Infinite and eternal

[Age]

Why is it so hard for some people to fathom and/or realize that there was an actual 'before' before what is called the big bang?

Just because the big bang was said to come from, happen at, or occur with 'singularity', or what is just an infinite compression of matter, then this does NOT mean that there was NO 'before'. What this actually means is that if there was only one singular solitary piece of matter, with NO 'space' within it, then 'that' is just what the shape of the Universe, at 'that time or moment'. If this was 'that way' for whatever length prior, then so be it, and whatever size that one singular infinitely compressed piece of matter is, with an infinite expanse of 'space' around it, then, again, so be it. That is just 'the way' things were, back then.

Now, how, what is Wrongly called, 'time' is, EXACTLY, measured was NOT existing prior to the big bang, then this, obviously, portrays a sense of 'no time' existing prior to the big bang, so when "scientists" say and claim there was 'no before' the big bang, then there was none, but only in the sense that there was no way to make temporal measurements before the big bang, in 'the way' that 'duration' is measured in the days when this is being written. But, that there was A 'duration' 'before' the big bang is, really, blatantly obvious. Well it is anyway for those who do NOT believe that the whole Universe came from nothing at and with a big bang.

See, 'time' is NOT some thing that actually exists outside of the concept, itself. The word 'time', when meaning the duration between two perceived events, is just referring to the measuring of the duration between those two perceived events. The measuring is done by human being made tools, or instruments, like clocks and watches, as is broken down into human being conceived increments like seconds, minutes, hours, months, years, and light years. All of which is related to the sun, or more precisely, to the light that comes from the sun. Now, as there is obviously no light in or at singularity, no duration measurements could be made, therefore the claim, 'There was no time'. In fact, at singularity, no spatial measurements could be made either. And, AGAIN, for ANY one who is Truly interested in learning more or anew here, then let 'us' discuss, but for now the reason WHY the Universe IS, and can only ever be, infinite, and eternal, would be becoming more obvious. Well for some anyway.

[Eodnhoj7]

Why is it so hard for some people to fathom and/or realize that there was an actual 'before' before what is called the big bang?

Just because the big bang was said to come from, happen at, or occur with 'singularity', or what is just an infinite compression of matter, then this does NOT mean that there was NO 'before'. What this actually means is that if there was only one singular solitary piece of matter, with NO 'space' within it, then 'that' is just what the shape of the Universe, at 'that time or moment'. If this was 'that way' for whatever length prior, then so be it, and whatever size that one singular infinitely compressed piece of matter is, with an infinite expanse of 'space' around it, then, again, so be it. That is just 'the way' things were, back then.

Now, how, what is Wrongly called, 'time' is, EXACTLY, measured was NOT existing prior to the big bang, then this, obviously, portrays a sense of 'no time' existing prior to the big bang, so when "scientists" say and claim there was 'no before' the big bang, then there was none, but only in the sense that there was no way to make temporal measurements before the big bang, in 'the way' that 'duration' is measured in the days when this is being written. But, that there was A 'duration' 'before' the big bang is, really, blatantly obvious. Well it is anyway for those who do NOT believe that the whole Universe came from nothing at and with a big bang.

See, 'time' is NOT some thing that actually exists outside of the concept, itself. The word 'time', when meaning the duration between two perceived events, is just referring to the measuring of the duration between those two perceived events. The measuring is done by human being made tools, or instruments, like clocks and watches, as is broken down into human being conceived increments like seconds, minutes, hours, months, years, and light years. All of which is related to the sun, or more precisely, to the light that comes from the sun. Now, as there is obviously no light in or at singularity, no duration measurements could be made, therefore the claim, 'There was no time'. In fact, at singularity, no spatial measurements could be made either. And, AGAIN, for ANY one who is Truly interested in learning more or anew here, then let 'us' discuss, but for now the reason WHY the Universe IS, and can only ever be, infinite, and eternal, would be becoming more obvious. Well for some anyway.

Why is it so hard for to conceptualize that people's inability to conceptualize was determined by the universe you claim to know so much about? And if you do not know that much about it then why are you surprised?

Your discussions are a fruitless rhetorical game of definition manipulation.

[Age]

Why is it so hard for some people to fathom and/or realize that there was an actual 'before' before what is called the big bang?

Just because the big bang was said to come from, happen at, or occur with 'singularity', or what is just an infinite compression of matter, then this does NOT mean that there was NO 'before'. What this actually means is that if there was only one singular solitary piece of matter, with NO 'space' within it, then 'that' is just what the shape of the Universe, at 'that time or moment'. If this was 'that way' for whatever length prior, then so be it, and whatever size that one singular infinitely compressed piece of matter is, with an infinite expanse of 'space' around it, then, again, so be it. That is just 'the way' things were, back then.

Now, how, what is Wrongly called, 'time' is, EXACTLY, measured was NOT existing prior to the big bang, then this, obviously, portrays a sense of 'no time' existing prior to the big bang, so when "scientists" say and claim there was 'no before' the big bang, then there was none, but only in the sense that there was no way to make temporal measurements before the big bang, in 'the way' that 'duration' is measured in the days when this is being written. But, that there was A 'duration' 'before' the big bang is, really, blatantly obvious. Well it is anyway for those who do NOT believe that the whole Universe came from nothing at and with a big bang.

See, 'time' is NOT some thing that actually exists outside of the concept, itself. The word 'time', when meaning the duration between two perceived events, is just referring to the measuring of the duration between those two perceived events. The measuring is done by human being made tools, or instruments, like clocks and watches, as is broken down into human being conceived increments like seconds, minutes, hours, months, years, and light years. All of which is related to the sun, or more precisely, to the light that comes from the sun. Now, as there is obviously no light in or at singularity, no duration measurements could be made, therefore the claim, 'There was no time'. In fact, at singularity, no spatial measurements could be made either. And, AGAIN, for ANY one who is Truly interested in learning more or anew here, then let 'us' discuss, but for now the reason WHY the Universe IS, and can only ever be, infinite, and eternal, would be becoming more obvious. Well for some anyway.

Why is it so hard for to conceptualize that people's inability to conceptualize was determined by the universe you claim to know so much about?

But this presumption of yours, here, is Wrong, AGAIN.

I ALREADY KNEW the answer.

Just like I ALREADY KNEW WHY you keep making False and Wrong assumptions, here.

Absolutely EVERY thought, (conception, view, belief, pre/assumption, value, goal, et cetera), is because of 'past experiences'.

AGAIN, I just asked the question, above here,

And if you do not know that much about it then why are you surprised?

PRESUMING some thing, and then CONCLUDING and/or BELIEVING some thing further, just leads you completely ASTRAY.

See, if what you are PRESUMING was Wrong, or False, from the outset, then what you CONCLUDE and/or BELIEVE from that PRESUMPTION is going to be False, and/or Wrong, AS WELL.

Your discussions are a fruitless rhetorical game of definition manipulation.

If you say and BELIEVE so.

BUT, could your PRESUMPTIONS, and CONCLUSIONS, here, be Wrong, or False?

[Age]

Why is it so hard for some people to fathom and/or realize that there was an actual 'before' before what is called the big bang?

Just because the big bang was said to come from, happen at, or occur with 'singularity', or what is just an infinite compression of matter, then this does NOT mean that there was NO 'before'. What this actually means is that if there was only one singular solitary piece of matter, with NO 'space' within it, then 'that' is just what the shape of the Universe, at 'that time or moment'. If this was 'that way' for whatever length prior, then so be it, and whatever size that one singular infinitely compressed piece of matter is, with an infinite expanse of 'space' around it, then, again, so be it. That is just 'the way' things were, back then.

Now, how, what is Wrongly called, 'time' is, EXACTLY, measured was NOT existing prior to the big bang, then this, obviously, portrays a sense of 'no time' existing prior to the big bang, so when "scientists" say and claim there was 'no before' the big bang, then there was none, but only in the sense that there was no way to make temporal measurements before the big bang, in 'the way' that 'duration' is measured in the days when this is being written. But, that there was A 'duration' 'before' the big bang is, really, blatantly obvious. Well it is anyway for those who do NOT believe that the whole Universe came from nothing at and with a big bang.

See, 'time' is NOT some thing that actually exists outside of the concept, itself. The word 'time', when meaning the duration between two perceived events, is just referring to the measuring of the duration between those two perceived events. The measuring is done by human being made tools, or instruments, like clocks and watches, as is broken down into human being conceived increments like seconds, minutes, hours, months, years, and light years. All of which is related to the sun, or more precisely, to the light that comes from the sun. Now, as there is obviously no light in or at singularity, no duration measurements could be made, therefore the claim, 'There was no time'. In fact, at singularity, no spatial measurements could be made either. And, AGAIN, for ANY one who is Truly interested in learning more or anew here, then let 'us' discuss, but for now the reason WHY the Universe IS, and can only ever be, infinite, and eternal, would be becoming more obvious. Well for some anyway.

Why is it so hard for to conceptualize that people's inability to conceptualize was determined by the universe you claim to know so much about?

But this presumption of yours, here, is Wrong, AGAIN.

I ALREADY KNEW the answer.

Just like I ALREADY KNEW WHY you keep making False and Wrong assumptions, here.

Absolutely EVERY thought, (conception, view, belief, pre/assumption, value, goal, et cetera), is because of 'past experiences'.

AGAIN, I just asked the question, above here, to see how you answer, and if you actually clarify, or not.

And, just so you become FULLY AWARE, 'me' just asking 'you' questions, for clarification, never means that I do NOT YET ALREADY KNOW 'the answer'/s'.

Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?

And if you do not know that much about it then why are you surprised?

PRESUMING some thing, and then CONCLUDING and/or BELIEVING some thing further, just leads you completely ASTRAY.

See, if what you are PRESUMING was Wrong, or False, from the outset, then what you CONCLUDE and/or BELIEVE from that PRESUMPTION is going to be False, and/or Wrong, AS WELL.

So, do I not know 'that much' about 'it', or not?

Your discussions are a fruitless rhetorical game of definition manipulation.

If you say and BELIEVE so.

BUT, could your PRESUMPTIONS, and/or CONCLUSIONS, here, be Wrong, or False?

[Eodnhoj7]

Why is it so hard for some people to fathom and/or realize that there was an actual 'before' before what is called the big bang?

Just because the big bang was said to come from, happen at, or occur with 'singularity', or what is just an infinite compression of matter, then this does NOT mean that there was NO 'before'. What this actually means is that if there was only one singular solitary piece of matter, with NO 'space' within it, then 'that' is just what the shape of the Universe, at 'that time or moment'. If this was 'that way' for whatever length prior, then so be it, and whatever size that one singular infinitely compressed piece of matter is, with an infinite expanse of 'space' around it, then, again, so be it. That is just 'the way' things were, back then.

Now, how, what is Wrongly called, 'time' is, EXACTLY, measured was NOT existing prior to the big bang, then this, obviously, portrays a sense of 'no time' existing prior to the big bang, so when "scientists" say and claim there was 'no before' the big bang, then there was none, but only in the sense that there was no way to make temporal measurements before the big bang, in 'the way' that 'duration' is measured in the days when this is being written. But, that there was A 'duration' 'before' the big bang is, really, blatantly obvious. Well it is anyway for those who do NOT believe that the whole Universe came from nothing at and with a big bang.

See, 'time' is NOT some thing that actually exists outside of the concept, itself. The word 'time', when meaning the duration between two perceived events, is just referring to the measuring of the duration between those two perceived events. The measuring is done by human being made tools, or instruments, like clocks and watches, as is broken down into human being conceived increments like seconds, minutes, hours, months, years, and light years. All of which is related to the sun, or more precisely, to the light that comes from the sun. Now, as there is obviously no light in or at singularity, no duration measurements could be made, therefore the claim, 'There was no time'. In fact, at singularity, no spatial measurements could be made either. And, AGAIN, for ANY one who is Truly interested in learning more or anew here, then let 'us' discuss, but for now the reason WHY the Universe IS, and can only ever be, infinite, and eternal, would be becoming more obvious. Well for some anyway.

Why is it so hard for to conceptualize that people's inability to conceptualize was determined by the universe you claim to know so much about?

But this presumption of yours, here, is Wrong, AGAIN.

I ALREADY KNEW the answer.

Just like I ALREADY KNEW WHY you keep making False and Wrong assumptions, here.

Absolutely EVERY thought, (conception, view, belief, pre/assumption, value, goal, et cetera), is because of 'past experiences'.

AGAIN, I just asked the question, above here, to see how you answer, and if you actually clarify, or not.

And, just so you become FULLY AWARE, 'me' just asking 'you' questions, for clarification, never means that I do NOT YET ALREADY KNOW 'the answer'/s'.

Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?

And if you do not know that much about it then why are you surprised?

PRESUMING some thing, and then CONCLUDING and/or BELIEVING some thing further, just leads you completely ASTRAY.

See, if what you are PRESUMING was Wrong, or False, from the outset, then what you CONCLUDE and/or BELIEVE from that PRESUMPTION is going to be False, and/or Wrong, AS WELL.

So, do I not know 'that much' about 'it', or not?

Your discussions are a fruitless rhetorical game of definition manipulation.

If you say and BELIEVE so.

BUT, could your PRESUMPTIONS, and/or CONCLUSIONS, here, be Wrong, or False?

All is relative thus anything can be argued when context is added or subtracted.

[Fairy]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=51c4lm3icQI ... IAZbu9MOrM

What Was There Before The Big Bang - Brian Cox

He knows a thing or two.

[Age]

Why is it so hard for to conceptualize that people's inability to conceptualize was determined by the universe you claim to know so much about?

But this presumption of yours, here, is Wrong, AGAIN.

I ALREADY KNEW the answer.

Just like I ALREADY KNEW WHY you keep making False and Wrong assumptions, here.

Absolutely EVERY thought, (conception, view, belief, pre/assumption, value, goal, et cetera), is because of 'past experiences'.

AGAIN, I just asked the question, above here, to see how you answer, and if you actually clarify, or not.

And, just so you become FULLY AWARE, 'me' just asking 'you' questions, for clarification, never means that I do NOT YET ALREADY KNOW 'the answer'/s'.

Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?

And if you do not know that much about it then why are you surprised?

PRESUMING some thing, and then CONCLUDING and/or BELIEVING some thing further, just leads you completely ASTRAY.

See, if what you are PRESUMING was Wrong, or False, from the outset, then what you CONCLUDE and/or BELIEVE from that PRESUMPTION is going to be False, and/or Wrong, AS WELL.

So, do I not know 'that much' about 'it', or not?

Your discussions are a fruitless rhetorical game of definition manipulation.

If you say and BELIEVE so.

BUT, could your PRESUMPTIONS, and/or CONCLUSIONS, here, be Wrong, or False?

All is relative thus anything can be argued when context is added or subtracted.

As I continually say and write, here. Absolutely EVERY thing is relative, to the observer.

And, if any thing can be 'argued', then, literally, it is not even worth 'arguing' about.

Also, let us not forget that 'argue' can either mean disagree; fighting, or, logical reasoning. So, in other words, if some thing can be disagreed over or fought over, then it is, literally, not worth disagreeing nor fighting over. It just is 'that way'. Or, if some thing can be logically reasoned, then it, again, is not worth logically reasoning over, because it is, also, 'just that way'.

Now, if one does NOT YET KNOW the Truth, then they can logically reason, and argue, with "them" 'self' or with others to FIND OUT what the actual Truth is, exactly. But, for the rest of 'us' 'we' ALREADY KNOW the Truth.

By the way, you can argue any thing with any one, even when context is not added nor subtracted, as this forum lays PROOF for, and to.

Anyway, the Universe is infinite AND eternal, and absolutely NO one could refute this.

[Age]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=51c4lm3icQI ... IAZbu9MOrM

What Was There Before The Big Bang - Brian Cox

He knows a thing or two.

"brian cox" only THINKS it knows a thing or two. Just in its very first sentence it has made some provable False and Wrong claims.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, if absolutely ANY one would like to have A DISCUSSION, here, then let 'us' proceed.

[Eodnhoj7]

But this presumption of yours, here, is Wrong, AGAIN.

I ALREADY KNEW the answer.

Just like I ALREADY KNEW WHY you keep making False and Wrong assumptions, here.

Absolutely EVERY thought, (conception, view, belief, pre/assumption, value, goal, et cetera), is because of 'past experiences'.

AGAIN, I just asked the question, above here, to see how you answer, and if you actually clarify, or not.

And, just so you become FULLY AWARE, 'me' just asking 'you' questions, for clarification, never means that I do NOT YET ALREADY KNOW 'the answer'/s'.

Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?



PRESUMING some thing, and then CONCLUDING and/or BELIEVING some thing further, just leads you completely ASTRAY.

See, if what you are PRESUMING was Wrong, or False, from the outset, then what you CONCLUDE and/or BELIEVE from that PRESUMPTION is going to be False, and/or Wrong, AS WELL.

So, do I not know 'that much' about 'it', or not?



If you say and BELIEVE so.

BUT, could your PRESUMPTIONS, and/or CONCLUSIONS, here, be Wrong, or False?

All is relative thus anything can be argued when context is added or subtracted.

As I continually say and write, here. Absolutely EVERY thing is relative, to the observer.

And, if any thing can be 'argued', then, literally, it is not even worth 'arguing' about.

Also, let us not forget that 'argue' can either mean disagree; fighting, or, logical reasoning. So, in other words, if some thing can be disagreed over or fought over, then it is, literally, not worth disagreeing nor fighting over. It just is 'that way'. Or, if some thing can be logically reasoned, then it, again, is not worth logically reasoning over, because it is, also, 'just that way'.

Now, if one does NOT YET KNOW the Truth, then they can logically reason, and argue, with "them" 'self' or with others to FIND OUT what the actual Truth is, exactly. But, for the rest of 'us' 'we' ALREADY KNOW the Truth.

By the way, you can argue any thing with any one, even when context is not added nor subtracted, as this forum lays PROOF for, and to.

Anyway, the Universe is infinite AND eternal, and absolutely NO one could refute this.

Everything is relative to occurence and the observer is an occurence.

[Age]

All is relative thus anything can be argued when context is added or subtracted.

As I continually say and write, here. Absolutely EVERY thing is relative, to the observer.

And, if any thing can be 'argued', then, literally, it is not even worth 'arguing' about.

Also, let us not forget that 'argue' can either mean disagree; fighting, or, logical reasoning. So, in other words, if some thing can be disagreed over or fought over, then it is, literally, not worth disagreeing nor fighting over. It just is 'that way'. Or, if some thing can be logically reasoned, then it, again, is not worth logically reasoning over, because it is, also, 'just that way'.

Now, if one does NOT YET KNOW the Truth, then they can logically reason, and argue, with "them" 'self' or with others to FIND OUT what the actual Truth is, exactly. But, for the rest of 'us' 'we' ALREADY KNOW the Truth.

By the way, you can argue any thing with any one, even when context is not added nor subtracted, as this forum lays PROOF for, and to.

Anyway, the Universe is infinite AND eternal, and absolutely NO one could refute this.

Everything is relative to occurence and the observer is an occurence.

ONCE AGAIN, this one 'TRIES TO' DEFLECT, and thus, AGAIN, 'ATTEMPTS' to DECEIVE you readers, here.

[Eodnhoj7]

As I continually say and write, here. Absolutely EVERY thing is relative, to the observer.

And, if any thing can be 'argued', then, literally, it is not even worth 'arguing' about.

Also, let us not forget that 'argue' can either mean disagree; fighting, or, logical reasoning. So, in other words, if some thing can be disagreed over or fought over, then it is, literally, not worth disagreeing nor fighting over. It just is 'that way'. Or, if some thing can be logically reasoned, then it, again, is not worth logically reasoning over, because it is, also, 'just that way'.

Now, if one does NOT YET KNOW the Truth, then they can logically reason, and argue, with "them" 'self' or with others to FIND OUT what the actual Truth is, exactly. But, for the rest of 'us' 'we' ALREADY KNOW the Truth.

By the way, you can argue any thing with any one, even when context is not added nor subtracted, as this forum lays PROOF for, and to.

Anyway, the Universe is infinite AND eternal, and absolutely NO one could refute this.

Everything is relative to occurence and the observer is an occurence.

ONCE AGAIN, this one 'TRIES TO' DEFLECT, and thus, AGAIN, 'ATTEMPTS' to DECEIVE you readers, here.

No, observation is an occurence. The observer is an occurence. These things are subject to occurence.

[Fairy]

No, observation is an occurence. The observer is an occurence. These things are subject to occurence.

This use of thought is mixed in with the instinctive desire and urge to protect our sense of self. Self-preservation

Human beings use of thought is to a much greater extent as we are purveyors of concepts and knowledge.
We are human beings, so we are exploring the process of thought (or ‘self’) as it occurs in human beings.

So yes, observation is an occurrence. The observer is the observed.

[Age]

Everything is relative to occurence and the observer is an occurence.

ONCE AGAIN, this one 'TRIES TO' DEFLECT, and thus, AGAIN, 'ATTEMPTS' to DECEIVE you readers, here.

No, observation is an occurence. The observer is an occurence. These things are subject to occurence.

LOL Talk about COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSING things, here.

[Fairy]

"brian cox" only THINKS it knows a thing or two. Just in its very first sentence it has made some provable False and Wrong claims.

'Brian Cox' is just a quantum particle in the quantum soup of infinite possibility. Unobserved, this particle behaves like a wave, existing in superposition until it is observed, once observed, the reality of 'Brian Cox' comes into being, comes to life so to speak, creation is born, along with the creation of conceptual language used to illustrate what creation is and how it is brought to life, from the unobserved state into the changed state that is the effect of observation.

The Observer Effect — How Observing Changes Reality
''The observer effect is often associated with the wave function collapse. When a quantum particle is unobserved, it behaves like a wave, existing in multiple states. However, once we attempt to measure it, the wave function collapses, and the particle “chooses” a single, definite state.
The mere act of observing changes how particles behave. If left unobserved, they act as waves. When observed, they act like particles. The observer effect here seems almost paradoxical: the particles’ behavior depends on whether or not we’re watching.

People change their behavior when they know they’re being watched.This effect underscores how observation can influence behavior — a connection that helps us grasp the quantum observer effect’s implications.''

Now, ONCE AGAIN, if absolutely ANY one would like to have A DISCUSSION, here, then let 'us' proceed.

Proceed...

[Fairy]

LOL Talk about COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSING things, here.

Nothing is missing on the molecular level of matter which could be said to not exist as when atoms are broken down into quarks and further into the quantum field where everything is only energy and vibrating.

Matter then would only be perceived as an illusion to the senses. Theoretically absolutely nothing and everything exists on that note. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, so as long as there is an observer, there will be the observed. So yeah, no one can die, one is already dead or alive, depending on participation of this infinite eternal dance of now you see me, now you don't.