Olbers paradox, why the night is ... black

[nlc]

The Big Bang theory answers the following question: what was the configuration of the Universe at the beginning (I mean at the beginning calculable by our technical means).
However, we learn by observation that our Universe is expanding.

Yes, and the theories were to say that expansion will slow down, and then the universe will shrink again. Except that I seem to have heard somewhere that in fact the expansion of the universe is accelerating instead of slowing down !!!

If we take the film of time backwards we realize that the farther we go back, the more the universe was dense and warm, until it reached a point where the whole Universe was contained in a space infinitely hot and infinitely dense, that's the Big Bang.

But made up of what, and in the middle of what?

because it implies that the Big Bang was an explosion, which is not the case.

Well if at the start the universe was concentrated in an infinitely dense and hot point, why did it suddenly expand?

If space and time appeared with the big bang, we can say that it is impossible to envisage a "before".

Impossible to envisage a before, I do not see why, each thing having a priori a beginning and an end. But how can we suppose that there could have been a beginning, since that means a limit before which there would be .... nothing. It is inconceivable, and the term bewitching, is indeed the good term, I would even say fascinating, because it is purely and simply impossible to be able to imagine "the infinite".

1) "Before" the big bang, our universe would enter into contraction (Big crunch), from this contraction there would have been a "rebound" (Big bang) and the universe would then have started expanding again (current phase).

Yep, this is just a theory, and which still does not explain anything, especially since it becomes an endless expansion / contraction loop, except that a priori it is invalidated by the fact that the expansion of l universe would accelerate !?

3) An infinite time passed, that is to say that it would be impossible to "arrive" at the zero moment ... a kind of Zeno paradox!

Yeah but infinity is impossible to materialize for our little brains of human being !!

4) The universe would have come out of black holes ...

5) The Big bang would come from a quantum matrix creating multiverses.

These are just theories, we will never know !!

And if this big bang took place at a specific point, what was around it?

It is a mistake to think that, the Big Bang is an expansion of space time, not an explosion.

Oh sorry
But always the same, a dilation means that something is getting bigger, and to define that it gets bigger there has to be an end to this thing. However, there is not supposed to be any !! And if there is one, what is there after ...

The Big Bang did not therefore "take place" in a precise place. Also pay attention to the notion of "around", it implies the notion of a pre-existing space, apart from space and time (space-time) its appeared jointly.

Certainly, but I said precise point to imagine that if it went well, it went well somewhere, or nowhere, it changes nothing in the problem anyway, if the universe was only one point, what was around?

[nlc]

And honestly, I find it hard to believe that biological life forms are just a coincidence.

This implies in many cases an "intervention" ...

Yes but especially if there was an intervention, it does not change the question, because it is necessary that the intervention has been made !! So who, when, how, why

However, it is quite conceivable that life itself the logical result of universal laws, without involving I do not know which demiurge.

Absolutely, but "universal law" means that the basics have been laid, so that still doesn't answer the questions

We can also consider the fact that we are in a universe where life appeared in the middle of other parallel universes where all possible scenarios are played ... (we can all imagined !!!).

We would thus only be a "story" which develops among an almost infinite number of others, it makes you dizzy!

It's good because there is no possible answer that it makes you dizzy. In my opinion, that's why religions have taken over on all these questions, because man cannot remain unanswered, so he invented it ...

[Obamot]

Ah, yes, but here we have an NLC problem!

Because if there was no "before" and the zero point is fictitious, then we would have to find a new theory that integrates everything we have discovered (since the theoretical model works very well in reality: A bomb, chemistry, etc.) and here we are not in shit

And honestly, I find it hard to believe that biological life forms are just a coincidence.

This implies in many cases an "intervention" ...
However, it is quite conceivable that life itself the logical result of universal laws, without involving I do not know which demiurge.

I did not say that, I just note that we are there, and able to question ourselves on the 3 fundamental questions!
Who am I, where do I come from or squash it's like black holes: it's disturbing and not just mineral (you quickly skipped over the rest of my logic, hahahahah ...)

We can also consider the fact that we are in a universe where life appeared in the middle of other parallel universes where all possible scenarios are played ... (we can all imagined !!!).

If yes, then there are bound to be balancing interactions! And there again ... In the name of what, who etc ...

We would thus only be a "story" which develops among an almost infinite number of others, it makes you dizzy!
However, the theory of multiple universes (developed by
Hugh everret and its derivatives, is far from being far-fetched.

I prefer to depress on nothingness while waiting for the negationist black hole ...

[sen-no-sen]

If we take the film of time backwards we realize that the farther we go back, the more the universe was dense and warm, until it reached a point where the whole Universe was contained in a space infinitely hot and infinitely dense, that's the Big Bang.

But made up of what, and in the middle of what?

The Big Bang was made up of energy, at a theoretically zero volume and at an infinite temperature (I insist on it theoretically, because in reality there was certainly a limit).
To be in the middle of something you need a preliminary space ... which did not exist!

Well if at the start the universe was concentrated in an infinitely dense and hot point, why did it suddenly expand?

This is still unknown, why a volcano explodes?

Impossible to envisage a before, I do not see why, each thing having a priori a beginning and an end. But how can we suppose that there could have been a beginning, since that means a limit before which there would be .... nothing. It is inconceivable, and the term bewitching, is indeed the good term, I would even say fascinating, because it is purely and simply impossible to be able to imagine "the infinite".

You have to know what we are talking about, what is time?
Has time always existed?
Has time had acceleration or even deceleration phases?
The notion of beginning and end requires time, except if we admit that time appeared at a time 0, there can be no "before", unless invoked a pre-time, or an a-time , a kind of eternity that escapes all calculation.

sen-no-sen wrote:


1) "Before" the big bang, our universe would enter into contraction (Big crunch), from this contraction there would have been a "rebound" (Big bang) and the universe would then have started expanding again (current phase).

Yep, this is just a theory, and which still does not explain anything, especially since it becomes an endless expansion / contraction loop, except that a priori it is invalidated by the fact that the expansion of l universe would accelerate !?

The fact that there was a universe in contraction does not invalidate the fact that our current universe is expanding.
Not having all the data, we do not know if this is possible or not.

sen-no-sen wrote:

3) An infinite time passed, that is to say that it would be impossible to "arrive" at the zero moment ... a kind of Zeno paradox!

Yeah but infinity is impossible to materialize for our little brains of human being !!

Infinite is synonymous in some way with impossible, so you're right we can't imagine something like that.

sen-no-sen wrote:

4) The universe would have come out of black holes ...

5) The Big bang would come from a quantum matrix creating multiverses.

These are just theories, we will never know !!

You should never say never, nor always (damn I said!)
A few centuries ago people said that and yet so much has been discovered!
We know, for example, that atoms do not have their own mass, who would have imagined that!

sen-no-sen wrote:

The Big Bang did not therefore "take place" in a precise place. Also pay attention to the notion of "around", it implies the notion of a pre-existing space, apart from space and time (space-time) its appeared jointly.

Certainly, but I said precise point to imagine that if it went well, it went well somewhere, or nowhere, it changes nothing in the problem anyway, if the universe was only one point, what was around?

Certain like Edgar Gunzig thinks that the quantum vacuum would be in a way the cradle of the universe, and would have constituted the famous "cradle".

[sen-no-sen]

Because if there was no "before" and the zero point is fictitious, then we would have to find a new theory that integrates everything we have discovered (since the theoretical model works very well in reality: A bomb, chemistry, etc.) and here we are not in shit

The notion of origin does not come into play in Obamot calculations.
Besides, no one is really able to define time, at the present time the majority of scientists defend the notion of a "block universe", a minority favors "presentism", yet the both run into difficulties, the first to quantum physics, the second to special relativity.

Who am I, where do I come from or squash Mr. Green it's like black holes: it's disturbing and not just mineral (you quickly zapped on the rest of my logic, hahahahah .. .)

Can you develop what I would have skipped please?

sen-no-sen wrote:
We can also consider the fact that we are in a universe where life appeared in the middle of other parallel universes where all possible scenarios are played ... (we can all imagined !!!).

If yes, then there are bound to be balancing interactions! And there again ... In the name of what, who etc ...

I do not understand the concept of balancing interaction?

I prefer to depress on nothingness while waiting for the negationist black hole ...

The worst part is that we can't even get depressed on it, nothingness, the unnamable, can't be imagined, so we'll have to be depressed on something else ... growth forecasts for example!

[Obamot]

Because if there was no "before" and the zero point is fictitious, then we would have to find a new theory that integrates everything we have discovered (since the theoretical model works very well in reality: A bomb, chemistry, etc.) and here we are not in shit

The notion of origin does not come into play in Obamot calculations.
Besides, no one is really able to define time, at the present time the majority of scientists defend the notion of a "block universe", a minority favors "presentism", yet the both run into difficulties, the first to quantum physics, the second to special relativity.

Ahahahah, this one is very good, why? My passport is expired? You know, explain it to me, I know more or less where I come from, but the origin of the Universe, no matter how much I explain it ... My brother tried well though, well that's the job:

Who am I, where do I come from or not only [...] mineral squash (you quickly skipped the rest of my logic, hahahahah ...)

Can you develop what I would have skipped please?

If you think it's easy to remind me of what I said about it


Let's say we are looking for the intangible when we better take care of our buttocks!

But it's still a subject that fascinates me ... the buttocks

sen-no-sen wrote:
We can also consider the fact that we are in a universe where life appeared in the middle of other parallel universes where all possible scenarios are played ... (we can all imagined !!!).

If yes, then there are bound to be balancing interactions! And there again ... In the name of what, who etc ...

I do not understand the concept of balancing interaction?

This is an idea from our chemist ... Starting from the fact that this parallel world theory exists: he often tells me that "If we create an interaction here, something inevitably happens elsewhere" along the same lines, or "If there is war there there should be instant interaction here" (and so on) ... and add "That we would do well to do the minimum (there he thinks not only of pollution and waste of resources, but for everything) because we do not know the consequences of the boomerang effect ..." He always amazes me

I understand it, because he sees it under the eye of chemical interactions translating to the atomic plane! Electron exchanges, catalysts and everything ... And there is no reason to waver: quantum logic is relentless (if you can say it!) "What must happen, must happen, impossible to stop it, the forces involved are colossal»

I prefer to depress on nothingness while waiting for the negationist black hole ...

The worst part is that we can't even get depressed on it, nothingness, the unnamable, can't be imagined, so we'll have to be depressed on something else ... growth forecasts for example!

It is nothingness that should be depressed, just to see ... hihihihiihihihiihhiihiihiihihih ...

[sen-no-sen]

sen-no-sen wrote:
We can also consider the fact that we are in a universe where life appeared in the middle of other parallel universes where all possible scenarios are played ... (we can all imagined !!!).

If yes, then there are bound to be balancing interactions! And there again ... In the name of what, who etc ...

I do not understand the concept of balancing interaction?

This is an idea from our chemist ... Based on the fact that this parallel world theory exists: he often tells me "That if we create an interaction here, something necessarily happens elsewhere"

Theoretically there would be no reason for a hypothetical parallel universe to interact with ours.

[Obamot]

It's not exactly what he thinks ...

How it would be possible, I don't know (I'll have to ask her )

And yet a professor at the Uni and a researcher at the Battelle Institute, he also knew Charpak well!

Knowing him, I know he is the type who does not rule out any hypothesis!

[sen-no-sen]

It's not exactly what he thinks ...

How it would be possible, I don't know (I'll have to ask her )

Indeed it would be very interesting!

[Obamot]

Bein maybe he doesn't know!

And precisely, knowing him, his thing is "precautionary principle"...

He thinks that humanity will go towards successive peaks (peak oil, uranium peak, rare earth peak, etc. and that its insatiable bulimia will make it exhaust everything, without ever being able to stop) ...

And he does not see how man can stop this given the current negligence! And the fact that he is very immature ... Unable to learn from what is happening to him, and especially that he is guided by primitive instincts against which he cannot resist: jealousy, self-centeredness, search for power, statelessness and other greed (all that in general, in outline ...)

He is very pessimistic about the future of humanity! Paradoxically, he thinks that humans must leave our solar system to go to the one next to us and where it appears, there would be a habitable planet!

But it's been more than two centuries back and forth!