# Thread: is the big bang actually a future event?

If the big bang state has no laws for space or time, then it would contradict what we know of space and time.

Surely then we should consider that the reverse is true when we try to calculate when the big bang "happened"......(AND THUS) that in fact the big bang is a future event, as a concept, that echoes ahead in time from what we would measure as the past.

The concept might be a little too much for some so simply put, so gladly I am able to explain it better in a more lengthy dialogue at the www feature below. In that theory, I suggest that the big bang event is actually a matrix in space-time of point to point creation (approaching infinity) and destruction (approaching zero), a continual event, harmonising between a time-before and time-after state relevant to a mathematical algorithm of the envelope of space-time itself, one of zero space-time and infinity space-time.

Just to re-cap, if the big bang, according to our measurements, is a PAST event, and yet the big bang STATE itself defies laws of space and time, logically then, in DEFYING what we understand of space and time, the big bang theoretically would exist, must, a constant FUTURE event for us, which, in theory, tells us that it is ALWAYS caught in our future, that it actually never happened.

I have a theory that proves this. It's like an Armageddon that never comes. It's always rthere in the future, wanting to wipe everything clean, but it never happens. And this is pure science, too. This is a mere hint though of a more complete version of the science of the FACT the big bang must satisfy a FUTURE time-paradigm event.

2.

3. I think this thread should be closed due to the fact that you are once again doing nothing but promoting your website.

4. Seconded

5. Stream Systems, yet again you are stringing together a bunch of words (whose meanings you have coopted and corrupted) that convey nothing of substance and contain no reall meaning. It seems evident from the comments of (Q) and Kaslter, and from pms I have received over the last week or so, that many forum members consider you at best a joke and at worst a charlatan.
Against my better judgement I am leaving this thread open to allow those with alternate views to offer support for your marvellous idea. However, that open mindedness does not extend to allowing it to remain in the physics forum. Be grateful I am consigning it to pseudoscience and not the Trash Bin.

6. Hey guys, the only way science will progress is if someone unique comes along with brand new ideas that sound really daft, but that daftness is (if thats a word) not daftness, its just something that some of us cannot make sense of. Einstein did it, Newton did and so did Galileo. So give streamSystems a break. sS can explain spacetime even if you can't understand it. Keep up the good work sS :wink:

7. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Hey guys, the only way science will progress is if someone unique comes along with brand new ideas that sound really daft, but that daftness is (if thats a word) not daftness, its just something that some of us cannot make sense of. Einstein did it, Newton did and so did Galileo. So give streamSystems a break. sS can explain spacetime even if you can't understand it. Keep up the good work sS :wink:
With genuine respect SV (for your integrity) you are talking bollocks. I have no trouble understanding the work of Galileo, Newton, or Einstein. Neither did their contemporaries. All three followed sound scientific practice that was a natural outgrowth of the methods employed by the scientists of their era. SS, in contrast, emits unintelligble babble, without a shred of scientific rigour, mathematical substance, or experimental justification.
Your desire for fair play I applaud, but in this instance your support is ultimately as misguided as SS's speculations.

8. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by svwillmer
Hey guys, the only way science will progress is if someone unique comes along with brand new ideas that sound really daft, but that daftness is (if thats a word) not daftness, its just something that some of us cannot make sense of. Einstein did it, Newton did and so did Galileo. So give streamSystems a break. sS can explain spacetime even if you can't understand it. Keep up the good work sS :wink:
With genuine respect SV (for your integrity) you are talking bollocks. I have no trouble understanding the work of Galileo, Newton, or Einstein. Neither did their contemporaries. All three followed sound scientific practice that was a natural outgrowth of the methods employed by the scientists of their era. SS, in contrast, emits unintelligble babble, without a shred of scientific rigour, mathematical substance, or experimental justification.
Your desire for fair play I applaud, but in this instance your support is ultimately as misguided as SS's speculations.
I agree that sS could create some equations to govern some theories and to structure them more strongly, but these ideas of sS could be early development of the actual true potential that sS is capable of. Theory is of course at first vague. My theories I don't publish because I need to tidy up on them, but still you have to hand it to sS for going ahead with pushing his/her idea. One of my theories predicts the uncertaincy principle and I have had to diversify a few classical equations and modify them. But I have a logical way and devising calculations that actually predict the motion of particles and actual make the uncertaincy principle, the certaincy principle. I am fully aware of the implications. But I have spent a long time testing the theory and making sure any calculations are infallible before publishing them, at the moment they are still prototype but I wouldn't dream of presenting them to the scientific community in their state at the moment (needs a lot of tidying up). Is this what you find not acceptable by streamSystems? The fact that he/she is not presenting them well enough so that it sounds utter jargon? Or just that he/she is thinking a bit too far out of the box?

9. Originally Posted by (Q)
I think this thread should be closed due to the fact that you are once again doing nothing but promoting your website.
Q; With any due respect SS, if his/her post are to encourage a review of a website, the effort may be in vain. I will admit, the theories offered, are so off track anything my wondering mind can grasp, I do read SS post several times trying to understand a point.

SS; As I understand BBT, even the proponents offer no evidence of the actual singularity, how it got the or what cause the original expansion. Your post indicates you can prove what no one else could about something that may or may not have occurred, whether it occurred in the past (time wise) or in the future (time wise) to create an apparent time paradox we currently live in.

The only point your post indicate to me, is some understanding of TIME as the primary focus of all events past/present/future, where these events occur/occurred within some theory which infers everything has happened already on the Spacetime cone.

For the record, as I understand it, BBT suggest there were no laws of physics, space, time or anything else prior to the start of expansion. (Nothingness/Vacuum/void) These laws or what we currently can understand as laws, were unfolded into what became the universe as it cooled...Then there are still a few, like myself, that feel the Universe has always existed, much as it is today (SSU). This would mean that time is infinite, as would be those laws.

willmer; I understand your post and agree in the time of those folks, to the average person, their opinions (to some degree) must have sounded like pure science fiction. Possibly as SS, sounds to me, but there was always a point to their theory. Specific points to their reasoning, so to speak...

10. Sorry guys.

It was just after posting this I realised that it was in the wrong section. I sincerely wanted to put this in the pseudo section. NOt because I believe it belongs there, but because that's how ideas like this are guaged.

Anyway, please put up with the following in the "pseudo" section, but bear in mind, it is in the pseudo section:

- I am proposing a NEW axiom structure for space-time.

- The mathematics won't seem "normal" or comprehenmsible at first glance.

- The mathematics DOES though arrive at known equations for the SAME space-time reality we live in.

In proposing that the big bang is in fact a future event, as it must defy what we understand of space-time, I was able to theorise that the big bang represents, as a continual event, a "constant speed energy front" by virtue of my being able to derive the equations for a circle for the 2-d energy manifold and sphere for the 3-d energy manifold.

I understand that is not remarkable to anyone inching their way through college physics, I really respect that, which is why I* am not spitting the dummy in the pseudo section, so please anyone who can respect where this post is and join in on this debate, please do so.

Ophiolite (and Q) thanks again for reminding me where my work belongs, but stay out of this one. Anyone else, DON'T read my book, DON'T visit my webpage, just tell me what you think about the idea that the pre-big bang state, a paradox of space-time, is ACTUALLY a future event.

Ophiolite (see if you can juggle this in a thing you call a brain): DON'T read my book, DON'T visit my webpage, WHAT THOUGH DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA that the pre-big bang event DEFIES/DEFIED laws of space-time. Can we just begin on that issue fopr the time being: any ideas......................???

AS for my theory, the mathematically laborious version will be ready by mid-2008. along with the chinese translation. So, I guess, screw it until then, right?

AS for the mid-section theory proof of a circle, it's in very simple talk, ya? But that was to anaethsetise the sheer brutality of the logic required in folding space-time to make it DAMN obvious the lengths involved in those space-time folds and the resulting LENGTHS of folds that make it VERY CLEAR exactly what dimensions were arrived at for the equations of that final-folding complex structure. IF ANY OF YOU HAVE READ THE THEORY CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT MID-SECTION, I would rather you not talk about the book......you don't have the mind for it.

BEAR IN MIND, IT TOOK years, AND YEARS ARE A LONG TIME, FOR anyone, AND I MEAN anyone with a brain to understand Einstein, and this theory is a little more complex.

11. Originally Posted by streamSystems
BEAR IN MIND, IT TOOK years, AND YEARS ARE A LONG TIME, FOR anyone, AND I MEAN anyone with a brain to understand Einstein, and this theory is a little more complex.
Crap. You are parroting popular myth that there are only a few people who could understand Einstein. This is pure nonsense. Any practising physicist could grasp his theories when they were published. Not all necessarily agreed at once, but the comprehension was there since the exposition of the theories was clear.
I have a limited IQ (it barely peeks over 140), have never studied physics beyond undergraduate level, but have little trouble grasping the basics of either General or Special Relativity.
Once again SS you demonstrate an appalling lack of comprehension of reality.
Ophiolite (and Q) thanks again for reminding me where my work belongs, but stay out of this one.
I would remind you that this is a public forum. Any member may post here, subject to the rules of the site. You are of course free to ignore any and all remarks I make, and are under no obligation to reply to anything I post. (Think about that.)[/quote]

12. Lets keep things friendly and tame the offense there Ophiolite. Remember the age old saying?

"Slap criticism between two slices of praise"

13. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Lets keep things friendly and tame the offense there Ophiolite. Remember the age old saying?

"Slap criticism between two slices of praise"
Again SV I applaud your attemp to conciliate. There is, however, little point in such an attempt. There is nothing in what SS has said or done that deserves any praise whatsoever. I shall therefore continue to slap ridicule between two slices of criticism.

14. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
There is nothing in what SS has said or done that deserves any praise whatsoever. I shall therefore continue to slap ridicule between two slices of criticism.
I thought pseudo was a non-flame section?

16. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
I've done worse.

17. In general summary, and thank you for the responses in general interest of the possibility that the big bang could in fact be a future event, when one wants to travel FASTER than the speed of light, they actually are going "ahead" of time. To go ahead of time and make a reality of that, one is in fact saying they are "before" that time event of light arriving FOR that event, meaning that they, in theory, are travelling "backwards" in time.

This proposition then supports the idea that time is in fact a footprint of the passage of light, of energy.

This is just a proposition with the aim, in honor of this pseudo section, to stimulate debate on this "on the surface" pseudo idea.

Still, I find it more interesting that this "future" big bang theory puts the psyche/vibe of "end of the world" artists potentially into some type of recognised place. I mean, if in theory the big bang is actually a FUTURE event, what "impact" does that have on the minds of the uninitiated, those not of science, but of the faith?

What made me think of this, aside from the 100's of pages of theory, was actually, for once, giving the big bang theory a decent hearing, and realising that the big bang state must contradict our know laws of space and time, and thus contradict being a PAST event, AND THUS MUST BE TO ANY REFERENCE a "future" event.

18. Originally Posted by streamSystems
This proposition then supports the idea that time is in fact a footprint of the passage of light, of energy...
Thats exactly what I thought once. Why is it that no matter your motion in the spacetime continuum time always passes for yourself at 1sec/1sec. As in every second a second passes. I believe that light, being its sublime self manipulates the universe around us to make time's motion, however thinking about it what happens in a black hole with time? We all know that that is just gravitational geodesics. Could it be possible that light is the medium for time? After all in relativity going faster with light being constant has to make time give so there has to be a connection between light and its speed and time, for why would half of Einsteins equations have c in if it did not effect time?

19. Assume the maximum speed in the universe is infinite. Also assume that time can not dilate, we can only live in the present. What happens then?

20. Can someone tell me what the current ACCEPTED theory of time entails? Is it merely the perception of movement, or does it concretely exist as space does? If it is merely the perception of movement, then time travel would only be possible if you could get the matter that you are made of to reverse its movement according to each particleâ€™s world line. That would be impossible, as each particle that you are made of would have been involved in many other interactions only a short time before you came together.

Another thing I wanted to get off my chest: If you folded ANYTHING, be it space or time or a piece of paper, in a certain way, you would be able to get a sphere. That does not mean the piece of paper is a sphere.

21. The "folding" and "sphere" thing (in regard to a theory I have written), the concept was presented such that points alternating from one defined precinct of space-time to the next, according to a logic of duality, and also in assuming the construct of a sphere as that template, that context, of point to point movement-alternation, well, through all the point to point alignment and alternating, the only possible way for those points to alternate the way they were defined in the theory LEAD, actually lead, to the perfect dimensions of a sphere. Basically, the way the points were primarily defined, as axioms of space-time, the way they were constructed actually proposed that the construct they are arranged on was in fact a sphere. The hypothesis basically of the sphere, the assumption of that spherical context, was validated by that new axiom of time and space. The point to point motion of the points actually correctly defined the parameter of a sphere. That told me that the logic of constructing those points, in backing up, proving the assumption correct, was valid, that the logic was valid. So, I then spent another 200 pages using that logic to construct a virtual reality, with interesting results. As for folding space-time to construct a sphere, the term "folding" is a little ambiguous, because technically it was point to point rotation: space-time was bent, crafted, into that shape. I wasn;t really taking a 2-d flat plane manifold of space-time and folding it like paper. I am though going into that research with the surface area of the new-axiom sphere. In my theory, the only way I was able to create a sphere through "folding" a 3-d manifold of space-time was by folding one 3-d sphere reference onto another, the reason for that fold being a need to satisfy a "final" folding precedent of the logic that was already able to derive the proper equations for a sphere.

Was that what you were referring to in regard to the folding of space-time resulting in a sphere? Apologies if not.

In summary, the entire hypotehsis of the sphere and then construction of it, as the equations proved, was based on the "timing" of alternating points and the space that could only exist between the "perfect" arrangement of the timing of the alternation of the points. Simply, it was a signature of time that I then used as a type of "lego-block" to then build a virtual reality. That virtual reality then allowed me to take a new look at "light-energy fronts", relativity, and so on, clearly though in a new format of explaining space-time.

Now, this new theory for time I have is vastly different to the contemporary version which really is only an arbitrary yet standardised scheme of dividing one scene to the next of any observable change in space.

The two interesting things the theory has come up with is that the final "0" fold of the spherical construct represents the "mass" construct, and the step before that final fold, the UNFOLDED construct, represents the energy construct. Basically, the theory suggests that energy is an unfolded version of matter, that when matter is "opened up, torn apart, it produces quanta. And this from pure theory with the equations of a circle and sphere to match. Also, the theory also suggests that gravity represents the final fold tendency of grouped matter, and the other forces (EM, strong, weak) represents the actuall final fold connections between atomic particles, and that chemical bonds represent the tendency of matter constructs to want to "final fold" with one another. But, overall, that the tendenacy is a balance between energy and matter. When I was able to derive all of this on what seemed to be the atomic level, it made me interested enough to firther develop the theory and establish how "reality" would logically be constructed. On that front, the theory suggested a number of key things, including that energy and mass usually concentrate in large spheres, the idea of relativity, the redshift effect, entropy, and so on. I am not trying to convince anyone of it in trying to rubbish contemporary physics, I am merely saying, "wow, if we change the axiom for time, this happens".

The theory is at a decent level of explanation, yet what I am currently undertaking is how to join the equations of all the atomic, subatomic, and field forces: it's quite a balancing act, but using this platform, do-able. Once again though, I re-tierate that this is a virtual reality under question, and not necessarily the one we inhabit. It just seems remarakbly similar to our own. Well, it IS based on a theory of perception, human perception, so it would have the effect of trying to convince one it is in fact the reality we are commonly aware of.

22. Not sure why all the attacks, but I am curious about his theory. My biggest confusion that I have always noticed is that so many scientists speculate facts about space, time, and so many other things. Here we are as a species and we havent even left the area of our moon yet.

So please give us more of your theory. This is indeed a forum and if don't like the post. You really don't have to respond.

23. The theory is available at the www feature below. Thanks for the support in the idea of it.

The thing I like about it, the ONLY thing really I like about, is that I have been able to take a basic "concept" from my medical studies relevant to human perception, and to then "apply" to a basic model of perception a mathematical "logic" that has that "theory of perception" construct for itself a virtual reality, Essentially, the theory constructs a virtual reality. But, to my surprise, the theory was/is able to cross-match its own virtual reality with the one physics takes as its own.

The exciting thing about the theory is that it is able to "derive" the equations fore a circle and sphere using "time" as a "point" dimension in a 3-dimensional space reality (explained better in the theory).

In looking at the theory another way, as it represents a mathematical code of perception that derives virtual realities, it "could" be useful to computer programming and of course our ability as a perception to interface with computers.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement