Much of the graph revolves around the idea of forces extrapolated from the known forces of today to an extra ordinary density where we assume that because the mathematics does not appear to break down then neither should the forces.

If there was a point well before one got even close to the first minutes or days of the big bang where there was a decoupling to a quantum foam of energy and the forces as exist today were generated by the combination of energy into matter by processes not related to the nuclear forces then that would help.

It seems that nature only permits straight line for so long as with Newtonian gravity before it adds curvatures of its own. The thing with mathematics is that the lines stay straight or at least get predicted that way which then sets the path of thinking and while it is all good on paper how do you tell nature that it is supposed to work that way?

I must be getting a bit pedantic by now and yet it certainly has me thinking.

Cheers

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

Pedantic, not true. If it applies here it applies to me so let's not mention it .

And as for the rest of your post I agree.

But I don't fight those issues because the graph like you say is back engineered, and it stops short of predicting a cause for expansion or source of the plasma. Rather important prerequisites IMHO.

The "before" that you mention had to have happened. The matter that collapsed to form the big crunch preexisted and formed under conditions that BBTC considers unknowable and therefore not of much interest as far as what we commit research efforts to.

And you mention the curves ... if you think about it and I bet you have, the curves would be there if space and time were not coupled and in spite of GTR's exquisite renditions of the effects of gravity.

The old adage nature abhors a straight line seems to keep coming at me. If one was to find a position of difference in nature and mathematics it would be just that. Mathematics is a very precise science and pays rigid attention to the straightness of a line or the smoothness of a curve.

Nature seems to allow a line for a while then bend or redirect it at every level as some specialised sort of asymmetry. I guess nature was a bit of a wild child and didn't bother much with marking things out in the very careful and precisely meticulous way that is so much a requirement today.

That is what gets me, our lines are too straight and our curves too symmetrical to adequately paint her portrait.

The other thing about trying to describe nature as a lady is that when I use the words space, distance, gravity and energy and so forth it is in a different context to how others seem to perceive those ideas. That makes it all the harder. I can now understand that people who don't think along those lines haven't the time to contemplate them and those who have made it their life seem to have a fixed understanding unshakably different to mine.

I wonder how many thousands of people have spent millions of hours to develop the mainstream version of cosmology while I have got a picture to my satisfaction, part time in a year, year and a half?

If anything the study of speculation would have to be one of the more beneficial ways to learn if it didn't seem that so few people seemed capable of it.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

It is true for both of us and our ATM ideas. Communication depends on a common understanding of the terms.

My ATM definition of space is that space is simply where things happen. It could be empty but never is because all space is filled with energy. Space is infinite and has always existed.

What is your definition of space?

Well as with any lady there is so much more to them than what you see. We do not feel the strong nuclear force within us but it is there. Just as the weak nuclear force is there and we don't feel that. We do experience a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic force when we get a zap but not much of it.

If we are not aware of our position as an observer then all that we see is based on being within the universe and not being independent of it to see what we really are.

Space looks like space because we are part of it. It is like a blood cell knowing the pulse but measuring the low pressure as zero. If blood pressure drops below that estimated zero it looks negative but is not.

We can't see the universe as it is because we are in it. We can see the universe as it looks from within but never have the God view. We would have to use logic to assume what we are firstly and what we can not see.

I can visualize space as a form of putty that can be bent or have holes poked in it from one point to another. I can imagine it is very energetic but I can never see it. The best I can do is guess what it is from a few tell tale clues which is not a lot to go on.

Even if I can make a halfway fair guess it is not even the beginning of a start. How do I introduce this extra ordinary secretive lady to anyone else?

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

If you didn't seem in such doubt I would feel much better about having no problem defining space. Now I wonder if the simple answer I use is worse than the mainstream answer where humans aren't capable of visualizing it at all .

Final thoughts for Carole: A Perspective on God

If I consider the perspective that the universe has always existed and life in the universe has always existed, and defining the landscape as infinite and eternal and the physics based on quantum energy of which all physical things are composed, what is my thinking about the existence of God under those circumstances?

My thoughts concerning the existence of God under those circumstances are that there would be no beginning so at all times past there would have been space, energy, physics, physical places, life and constant change. Physical change is occurring at all times in all places at an infinitesimal level. At the quantum level change is characteristic of how energy is used and of the process of renewing useful energy from the remnants left when useful energy is consumed; entropy and the defeat of entropy playing out forever in an infinite history of the energy - to matter - to life - to matter - to energy process.

My view is that under those circumstances life would have always been in existence in hospitable places across the infinite universe and would be generative and evolving to conscious, intelligent, self aware individuals who can and do think and act based on their own volition.

Given those circumstances humans have the capacity to observe and effect change from a unique vantage point as a highly organized and complex entity of trillions upon trillions of quantum energy increments united and made possible by the physics of the universe. You don’t need faith in God to appreciate that perspective but awareness of such a vantage point does contribute to the awareness of the concept of God.

As such the concept of God comes naturally to the highly evolved life form as a consequence of intelligence and maturity of the individual.


Belief in God would be by faith on an individual basis.

Proof of God to one individual is not transferable, i.e. any individual who has faith in God based on what they consider adequate proof can influence others but they cannot prove that God exists to others.

The decision to believe or not believe in God is equally justified though it is natural for those who have made a decision to consider their decision more justified. Those who have faith consider themselves enlightened. Those who chose to believe that there is no God consider such enlightenment to be a delusion.