sub-microscopic
particles that make up the structure of quarks.

From Shas:

You, coot, are unable to understand the
real meaning of singularity... What is
singularity after all?

The current void-space paradigm(VSP) which is the bedrock axiom of
science, deals in the plethora of disparate _effects_ with no
recognition of One Force as _cause_ of all effects. The Unified Field of
Spatial Flows recognizes that One Force as the 'supra-cosmic
overpressure'(SCO), driving the flow of space into all atomic nucleii,
generating the _effects_ we call the fundamental forces, and making the
universe do everything that it does.
Recognizing the reality of the spatial medium and the
SCO, then, would be one definition of 'Singularity'.
The other definition of singularity would be that
'dimensionless' point at the core of every proton and black hole that
'vents' into the 'ground state' from whence the BB emerges.

But under the VSP, there is only a universe of diverse and disparate
effects, no _cause_ , no unification, no 'Singularity'.

,,,you cannot say the word is lifted from
the misinterpreted singularity of physics.

Well where did you lift it from then? oc