He implicitly asserts that GIVEN the universe had some origin from nothing, that singularity as BOUND would be 0K at the beginning as it is already ACCEPTED by the Big Bang theory it would end. But while the end is accepted to gradually approach 0K, the 'bang' at the singularity is opposingly instantaneous because it goes from no energy to infinite energy in no time (and instant 'bang').jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 2:21 pmYour 2nd and 3rd statements do not come from your 1st statement.
You have made a leap in thinking that is not understandable.
Why should that singularity be treated as BOTH scientifically dependent upon observation AND logical when it is neither?
The Big Bang is definitely false but has some other reason for embracing it that has to imply it is political or religious!
You cannot logically INFER completion of a system of reason if you cannot exhaustively cover the all parts of the domain. In this case the inability to logically determine what or how the singularity arose FINITELY by a logical process, you cannot assure that any of the logic BEING USED TO INFER THIS is CONSISTENT. Also, given the INCOMPLETNESS THEOREM's second proof that you cannot use the very logic of the system to prove what it is without being circular, the whole logic inferring a singularity is not LOGICALLY VALID NOR SOUND!
Also, you cannot scientifically INFER a direct observation of being able to infinitely compress something. Not even 'black holes' can be observed to qualify this. And so
Because the alternative Steady State interpertation IS inferred logically and also does not break the laws of physics, this alternative is the ONLY model that can be acceptable [an infinite universe].
I have also proven that the Steady State theory which predominated the signficant intellect has literally only remnant mention for being so significant that its burial is suspect of political intent, rationally likely to be its countereffective power to disprove any need for any religious intervention,...even of the Deistic forms. Furthermore, it is literally impossible to even SPEAK of it within any forum beyond the intentended faulty belittlement of reference to the original thinker's reference to being inspired in thought by seeing an episode of Twilight Zone, there is a clear bias againt it. It is tabooed even more than any religious God as a postulate and such and you get absolutely censored (DELETED) on any scientific domains.
The latter unfortunately can only be 'proven' politically by trying to question it yourself in a science forum. You cannot raise questions about it and it is IMMEDIATELY monitored for any activity on Wikipedia even though it is absurdly 'trivialized' such that you write a question in the discussion sections and they are also deleted. But you can go to many other links and discuss something that are very active yet unnoticed.
I have a theory ...actually a theorem! that disproves the Big Bang and demonstrates reality from very simple logic that posits what and how exactly the shape of all atomic particles are that correspond to all the evidence but because of the political realities, I would not be able to publish without figuring out how to do it from outside. I'm working on it but the very difficulty that others here also have that I do on discussing these issues is hard for many to accept regardless of the logic. People just assume doubt that there could be such an intentional flaw (or possible conspiracy) regarding the general virtue of science given this is even difficult to conceptualize by many asserting no religious favor.
