"My advice is to learn your mathematics before you start philosophizing about physics."

This is necessary in order to understand the language of physics. In addition, efforts will be needed to understand physics.

This is not a question of inconvenience or inappropriateness; this notion (of Big Bang) creation is outright deceptive and opportunistic, meant to serve the interest of monopoly capitalism and the modern -day “clergy” – both academic and theological.

This has been a more or less forcefully imposed notion on society, but the one that has absolutely no scientific basis. Historically and till today, this premise served the interest of the ruling classes; particularly of the most parasitic ones. The liberation of humanity and of the human spirit requires the abolition of the notion of Big Bang creation of the universe

The universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing. Any notion of “Big Bang” beginning or a "Big Crunch" end; expansion or contraction; has no meaning in an infinite universe:

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

Article "BIG-BANG" CREATED OR AN ETERNAL AND INFINITE UNIVERSE?*

If the subject is treated as the Author wishes to be a "question for physicists, chemists, and researchers working in related sciences", the Big-Bang is one of possible mathematical models of the universe, justified by known physical phenomena, by ASSUMING some particular homogeneity conditions. Those are abstract, and therefore the model is purely abstract (as ALL models). Such a model fits some OBSERVATIONS, but is not the unique with such properties. At least, the available data are not decisive wrt to this problem.

Acording to the above, the notion of Big-Bang is of the same convenience as any other model of reality, e.g. that our Earth is a ball. Obviously it is not a ball, but such a model allows us in a convenient way desribe and predict many phenomena pretty well. And if not, we are correcting/improving the model by replacing BALL by, say an ELLIPSOID. And if this is not sufficiently precise or convenient - we adjust the model by admitting some subtle deviations better fitting the OBSERVATIONS in order to obain more CONSISTENT image of the reality, which is COMMUNICATED in terms of the (universal scientific language of) MATHEMATICS.

The 'big bang' and its fallout 'the expansion of the universe' are technically 'inconvenient' for anyone researching interstellar communications as it becomes very clear that given a fixed speed of light and an expanding universe that many stars are falling over the communication horizon every second. Even if we do identify a extra-solar life form, we could never engage with them.

What I think about Bigbangology ?

"Ridicules" is the only word that is "appropriate" for this mind product of pathological megalomania. Science has to go from the basics to the top and not the other way round... but the basics are not yet known to an extend that they can serve as the pillars for a theory about the universe. Gravity is a theory about the interaction of mass, but is not able to give the slightest information about the atoms, the basic mass unit, because mass is treated as a field (a continuum) and not as consisting of a number of atoms. Mr Gerk is asking whether denying Einstein, special and general relativity should be blocked... nice try, but special relativity needs to be corrected and general relativity needs a secure place on the scrapyard...

The scientific method, like Occam's razor, are mostly used as a shield against criticism, but not as a basic guideline in science... mainstream physics are under terminal care...

Berndt Barkholz

Yale Uni has a patent on a machine that can detect gravity differentials of 10^-14G.

Using a combination of Bose-Einstein condensate and perfectly matched lasers it comes close to detecting the gravity of individual molecules.

In engineering terms gravity like electricity and magnetism is best measured as a field rather than the effect of individual atoms / electrons / gravitons where the concepts become much more difficult to manipulate.

Ian Proffitt Sure, measuring gravity as a field is the only way, but that doesn't mean that you get the right theory of gravity by treating mass as a field... mass consists of atoms ! That means you have to define mass as such at the boundary. Clearly, in case of Mother Earth you can't use that approach... the boundary is the mass limit, the Chandrasekhar limit...

Please read: Preprint Rewriting Gravity

Dear Berndt Barkholz, Dear All,

As yet, I desist from intervention into your discussion. But I propose you to acquaint with the alternative approach to the problem under consideration in the presentations (in English) of my with Elena Kadyshevich lectures by the addresses:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333754868_Solar_protuberances_their_nature_function_and_potential_threat_to_the_Earth's_population_in_the_context_of_the_PFO-CFO_Theory_of_Solar_System_Formation_and_Transformation_Presentation

or

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320254816_Mass_extinctions_of_species_causes_of_Phanerozoic_extinctions_and_possibilities_of_recurrence_of_such_phenomena_in_future

or in the paper in Russian by the address:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320187190_Massovye_vymirania_vidov_priciny_Fanerozojnyh_vymiranij_i_vozmoznost_povtorenia_podobnyh_avlenij_v_budusem_Plenarnaa_lekcia

From Democritus onwards; physics, chemistry and other branches of natural science thrived on the premise, the vision and the established fact that discrete atoms of "matter in eternal motion" in empty space constitute objective reality. Modern quantum electrodynamics (QED) reaffirmed that thoroughly materialist dialectical perspective of an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe that is mediated by blind chance but with an iron necessity that is inherent in chance itself.

As I have argued in my published works, this fundamental materialist view of the world has been undermined by the concept of (matter-less) “continuous field” (spacetime, Higgs etc.) as the basis of objective reality; initiated by Albert Einstein; as a reactionary attempt to save the old and revered rationalist notions (of certainty, continuity, determinism, causality etc.) that became threatened with the recognition of the quantum phenomena. The so-called “Spacetime field” is an abstract mental fabrication of objective reality, suitable for opportunistic and subjective manipulation using idealized mathematics and symmetry. This represents a fright and a flight from the complexities of the real world to the delusional and comfort zone of the ideal world of thought. For his frenzied followers, mathematics is the a priori determinant of the universe and “matter is a myth”!

Faced with similar problems in philosophy and to save the established order, Immanuel Kant also declared objective reality to be unknowable thing-in-itself and sought to deal with it by imposing his brain-cooked “logical categories” as if the world has to conform to the wishful thinking of man!

But Einstein (as opposed to his blind followers) to his credit became aware of this delusion by the end of his life, when he wrote, “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,

To AB: What do the logical categories have in common with BB?

JD> "What do the logical categories have in common with BB?"

As a mathematician/physicist you should know better than anyone else in this forum, Sir! BB represent the "Burst" of the "Cosmic Egg" (the primordial atom) that contained everything that this universe could or can have ("spactime", matter? - including us, etc.) in the form of some very simple mathematical equations (logical categories) that modern mathematician/physicists can write down on the surface of a coffee mug! It is as simple as that!

But who laid or made the "Cosmic Egg" and why it was detonated and burst-open exactly 13.7 billions years ago (not a whit earlier or later), remains a mystery even though any physicist can now give a second by second "eye-witness" account of what followed from back to the billionth of a second after the BB till now; only if he/she "shuts up and calculates" with religious devotion.

But the question "who" and "why" remains a mystery that only the priests (both academic and theological) including the Pope who attended the conference at the Vatican could know. Even some well-known (but non-believers) astrophysicists/cosmologists like Hoyle, Arp, Ambartsumian, Burbidge, Narlikar et al., of the time were deprived of this primordial truth:- “By 1982, when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsuminan and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents. In fact in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers” : G Burbidge, In “The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology".

Abdul Malek

Eating cosmic eggs with your tongue so firmly in cheek must present real difficulties in the search for universal harmony! Certainly gave me 5 minutes of mirth.

for an early universe which has no objects E=mc² becomes E=, i.e. Energy was zero. such a system- I have demonstrated that- has symmetical behavior. in other words: if big bang existed out of the asymmetrical time interval, there must be a symetrical big crunch

Our living space (our universe) is a dynamic field that can be described by a quaternionic function. Its parameter space is a flat field. In the beginning the universe was equal to its parameter space in which the real parts (the time stamps) was zero. This flat field is NOT a single point! The field started expanding at a huge number of points that were spread over the parameter space.

case big bang is in the time interval where asymmetry happens, there must be a time before AND after that time-interval where the system called universe has a symmetrical behavior (see distributions theory)

The BB by AM is not the Big-Bang as it is seen by "physicists, chemists, and researchers working in related sciences" - simply a notion off this problem. Sweetching the subject of the discussion is a very inappropriate way of spreading the core of the knowledge. In this case - about the evolution of the real world. If someone needs to propagate his/her anticlericalism - should use another media.

PS. Did anyone uninvited to a discussion about subject of the religion called dialectical materialism accuse ever the organizers for missing him/her on the list of invited persons?

physicists claim the same things religion says: big bang=fiat lux, behind the higgs field (no mass) is where the souls go, aso.

A possibility of constructing a model of the expanding universe without the instantaneous BB has been shown in my paper:

ON A BIG-BANG-LESS MODIFICATION OF THE NEWTONIAN SUSSKIND UNIVERSE - the case of fi nite mass with spherically symmetrical distribution

Rozprawy Naukowe i Zawodowe PWSZ w Elblągu, vol. 27, 101 - 113.

available as a part of the file

https://pwsz.elblag.pl/assets/upload/files/wydawnictwo/rniz/RNiZ_27_Tekst.pdf

Joachim Domsta

I hope I don't step on somebodies toes... but I will leave this discussion... I am afraid somebody might suggest that the great spaghetti-monster caused the Big Bang... because this spaghetti-monster exists at the same intellectual level as the Big-Bang...

Paul Pistea: "physicists claim the same things religion says: big bang=fiat lux"

It's an interesting mixture of few notions: 'physicist', 'to claim', 'same', 'things', 'religion', 'big bang' and 'fiat lux'.

The severe problem however is that nobody can claim ultimately anything about the reality. Those who claim briefly just existence of BB are not physicists. The more - those who deny something not well defined: is there any rigorous definition of big bang? I see this thread as a trial to DEFINE the big bang first before stating anything about its validity, appropriateness, usefulness etc, which should be established after rather detailed consensus about which types of objects form the notion. My working structure of notions collects - as said once above - within this notion some mathematical physically justified models of evolution of the universe treated as a space (possibly: time-space) and/or the matter fulfilling the space, with the aim to explain the observed expansion (which, if extrapolated to the very past admits possibility of assumption of the very dense distribution during some not very much extended time interval). Within this fashion any trial of suggesting some negatively understood idealism of the idea of the BB is the same as to treat any other physical model (like e.g. Newton's second law) as wrong due to its too idealistic nature [since purely mathematical=idealistic(!) in form ? ].

Paul Pistea

PP> "physicists claim the same things religion says"

If you believe in a “beginning” (no matter whether you are a physicist, a mathematician, priest, Pope or a Prophet etc.) you are dealing with a “First Cause”; which is the “Effect” of a “Cause” that is unknown or unknowable – in plain words a mystery: subject to any kind speculation, imagination fantasy etc.

Does it matter how you think the beginning happened – through an explosion, from a mathematical singularity, “without the instantaneous BB”, a spark from God’s finger or any thing else you can fancy? All these are mysteries! Is one mystery better than another one? Even if we forget about “Clericalism” and speak of our “Scientists” ( "physicists, chemists, and researchers working in related sciences"); where is your “science” when you start from a mystery and try to explain the world based on a mystery! Isn’t a mystery hiding behind any causal relationship you make in your scholarly deliberation? With your causality based “science” are you dealing with any positive knowledge beyond everyday life experience and good old commonsense that any life form (including the most primitive ones) needs within its own realm of experience – as a practical necessity?

Look even at the charlatan “atheist” (evolutionary biologist) Richard Dawkins, who claims to be the champion of humanity against theology and God; but believes in Big Bang (or whatever) beginning of the universe. Dawkins claims of profound “knowledge” of the world (or at least of evolutionary biology) in his book, “The Magic of Reality” starting from the Big Bang origin. But if you ask him the question (as even a priest might do), “Well Sir, pray tell, who or what triggered the Big Bang explosion, if not the finger of God?”; Dawkins just squirms and so does his “knowledge”!

dear Abdul, I merely read Your 1st sentence and do nor agree with You: a beginning does not mean a 1st cause; it could be the fist cause of something else, as well as the beginning of something (else). AND: I merely say that physicists have discovered things that were said by others before. I say: if there was a BB, it is like a fiat lux. what is the difference?

No Paul, models exist that are created and filled with data before time starts running. Time-stamps are parts of data where the combination of the time-stamp and the location only tell a story when the time-stamps are sequenced. This depends completely on the selected model. Thus selecting an appropriate model is crucial. Without a proper model your theory becomes a fantasy. You can wake-up inside that dream. It has little scientific value.

dear Joachim Domsta, I have my own theory based on distributions, which mainly says: universe is not a closed system, natural constants are variable, aso. Ergo RT is false and BB-theory too. 2nd maths is a tool that should be use to certify presumed (axioms).

No Hans, 1st one has to presume (without axioms no science). 2nd certify. case the results contradict one/or more axioms, one has to change them and try again.

one uses mathematics to certify. that`s (simply) all.

PP> "a beginning does not mean a 1st cause; it could be the fist cause of something else, as well as the beginning of something (else)."

Dear Paul, I am sorry to say that you are entangled in your own logic! Please think more carefully. What you say in the above sentence does not make any sense! The "first cause" and the "beginning" means the same thing! The "first cause" sets the "beginning" of one or more things!

Please read my comment fully, to realise the point I am trying to make that causality is a very poor form of epistemology that can give us no knowledge beyond our good old commonsense of everyday life experience and on the contrary leads to more and more mysteries, antinomies etc.; but to no positive knowledge of the world.

If mighty thinkers like Hume and Kant found problems with causality, then we should take a pause to think otherwise! To save causality as the revered epistemology of philosophy Kant declared that objective reality is an "unknowable thing-in-itself" and warned philosophy to abate its claim to any knowledge of the world! Faced with this problem, Kant resorted to subjective idealism and devised his "logical categories" in his thought, to deal with the unweldy objective reality.

As I said above, to save causality in the face of the "Evil Quanta" and "God playing with dice"; Einstein abandoned the real world and took refuge in his "Castle in the Air" made of mathematical idealism!

No matter what you do and how far you go, you cannot escape the curse of the "First Cause" (or God); if you depend on causality as a tool of your epistemology. You meet the same fate as Richard Dawkins does. Even Newton's causality based laws of universal gravitation (on which modern space exploration is so dependent) is defective. Please see: Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

Dialectical mode of epistemology is the only tool modern natural science can use in the realm of the macrocosm of the outer space and the microcosm of the quantum world; without encountering mystery of some kind or other.

Frederick Engels initiated the materialist dialectical approach to natural science and only this approach can give us positive (and relatively and progressively better) knowledge of objective reality (Nature) beyond our commonsense of everyday life and beyond classical physics. Mathematical idealism of Einstein has led modern physics to ashtray, to a blind alley and to the dark/black cosmic monsters!

It is inappropriate for many reasons:

• not certain evidence that CMB has a bang origin
• inconsistency of inflation stage to the main supporting theory
• CERN did not repeat the 'experiment' although it tried too hard...

Our philosopher stated:" Dialectical mode of epistemology is the only tool modern natural science can use in the realm of the macrocosm of the outer space and the microcosm of the quantum world; without encountering mystery of some kind or other." for justifying: " Even Newton's causality based laws of universal gravitation (on which modern space exploration is so dependent) is defective."

The defect is just claimed by our guru, without any trial on his side of giving reasonable explanation how defective the depreciated causality is, without explaining how alleged removal of the alleged defect (by the dialectical religion(!)) could result into something replacing the Newton laws, e.g. by some better law(s) without harming validity of the whole excellently consistent calculus of - say - trajectories of planets, mathematical physically justified models of star evolution etc.etc. Let us pass to models used in our realm, instead. And finaly with respect to this and similar threads:

What is wrong with statements constructed like this, The following description (in mathematical terms) . . .. fits the observations by . . .. sufficiently well, since it allowed to PREDICT with satisfactory precision such and such phenomena (not distinguishable by currently used experiments).

What would be a defects-free conterpart of the statements constructed like the one in italics?

Dear Dr. Berndt Barkholz,

I ask you to return to the discussion. I hope, you agree that only those discussions make sense, in which persons of different convictions participate. Meanwhile, any conviction should have grounds and these grounds should be substantiated by their advocates and the opposite views should be disproved by the laws of logic. On frequent occasions, discussions are more useful not for those who defend alternative theses but for those who listen or read the discussions. The number of the last may be rather great, and just they determine finally, who is the winner in the debates.

I call you not to turn away from those who don’t understand you if you are sure in correctness of your views, the more so because we discuss an extremely important problem, the solution of which determines the conformation of the world, its past, present-day natural phenomena, and future and, ultimately, the fate of humanity.

dear Abdul, unlimited infinities have NO beggnnings. before hen or egg there was the reptile, before reptile or egg there were fishes... before big bang there was something else. everything flows so one cannot distinguish a beginning, but the cause, which is that (be)cause it was before

dear Hans, , even God cannot stop time; He would kill Himself if He stops time.

2.about logics: Hilbert had a revolutionary idea when he spoke about 2 logics to be used- the logic and the logic about the logic (name it epi-logic). but David Hilbert forgot to argue correctly: it is not allowed to make conclusions from logic to epi-logic

Paul Pistea

Paul

Your examples of unlimited infinities are self defeating.

If we are examining the infinite set of hens then the non hen ancestors of those birds is excluded by definition. The set of hens must have a start point from which we can begin to enumerate hens, although it may never have an end (finish ) point.

Similarly we can define the set of all positive integers and this starts at 1 (not zero as many assume). but has no defined completion point.

The set of all integers, arguably starts at +/-1 and travels to +/- infinity and does not travel from -infinity to +infinity. As such the set of all integers is a 2 dimensional set not an open ended 1 dimensional set.

Notice I exclude zero from the set of all integers. This is quite deliberate as 2 minutes serious thinking should convince you that zero is outside that definition.

Dear Dr. Demetris Christopoulos, Dear All,

As you, possibly, know, the alternative cosmological theory which explains all principal phenomena in Universe from its beginning up to now, including those in the Solar System and the Sun as one of the stars is now available and allows of explaining present events and forecasting future ones in the Sun/Earth system. In addition, according to this theory, the conservation laws were never violated and space is eternal and infinite. This is the PFO-CFO Theory of Solar System Formation and Transformation has been developed by me and Elena Kadyshevich for almost two decades. It is available, for example, in the RG pages by the following addresses and in publications cited there.

Presentation Solar protuberances: their nature, function, and potential t...

Conference Paper Массовые вымирания видов: причины Фанерозойных вымираний и в...

Meanwhile, two alternative atomic models, the Planetary and Drop ones (both are given with participation of Bohr) are available at present and are used by physicists of different specializations and the PFO-CFO Theory leads to the notion of atoms, which is nearer to the drop model.

Notion of Big Bang is inconvenient for me because: 1) Big Bang is considered as a bang of singularity, but this singularity cannot be usual mass which is super-density state but it cannot be usual bang: this processes is transformation. It is evidently, the initial singularity cannot possess usual properties of physical matter: the space of it is the "point" for us because we cannot observe and describe this state as we live in the world with another characteristics of space-time; 2) our space-time does not exist before big Bang; why and where must it spread? 3) it follows from cosmological (Friedman) models describing spreading universe that the time flows uniformly (as in Minkowski space). It means that gravity does not exist in these models, but it is impossible: gravity is linked with non-uniform flow of time, for example, the time is stopped at the Schwarzschild surface where the gravitational field is strong. Assuming the existence of black holes we must allow that the time is non-homogeneous.

Larissa Borissova

The state of our science is such that we have observed a significant number of features, like microwave background, blue and red shift of light from stars and similar that are reasonably well explained by assuming a Big Bang and an expanding universe.

These theories may or may not be the best we have, but they are plausible.

I have never seen any serious suggestion that the primary singularity was a black-hole event that contained an infinite mass in a point in space-time that expanded from that point to become he universe we see around us.

Perhaps the best explanation that I have come across that gives me a level of understanding of the issue is the zero point argument that states that all matter and energy were created in a few hundred pico-seconds from intense forces that split the tiny vacuum that existed in an infinitely small space time into those components that populate our universe.

This argument may or may not be another form of God-culture but there is plausible math that backs up the conjecture..

Regards

Ian

Dear Paul Pistea ,

Ian Proffitt is right, your view of the Infinite is meaningless. There can be only one Infinite, if there are more than one infinite, then all your so-called "infinites" are mere "finites" that can be enclosed in the one infinite that I am talking about.

The reality is that causality based philosophy, mathematics, physics, theology etc., (that includes you and Prof. Joachim Domsta as I know him); are all out of depth on the question of the Infinite and had always been so. Georg Cantor’s theological pursuit of the infinite led him to the ridiculous idea (probably like you) of the infinity of infinities (like modern "Many worlds" quantum theory!) and eventually to insanity. Giordano Bruno was roasted alive on the Stake by the Inquisition, for insisting that the universe is infinite. Albert Einstein formulated GR with the pre-assumption that the universe must be finite! The Harvard theoretical physicist Max Tegmark wants to "retire" the term "infinite" from physics. In fact Modern theoretical physics has its Titanic moments on the iceberg called "The Infinite" and is drowning in the sea of Einsteinian mathematical idealism.

Whatever adjectives Prof. Domsta wants to bestow on dialectics (a response will come soon!); it is only Hegel and his dialectics that finally has come to have a grip on the question of the Infinite. In fact dialectical materialist Epicurus, long before idealist Hegel accomplished this feat. Please read carefully my article (including the comments following the main article) at the following link to get an idea on the dialectical view of the Infinite: Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

The expansion of the Universe can be explained not only as deformation jf its 3-space. It can be explained in frames of metrics where deformation absences and the time flows not with different temp. If we assume that at the initial moment information about the birth spread momentary we''ll understand how its space was formed. It was formed momentary but it was another than present state. It means that momentary spread of information-energy must exist now. The far-action in Milky Way is proved in 1970s years by prof. Kozyrev who observed the positions of stars. clusters and Andromeda Nebula. These results cannot be explained if frames of Friedman Universe because the time in this theory flows uniformly. the initial singularity must not be black hole, but its structure must allow far-action. This phenomena can be explained only in frames of model where the time does not flow uniformly. may be just black holes in the Universe spread far-action.

Victor Ostrovskii

Dear Victor,

...a theory that steps on every physical law by claiming that those laws of physics where born in the big bang and could even be different in another big bang allows everything, even a great spaghetti-monster. This has nothing to do with physics nor philosophy, but is uncontrolled and freewheeling fantasy that belongs to the category of science fiction. Besides that is our basic knowledge not brought to an end, so that we can from this derive a reasonable guess about the universe. First when those missing basics are solved we can think about reaching higher. The physics of atoms are not even started walking on own feet. But we could make an atom bomb and believe now that we know everything about the atom. Ha...

Can we predict the density of the elements, the atom radii ? Can we exactly predict which atoms are stable and which are not ? Can we calculate the spectral lines of the elements ? Can we predict the value of the constant of gravity ? No, we can't, but we want to speak about the birth of the universe that rests on all those basics we still don't know about. Empirical laws can make an atom bomb, but they are just "empirical" and not yet universal, why ? Because we cannot get the exact universal laws by using approximate theories and combine those to a "final theory"... well, we can, but what we get is even more approximate and leads us further out into the theoretical wilderness.

One of the greatest errors is that mass is defined as a continuum, as a field and that energy like mass is gravitating... but knowing at the same time that mass is NOT a continuum, it consists of atoms. As long as all those small misconceptions are swept under the rug we will carry on producing nonsense. But all this is forgotten, because the "great messiah" of physics said that Imagination is more important than knowledge... what a terrible joke ! But all his disciples fall on their knees and say "amen". And now we imagine that a singularity with infinite density doesn't have infinite gravity... because we imagined the Schwarzschild radius, but infinite density has zero radius and thus infinite gravity that would have put an end to the universe long time ago.

Why do we see variable stars ? What is a quasar ? If we understood those two we could easy understand why a big bang is the very essence of nonsense and not plausible at all... but no, imagination is more important than knowledge ! You know... the official theories confirm clearly that imagination is preferred, with the result that our best living minds are wasting their time and our money with nonsense ! I have no personal interest of being part of that... that is why I am not willing to discuss anything that reminds of a Big Bang ! It is intellectual garbage...

kind regards

Berndt

Joachim Domsta

Yes, I do criticize causality based Einsteinian physics (New physics, which I totally reject) and also classical physics (Newtonian physics, which I accept with its limitations) from a dialectical perspective. I also offer some dialectics based (limited) alternatives of my own. You have to KNOW what materialist dialectics has to say on various issues on physics (for example) before you engage in wild speculation, derision and mockery. I accept your challenge to demonstrate the superiority of the dialectical mode of thought over that of causality; provided you accept my challenge that you make an effort to know what dialectics has to say, at least on the issues of physics. I provide below links to my works alone at this time, for your kind perusal.

The dialectical perspective offers a much better view of objective reality than the causality based view and in most cases is the exact opposite; because there is no mystery in materialist dialectics; only as yet unknown and incomplete knowledge of the world. Also unlike causality, dialectics does not make wild predictions that need to be “proven” using contrived, deceptive and in some cases outright false claims. Humanity can only know the past with some confidence and can only speculate possible very near future trends. Can you make any "prediction" based on Darwin's theory of evolution or QED?

“Predictability”, “experimental verification”, “falsification” ad nauseum are devices touted by official science to hide the bankruptcy of their theories. Objective truth are not determined by theory (mathematical or not) but through social/historical practice. The theories of classical physics did not need any “proof” at all, because these were based on practice and were proved through practice. The theories of Einsteinian physics (New Physics) are being “proved” for more than hundred years and still counting; but has led to not a single social/historical practice, technology etc., the only way to know that concepts (theories) correspond to external reality.

To start with, you may onsider the work done by me so far; which are ready at hand with links below:

1. On Big Bang cosmology: the topic of this forum:

If you have read my article on the Infinite, you would have had some hints about dialectical cosmology. The following article on “Breeding Galaxies” (praised by my friend Chip Arp) makes a critique of the Big Bang myth and counter-poses the dialectical view about the evolution of the galaxies and the universe: Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

2, On “Spacetime”:

Minkowski’s pompous claim, “Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality”; has no merit. For dialectics this and any other theories (GR for example) based on this view are just empty and abstract mathematical constructs with absolutely no basis in reality; precisely because it has no role for “Matter and Motion” – the primary basis of objective reality: Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?

Newton’s theory at least is an extension of his terrestrial mechanics, but defective because it remains one-sided sans the requirement of the 3rd Law. Einstein’s GR is bogus, impotent stasis and pure mathematics based fantasy.: Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

The only valid (particle based) formulation of the quantum phenomena, which is thoroughly in conformity with dialectical chance and necessity: Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

I have made much more elaborate exposition of my dialectics based works on natural science in the following three booklets so far; which are available only through Amazon. Unfortunately, for copyright issues these cannot be uploaded in RG website.

1.

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

2. https://www.amazon.ca/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

3. https://www.amazon.com/Einsteinian-Universe-Dialectical-Perspective-Theoretical/dp/9840418254

A leftist group in the US have put up a review of two of my books in their website:

http://maydaybookstore.blogspot.com/2017/12/thephilosophy-of-space-time-whence-come.html

dear Abdul, even kant made the mistake of not distinguish between unlimited versus limited infinity. short and precisely: 2 examples:: 1st-the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 [0;1] is a limited continuous infinity. I would wonder how one could cover R!? would you line up [0;1] infinite times, and get infinite zeros and 1 more than R (if you had the time!?), or would you line up (0;1] never knowing what is next to zero and resulting an left open set and closed at de right (if you had the time...) 2nd: how would you cover a countable infinity by using a continuous one. not to speak about fractal ones. ergo: there are more kinds of infinity you (and Ian Profitt) could imagine and their powers are different. ask Georg Cantor.

Berndt Barkholz is right: BigBang is (big) intellectual garbage

Dear Paul,

The infinities you are talking about or so far dealt with in mathematics, physics etc. was termed the "spurious": or "bad infinity" by Hegel. The concept of the dialectical infinite is very different and much more profound than you or others normally think. Please read my article to see this difference!

dear Ian Proffitt, if you do not understand the difference between countable and continuous infinities- elementary maths knowledge, it is purposelessly to talk.

dear Abdul, if you agree with hegel, then you should be able to show how he constructed those/his infinities. well, I can show you the processing laws which build infinities. ergo: show how it works; not merely declare/talk.

Please read my file... it's not a theory, but an observation... an analysis of Newtonian gravity that is now connected to Niels Bohr's basic equation of the Hydrogen atom. It shows very clear that Black Holes are nonsense... and much more. Only a single time is my imagination used... at the end of the article.

Preprint Rewriting Gravity

Paul Pistea

It isn't that I do not understand the difference, I simply disagree with both the logic and mathematical philosophy underlying Cantor's and many subsequent genius's thinking.

Cantor led the mathematics of sets down a rabbit hole by defining so called countable and uncountable infinities and many mathematicians have blindly followed him. His theories are essentially unusable outside of this world of weirdly defined 'logic'.

I do agree with your response that there are many infinities However the mathematics of multiple infinities becomes much simpler and usable in the world of engineering when we recognise that infinities are multi-dimensional and generally mappable rather than countable (or not!).

Sticking to a useless idea (of countability) that no one uses outside of a very small field of philosophical theorists renders the concept laughable. The real world has moved on and left Cantor's ideas as a jocular footnote in infinitely small print.

Abdul Malek

Thank you for your answer which is proving that we are talking about different issues. I am not changing any line of my evaluation of the presented religion called dialectics since you are not answering its value for applied science. This science is not recognized (in the sense of acceptance) by you as activity based on NORMAL understanding the causality as a structure of relations between OBSERVED events/objects. Any philosophical passage to NEW terms like infinity (well consolidated within mathematics), the prime cause, etc. are absolutely NEEDLESS for building the image about the reality, which should be (and it is!) USEFUL also for everyday life. The exemplary paper mentioned by me above presents a model of matter spreading withing the space according to SOME KNOWN physical laws. Not all, unfortunately, but with one aim only, to wake you up that you could see that mathematical models based on physical YES! imagination lead sometimes to a "monster" looking also in some parts as relatively similar to the reality, though - without BB. Some further enhancemets are obviously possible, which CAN describe appearance of stars and other objects, everything without a smallest piece of philosophy. Your critique by words:

AM: "Can you make any "prediction" based on Darwin's theory of evolution or QED? . . .“Predictability”, “experimental verification”, “falsification” ad nauseum are devices touted by official science to hide the bankruptcy of their theories."

shows that you are not understanding the huge value of theoretical achievements of the NORMAL trials of describing reality (the mathematics included as a necessary tool). I will not even try to answer which points of the Darwin nowadays expanded theory is helpful in preparing medical procedures saving human lifes, nor the objection of "bankrupcy" of any well posed theory. You must be satisfied with you selfhappyness in building castles on ice of deeeeeep thoughts without any practical value. BUT please do not depreciate the real achievements of the real science by allegations as they were product of useless idealism or any other not appropriate ....ism. They are OK, believe it please at least in such ammount as you believe that the "dialectical infinity" is a consistent notion (it is not since it is not immersed into a consistent structure of notions; and it should be since otherwise nobody can COMMUNICATE with understanding own opinion to other. Upps! Are in the dialectical materialism any other people at all? Is there a possibility to communicte anything? What is the answer to a question? Does it satisfy the cause-effect requirements or not?)

Obviously the last questions are purely 'non-asked', just they form a list of some letters in some absolutely random order. It does not matter that they have any meaning for some readers. Imagine there are readers who do not understand any word in English! Same with your BigMysteriousDialectics: No vocabulary of elementary notions is availble. In the simplest - seemingly, only - phrase:

" Dialecticians claim that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought."

there are so many inconsistences, which are IMPOSSIBLE to reduce, since the BASICS feature of the dialectic is not, that the thoughts are due to a person (at least nothing like this is said anywhere). The combination "unity of opposites" is completely off any system of understanding usually applied words . Indeed opposites are opposite wrt each other and therefore they cannot NORMALLY be joint into something ONE, UNLESS A CONSISTENT SYSTEM OF AXIOMS (in mathematically developed manner) WERE INTRODUCED. Moreover , are thought not a part of reality? Again - new structure of meaning is to introduced EXPLICITLY. Therefore you cannot tell stories/tales about causality since you are not explaining where the meaning of it is explained RIGOROUSLY. Therefore also you cannot send me, please to tedious inconsistent articles, which - if not read will give you right to state that I do not know what we are talking about. By the way - you know, that I know that you know that I know, what is going on. So please - my last request in this letter - stop propagting issues which are not abot the subject of this thread.

Joachim Domsta

Ian Proffitt

Did you find the number of people using the notion of contable set? Is the number countable?

Yes, it is just finite. But how great people are using this notion! You would be surprised! Imagine, please, if your model of an elementary particle is built of contably many "singularities" then it cannot be approximated by continuum of singularities. the models would be incomparable; and you should be warned how to build the experimant to prove which version is true. Imagine also, that any rigorous considerations give us chance to keep on the rigorousness also in quite new circumstances. Ignoring this obvious requirement leads many of the researchers to wrong conclusions e.g. by too quick resignation of strict considerations of approximation. They are also of different - this time - order. Neclecting those of less order with the hogher order preserved gives incorrect results - and consequently - badly working say sensor. etc. etc.

Joachim Domsta

dear Ian (and dear Abdul), You are as false as bertrand russell with his set which includes itself and all of its parts- if something like that would exist, then an universe could not expand (one never can cross twice the same. even once... the same.) to speak about something you do not define is drivel/chitchat. concrete: I can shou You the process to construct infinity. please define or show how do You build your infinity notion. and: do not forget that EVERY single point of the WHOLE cosmos can be located by using coordinates (RxRxRxTxT). R is a continuous infinity. could You show how something can be located by using a different method?

Ian Proffitt

by the way: could You name some differences between continuous and countable? I said differences because there are more.

Joachim Domsta,

It is quite obvious that you did not honour the challenge in a reciprocal way; and did not read any of my works. But I suspected as much already before! So, there is nothing new to discuss with you Sir! You are peddling the same old stuff that we went over before, specially in the forum of my friend Wolfgang Engelhardt from Munich. But still I wish to respond to you because I have a message for you – an unpleasant one, unfortunately for you. This message is written all over the walls of the established institutions that you lot serve, including Einstein’s “Castle in the Air”; where you take refuge and hide in. This message is more visible everywhere else and particularly in this very forum; but you are too blinded by your ego to see it, Sir!

The message is that the virtual edifice (The Castle in the Air) of Einsteinian mathematical idealism that you lot of official physics are floating on, is losing air and is slowly descending to the earth. The days of Einsteinian mathematical idealism in physics are now over. You can stem the tide of new development with the grace of monopoly capitalism and theology; but only for so long! If you block the flow of a mountain brook; more and more pressure is going to be built-up up-stream and sooner or later the dam you built would be burst open!

This is the inexorable workings of the laws of dialectics in the development of history. All that was previously powerful and vital loses their significance, their right of existence in the course of historical development. And in the place of the moribund old reality a new reality arises that take the place of the old one; forcefully if necessary! Goethe expressed this historical process beautifully in his Faust, through the words of Mephistopheles, “Alles was entsteht, Ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht! - All that exit deserve to perish”!

The Copernican revolution came at the lowest point of natural science during the medieval decadence (a similar epoch like the present one) that released vast creative energy of humanity and led to the greatest development in the history of man and the flourishing of knowledge in all round way. But as it is the case in all developments, the old form cannot accommodate the new accumulating content and becomes a barrier to further development. The old form must give in to a new one. In a dialectical sense, things changes due to inner conflict; slow quantitative changes gives rise to sudden and discrete qualitative leaps and vice versa and through the “negation of the negation”.

Contradiction became acute first in philosophy by the time of Kant and in natural science with the revolutionary developments in biology and particularly the quantum phenomena in physics; by the time of Einstein. But both devised reactionary strategy to contain the onrushing Tsunami of development. They herded philosophy and physics away from objective reality to the nebulous world of thought of logical categories (Kant) and mathematical categories (Einstein) respectively. While the followers of Kant totally rejected the Master’s unknowable thing-in-itself. The followers of Einstein are holding desperately on to their priest’s “spacetime field”. But this is untenable Prof. Domsta! Albert Eintein (in contrast to his loyal supporters) had the great intellect, wisdom and the intuition to realise his mistake by the end of his life and termed his venerated theory GR as the "Castle in the Air”.

The great Kant will still live on for discovering the laws of thought and its triple movement of development (for example), from the singular/particular to the general to the universal. But nothing will be left of Einstein after the imminent collapse of his Castle in the Air! It is not only me who is bringing this message to you Sir, millions around the world are doing the same. To my knowledge, even two great professors of mathematics/theoretical physics in RG have come to this realization on their own; you just have to see their opinion in the comments section of my article “The Infinite” at the following link: Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

One of them is Prof. Eric Lord, with whom I had the longest and the most intense and fruitfull discussion on these issues of physics and mathematics. The other is a fellow Marxist James Schofield – a Professor/mathematician/theoretical physicist and a polymath who is the editor of the journal SHAPE. Jim even featured my article on the Infinite in a special issue along with a grim prognosis for Einsteinian mathematical idealism in physics at the following link : http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/home.

But in my opinion only the materialist dialectics based opposition of Einsteinian mathematical idealism can be the most consistent and effective one compared to single-minded mathematics based opposition that is more common, like the forum “Free Fall in Gravitational Theory” of my friend Wolfgang that we both know about.

Please see (if you wish) the following project:https://www.researchgate.net/project/THE-MATERIALIST-DIALECTICAL-CONCEPT-OF-SPACE-TIME-AND-THE-INFINITE-AND-ETERNAL-UNIVERSE-IS-A-FRONTAL-CHALLENGE-TO-THE-SCIENTIFIC-VALIDITY-OF-THE-THEORY-OF-GENERAL-RELATIVITY

The fundamental inconvenience of the Big Bang theory is that cosmology is not a science. Depending on your convictions, you can add or remove all sorts of conveniences and/or inconveniences.

CPM: "The fundamental inconvenience of the Big Bang theory is that cosmology is not a science."

Not true, unless one reject ALL activity usually called scientific research.

CPM:"Depending on your convictions, you can add or remove all sorts of conveniences and/or inconveniences. "

When talking about convictions - that is perfectly what probably everybody would respect. But, within scientific discusion we should distinguish between the manifold of ways of understanding BB. The NORMAL science trying to explain the observed phenomena in the cosmos is proposing some models of the universe which - as Claude claims - are not a subject of convenience for our feelings. There is a problem of consistency with the result of observations, measurements and (YES!) experiments (e.g. while sending probes through the solar system).

Joachim Domsta

True, please argue on cosmology is a science, because science has a precise definition.

It is not a scientific discussion.

Paul Pistea

I am sorry to say that you are suffering from the same confusion and delusion of Cantor on the question of the Infinite, my friend. I have discussed these problems with the concept of the Infinite in my article (that you probably refuse to read) that also has important implication for the foolishness of modern theoretical physicists regarding mathematical idealism, Big Bang theory, “theory of everything” etc., ad nauseum. I would urge you to at least read the opinion of some prominent mathematician/theoretical physicists in the comments section of my article: Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

In his attempt to know the infinite and to prove his continuum hypothesis, Georg Cantor (1845–1914 A.D.) for example, was eventually compelled to make a distinction between "consistent" and "inconsistent" collections; for him only the former were sets. Cantor called the inconsistent collections the "absolute infinite" that God alone could know!

The problem with you as was the case with Cantor is that you cannot “define” or "determine" something unless you can enclose it within some known limits. This profound idea came from Spinoza, who said, “To determine is to set boundaries, to limit”. Infinite, by definition means something that has no limit, no boundary, it is only self-defined!

Do you even know the limit of a simple mathematical series that is infinite? You have the illusion that you know it, because you start with an arbitrary first term. But can you go to the last term and count your way back to the first term? Try it first, my friend, before you say anything else on this issue!

AM:"..Spinoza, who said, “To determine is to set boundaries, to limit”. Infinite, by definition means something that has no limit, no boundary, it is only self-defined!"

A perfect misunderstanding of what are called meta-levels of speach, known already from the story about builders of Babel - a tower to heaven. Typical eristic way of cheating people. The correct distinguishing between different levels can be illustrated by the following example (claims from the meta level are in capitalics):

>> THE NOTION OF limit IS LIMITED BY THE FOLLOWING LIMIT "limit IS BY DEFINITION ASSIGNED TO functions, sets AND sequences ONLY"

Joachim Domsta

JD> "Typical eristic way of cheating people."

You have no understanding of what I am saying, Sir, and I have good reason to doubt whether you understand what you yourself are saying! We are in the same situation that we were in W.W. Engelhardt's forum!

I appreciate your efforts to have a dialogue with me, Sir. But I am sorry to say again (like before) that I am done with you Prof. Domsta. I will not respond to any further posible posting from you, addressed to me in this forum also.

Cosmology is not a science basically because there is only one Universe, so it is impossible to apply any of the criteria of science.

The scientists think that science is what they are doing because they are scientists, and as it is science they are right. This is but circular reasoning.

Paul Pistea

Joachim Domsta

We are drifting this discussion away from its primary purpose and sometimes (quite often on this forum) one ends up in a useless debate on nonsense.

So I will end my contribution by simply restating that Cantor's countability / uncountability may well have a place in the minds of a small number of professional mathematicians, but the reality of applying number theory to real world applications forces you away from such nonsense.

If you approach infinite sets as dimensional (as I demonstrated in one of Geng Ouyang's discussions) then all sets become mappable regardless of their countability.

This mapability of infinite sets has become a powerful tool in the working engineer's library and one that I and many other real life engineers use daily.

Please name just one real world use of Cantor's theory outside of generating professorships in some variation of Hesse's Glasperlenspiel

The set of the rational numbers is countable, yet it is everywhere dense.

Dear Dr. Claude Pierre Massé,

I think, any discussion can be the scientific one if a solid premise but not an imagination underlies it and if the object or subject of the discussion is defined. I agree with you that the today cosmology is not science but I am confident that the science cosmology is possible.

All the premises of science: causality, objectivity, reproducibility, invariance, are not satisfied in cosmology. For instance, the Big Bang can't be ascribed a cause.

Allow me an excerpt from my book "The Mind of Science":

"The most troublesome part of all this is that nothing is verifiable or falsifiable. You can detect some weak cosmic radiation somewhere in space and then say “oh yes, these are remnants of the Big Bang, this confirms the theory”. Some cosmologists have gone as far as to suggest that the point of origin of the Big Bang was just a few millimetres across!

The problem here is that none of these ideas can be incorporated into our thinking in ways that the ideas can be experientially verified and validated in any way. Astronomy is a true science, like physics, but it seems that cosmology has made a full circle back to theology and metaphysics. In a world population of seven billion people there is always going to be a large number of grateful readers willing to accept exciting ideas without much proof. Some of this is as exciting as the best science fiction and as credible as science fiction.

The Big Bang is current orthodoxy in cosmology but our skeptical voice is not a voice in the wilderness. Quite a few scientists around the world are beginning to question the basic premises of the theory. There are extreme views on both sides, as there are moderate views. The idea that the Big Bang is not a creationist but an evolutionary event has great appeal and we might predict that this idea will define the path of future research."

dear Ian, I have told you an application: LOCATION by using real numbers ( countinuous set), but you did not answer my questions

Abdul, you are again false: a limited continuous set is [0;1]. take the number PI and multiply it again and again by 10. you will get an infinity with the left border 3. one can always define, but every definition is uncomplete. I have built my own theory correcting RT and QT, but you gave no answers to my questions- maybe you have none.

On the subject of "infinity":

"When we ask whether the universe is finite or infinite, we are asking about a totality of which we ourselves are a tiny part. We can therefore never completely know this totality.” - Kant.

"Continuous set" is meaningless, only the functions are continuous. [0, 1] is dense and complete.

Dear Prof. Victor Ostrovskii

You say, "I agree with you that the today cosmology is not science".

You are right only if you call something “science” that “satisfies causality, objectivity, reproducibility, invariance,” etc. But you are very wrong, Sir, and here lays the bankruptcy and tragedy of modern official natural science that is currently practiced!

You subjectively define something to be true or a proper tool and use this to probe the unknown world. But if your tool is defective and does not work, what do you do? You hold on to your tools tightly close to your heart and reject the world? This is what Kant did in philosophy and Einstein did in physics! They rejected the world as unknowable thing-in-itself because their “science” based on causality does not work! With their precious “science” of causality they fled to the comfort world of thought, mathematics and despondency! But the truth is that their stance is absolutely wrong, childish and self-defeating. If what we call our tools “science” the way we defined it but that tool does not work for cosmology, then should we forget cosmology, fold our arms and congratulate ourselves and our great “science”!

If we go (as our ancestors did) to a new and unknown land with tools of agriculture we used in the old land; but these do not work in the new one; what we do? Hold on to the tools that only worked for us before and forget about cultivation? Our ancestors were not as stupid as we are now. They scrapped the old tools, developed new ones, tried various ways, “changed” things around to the extent possible and conquered Nature and mother earth for their survival and growth.

Historically, causality was always a tool of choice for enforcing class rule rather than for its usefulness as a proper tool of epistemology and science. Causality (a cause followed by an effect) is our inheritance from the evolutionary past. As an epistemological tool it is useful only is the very narrow realm of the “good old commomsense” of everyday life and for simple mechanics - as it is more or less the same for any life form; including the most primitive ones. But beyond this, where we need to use the higher capability for communication, abstraction, introspection, and reflection etc., (that could manifest itself only in the highest developed form of matter - the thinking brain of man), we need and use (even if unconsciously) the dialectical (chance and necessity) mode of thought and the epistemology of contradiction of “the unity of the opposites”. Even theology, for practical necessity recognize the contradiction of Evil (Satan) in the Kingdom of omnipotent and omniscient God; breaking the iron rule of causality and formal (Aristotlian) logic!

Most terrestrial sciences have to navigate through the maze of the contradictions of Nature to have any meaningful understanding; even if dialectics is not formally and consciouly recognized. These sciences would be manifold more powerful if being conscious of dialectical mode of epistemology they consciously use it as a better tool in their investigation of Nature; because nothing “EXISTS” without contradictions and their resolutions; which gives the phenomenology of the universe!

It seems that only in mathematical idealism based Einsteinian theoretical physics and cosmology, the iron rule of causality, continuity, determinism etc. prevail and any consideration of dialectical contradiction is an anathema. Is it any wonder that this “science” instead of bringing positive knowledge of the cosmos only brings Fairy Tales and Dark/Black cosmic Monsters! Epicurus saw it very clearly, early on when he said, “I would rather suffer the abomination of abject religious faith, than be a slave of the determinism of the physicists!”

The fact is that cosmology IS SCIENCE if only we know what is the proper tool to apply to it. Causality is no tool for any science at all, it only leads to more and mysteries beyond everyday life experience. It is still used even in 21st century as “science”; only because it serves the interest of the parasitic ruling class rather than for its usefulness in the search of knowledge of the world and the cosmos.

If we CONSCIOUSLY use materialist dialectics (with the knowledge of the workings of its laws) as a tool of epistemology and as a science; then cosmology becomes a science as it is true also of terrestrial Nature. You do not encounter any mystery in the realm of cosmology if you use materialist dialectics; you only encounter as yet unknown facts. I have demonstrated this fact through my work in limited cases of cosmology; as mentioned in my comments to Prof. Domsta.

Science is just defined as what is objective, reproductible, causal, measurable (=invariant,) and observable, because there are no methods available if not. All that is not observable is called metaphysics, but all that is observable is not necessarily amenable to science. All human disciplines need not be science either, philosophy is not science, and many scientists should take it into account because they very often go astray. All that is subjective can't be studied scientifically, yet it pertains to reality. Invariance and causality alone determine most of the structure of the scientific theories, such as Hamilton formalism, relativity, and way down to human sciences. We merely have no choice, it is make or break.

There are absolutists who think that science, and only science, is relevant for everything. They take the view that anything that is not in the domain of science simply doesn't exist. But we can't know whether the world were we live in can be understood by the scientific methods. Some seems to, for the remaining it is but speculation. We aren't God, we can't create a Universe.

AM: "...as mentioned in my comments to Prof. Domsta."

I have never asked/requested the Author of the above excerpt for any comment TO me. The only right He has with respect to me is to comment my comments. The more, that He has stopped any dialog by stating

AM: "I am done with you Prof. Domsta."

Obviously, this statement does not forbid me commenting His comments. WRT the last one, I cannot resist to note that this is just a continuation of propaganda of the religion called by AM materialist dialectics. Let Him.

Joachim Domsta

PS. Motivated by tremandeous lack of rigorousness of comments by AM, in order to defense myself agaist His unjustifies accusation of me of not understanding my own statements, I have to stress that the above text is not a comment TO Him, as well as it is not a comment ABOUT His personality, but it is a comment ABOUT His comments.

Cosmology is a strange mix of science and non-science. While it uses empirical observations from astronomy and astrophysics, it creates theories and hypotheses that are not testable, falsifiable, verifiable.

I would like to say slightly differently than Michael Sidiropoulos , that "Cosmology ... creates theories and hypotheses that are not testable, falsifiable, verifiable" ... by experiments (not counting expeditions sent into our closest neighbourhood). However there are many satisfactory parts of this science verifiable by reasonably set observations. For instance one could say that the star-forming theories (which are obviously a part of cosmology) reached a well established common understanding and agreement (with respect to some types of stars, at least).

The Bing Bang theory is not falsifiable and therefore, according to Popper and others, not scientific.

As there is only one Universe, experiments can't be reproduced, and then they can't test theories. Astrophysics is the science.

Michael Sidiropoulos

Claude Pierre Massé

It is observations (and measurements) that need to be repeatable - 'experiments' are for horror movies - not science.

Observations only need one universe - as long as it is stable and consistent then measurements are all we need.

Certain aspects of cosmology are scientific and it is those aspects that come from astronomy and astrophysics. The Bing Bang theory is not scientific because there is no way to test, refute or verify it.

Prof. Domsta has spoken again about me, about "the comments of the comments" and the “Lies” of materialist dialectics in part apologetic way. It seems that he was provoked by the fact that I simply pointed to the references of my works listed in my comment to Prof. Domsta above; instead of repeating again in a later comment . Sorry folks for bothering you all with what seems to be a personal feud between me and Prof. Domsta; but unfortunately it is much more than that; which I have to elaborate.

Prof. Domsta, like few other ardent supporters of Albert Einstein inspired (field based) theories of “New Physics”; have taken on themselves the Holy Task of defending the sacred honour of these theories (particularly Einstein’s own SR and GR) against any criticism or challenge. Some sorts of medieval type Inquisition seems to be in the offing. A fellow traveler of Prof. Domsta has even initiated an RG forum to discuss ways of “blocking” any denial of Einstein’s theories: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_denying_Einstein_special_and_general_relativity_be_blocked4

From various incidents in RG forums, including this one; it seems that this Inquisition is particularly vengeful to materialist dialectics advocated by me in RG; because I am being persistently dogged, wherever and whenever I write or comment in RG. The criticism of the theories of relativity from the point of view of their scientific and mathematical rigor is not novel; it started from the very beginning when these theories were proposed and continues till today in an intesified way, even in multiple of RG forums, including the few initiated by myself.

The focus of this new Inquisition seems to be this insignificant and poor me (I feel somewhat honoured with this unexpected attention!) because through some published works and comments I am trying to show 1) that these are not scientific theories, and are nothing but medieval type scholasticism. 2) That these theories are used as ruling ideas in support of decadent monopoly capitalism and theology. 3) That Einsteinian cosmology stands in the same relation to modern parasitic ruling order and theology, as Ptolemy’s Epicycles were to the the medieval one. 4) That modern cosmology is controlled and dictated by monopoly capitalism and the Vatican; making physics preach theology. 5) that shameless official physicists are nothing but the conformed troops of “scientist serfs” (to borrow the expression from the Bengali poet Tagore), who are totally dependent on monopoly capitalism for their livelihood, career and crafts and toil to bring “expected” and “acceptable” results. They even “prove” GWs (that "travel at the speed of thought" according to Arthur Eddington) and Cosmic Monsters like the “Black Holes” that even Einstein said could not exist!

But it seems from the reaction of the new proponents of Inquisition, that truth hurts, where it must; whether that truth is spoken by a Copernicus, a Galileo, a Giordano Bruno, a Halton (Chip) Arp or anybody else including this poor me!

The infinite cosmos is as much amenable to scientific investigation for us as the finite terrestrial Nature. Because for dialectics, the finite and the infinite are in a dialectical contradiction of the “unity of the opposite”. The finite IS the infinite and vice versa. This contradiction is resolved (following the laws of dialectics) through discrete qualitative leaps brought on by more or less continuous change taking place in the details; giving rise to the phenomenology of the universe. The finite or the infinite is bounded only by itself i.e., the finite or the infinite sees only itself surrounding it.

So our knowledge of the infinite cosmos is proportional to our knowledge of the finite terrestrial Nature. But according to dialectics our knowledge will always be limited by the historical stage of evolution; increasing in relative proportion with time and historical evolution; but can never be exhaustive, even in the tiniest sphere of terrestrial Nature.

Man’s knowledge of the cosmos until recently was very limited even though from the Sumerians onwards, man have used the knowledge of the solar energy and the solar and planetary motion to devise geometry, mathematics, concept of time, the cycle of the seasons to plan agriculture etc. Knowledge beyond the solar systems was very limited even long after Kant’s brilliant and dialectical nebular hypothesis (now known as the galaxies) pointed the way forwards.

By twentieth century technological and other scientific development allowed the mushrooming of the knowledge of the cosmos and human knowledge of the cosmos is becoming increasingly more substantial along and in proportion to our knowledge of the terrestrial Nature. Development of spectroscopy, telescope, knowledge of chemistry, of properties of matter under various conditions of temperature and pressure, radioactivity, fission, fusion, antimatter etc.; attainment of very low temperature near absolute zero, high energy in the accelerator to TeV range etc., (all terrestrial based knowledge) allow us know the composition of the heavenly bodies billions of light years away. We know the processes and energetics of the stars (that cooks up the higher elements) and other cosmic bodies even though these are of unimaginable scale; but still we can draw tangible conclusion from our knowledge of minute scale terrestrial experience and knowledge. And it is the only way and not through the mathematics guided fantasies of Einsteinian physics!

So, in short, our knowledge of the infinite cosmos is proportional to our knowledge of the terrestrial Nature and would increase in future with the increase of our knowledge on earth. There are innumerable molecules of water on earth, but we know (though still in-exhaustive) and live at ease with them. The properties of water (for example) billions of light years away would be the same under similar conditions to that of the earth and so would be the case for life or anything else. Beyond 13.7 billion light years, we would see no wonderland or lurking monsters; but we will see more or less the same things we see around few million light years around us! In fact one star with its life harbouring earth and one Milky Way galaxy with its family group forms the essential basis of our knowledge of the infinite universe. Article "BIG-BANG" CREATED OR AN ETERNAL AND INFINITE UNIVERSE?*

Does the obsession of official physics with mathematics, Einsteinian cosmology, Big Bang genesis etc. ad nauseum offer us anything other than more and more Fairy Tales, and terrible doomsday? The old priests of theology and the new priests official physics bring all these Fairy Tales of the universe to make us - the earthlings ,to despair, to feel helpless and humble; to bow to them as the representatives of the creator, for our salvation and so on.

But dialectical epistemology would always inspire the human spirit not to despair, “… however many millions of suns and earths may arise and pass away, however long it may last before the conditions for organic life develop, however innumerable the organic beings that have to arise and pass away before animals with a brain capable of thought are developed from their midst, and for a short span of time find conditions suitable for life, only to be exterminated later without mercy, we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it.” Frederick. Engels, “Dialectics of Nature”.

Q: Does the obsession of materialist dialectics with respect to physics with mathematics, Einsteinian cosmology, Big Bang genesis etc. ad nauseum offer us anything other than more and more Fairy Tales?

A: No, since the system of notions is inconsistent.

Proof: The following sentence - as declared by a propagator of the materialist dialectic one comment above - is a consequence of the axioms of this philosophy:

The finite IS the infinite and vice versa.

Dear Abdul,

Friedrich Engels was not a scientist and in fact he did not have any education beyond high school.

For physical reality the point of view of philosophers is irrelevant. It has its own structure and its own mechanisms of behavior. It works already without any problem for billions of years.

Comparing reality and point of view is the fundamental philosophical error. We know nothing about reality, we have only points of view on it. All that we can say about reality is that it is real.

Dear Michael,

Your comment unfortunately does not deserve any considered response; because it reflects the abject poverty of modern thinkers of any discipline, no matter how much “education” they have!

The tragedy for modern times is that we no longer have the “free thinkers” - the passionate and creative giants of the past, who pursued their profession for the mere thirst of knowledge under the most severe conditions and more often under the threat of persecution and death. They are now replaced by conformed, pacified and bonded, “scientist serfs” as Tagore correctly said.

Engels as one the greatest scientists and teachers of modern natural science was blessed and fortunate from the fact that he did not come under the total servitude of monopoly capital and its efficient indoctrination from the modern-day priests in what we now call the “Universities”. If Engels’ teaching were pursued, modern natural science would have been much further ahead than it is to day, and particularly physics could have avoided its present utter bankruptcy.

“For physical reality the point of view of philosophers is irrelevant.”

Yes, for sure! Mathematical fantasy, delusion and self-preoccupation is enough; who needs physical reality?

Abdul, I can debunk ANY argument by saying "your comment does not deserve a response".

Claude Pierre Massé

“We know nothing about reality, we have only points of view on it.”

And this is coming from a “physicist”! Positivist Bishop Berkeley must be turning in his grave with shame for not doing better!

“ All that we can say about reality is that it is real.”

If “we know nothing about reality”, how do we know and can say "that it is real"? God, help us!

AM: " who needs physical reality? "

Definitely no one who claims that "the finite is the infinite and vice versa"; for those it is sufficient to have real possibility of blablaing. Let me propose a truth which is much more correct dialectically:

"the finite IS AND IS NOT the infinite and vice versa: asrev eciv dna etinifni eht TON SI DNA SI etinif eht"

Michael, I said "CONSIDERED" response. Meaning that your comment does not require much thought and efforts to make a response to it!

In any case I would let others in this forum to judge the dialogue between us. You made a judgement on Engels apparently with little knowledge of his works.

Abdul, I started reading Engels when I was 17. You are wrong once again and you are wrong because you have a total lack of humility, moderation, willingness to learn from others and skepticism, essential virtues for all scientists.

JD> [Let me propose a truth which is much more correct dialectically: "the finite IS AND IS NOT the infinite and vice versa: asrev eciv dna etinifni eht TON SI DNA SI etinif eht"”

Good enough, you stated it correctly. I explained that the finite and the infinite are a contradiction of “the unity of the opposites”; which means that they have both unity and opposition at the same time - an impossibility for formal logic and causality. It is a law of dialectics and is directly (and dialectically) opposite of the causality based formal logic, whose principle is (as stated by Aristotle). “Unity, Opposition and the Excluded Middle”. There is no “Excluded Middle” in dialectics and it makes a world of difference!

Dialectics is a revolution in human thought and is an elevated level of human conscious thought - a higher form of consciousness. I have written articles and books, base my cosmology, science and discourse (even in this forum) on the dialectical formulation of the Infinite that you that you correctly stated. I agree that there was a slip in my statement you pointed out.

But the important point is; do you agree with the proposition that you admirably stated so correctly? Do you then agree with what I have to say about the infinite and about the Big Bang theory etc., (at least) in this forum? Or you simply wanted opportunistically to score a point on me? The fact is, I do not care for scoring points or popular vote, I care for scientific truth. I know that dialectics is unintuitive to "good old common-sense" and seems odd to most people because they are so much conditioned to causality mode of thought; even though most people even if unconsciouly use dialectics in everyday life. So I know that my dialectics based science and views would be deeply unpopular, to say the least!

My main point is (as I have tried to show through my works) modern theoretical physics and mathematics are out of depth on the question of the Infinite. Mathematical idealism based Einsteinian physics (New Physics) is not science at all; it is theology. The only difference is that theology cannot provide so called "experimental proof" for their Tales; while New Physics keeps on "proving" just one Tale, for more than hundred years!

dear Abdul, you forgot to show (a process) how a continuous infinity is built ( as well as Ian Proffitt). I guess it is because you do not understand it, but merely talk about. some people seem to explain even what they themselves do not understand.

By keeping as true the sentence (hopefully written unconciously) that "the finite IS the infinite and vice versa", all comments by AM do not deserve any response but this:

Very good but very bad, Sir.

Joachim Domsta

Michael. I think we are having a useless dialogue. I commented on your views of Engels, not about you as a person as you are doing about me now! Of course, you have the prerogative to hold any opinion on me, but not the right to teach me or anybody else about “the essential virtues for all scientists”, You are giving the authority on yourself to speak for ALL scientists! You can only speak for yourself, my friend!

If you followed my comments in this forum alone, you can easily see that I do not conform to the “essential virtues” of official scientists. I am a heretic with a world view, which is the exact opposite of the one generally accepted in modern science. And what is more Frederick Engels in particular is a source of my inspiration; the reason I reacted (at all) to your comment on him. I reject modern official (Einsteinian) theoretical physics and the wisdom and the “essential virtues” of official scientists.

It is a scientific discussion and you have to judge me by my (Or Engels') views on science and not who I am, what degrees or qualifications, credentials, "virtues" etc., I have. You are taking an elitist view of "science" or knowledge my friend! You can see (as I explained above) there is some kind of Inquisition going after me, if you want to join them they will warmly welcome you! Cheers!

Joachim Domsta

Look; Senior, Monsieur, Mr. Herr. Prof. Domsta! I am talking about serious science, cosmology and about the question of the Infinite. Please read carefully my substantial comment I made above on these issues about 20 hours ago. There is little scope for confusion on my overall views. It is a statement much more profound and sharply in contrast to the views of you and of official science. If you have the temerity, then take on the challenges my views present to official physics and cosmology and not be so petty minded to find fault with minor technical omissions or issues.

I already told you more than one time that I am done with you; because you are so spurious, Sir. You want to defeat your opponent using tricks and not by the merit of your arguments and the strength of your intellect! You would be better off pursuing your Inquisition and try to banish me from RG, instead of wasting your or my time with your infantile tricks.

The simplest way that someone stops wasting his/her time is just to stop wasting it, AND simutaneously to continue wasting it, with the aim of proving all arround the very doubtful for normally thinking people existence of consecutive example of contradiction of “the unity of the opposites".

Reality is all that is real, it's a tautology.

We have self-styled Platonists who think that reality is mathematics. It is but a point of view. Anyway, Plato's "world of ideas" is not mathematical theories, that's the poor philosophical culture of today's scientists we have to cope with.

Now positivism is not realism.

Paul Pistea

PP>“you forgot to show (a process) how a continuous infinity is built ( as well as Ian Proffitt)”

Dear Paul, I did not forget! I already told you that I cannot “show (a process) how a continuous infinity is built” and in my opinion neither can you, because you will never finish it in infinite time! You are free to think or do whatever you want; you do not have to agree with me!

As I said before; you, my friend have the same delusion like Cantor; that eventually (and sadly) led him to insanity. No one after him seriously took up his "continuum hypothesis" and his quest for the infinite. It was not only Russell, whom you mentioned, but no other well=known mathematicians took Cantor seriously. Please try to understand Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

The concept of infinity is not just a technical question, but much more profound than you or Cantor thinks. Infinity literally means something that has no end or beginning, has no limit, no determination, and no boundary. Spinoza’s idea that an infinite is something that is self-limited, delf-determined and self-bounded; gave a proper way of understanding of the Infinite. Which means an Infinite only sees itself beyond any apparently arbitrary limit or boundary and nothing else! Hegel eventually used Spinoza’s idea to formulate his dialectical view of the infinite as the contradiction of the “unity of the opposites” of the finite and the infinite. Please see my comment above regarding the infinite universe.

What you, Cantor, other mathematicians and natural science pursued in reality is a misnomer, which is the “spurious infinite” of Hegel. An infinite series starting with a first term is also undefined, because there is no end to the other side, and one cannot come back to the first term starting from the other end. Also you can set an arbitrary first term anywhere in an infinite line; it is just a mental operation that does not change anything of reality! Mathematicians of all ages had no clue as to the nature of the infinite; some denied its existence all together and still do (!); while others maintained (following Plato) that mathematical entities cannot be reduced to logical propositions, originating instead in the intuitions of the mind.

In popular concept, God is supposed to be infinite. Spinoza’s idea of the infinite led to a conundrum and an insurmountable difficulty for conventional philosophy and theology which regarded the infinite and the finite as mutually exclusive opposites; absolutely cut off from each other – the doctrine of no-contradiction! How then the infinite can be conceived; how infinite God can have contact with finite man, since it will limit His infiniteness! Finiteness of the world became a primary requirement for medieval theology. The inquisition did not hesitate to spill blood and torture victims to defend its doctrine. Giordano Bruno was simply roasted on the Stake for insisting that the world is Infinite and you can see even in this forum; modern-day Inquisition wants to do the same to me!

Paul Pistea

Paul

In an earlier response you defined the probability of randomly picking any integer out of an infinite set of rational numbers as 0%.

Using your definitions I just spent a pleasant evening calculating and analysing the first 4 million positive rational numbers where both the dividend and divisor are positive integers.

Where the dividend is greater than or equal to the divisor there is approx. a 0.7% probability of the ratio being an integer, small but definitely not zero

Clearly where the dividend is smaller than the divisor the probability is 0%

Did your argument include just those numbers where the ratio was less than 1?

Abdul Malek

Time to stop digging! - Paul has backed you into a hole with his eloquent sophistry.

Advanced engineering is at that point where there is a big demand to understand the nature of real infinities, be they the infinitely small or infinitely large.

As an example, the next breakthrough in data manipulation (mining) is fully dependant on developing an adequate toolset for handling very many open-ended and semi-correlated data sets simultaneously. This toolset, in turn, needs an adequate mathematics of infinity.

Similarly high density energy storage to meet the needs of the next 30 years will not happen until we solve the problems inherent in multi-dimensional infinity.

The old mathematics of infinity based on the works of Cantor is simply inadequate to the challenges facing us and we need to get away from the highly trivial mindset that conventional set analysis has dropped us into.

Ian

to build continuous infinity one needs ALL (known) maths operations including (square-)root, fractals... dividing is too weak.

if you develop a new (unknown) operation you have to demonstrate that it cannot be reduced to a chain of known ones.