ha ha .. sometimes IT DOES go the other way ...

It’s ego driven dumb people that strive to be in charge or in leadership positions

Don't worry. This "This Universe Existed before The Big Bang" theory here will collapse as the other do all the time.

You got the answer to politic in your question and it is called geniocracy.

To borrow a phrase an old demotivational poster about meetings, this is because none of is as stupid as all of us.

would be the ultimate dream ❤

Sounds like religion to me.

Does your immortal consciousness have to endure eternity to get those answers?

_=Christianity_

This is the part where the crowd sights and you say you're asking the wrong question, right? Lol. Still the best 'doomed' film ever.

the vastness of the quantum world is mindblowing

Only mind blowing if you think you’ll ever be able to understand it .

Or black holes are portal veins emptying out the old universe into a new universe

That presupposed black holes explode, when the math tell us they dissipate as their entropy increases.

@@throbalot My theory is that black holes are negative suns, the suck in the energy from this universe and use it as fuel to light up another universe. So even if you could survive the crushing you would emerge at the centre of a star.

Watch “Primer Fields”, and then you’ll forget black hole fairy tales. Time for a next chapter. You are welcome!

i love that@@bmmaaate

Agreed, and the thought of nothing existing before the “big bang” always caused my brain to error out.

Maybe it's always existed , therefore it wouldn't need a beginning.

Agreed, I always considered it as this is the best we know right now but it obviously couldn’t be the full story at least to me that has always been my take on it. Good thing about science is once better information comes along it gets incorporated and new understandings and solutions can come out. And if you understand how science works, it makes you happy. Cause our understanding has now grown. 🎉

If no starting point is equivalent to having been around forever, then reaching this point is like starting at 1, counting up and reaching infinity, it can't happen. Hence there must be a start, not that the big bang has to be that start. Personally I'd be really surprised if the big bang was in fact the start

I think it's our sentience which allows us to ponder the pervertedness of such an idea. Well, obviously... it wouldn't occur to use otherwise. But yeah "chicken or the egg" "something from nothing" personally I don't think it will ever make sense. Not now, not in 100 years and not even in 10,000. Sci fi has conceived of crazy creative concepts. But I don't think sci fi writers could even coin a fathomable world in which there is a logical, comprehensible answer. I think the whole universe is incomprehensible. It's both depressing and uplifting (for the sake of denial of religion at least) but it terrifies me. "Create your own meaning for life" what a crock of shit. Maybe I'm needy....but I just wanna know wtf we're doing here, and not the human species, but wtf molecules are even doing here.

There are many physics, cosmology, astrophysics, etc. related subreddits. Reddit gets a bad rap all too often. There is good and bad there, just like everywhere else that has a lot of people on a platform, but there really is a subreddit for everything, and you will find some of the most expert people in any field of study actively participating there. ☮

I haven't watched the video yet, but as a Hindu, I completely agree with Roger Penrose that this universe existed before the Big Bang. According to the ancient religion of Hinduism, Brahma (the creator of this universe in Hindu mythology) created this universe 155 trillion years ago and this universe will exist for a total of 311 trillion years. And when Brahma dies, this universe will 'die' along with him. Then a new Brahma will be born who will create a new universe to take the place of the old universe. And this process continues forever, without a beginning and without an end. Hinduism also teaches that there are an infinite number of universes and each of those universes (including our own universe) experience an infinite cycle of 'births' (which you can call 'Big Bangs' in a modern scientific way) and 'deaths' (which you can call 'Big Crunches' in a modern scientific way).

This is the Oscillating Universe Hypothesis

Why talk about ideas and concepts when we can complain about gay beer?

​@@THE-X-ForceBecause of hyper - egotistical mods with delusions of Godhood😅!

In physics, the idea that no event or point in the universe can be completely separated from the overall structure of space-time could be seen as a form of 'dependent origination,' where each point in the universe is dependent on the whole for its properties and existence. Moreover, theories like quantum entanglement, where particles can remain connected across vast distances, further echo the idea of interconnectedness that is central to Dependent Origination. However, it's important to note that while these parallels are intriguing, the contexts in which these concepts arise are quite different. Buddhist philosophy and modern physics approach these ideas from very different perspectives and with different goals in mind. Buddhism uses Dependent Origination as part of a framework to understand suffering and the nature of existence, leading to a path out of suffering. In contrast, physics seeks to understand the fundamental laws that govern the universe and its origins. While the parallels can provide valuable insights and foster interdisciplinary dialogue, it's crucial to appreciate the distinct contexts and purposes of these fields."

There are two variables. One- matter, one freedom. Reply.

Whats that? 🐣

"Our"being that of you and which specific interlocutor? Can there be " our" head ache?

Buddhism and Physics go together like Cain and Abel.

Scientists and experts know everything and should be directing our lives -- Western culture.

That's an oxymoron. "It makes sense that we will never understand. In other words, it makes sense that everything is meaningless." Those who want an infinite universe and time search and copy clippings of texts or videos. You have to go to the sources, and those who know best humbly say that they still cannot confirm anything

Your reflection captures a sentiment that resonates deeply with many who ponder the mysteries of the cosmos. The idea that the universe, in some form, has always existed and will continue to exist beyond our conventional understanding of time and space, challenges the very limits of human cognition and scientific inquiry. The notion that the universe transcends the "borders" we impose on it, whether those borders are physical, conceptual, or temporal, speaks to the limitations of our current scientific models and philosophical frameworks. It acknowledges the universe's vast complexity and the possibility that its true nature might elude complete comprehension due to the constraints of our observational capabilities and theoretical constructs. This perspective also humbly recognizes the limits of human understanding in the face of the cosmos's enormity. Despite the significant strides made in cosmology, physics, and astronomy, there remain fundamental questions about the universe's origins, structure, and ultimate fate that are yet to be answered. The pursuit of these answers drives scientific exploration and philosophical inquiry, pushing the boundaries of what we know and expanding our understanding of the universe. The acceptance that we may never fully grasp the "how" or "why" of the universe does not diminish the value of our quest for knowledge. Instead, it can serve as a source of inspiration and wonder, motivating us to continue exploring, questioning, and marveling at the universe's mysteries. It is a reminder of the shared human endeavor to make sense of our existence and the cosmos that surrounds us, and of the beauty in the search itself, even if some answers remain beyond our reach.

Nothing that has to do with space makes sense and I don't think it ever will or was made for us to know

Can " we" understand or " we" have an headache? Your "we" is imaginary titch- you have no immediate interlocutor in this instance

Nice idea😊

Yes. Seems you are ready for the big league. Have you read the Spandakarika? You will like it. Second option is the Pratyabijñāhṛdayam but start with Spandakarika for it aligns with your realization. Fair warning. You won’t be listening to Penrose anymore.

I think applying earth/life concepts to something we understand so little about is a logical fallacy. However, since none of will ever know, I suggest believing in whatever brings you peace.

😊🎉😊😊

😊😊

Still had to start somewhere.

Infinite number of them??? Well boy that's mathematically absurd and nothing but speculation.

Ridiculous claim with zero evidence.

Like a star supernova explosion, only on gigantic scale !!!

Yup

" We" which can only be imaginary does not exist, but whether or not another element of we has the faintest idea what it means by "exist", the uncharitable might describe as self evident, that element being entirely innocent of being any species of intellectual.

This is the best I ever heard in all my life - and I'm 80 - thanx brother :))

​@@RobinWood-it6idhopefully they're not all like that, but that's definitely a good one.😅😅

hilarious sexist and misogynist joke, laughing so hard, very funny.

@@VindensSaga Cry about it, won't change that it's funny

@@VindensSaga A statement a former girlfriend is somehow "sexist and misogynist", ok dude.

Of course that makes perfect sense 🙂 but I can't resist mentioning Kylie and her golden hot pants 🤭

what are you calling" the universe"? "We" being you and which specific identifiable interlocutor?

@@vhawk1951kl the universe in which we exist and make observations.

@@pairashootpants5373 Which is of course imaginary albeit that particular or specific instances or examples of it are not. All universals are obviously necessarily imaginary in that they cannot be experienced. *An* X can be experienced *all X's can only be imagined, but that is simply obvious -if not to some so it is a species of shiboleth. It is rather sweet how the dreamers speak of the " observable universe" but they are conceptual cretins and never look inside or behind the words they use, as if the universe could be " observed" but the poor lambs have no idea that the absurdities they utter are absurdities, having conditioned or programmed or as they say " educated" to believe rather than to question or even examine or be aware of, their preconceptions or religion, so why might they poor lambs? They are only conditioned to parrot not understand anything.. It is surely plain to you that*all* universals(to coin a phrase) must needs be imaginary and your famous " the universe" not only also, but par excellence.

In due time, all that is hidden will be revealed.

And you believed it... If you believe in limitations they will be real.

@@rogerjohnson2562 Well I believed I could fly, so I got on a swing and jumped off when my swing reached the highest point. I fell like a brick and broke my left arm. Sometimes understanding your limitations can be surprisingly helpful and I wished I'd read that line and taken it into consideration before I got on the swing.

@@rogerjohnson2562 You watch too much success stories

A more accurate truth is "There are things that are hidden because no one has found them yet". Given enough time and opportunity the human mind can find anything it looks for and can do anything that it can figure out how to do. Msaint- 12/11/2023, 2:33 PM.

You should listen to Alan watts he has the best voice

Nor beginning

​@@levisotelo7032 neither beginning nor end.

Whatexacly are you calling "the universe"? You have not the faintest idea? This you are about to demonstrate.

@@vhawk1951kl The universe is everything that exists, including all space, matter, energy, and time. It includes Earth, the Moon, the planets, their moons, asteroids, comets, and the Sun. It also includes all radiation and all other forms of energy. Scientists estimate that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. They believe the universe is still expanding outward, but the exact size of the universe is unknown.

@@vhawk1951kl Current models say that about 68% of the universe is made up of an unseen repellant force called "dark energy". That leaves only 5% of the universe that is visible to us. And now astrophysicists theorize that the immense expansion of the empty vacuum we call space still continues beyond the observable universe that we know of now.

@@allanlee9520 which like all universals *can* only be imaginary. It is axiomatic or definitional that that all things embraces all thing which of course none can directly experience thus can*only* be imaginary if particular instances of it are not; X you may experience, but all* X's can *only* be a creature of or image/idea in, the dreaming or associative apparatus, or mind or head brain, which is why it is probably wisest best or safest to avoid universals.

@@vhawk1951kl interesting. Do you mean to say that reality can only be first imagined before it becomes a reality? I've never studied or investigated from that perspective. Interesting nonetheless.

The perspective that the duration from the universe's inception to its cessation is essentially instantaneous, and that our existence unfolds within this fleeting interval, is a profound philosophical reflection on the nature of time and the universe. It echoes some interpretations of cosmology and physics where the concepts of time and duration are relative and not absolute. In the realm of cosmology, especially when considering theories like the Big Bang or cyclic models of the universe, the notion of time can become particularly abstract. According to general relativity, time is intertwined with the fabric of space itself, forming a four-dimensional continuum known as space-time. The progression of time, from this perspective, is influenced by the distribution of mass and energy in the universe, leading to the idea that the passage of time is not uniform across the cosmos. If we consider the universe in its entirety, from its very beginning in the Big Bang (or a similar event in cyclic models) to its ultimate fate (be it heat death, Big Crunch, or a transition to a new cycle), the entire history of the universe could be perceived as a singular event or 'instant' on cosmological timescales. Our human experience, the entire history of Earth, and even the lifespan of stars, might appear as mere moments or transient phenomena within this vast cosmological context. This perspective can make our existence seem fleeting or ephemeral, yet it also highlights the remarkable nature of our universe's complexity and the richness of the phenomena that unfold within it. It underscores the specialness of this moment in cosmic history that allows for the existence of life, consciousness, and the capacity to ponder the universe itself. Engaging with these ideas can provide a humbling yet awe-inspiring appreciation for the mysteries of the cosmos and our place within it. It invites us to reflect on the fundamental nature of time, existence, and the continuum of the universe in which we find ourselves.

What are you calling " the universe" and how do you know it is" the universe"? You see that is the difficulty into which you run when you employ universals -they can only be imaginary, in the sense that they cannot be directly immediately personally experienced, only imagined

Just read Genesis.

​@@tmo4330ha ha brain dead

I really hope your prepared for this. An answer to your current musings as well as any you might have................ 42

​@@tmo4330 Lol, ah yes. Genesis, the book that contradicts itself in the 2nd chapter. 😂 No thanks, I'll stick with real science.

@@tmo4330 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Sorry to break it to you but the JWST is actually validating the Big Bang theory. Roger Penrose for all his keen intellect and brilliance isn't doing science any favors by the way he's peddling the "Conformal cyclic cosmology".

Unfortunately, some questions will never be answered. With any answer comes countless more questions and no matter how hard we try, we will never get to the end of that proverbial rabbit hole. When you begin to delve into quantum physics this truth becomes painfully evident.

@@sj6986 It doesn't really matter. Neither are correct. Obviously I don't have the answers but neither does any other human being. No matter how intelligent one is, no matter how many equations one can solve and theories one can make, this is a question without an answer that we will ever comprehend, let alone "solve" so to speak. If a human being theorized it, you can probably safely assume it's false no matter how much data one may think they have supporting their argument.

Nope

... in its Beauty we behold...

I haven't watched the video yet, but as a Hindu, I completely agree with Roger Penrose that this universe existed before the Big Bang. According to the ancient religion of Hinduism, Brahma (the creator of this universe in Hindu mythology) created this universe 155 trillion years ago and this universe will exist for a total of 311 trillion years. And when Brahma dies, this universe will 'die' along with him. Then a new Brahma will be born who will create a new universe to take the place of the old universe. And this process continues forever, without a beginning and without an end. Hinduism also teaches that there are an infinite number of universes and each of those universes (including our own universe) experience an infinite cycle of 'births' (which you can call 'Big Bangs' in a modern scientific way) and 'deaths' (which you can call 'Big Crunches' in a modern scientific way).

I see this Poem and immediately recognize ChatGPT

@@Rishi123456789 As soon as I heard the theory my first thought was "Oh boy the Hindus are going to love this one!" 🤣

@@Lotus1001 It's getting better, I thought it was quite good!

Maybe the fabric of space starts to shrink towards the end

If you believe in evaporating black holes...

@@rogerjohnson2562 Evaporating black holes is called Hawking radiation...if thats fake, wouldnt other things be as well

​@@rogerjohnson2562its proven

the mistake here is that you think of time as of something "objectively" existing outside of a man's consciousness. So when you say eons of darkness filled with black holes you implicitly mean that there is still some clock ticking somewhere measuring "objective time". This notion of time starts from the beginning of the new age. Time has nothing to do with the clock. If there is no witness (or active intellect) there is nothing left that can be observed or predicted.

I respect science for what it's done for the world and the thinkers that have contributed to the body of human knowledge, but they do let their own hubris get to their heads. You see so many of these well-respected scienitsts proposing unscientific theories that are essentially them trying to create an "atheist theology" without a god or creator in it.

Good on you! Stay alert keep thinking and stay critical. So much misinformation in the world and in higher education as well I believe. Sometimes it's very inconvenient to embrace truths then a lot of other theories and thesis depending on old accepted ones. som many others would fall as well if new science and research showed so much old science to be wrong. Many institutions although calling themselves scientific rather keep up the face and old truths than to explore new ones. My few cents anyhow.

@SuperSpacesurfer your level of attainment is great. I am pleased to share ideas with another thinker. I can only speculate that you also treasure alone time to truly focus on ideas in a meditation or silent contemplation. Blessed be your days and prosperity follow you forever.

It becomes a "seed" that eventually turns into a fully-grown "tree."

???

If you are just sitting there dreaming, then anything could be anything. We could all come back as cats in a cataverse.

@@dougtsax That seems less likely than what @dredgerivers7730 proposed.

There's nothing there though but photons? Are we but compressed light?

ever heard "we have no nothing to investigate, so we don't know"...like "we have no married bachelor to investigate, so we don't know what he can do🤣

There's a big difference between nothing and 'No-Thing'. 'No-Thing' is that from which all things emerge. Heidegger

but all literature in human history points towards there is still nothing aka maya illusion, because consciousness itself has the properties of nothing as it is not made of or by matter, it is not produced by the brain but projected from a field access point into source, it's a holographic model, its quite common understandings and it boggles the mind that the ex nihilo paradox being a paradox isn't understood to be a product of inherent limitation geometrically as hyperdimensional , this is why something is a paradox, because a restricted condition has restricted parameters of self-refence relative to inference relative to consciousness and whatever interpret you want of the observer effect, consciousness has properties of overcoming limitation thus the concept gnosis, a gnostic representation has always to look outside the restrictions of physicality , you'd think these things would be common knowledge by now but yeah

Is nothing the absence of all particles? The absence of space and time? The absence physical laws? The absence of abstract concepts like math? How far down the nothing hole would you like to go? Was there ever in fact, truly nothing? Because abstractions and possibility are also... something.

"Our" definition? " Our" embracing you and which particular identifiable interlocutor?

There could be a universe which is called mother universe which is infinite in size and infinite number of multiverse inside the mother uinverse. blackhole could be the source of big bang that create new universe which comprise the multiverse. multiverse has an edge but mother universe doesnt have and it will go on foreverse.

​@@grande6075we don't know nothing 😂

Love, then love, then love. Complete the mission.

Well said 😊

Yep. Somewhat

@@Jo1975S Well... When i lissen to absoluut intelligent people, that use all kind of hard to understand words, i can not follow and visionalise (not sure about the spelling, i'm Dutch) how this would look or work in nature/reality. You see mathematicaly we could say that space is a 3 dimentional absoluut empty body, but it will be almost sure that space will never be only absoluut mathematicaly, so space will alway's be a form of energie and it can differ in energie lvl, but never be absoluut empty. So iff there is space arround our own universe this space will also be a energie vorm, of a even more lower energy lvl, that could create this vaccuum force, on our own space and time.

A universe without time would be a universe without events.

The universe without time is impossible if there is space in the universe time and space are linked as you know they call it the time-space Continuum but there's a fundamental logical reason for this outside of this calculations in mathematics and that is if you have space and the space is capable of holding matter and there is such matter inside of it then unless this matter is going to be every place in space that it happens to go all at the same time you would need time to rate instances of happening to the mattress can have locality and not be in all places at once. Furthermore to travel from one place to another is a certain interval of time that is mandatory for this distance to be traveled otherwise it is impossible. As instantaneous travel is impossible that's teleportation best way to travel outside of the universe like wormholes and other things and there is possibility of teleportation but what I'm talking about is classical movement through space this is the only possible because of time just like having locality in space is only possible because of time what time alone is not sufficient to produce these effects as time alone is a Continuum dislike space the time must have another Forester influence working upon it to give it discreet singular chunks that we call the present moment or the present moment of now. And the only thing that can do this and actually experienced it mind acting in time as consciousness giving a locality in the temporal Infiniti are continuum turn allows locality to happen in the spatial Infiniti or continuum

@@youtubebane7036Time is a manmade unit of measure. Humans invented time long before Einstein needed it to make his math work. Before he coined the term spacetime. Expansion would still occur without time. Everything would go on as it does. Time is a convenience invented by man. Nothing more. It's needed by man to meet up with another and for logistics. To pinpoint a spot on a map. For navigation. This in no way makes time a part of nature or the nature of things.

Time is a manmade unit of measure around long before spacetime was coined. It was invented to make life easier for humans. Thats all. Nothing more.

@@leostgeorge2080 time is absolutely intrinsically linked to existence my friend real-time not the units that we use to measure it without time there would be no way to have locality within space any word that you have been or anywhere that you are going to be you would be at the very same time and all those places without time to cause you to have one locality good for them or you would not build the move through space without time because it takes a certain amount of time to move and Consciousness depends on time because Consciousness is linear progression of events and awareness and without this you don't have a conscious awareness in the same fashion. But time is not the only thing that drives the expansion of space but it is one of the things that does. The main thing that drives the expansion of space is the fact that the origin of all things which is absolutely nothing this is actually the largest of all things and it's an impossibility because absolutely nothing this is a paradox because the information that exists describing what absolutely nothingness is would still exist which means an absolute nothingness cannot exist. And since it cannot exist that means it's something I said it's the only thing there is that means it's infinite yes absolutely nothing this is far larger than infinity but there's nowhere for this extra to go since Infinity is already infinitely large. Thank God there's another option in the form of the second duality while the first Duality is nothingness and infinity the second Duval as he is nothingness and something which is the opposite of nothing but it's not as large as Infinity so there's room for it to grow does the extra energy that's Infinity cannot store that come from nothingness is what drives the expansion of not just the universe but all things

Cool, thanks!

Exactly, you are right. It is cyclical, but the idea presented in this video is completely wrong. All this theory presented started this new consideration when astronomers, with the help of the JWST, found very ancient galaxies that are complete, suggesting they are older than the presumed Big Bang. For example, take a look into the HD 140283 (also known as the Methuselah star), that is just around the corner at about 200 LY from Earth - our galaxy is more than a hundred thousand LY in diameter for comparison. What could be the possibility that this star, claimed by some to be older than the Big Bang, to be just hanging out in our backyard? Then take notice that this presented theory does not consider the possibility that anything could survive the Big bang cycle. What current astronomers and astrophysicists are getting wrong is that they are not considering that the universe is way more complex than the human perception. What they call as dark matter and dark energy are matter and energy in other realms of reality, as our universe is just a time-dimensional projection of a much more complex, more multidimensional universe, which can be experimented using physical and mathematical quasicrystal models.

Huh. That is a truly interesting possibility. I doubt I will ever stop considering it now that I read your words.

I remember seeing an experiment that in total absence of anything, energy will just pop into existence. Maybe once entropy of the universe is complete after an ungodly amount of time the universe just pops into existence once again.

Thank you. I totally agree with your comments. Your hypothesis are as good if not better than most. I find it truly mind-blowing. What is out there, the discussions, arguments, and speculation may go on for many decades. Keep it coming .

What kind of energy just pops into existence? ​@@SoteksChunkyProphet-dg7io

Absolutely beautiful analysis, and may I happily say that for the last about 30 years, I started thinking about the possibility of multiverse, where big bangs are happening everywhere all the time, and would not let light to travel from one to the other. The light may even go round and round without escaping, whereby each universe thinking that they are the only universe in the multiverse..!!

There is no evidence for anything beyond our universe. The Multiverse is purely imaginary until shown to be otherwise. And it really bothers me that's its called a scientific theory. It's not. Hell, it's technically not even a hypothesis because a hypothesis takes place after data is collected to create one. Their is no positive data for it. Nothing. Zilch. Zero.

its not infinite

I always took for granted, that the Universe as an entity was limitless in space because what would or could ever limit it, right , but the idea you present here that there is perhaps also no end to the amount of levels of structures or layers so to say, did I ever really consider. I always sort of assumed, that there is a toplayer and a bottomlayer in the cosmos, where the toplayer is the biggest and most complex structure or constellation in existence for example a supercluster of galaxies and no matter how far you zoom further out there wont be any others of its kind just more of it. And the bottomlayer would then be the very smallest possible structure or entity, which per definition would be unexplainable, since it did not consist of smaller parts nor worked by any underlying mecanism - it just exist and works the way it does for no explainable reason - its the absolute bottomline of everything. This was my picture, until you plant this idea that everything must be made of something smaller. Im not sure if you are right.

This is why I choose the username fractal whenever I can

Ya I don't agree with it at all.

TIME (ontological) is a polyvalent phenomenon of ontological (structural, cosmic) memory, which substantiates the quantitative certainty of the existence of the Universe as an eternal holistic process of generating meanings, forms and structures. Time (ontological) is the dialectic of the generation of number and meaning. Ontological time = cyclic ("horizontal" of being of the Universe) + wave (emergent, time of becoming of the generating structure) + linear ("vertical" of being, hierarchical time). The birth of the "arrow of time" is the birth of light. Gnoseological time ("human-dimensional") - past, present, future. Information is a polyvalent phenomenon of ontological (structural, cosmic) memory which substantiates the certainty, orderliness, essential / substantive unity of the Universe as an eternal holistic process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures. InFORMAtion is a polyvalent phenomenon of ontological (structural, cosmic) memory which substantiates the certainty, orderliness, essential / substantive unity of the Universe as an eternal holistic process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures. Consciousness is an absolute (unconditional) attractor of meanings. Meaning is the unconditional foundation of the existence of the Universe. Consciousness is a qualitative vector/bivector value. Consciousness is a unique phenomenon of ontological (structural, cosmic) memory, which manifests itself at a certain level of being of the Universe as an eternal holistic process of generating meanings, forms and structures. Evolution is an eternal process of accumulation of memory. More than a quarter of a century ago, the mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov set the super-task of building a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World" - the creation of a model of the "Self-Aware Universe" (V. Nalimov, 1996). In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set out in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning" (2018). Brian Josephson: “Physicists' immersion in search of their 'theories of everything' has led them to an oversimplified picture of the natural world. To a picture that can work very well in situations used to test physical theories. But this picture is completely incapable of clarifying and helping to deal with such problems as observation, the meaning of the observed and the processes of thought.” Prize winner mathematician Vladimir Voevodsky (1966-2017): "What we now call the crisis of Russian science is not only a crisis of Russian science. There is a crisis of world science. Real progress will consist in a very serious fight between science and religion, which will end with their association." I think that the main "serious fight" will be here: Meta Axiom "In the Beginning was the Logos.../ Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος..." VS. Hypothesis "In the Beginning was the Big Bang..." where "LOGos" - "MetaLAW" that governs the Universe (in the spirit of Heraclitus) - for the "sciences of nature" and "The God's Law of Justice" - for the "sciences of the spirit" and religion.. Cognition of the FirstLaw of the Universe (Logos, MetaLaw) provides a single basis for science and religion. Religion, Science and Society are based on LAW. Today, the "problem No. 1 of the millennium" is the ONTOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION /SUBSTANTIATION of mathematics (ONTOLOGICAL BASIFICATION), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the New information age: ontological framework, carcass, foundation. Mathematicians sweep the problem of the ONTOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION /SUBSTANIATION of mathematics (ontological basis of mathematics) “under the rug”. Fundamental science requires a Big Ontological revolution in the metaphysical / ontological basis. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage "Ontological physics". The paradigm of the Universe as a WHOLE must come to the aid of the “part paradigm” that dominates science. The New Information Revolution is also pushing for this. J.A. Wheeler: "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful.' How could it have been otherwise?'" "Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "The true physics is that which will, one day, achieve the inclusion of man in his wholeness in a coherent picture of the world." A.N. Whitehead: "A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge." A. Einstein is right: “God does not play dice with the Universe.” Another metaphysical maxim: God created the Universe/Eternity/Infinity according to the Logos (Meta-Law, “Law of Laws”, Law of absolute forms of existence of matter). Numbers are the work of man. And God didn't need "curved space." Space is an ideal entity. Philosophy is the Most Rigorous and Joyful Science, “mother of all sciences.” Who's against it?

Sorry your completely wrong..... About the "uneducated" part. It is an educated guess and a reasonable one. We view the world through our own experiences in life. Too much air in a balloon "POP", adding gas by converting a solid to a gas like a bullet, "BANG". When you consider dam near everything will explode when you add more to it then it was designed to handle, it makes perfect sense to apply the same to a BH. But a BH has no upper limit that we currently know of. It's doubly weird when you consider the dimensions of a BH doesn't grow proportionally to it's mass. However it still obeys the rules, it just does it in a round about way through Hawking Radiation. As a BH bleeds off mass through HR it shrinks. The smaller it gets the hotter it gets. As temp increases more HR is released until "BOOM". Basically it's like the implosion used on nuclear weapons. Instead of adding mass to a static container, your mass is static and you shrink the container. There are a couple other ways for it to explode like superradiance. But it's still just theory and it's an indirect explosion, not the BH popping off. It's important to remember much of what we know it just theory. Given how little we know about some subjects, most ideas start as "Uneducated Guesses".

That’s a nice fantasy story

a blackhole exploding doesnt have the force to generate a big bang, which accelerated faster than the speed of light

Write up the mathematics that describe your musings; you'll be famous😊!

Black holes, the destroyer of world could be a creator of worlds.

what the fcuk is an"existential breakdown"? You have no idea? this you will illustrate

God said "Let there be light and "Bang", there was light...

That's like saying language can only explain so much. Science CAN explain it IF/WHEN we receive/gather more facts/data and come up with better formulas/equations given more/newer types of observations.

Dude, Put the bong down..

If the universe is the interior of a black hole, that means that all the energy and mass inside of it are just a fraction of a much larger super-universe.

@@CarlosOliveira-zs9yl You have a valid point there. For all we know, that may be close to the truth.

I feel that all the matter of nature is like little music dac clocks that beat in their own species beat with their own time, eventually turning into iron or radiation. Also, all life is based on the heartbeat of the clock until the genes turn off that clock themselves. Like light in a way. When all of this goes into a black star or a hole, all the clocks will of course slow down (but they won't stop) and time will slow down and become quantitatively long. It also happens to light as if it is redshifting, it stretches from a snake bend to a straighter, tighter strip, maybe shortens, but it pulsates very, very slowly and the light halo from it thus shrinks into a smaller and smaller component, and drowns in the darkness in its black hole. All matter apparently adheres to each other even more tightly in a black hole, and due to this interaction, a new form of matter is created, which would no longer be the known matter of the universe, but a separate restructured form of matter. As a rule, we know three states of matter, solid, liquid and gas. Of course, there are a few others, but if matter has all the metals and gases/liquids in tens/hundreds of opposites, the strangest phrase transformations that we do not yet know in this universe, and this current space age of ours experiences one of these certain determined ATTENTION! a transformation within clock limits from the substance itself. So it is not surprising that the universe is only a limited space because of other dimensions, covered from our consciousness to understand it well enough. Of course, we may be just one variant of a black hole called space-time. Or a by-product of some high-intelligence artificial intelligence in a formula called the matrix, which would take billions of years for people to understand with all human wisdom, but in any case only a limited amount of time in the end for the mechanism to unravel completely comprehensibly.

Why do you think we're in a black hole?

Nothing is beyond science, as everything is based on scientific law. However, it may take a technology we may never develop.

For example, if I say there is a huge cake outside the observable universe. since, we don't have the technology to go beyond universe.....this theory cannot be proved nor be denied. Don't take this example as real. I just took it to explain....... if u don't agree then give a reason as I want to research more about it and learn.... Thank You (I am 10th class student)......

​​@@adityaeducation113 I love the idea of the concept of a huge cake beyond the universe being the cause of a new religion, like the flying spaghetti monster.

Interesting thought. But then what exactly is space? If you consider the totality of space, your 'infinite tapestry of nothing', then there is nothing outside of it, and therefore it is really dimensionless because there is nothing else to compare it to. It is neither large nor small. It has no size. I think the entirety of existence is contained in a dimensionless point. Any experience of dimension, size, distance, etc. is all relative. But when it comes to the totality, there is really no such thing as size, no great or small, since infinity has nothing to do with relative size. Also, I do not consider the 'stuff' that is in space to be in any way separate from space itself. Whatever appears or exists in space, arises from it and is one with it. It cannot be 'other'.

I agree, I love these topics on astrophysics and keep up to date on the internet, books or whatever. And the more I learn, I think we are just a blast in a much bigger "universe".

???

I think the idea of several big bangs makes more sense than just one big bang.

Stop thinking of bangs it's tosh

Love me good harp player but as a model for existence? Not so much.

???

Take a sweet out of the jar, and go to the top of the Class! 🤭

There is some stuff in there that is wrong. Photons have mass, gravitational waves are real and proved. The cyclical thing doesn't depend on these errors, so it's kinda null. My biggest thing is that space has to be expanding FASTER than the speed of light or it would have no where to go. So, there is something faster than the speed of light and that is expansion. We know expansion is SPEEDING UP because of the red shift. So, the conclusion is like any bubble (pop!). Maybe that is what drives universe creation. maybe we are just a bubble that is in the process of popping. (not maybe)

Our universe is just a soap bubble in some god's bathtub. Always the "We don't know, so it must be a god." A tens of thousand year old argument used by people who talk to these gods and therefore know more than some other person who doesn't talk to a god or gods. I suppose you are in consort with this god and that somehow, therefore, finds you in that god's favor. Oh, endless burble. @@owenallen5733

Submit to this. Freak. @@owenallen5733

people working with Penrose are doing just that - they are looking for the relics of exploding black holes from the previous eon and think they are detecting them. It has advanced beyond this but, for what its worth ukposts.info/have/v-deo/pqCeeJiZfpiE0Hk.html

black holes...

its nonsense

It does make more sense.

The past has everything to do with the course of the future. The past be truly known, humans would not be doing what they are currently doing to this planet. The life cycle of birth, expression and death is necessary for any organism to evolve and survive into the future. The limit to life expectancy is completely dependent upon the rate of change for the physical constants and the implications for DNA replication. This evolution is known as TOP DOWN cosmology. This is near certain: Imagine a universe beginning with a single “particle” of gigantic mass that spontaneously divides into two smaller masses (with a field that obviously must exist to unite them, like, say, primordial electrostatic gravity, a quantum relationship modulo 2). Imagine that over “time” the process of division continues, producing “newer,” lighter “particles” (and forces that unite them “programmed” for future expression within when, per chance, they are irrationally unreconcilable by quantum counting) over “time.” (Note: That cascade of particles is presently observed as “nuclear decay,” where heavier elements spontaneously cascade into a spectrum of heavier-to-lighter elements.) To see how rapidly the NUMBER of observed particles (of increasingly smaller mass) can grow in a short amount of time, just multiply 2 x 2 = repeatedly on a small calculator- in a very short time the numbers go off the scale! Just imagine, then, IN THE PROCESS OF DIVIDING, heavier masses, that eventually form galaxies, divide over time (seemingly coming from “nowhere”) at each epoch of division (and extinction). This process is known as “TOP DOWN cosmology.” In the end, you have present-day smaller galaxies, PLUS the cosmic heat signature of NOW-EXTINCT past elements (including galaxies), known today as the “cosmic microwave background radiation.” (Note: Smaller early galaxies are required by BOTTOM UP big bang cosmology, where predicted smaller primal galaxies form larger galaxies over time, and where the predicted cosmic microwave background radiation would be “smooth;” HOWEVER, the OBSERVED cosmic background radiation is actually “lumpy,” and OBSERVED primal galaxies are actually larger.) TOP DOWN cosmology wins! PS: I call this theory “The Origin Theory,” as an extension of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species.” Please leave the ultimate origin and direction of our currently-complex universe (either with TOP DOWN or BOTTOM UP cosmology) to lesser-probabilities of 50/50, so as not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater." Given that the latest “breakthrough” in fusion technology recklessly announces controlled fusion energy when it provides ignition WITHOUT accounting for energy out Vs TOTAL energy in (I still remember “cold fusion”), My TOP DOWN theory of cosmology says that in order to reconcile static gravitational and Coulomb effects (a valid grand unification theory goal) there is a value, a number R, such that Ke^2 = RGm^2, where K is the Coulomb constant, e^2 is the square of the charge on an electron, G is the universal gravitational constant and m^2 is the square of rest mass of an electron- what can be simpler than that! The calculated value of R is 4.16574 x 10^42. Given my TOP DOWN cosmology, then, Coulomb effects are 4.16574 x 10^42 times more intense than gravitational effects, meaning that local ignition, compression and containment needed for sustained fusion reactions are collectively unattainable. Clearly, the evolutionary direction of the universe must be countered and reversed to sustain a local fusion reaction- a physical impossibility! Yet, much money and time is being WASTED on attempts to “find a way,” apparently to justify continued reckless population growth on this fragile planet. (The problem does not exist with fission reactions, which have their own set of intractable problems, because energy release follows the direction of universal evolution.) What is R? Numbers and predictive ability matter (rather than finding explanation after a discovery, presently being done with BOTTOM UP BBT): Per my TOP DOWN cosmology, the radius of the universe on a quantum level is R = Root (M/m), where M is the total mass of the universe needed to unite gravitational and electrostatic forces and m is the rest-mass of an electron, yielding, Ke^2/ R^2 = RGm^2/ R^2, where R^2 is the square of R. The calculated mass at a quantum level, including “missing mass,” is M = 1.58079 x 10^55 power Kg, and the calculated radius of the quantum realm is R = 4.16574 x 10^42 power measured in instantaneous, dimensionless units. (M is undefined in the quantum realm, yet partially discernable as the observed mass Mo of the universe in the macroscopic world,). The number of unit circles (or squares) in the quantum realm is R^2 = 1.73534 x 10^85 power. It is a quantum attribute that area of unit squares and number of unit squares are indistinguishable (No need for citation, as all stated derivations are my own.) Everything is separating visually by such distance that the presence of extra-terrestrial life is very difficult to detect, yet everything has always been quantum-connected (“not locally real”). The total mass M needed to reconcile gravitational and electrostatic states is M = Mo /(2Pi - 1) (alpha^2), where Mo is the OBSERVABLE mass of the universe, (2Pi - 1) is the Bell inequality (ever an inequality in the macroscopic world, and equivalent to Euler’s “proof of God” in the quantum realm, where M is UNDEFINED), and (alpha^2) is the square of the fine-structure constant (a optical magnification factor, twice applied for virtual and real expression). In the quantum realm, the equation is undefined, because the radius is equal to the circumference, meaning that Pi = 1/2. The number of unit circles (or squares) in the universe is M/m, where m is the present-day rest mass of the electron. For a unit circle to become a unit square, Buffon’s needle problem becomes applicable, where one side is electrostatic and the other is gravitational. In order for the PROBABILITY to equal 1/2 (regarding Bell’s inequality AND Buffon’s problem), Pi = 4, meaning that Pi = 1/2 AND Pi = 4, implying that 1 = 8; hence, the qubit (used in quantum computing) is emergent. (My observations and derivations- no citation needed.) Using my TOP DOWN cosmology, the rate of change of alpha is -2.7958 x 10^-17/ year, based upon a perceived age of the universe of 13.799 x 10^9 years. For very large R the definite integral of R over time T approaching origin of the universe to the present day is approximately 1/2 of R^2, verifying perceived dichotomy (a weird quantum nuance, where areas AND number of unit circles or squares are indistinguishable). In the quantum realm, the term (2Pi - 1) = 0 can also be considered as the sidereal rotation of a unit circle within a unit circle (created by Buffon’s needle drop probability). As a physicist, I have been promoting this TOP DOWN model since1979. For those who would state (not me) that this is a “fun theory” (with its fulfilled prediction of larger primordial galaxies), demanding the math; then, when presented with the mathematical model finding the much-sought-after hidden “missing mass” and quantum gravity, implying that I am a mathematician with little relevance to physics: The physical world can instruct the mathematical world, IMO. In addition to reconciling the Coulomb constant and the universal gravitational constant, I have explained the significance of the little-understood fine structure constant, alpha. If you would simply “run with it,” you have the information to calculate the age and rate of expansion of the universe (much older than the presently-accepted age of the universe, hidden by quantum effects). Here are three obvious “predictions:” -Per TOP DOWN cosmology, there is understandably a paucity of antimatter in the local universe. -Hydrogen-rich stars and galaxies of equivalent mass, respectively, previously and inappropriately deemed to be colliding under BOTTOM UP (BBT) cosmology are actually and appropriately DIVIDING under TOP DOWN cosmology, which respects and predicts this behavior from evolutionary changes regarding critical mass (witness our own galaxy and Andromeda, representing main sequence evolution). -The current abundance of elements is reconciled by main-sequence TOP DOWN evolution, not requiring multiple solar cycles, exceeding even the presently-accepted age of the universe per BOTTOM UP BBT. There are no absolutes (a logical dilemma in itself). The closest thing to absolute certainty is found in abstract math- in application there is always an uncertainty (like when counting apples). The best that can be expected in the physical world is to “bet on the odds.” Given my TOP DOWN cosmology, odds are for things dividing rather than melding regarding cosmic events; whereas, there is every inclination for one schooled in BOTTOM UP BBT to look for, and prejudicially expect observed galaxies and stars to be colliding. Regarding dark energy: The hidden quantum world, which reveals itself as “locally not real” (Nobel Prize already given), contains a memory of the past in our own DNA, for example, revealed in morphogenesis (“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”), “betting on the odds.” Dr. Rupert Sheldrake describes this as “morphic fields” and “morphic resonance.” BTW, His theory accounts for why the Kelly astronaut twins are no longer DNA-identical twins, where there is no other better explanation that I have seen being offered- instead, relegating any explanation to the growing category of “unexplained mysteries!”

Chuckle and the Cosmos chuckles with you 🎇

It's not enough... Maybe a Phd can help to start the journey...

@@prsgrind8794 Haha, yeah you're probably right, way out of my league.

Physics doesn't help much. 😂

I think people need commonsense to believe B/S.

NOPE, U WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE. THE THEOLOGIANS KNOW. HUM!!! SO DO I. HAVE FAITH HUM!!!

And an amazing rock it is! Hell yeah! We got yer lovely seaside, yer green forests, jungles, deserts, purple waves of grain, sweeping vistas and broad panoramas. It's all here, yessir. Take care of it and enjoy it.

The fool will say anything to trick his mind there’s not a God.

@@johnnydough8841 trust whatever you want. i mean: hey, why do you trick yours, or let trick yourself more precisely? do not obey fasle prophets

@@DaKILLaGod You are now stating proven science is lying. Life requires initial life to create more life. Science proved this. So explain, since there’s no god, how life can poof from nothing. You’ll be the first in human history to explain where the first life form came from.

It is as far as the photons are concerned, from the moment they are admitted to the moment they are reabsorbed the passage of Time for that photon is zero.. which is why when you look out at the sky at night you are seeing the universe as it was not as it is right now.. but even still we can deduce based on what we do know what is going to happen even if we are not seeing it live the same way that traffic analysts can predict what's going to happen based on what they do know about the area and how people are.. & on the quantum level such as the Planck level the past present and future all all exist simultaneously, the Planck level is so small that if one atom which is already 100,000 times smaller than anything you can see with your naked eyes, if one atom was the size of the observable universe which is around 46 and a half billion light-years ( 1 light-year 6 trillion miles/ even though most of the Stars we can see at night are within a 50 light-year radius) then the Planck would be the height of an average tree. The faster you move through space-time the slower time passes for you, then once you reach the speed of light time literally stops for you.. again that's why there is at least two different times.. quantize time or personal time and absolute time. The former exists because we've agreed upon a construct, the latter happens regardless if there's anyone around or not and in fact gravity plays a roll in how fast or slow time passes

this is ancient concept. We live in illusion of time as the flowing of "slides" or moments like we are running in a circle around the center. In the center there is a vertical beam passing through it. Inside the center all the time (and all slides) is a moment. Temporality in the center of the circle is synchronous. and on the edge of the circle time is diachronous. The beam passing vertically through the center can be called whatever you like. God, active intellect. Anyway the light is divine.

True