Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

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

"Painius" wrote in message...
...

I'm truly sorry if all this confuses you. This is not my
intention. To ask why anything interests me is to ask
the oak why it grows leaves, and the mysterious lady
why she weeps.

Utter confusion is your's with reversing the delusory and illusory on
the real singularity from where classsification of illusory and
delusory was actually started. I am pretty sure beyond confusion.

Mine is only the confusion of ignorance. Yours seems to
be the confusion of arrogance. Only a small level of this
arrogance to be sure, as seen by your saying, "I am pretty
sure beyond confusion."

There may yet be hope for you, Shastry!

Well, once clasiified starting from the real singularity, the illusory
universe and the delusory creation and evolution, you cannot apply
again this delusory and illusory on real singularity. This way you end
up with utter confusion and war of words.

Your tactic of meaningful repetition is not lost on me.

So this is your example? You compare/equate the real
singularity with "infinite consciousness?" Consciousness,
another term for "awareness," is denied by most of us on
a daily basis... when we sleep. So consciousness, infinite
or otherwise, seems to be a poor interpretation of a
singularity, whether it is a math infinity or a "real" one.

You again confuse consciousness with the everyday awareness. Awareness
as understood by you needs you, the observer and also the observed.
During sleep this awareness may be absent but not the consciousness.
Consciousness is that singular point existence, the real or
mathematical singularity, based on which the whole of the universe is
merely observed as illusory. And so, consciousness is the exact
recognition of singularity.

I am so sorry that i have absolutely no such recognition. In
fact, i can only recognize that without evidence, there is no
way in heaven nor hell i can accept the existence of any kind
of singularity outside of pure mathematics.

So it appears to be more meaningful to continue on with
logic, with reality that we can observe in our awareness,
and with seeking out the benefits and horrors of the
quantum potential. There is energy in all of us Shastry.
Whether it is potential only, or we turn it into kinetic E to
do something useful, is up to us as individuals.

Before continuing with meaningful logic of your awareness, seeking out
benefits and horrors of.., energy, etc, it is necessary to know from
where all these things seem to spring. It is from this singularity or
consciousness as explained above.

It is no more necessary to know from where all these things
seem to spring than it is know from where the electrons
spring that power your electric lamp. It is sufficient to know
where the switch is.

Of course, it is always meaningful (if not necessary) to
search for the spring from which all things flow. My search
has led me away from a singularity as being far too easy to
refute, and far to difficult to imagine.

I shall not deny the possibility of an infinite consciousness.
I cannot accept its reality without evidence. You got any?

What evidence? Do you doubt the reality of your own innermost infinite
consciousness?

I have read of it, but no, 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 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.

S S Shastry

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."

One can only derive a singularity using pure mathematics.
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. 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.

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.

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

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
A smidgeon of fear, a sprinkle of strife
And a whole lot of love till your cold...
Everyone here wants to live a long life,
But nobody wants to get old.

Paine Ellsworth

Paine,
Looks like 'ol Shas is hopelessly deadlocked, and in that
he is unanymous.

He rejects the Big Bang, has no concept of the spatial medium, and
espouses some nebulous concept of "singuarity", not clarifying whether
that means a point-source object or a _state of_ singularity. O well.
oc

Paine,
Looks like 'ol Shas is hopelessly deadlocked, and in that
he is unanymous.

He rejects the Big Bang, has no concept of the spatial medium, and
espouses some nebulous concept of "singuarity", not clarifying whether
that means a point-source object or a _state of_ singularity. O well.
oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Paine,
Looks like 'ol Shas is hopelessly deadlocked, and in that
he is unanymous.

He rejects the Big Bang, has no concept of the spatial medium, and
espouses some nebulous concept of "singuarity", not clarifying whether
that means a point-source object or a _state of_ singularity. O well.
oc

Maybe this is why we seem to be getting along... i rejected
the Big Bang long ago, but i used to think it was because i
just didn't understand it very well. Over the years, reading
about it and hashing out some stuff in this group, i find that i
*still* reject it. Frankly, i believe it raises more questions
than it answers. And i find this unhealthy in a theory. It looks
like the BB, as it exists today, is soon to be dramatically
altered. And not soon enough for me.

As for the singularity, Shastry makes the argument that all of
us are suffering the delusions brought about by the illusion
that springs from the "real singularity." And yet he cannot
seem to explain why he is the only one who can see through
the veil into the heart of the singularity. Without such an
explanation, he unfortunately comes off sounding a bit too
religious for science with a smattering of "broken record"
thrown in...

I bet if he writes a book, it'll be a best-seller! g He can
just repeat each chapter over and over again. People will
simply love the "chanting" aspect.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Sweet home, oh Precious Earth,
The ONLY home we know,
Tell us what you need of worth,
And we can make it so.

Do you want our hearts to beat
And thrive within your air?
Then teach us what we know we need
So we may try to care.

Paine Ellsworth

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Paine,
Looks like 'ol Shas is hopelessly deadlocked, and in that
he is unanymous.

He rejects the Big Bang, has no concept of the spatial medium, and
espouses some nebulous concept of "singuarity", not clarifying whether
that means a point-source object or a _state of_ singularity. O well.
oc

Maybe this is why we seem to be getting along... i rejected
the Big Bang long ago, but i used to think it was because i
just didn't understand it very well. Over the years, reading
about it and hashing out some stuff in this group, i find that i
*still* reject it. Frankly, i believe it raises more questions
than it answers. And i find this unhealthy in a theory. It looks
like the BB, as it exists today, is soon to be dramatically
altered. And not soon enough for me.

As for the singularity, Shastry makes the argument that all of
us are suffering the delusions brought about by the illusion
that springs from the "real singularity." And yet he cannot
seem to explain why he is the only one who can see through
the veil into the heart of the singularity. Without such an
explanation, he unfortunately comes off sounding a bit too
religious for science with a smattering of "broken record"
thrown in...

I bet if he writes a book, it'll be a best-seller! g He can
just repeat each chapter over and over again. People will
simply love the "chanting" aspect.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Sweet home, oh Precious Earth,
The ONLY home we know,
Tell us what you need of worth,
And we can make it so.

Do you want our hearts to beat
And thrive within your air?
Then teach us what we know we need
So we may try to care.

Paine Ellsworth

Hi oc Painius The BB theory is not going to go away very soon. I can't
see why it is not excepted at this spacetime,for it answers such hard
questions. Till something better comes along that is closer to reality
we have to except the BB,and blackholes. Bert PS Mini-bangs are
also nice to think about

Hi oc Painius The BB theory is not going to go away very soon. I can't
see why it is not excepted at this spacetime,for it answers such hard
questions. Till something better comes along that is closer to reality
we have to except the BB,and blackholes. Bert PS Mini-bangs are
also nice to think about

From Painius:

I rejected the Big Bang long ago,...

Wow, i wouldn't have known.

I believe it raises more questions than it
answers.

What about if it were subsumed (but not negated) by a larger,
overarching model?
oc

From Painius:

I rejected the Big Bang long ago,...

Wow, i wouldn't have known.

I believe it raises more questions than it
answers.

What about if it were subsumed (but not negated) by a larger,
overarching model?
oc

From Painius:

Frankly, i believe it (the BB) raises more
questions than it answers. And i find this
unhealthy in a theory. It looks like the
BB, as it exists today, is soon to be
dramatically altered. And not soon
enough for me.

Out of curiosity Paine, what aspect(s) of the BB model do you find
objectionable? Is it the "everything coming out of nothing" enigma?
What i see as most needful in the present model is
clarification of exactly *what* came out of the BB, carrying matter
along for the ride. It is said that "space" or "spacetime" expanded out,
yet paradoxically space is considered 'nothingness' or 'void'. This
appears to be the biggest enigma of the present BB model. oc