Big Bang Theory. Time. To Revise.

#1
Does anyone else think this is a load of crap idea? Use your Time to revise.

It's cute when Scientists pull out numbers telling you what happened 13.82 billion years ago. After all, 63.5% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.

It wasn't 13.83 billion years ago, Sir.
I know. I was there. Those first hundred thousand years, so boring.

And Earth, it's 4.5 Billion years old. I remember it clearly. Not 4.6 billion years. That was 100 thousand of years after. Much different era.

Want to be told what happened 2.93 million years ago?
Want to know what happened 7.263 billion years ago?

Ask Scientists. They'll tell you. Neil De Grass Tyson was in a TV space ship and he saw it all.


There was No Earth 5 billion year ago, so how can we measure the whole thing on a system of Earth orbiting the Sun?

What happens to matter without a witness?
Aren't things emerging at every point all of the time?

Time is in the Mind. Clickety-click ;).

 
Last edited:
#2
I feel that in recent decades scientists have felt driven to publish and publish and publish. This has lead to a situations in which tentative ideas have simply been accepted as fact when they have been around long enough. The problem is that successive layers of science - particularly theoretical physics - build on the previous layers. The result may be that by now, whole areas of science may be rubbish.

This likely includes the Big Bang. Theorists seriously discuss what went on 10^(-33) seconds after the big bang! My understanding is that inflation was invented (not discovered) and so it is now taken as fact that the whole universe emerged from nothing and expanded exponentially fast! Yeah - why not say we don't know?

David
 
#3
In the same way that you have that feeling maybe you do know the answer.

If you didn't have to prove anything, and I didn't put you down for following what your heart tells you, what would you say makes sense?

I have a story.
 
Last edited:
#4
Does anyone else think this is a load of crap idea
I agree with your points (mostly) but I also see that from where standard science is many of the conclusions are understandable. And even though time is not a fundamental condition - it is generally perceived as that within physical systems. So . . yeah.

One critique of the BB that no one has managed to get around is - what was there to explode? IOW, even if such an expansion occurred there had to be something or some condition that instantiated it.
 
#5
The sense of time is dependent on information. As more information is created, the greater the sense of time, since time is dependent on its association with information (matter being an aspect of this). Time and information are inversely proportional. i.e. An increase in the rate of information flow translates to an experience of the slowing of time. Less information equals less time (eg. an acceleration of time). No information equals no time. An information-less existence is a timeless existence (as in the 'moments' prior to the supposed Big Bang).
 
#6
The sense of time is dependent on information. As more information is created, the greater the sense of time, since time is dependent on its association with information (matter being an aspect of this). Time and information are inversely proportional..
So long as you realize that's all just "what if." There is no "the sense of time" in any generalized way, there's each individual's perception of time. More accurately there is the individual's experience of how they are configuring a perspective called time. It seems off to opine that the rate of info equals a slowing of time as rate is a measure that is meaningless without time. We could also point out that a perceived slowing of time will - all other things reaming the same - result in an apparent greater rate of flow of info. So there's a chicken/egg factor. Perhaps you mean an increase in the quantity of information.. At least that approach won't render the contention null before discussion.

As I perceive, time and information as actualities are not directly connected. And I'd posit that an individual's sense of time is no more time than an individual's sense of heat is the temperature. Also. if there was no info of any sort there couldn't be a BB.
 
#7
So long as you realize that's all just "what if." There is no "the sense of time" in any generalized way, there's each individual's perception of time. More accurately there is the individual's experience of how they are configuring a perspective called time. It seems off to opine that the rate of info equals a slowing of time as rate is a measure that is meaningless without time. We could also point out that a perceived slowing of time will - all other things reaming the same - result in an apparent greater rate of flow of info. So there's a chicken/egg factor. Perhaps you mean an increase in the quantity of information.. At least that approach won't render the contention null before discussion.

As I perceive, time and information as actualities are not directly connected. And I'd posit that an individual's sense of time is no more time than an individual's sense of heat is the temperature. Also. if there was no info of any sort there couldn't be a BB.
Yes, quantity (of information) makes much more sense than rate. Thanks. For the rest of what you write, I have no idea what you mean. Although I would probably have to make sense out of what I wrote in the first place in order to understand you. I have not done that.
 
Top