What Was There Before the Big Bang?

ur answer can be found from this book,in a most clear and concise explanation...take the time to read it, it really makes u think twice...

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_5_section_2.html

Whatever is not perceivable is of little interest.

We do are like Ants....Our vision in the grand scale of Universe is no more than an ant`s vision of this world....

Like an ant which cannot go to all possible places in this world....cannot even comprehend whats beyond....his immediate surroundings...

Yes we humans are superior in this regard..l..We use tools.....and think.....and do try to get more then just an idea....

but again our perceptions are limited by the five-active senses we have.....


For example....just suppose a deep water creature some how manages climb a mountain...
for it he will need some kind of protective gear around him....so as to survice without water...

and some sort of viewing glass through which it might be able to view whats around him..
now it will be limited with at least two constraints..
1- the visible window in the protective gear.....if its small it will have a smaller view..
2- the material on that viewing window....say for example glass.....what if suppose this glass`s colour is...let us say...RED.....then it will view all the things...in shades of red...even green grass will look different....


Same is the case with us.....our limited known senses five+ the sixth as some one would say...

will not allow us to fully comprehend.....what exactly is the reality..


I would quote some one who quoted something from the Film Matrix....on some other subject in this same forums..


what if we are in a dream....and are unable to wake up.....


its again a pure conjecture on my part....maybe over active imagination.

#44, aqaris:
You seem to have an ant`s view. There is a difference between ant and man!

a pure conjecture and speculation on my part..


Universe is in a constant flux.....every thing ...even laws are chaning within it..


it like some one siting on the trunk of an elephant....and all he can see is the trunk...



wait till be is able to see the tail or for that matter..... the Big foots of elephant.....

and he will realize....the plain trunk is now something circular.......and if by any chance.....he could allevate him to such heights from which he can view the complete elephant......he may not even recognize what he has seen..


........

So first u are impressed with my age and now its a hinderance?

I would take u more seriously if u possessed more personality then fungus and managed to remain consistent for more then 2 minutes.

Ladies and gentlemen 99% of the people on this site are idiots who cannot extend their rebuttles past sophmoric remarks about ones age. computer nerds....

#39, Alephnull:
I reviewed your response (#147) to DRUMZ (#133) in the discussion: ``Is Science Without Religion Really Lame?``
I believe you are absolutely right in the following there:
``I hope this take seems ‘reasonable’ to some people – I don’t know about DRUMZ or people with concrete-bound mentalities. `` Makes full sense to me.
DRUMZ is too immature to understand your arguments. Allow him the credit for his training of measly 23 years. This particularly due to his specialities described in his personality profile.
Now I am expecting the spilling of his ``curse encyclopedia.``

inq: If i reply, then u reply and then i reply again, OBVIOUSLY i would be refering to the post which appeard rite before mine. As for understanding this world, READ what i wrote dont read INTO it.

And lastly ``BUILD`` iz SLANG for ``a discussion``............... and itz funny az hell that u would bring up coherence after u made a post (NUMBER 36) which had a (rambling) four line sentence.

Aleph: In the real world one would think you wouldnt be touching any post im on with a 10 ft pole but for some reason u keep coming back. and again i know the people who frequent this site are morons so i managed to reiterate my thesis a billion and four times:

I was relating zero to the physical world. ie u cannout possess something of which there are no quantities. I schooled u in 2 conclusive posts which u completely evaded....give it up.

inq: If i reply, then u reply and then i reply again, OBVIOUSLY i would be refering to the post which appeard rite before mine. As for understanding this world, READ what i wrote dont read INTO it.

And lastly ``BUILD`` iz SLANG for ``a discussion``............... and itz funny az hell that u would bring up coherence after u made a post (NUMBER 36) which had a (rambling) four line sentence.

Aleph: In the real world one would think you wouldnt be touching any post im on with a 10 ft pole but for some reason u keep coming back. and again i know the people who frequent this site are morons so i managed to reiterate my thesis a billion and four times:

I was relating zero to the physical world. ie u cannout possess something of which there are no quantities. I schooled u in 2 conclusive posts which u completely evaded....give it up.

Inquirer #36, #38

See the exchanges on Is Science Without Religion Really Lame? (Mr. Gill`s previous article).

My notion on `effable` is the dictionary one: `Capable of being uttered or explained, utterable.` It`s quite possible that Drumz is working with something else (in addition to confusing the precise notions of zero in mathematics with vague notions of `NOTHINGNESS` etc.).

#37, DRUMZ:
``agree`` with which post?
How else can you understand this world?
What do you mean by ``build ... on the left side?``
There are coherence problems in your post!

inq: The page isnt entirely accuarate, i am 23 now. anyways i absolutely agree with that post. Its difficult to even understand THIS world based on the laws of this world (as their measurements are based on an agreed upon system).

And its interesting u use the word ``faith.`` It ties into the other build we were having located on the left side on the first page. its called ``is science really lame w/o religion.``

#35, DRUMZ:
I wish I had not seen your personality description page. While I am impressed by your age, I am disappointed with your forte at Chowk. That is not your fault, however.

Remember, science , art and any thing that humans conceive are ESSENTIALLY dependent on mental constructs but the belief in objective reality exists in an entirely personal - though most crucially confirmed by collective agreement of the competent - faith that humans can arrive at truths that ARE independent of themselves. It is in this context that one should interpret the human mind, instrumental results and so on. And also, THE FAITH INDICATED is the raison detre of all science.
Above specifically addresses to your #3 and #4 statements in #35 post.

Re: Aleph`s comment and your response:
Which discussion is being talked about? You guys probably need to have a consensus on what effability is before discussing.

Inquirer: Yup. Time being relative is a fact. The ``present moment`` can never be exactly pinpointed.

#3. Regardless of extending human powers, the actual analysis can only be done from a perspective ``in the balloon``. Even the best devices are limited to existing within the balloon.

#4. I am refering to the world which caused the big bang. It cannot be understood by an understanding based on the laws of the known world.

Aleph: I did not run, I suppose i will return and make another post but im losing my patience. Theres only so many times one can be explained the simplest of concepts. And based on all our interactions, all thats going to happen is im gonna blaze ur post and u will ignore everything i write and run off on a tangent.

#10,pencherel:
**** Dear Inquirer, I apologize if I was not polite in the earlier email.****
OK.

****What irritated me about your earlier post was the total incoherence
of what you were saying. It seemed like you have come up with
another crackpot theory like so many other people who email the
physics newsgroups.****
There is nothing incoherent there. You need to understand the point I am making. I am saying that you cannot sense time nor is there any instrument that can sense it. The concept of time is entirely personal. All physicists, worth their salt, acknowledge it, since Einstein described it with the example of time in connection with “the girlfriend.”

****I do know a little bit about relativity and that is the reason without
even knowing the details of your theory I am almost completely
convinced that its not a scientific theory. I would appreciate it if
you can explain your theory in a bit more detail. Thanks.****
I do not have any theory. I am simply making the observation that the concept of time is a just a book-keeping method. The dependence of other physical variables has been cryptically described in terms of passing of time and it is found to be convenient.

YOU FAILED TO ASK ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF PHYSICAL SYSTEMS AS QUASI-EQUILIBRIA. THAT IS THE CRUX OF MY ARGUMENT.

---

#12, ironman:
****``The fundamental error in the whole shabang is the conception of time as a real variable. There is no reality in time, i.e., time does not correspond to any thing physical. Time is a mental construct, unlike pressure.``
No doubt...the concept of time is inextricably linked to memory (mind). Only something which has memory has a concept of time.
Question is, does the universe have memory? Does it remember a previous state??
If it does, then time is real for the universe.
I believe this question is answered by the entropy principle. The universe seems to prefer going from less entropy to more. Therefore it does `remember` its previous state...and therefore `time` is a real variable for it !
- - - - -
Now, is entropy itself a `real` variable...and not simply a mathematical construct?****
Voltaire once said that before one can carry out serious discussion there is need for commonality of definition of words. Though it is interesting how you interpret entropy as “memory,”the argument is fallacious. Memory can be defined ONLY in terms of a living observer. Thus the inanimate universe has NO memory. And, indeed, entropy is MERELY a mental construct just as time is.

---

#27,drumz:
****Inquirer: Good luck trying to explain to desi`s that time isnt real... ****
Do you imply that you subscribe to my concept?

****No matter how far this discussion goes, the following will always be true.
1. To KNOW (from a scientific standpoint especially) requires context. FACTS must b insync with previously discovered facts.
2. We are dealing with the macro of all macros and therefore have NO CONTEXT to even begin a decent investigation. We can try and figure it out from a micro level (as per string theory) but the resolution will be limited as we ONLY have ONE universe.
3. This is akin to understanding the properties of a balloon, while being IN a balloon and not ever knowing anything similar to a balloon.
4. It is ILLOGICAL too apply the laws of the physical world to understand a world which MAY NOT B bound by the physical world. This is key ladies and gentlemen. Our extrapolations will ALWAYS have an asterisk after them...
5. This discussion is like saying would white exist if everything was white... We cannot talk about what a NO-THING is if weve always Had THINGS to use as a frame of reference. Even what some of us erroneaously consider as a no-thing - ``empty`` SPACE is composed of billions of things, particles and of course dark matter...****
1 is ok if you are referring to verifiable experiments. 2 is just a way of saying that our universe is all there is.
3. is not always true, e.g., nonlinear geometries and the extension of human senses with instruments provide extension of crude human powers.
4. We are not interested in non-physical worlds in science.
5. The discussion by Gill while interesting amounts to really nothing, as it fails to make any coherent statement. It is a pot pourri of undigested thoughts. This is confirmed by his return as freethinker in #28.

DRUMZ #27, #29

Have you officially fled from the other board - the one where you regaled us with your opinion that zero is an ineffable notion?