Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Moses or Hawkins' Big Bang?

  1. Apr 24, 2004 #1
    I don’t know about you but I don’t feel intellectually intimidated by a name of “authority” like physicist Stephen Hawkins, specially cos some statements don’t seem to be naïve or childish but really IMBECIL for a man knowing math as he does in his Brief Story of Time, the example of monkeys hammering in typewriters machines, -the bigger part will be litter but occasionally, by mere CHANCE, they will type one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.
    Shakespeare’s complete works do have the sonnets pretty much the same size. The initial verse of sonnet 18 is well known: “Shall I compare you to a summer’s day?” which follows the usual 14 lines and ends:
    “So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, so long lives this, and this gives life to thee”.
    There are 488 letters in the sonnet. Ignoring the spaces between words (like the Bible Code)the chance to type by chance 488 letters and produce this sonnet is 1 in 10 follow by 690 zeros! The enormity of this scale can be notice if we consider after Big Bang there’s 15 billion years, that means only 10 follow by 18 zeros (seconds).
    Hence, to write by chance one of Shakespeare’s sonnets it’s required all the monkeys PLUS all the animals of the Earth type in typewriter machines MADE BY ALL IRON OF THE UNIVERSE in a period of time EXCEEDING ENORMOUSLY THE TIME SINCE BIG BANG, even so, the odds are minimum. Trying one chance by second, even a simple sentence with 16 letters demands 2 millions of billion years while the Universe only exists 15 billion years ago…to eliminate all possible combinations.
    In XIII Century, Namanides quoted a commentary about Genesis written 600 years before, explaining BEFORE the existence of our universe TIME DIDN’T EXIST. This is due to what is written in Genesis 1:5: “There was an afternoon and morning, day one”. IT WASN’T WRITTEN “FIRST DAY” as stupidly translated in most of the Bibles, because the use of “first” would implied a series already existing of days in a “continuum” of time when truly there was no time before that “DAY ONE”. There was no “before” and not even “after”, there was nothing linked to that day. The subtle difference was not noticed in Jerusalem Bible when we read “first day”, something not happening in Vulgata version translating “Jactunque est vespere et mane, DIES UNUS in Latin. That day was unique as “day one”. With impeccable logic in all the rest of days of Genesis’ week, are used the ordinal term: second, third, fourth, etc., because from the day two it was already established a series of days, the creation of the universe brought with itself the concomitant creation of time. Hence, commenting about Genesis, both Maimonides and Namanides arrived to the same conclusion and interesting idea: before the creation of the universe, space didn’t exist neither time. The creation of the universe brought not just the time in which it flows but the space in which it expands. I already explained the blackness and vacuum was “ruach elokim” expansive inflation or superhole paying attention to Hebrew words.
    In that sense, Hebrew idea wasn’t giving a mythical cow, or “nothingness” opening, or primitive supermaterial linked to a divinity limited to matter existence like Greek gods. Not even in Plato or Aristoteles times their gods could create matter. They were limited by the matter of the Universe and depending on it.
    Five hundred years ago, kabalists understood Moses saying God filling eternity, shrank and in that God’s Big Crunch –tsim tsum- there was universal Big Bang expansion. God chose 10 dimensions or aspects to form the universe and included into our universe. 10 times is written “God said” in chapter 1 of Genesis. Kabalists thought only 4 from 10 dimensions are physically measurable while other 6 contracted in submicroscopic dimensions during the 6 days of Creation. So, what Kaku explained in his book HYPERSPACE without saying a word of what I do explain here comes to modern society CENTURIES LATE, I regret to say! The scientists reference to the original space of a “grapefruit” is just a renewed version of kabalists “mustard seed space”. Even in Naimonides times he was aware of Hebrew meaning of the creation STARTING IN THE AFTERNOON AND ENDING IN THE MORNING. Christians ignore the fact, the word “morning” is “boker” in Hebrew and means “distinguished, capable to be distinguish, ORDERED” while “afternoon” is “erev” meaning “confused, mixtured, DISORDERED”. Therefore, what Genesis was saying all the time is creation started in the chaotic entropy of the “afternoon” ending in the quantified order of the “morning”. Usually Christians don’t know either the meaning of the word “yown” translated as “day” and the fact Genesis is talking about simultaneous times using different clocks cos the sequence of events is not the same EVERYWHERE. In Exodus 31:17, Genesis 1:1 and 2:4 we clearly see not only the difference between creative days and THE DAY in which both heaven and Earth WERE MADE from a primordial substance. :wink: Then AFTER when energy from photons dropped to 3000 K degrees, the electrons could have stable orbits around helium and hydrogen nucleus and the photons not only liberated from universal matter (SEPARATED IS THE TERM USED IN THE JEWISH TORAH IN GENESIS BOOK) but also became visible. This fire was in the water and there was water in the fire, not separated as we know in our dimension. It was neo-kabalist brothers Wacholsky did in SFX in one of MATRIX movies making the fire have the attributes of water. More than 99% of Universal mass is under the form of hydrogen and helium, two of the slightest elements of the universe. That is known. But how many of you know when Genesis mentions the Earth was empty and vague it’s used the Hebrew words “tohu” and “bohu”? The most important physicist of particles in fact use the initial T and B (from ToHu and BoHu) as the two main blocs of formation of all matter. The pressure of forces of Big Bang literally did a fussion of this T and B into hydrogen and helium. So much of Hawkins’ expertise!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 24, 2004 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    So astronomers discover the expansion of the universe from Einstein's equations, and Hubbel discovers the evidence that the distant galaxies are receding by studying their spectra, and Gamow and Alpher conclude there was a big bang and predict the microwave background, and others discover that background and so we have a consistent theory of expansion supported by evidence.

    And only NOW, after popular books have been written about this and brought the theory and its evidence to the public do the Kabbalists proclaim they knew it all along! Where were they in 1850? Even in 1920 they would have been ahead of the curve. Why didn't they proclaim their foreknowledge and predict the expansion or the big bang then? Why?
     
  4. Apr 24, 2004 #3
    If the Big Bang turns out to be entirely wrong, and I do believe it is. Then a discussion about who said what and when - Stands mute.
     
  5. Apr 24, 2004 #4
    Even intuitively, if everything did not just pop into existence all at once without reason or cause or Creator, this would imply an expansion from a single point. And I fail to see what would have prevented anyone at any time from proposing this.:cool:
     
  6. Apr 24, 2004 #5
    It is interesting to think that all the mathematics that will ever exist has been here the whole time, and that we had not be aware of it?:)

    One point( a portal for expression ), might have been the beginning of any universe or idea, and lead into many possibilties. Some might have called it Venn logic after such an expression or Feynmann's pathways derived from the Dirac Matrices.

    But where oh where, is this vast reservoir of knowledge hiding and ones asks what Lie Beneath. Where are the seeds of all knowledge drawn from?

    So where is this place, where all this math is hiding and one might soon ask, what form of math shall arise where such a universe might arise? Where such a point can begin. If such things are going to be entertained, then what value shall we place on consiousness and what is called Cognitive Mathematics?

    I had raised this issue in Cubist Art and the Monte Carlo effect, because it might have revealled a direct expression geometrically from the ideas of how quantum gravity might have been built?

    Looking for this same geometrization is what I was looking for in string/Mtheory. If this consistancy is found will it show a higher dimensional value aS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS CONSISTANCY? I believe it will:)

    Sometimes artist renditions, are at the forefront, and truly, these were the better visualists of mathematical interpretation and exploration? Susskind saw the value of a looped string?:)

    Can a direct relationship be drawn between PI and Pascal's triangle? If such probabilistic determinations are spoken to in what can be expressed, then the marble drop raises possibilties?
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2004
  7. Apr 24, 2004 #6

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Who the heck is 'Hawkins'? :tongue:
     
  8. Apr 24, 2004 #7

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    He means Stephen Hawkings.
     
  9. Apr 24, 2004 #8
    Selfadjoint: I don't know where were the interest of the people, but you can always check what Naimonides explained centuries ago in your local library. It's not my fault if millions of Christians (including some readers) didn't invest time to remove spider web from their Bibles to check the string theory in Job 38:31. This text for instance was already translated before Hawkins. It's not my fault if they ignore Hebrew. Of course, I can go with this forever teaching about the concept of zero of the Mayas and Hindus before your greatgreatgrandpa was born, but I wonder WHAT do you really know about this? No, I better don't insist, I could break the rules of this forum and you will start to insult me. I'll better stop right here.
     
  10. Apr 24, 2004 #9
    By the way, kabalah was forbidden by Catholic church, the dominant defender of "science" in case you didn't learn that in school.
     
  11. Apr 24, 2004 #10
    I'm saying before the Big Bang the kaballah says there was God's Big Crunch, something science hasn't conclude yet. You can always check what is "tsim tsum" in case you really wanna research and do homework and know the TIME this was taught.
     
  12. Apr 24, 2004 #11
    You can also search what was Einstein's source to make his equations and you will be surprise, even to find the famous formula E=Mc2 origin decades before him and his pantheistic vision. Don't forget he was a Jew writing letters with the Hebrew name of God.But I don't pretend to demonstrate that fact. It's up to you since you ask "where" and "when".
     
  13. Apr 24, 2004 #12
    www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm
    www.nobel.se/physics/educational/relativity/history-1.html
    www.geocities.com/antonioferrigno/relativity.html
    http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/AEGRBook.htm
    http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter28.html
    Perhaps reading will help you understand the formula Einstein used existed at least 17 years before and was presented to the public 5 days before him. Then again, it's pretty obvious people memorize formulas but don't know too much about history, a problem shared with Michio Kaku too. As a theorists mathematician is bad historian!
     
  14. Apr 24, 2004 #13
  15. Apr 25, 2004 #14
    Consider the dark energy was explained centuries ago and known by kabalists forbidden by Catholic Church. If you read Isaiah 45:7 says in Hebrew the word "hoshek" (darkness) being the REAL CREATION OF GOD ("create" in Hebrew is "barah") and different from "form". Hence, the text is saying darkness was not abscense of light but real creation while light was formed because of that pre-existing black fire. In the Jewish idea there was God's Big Crunch called "tsim tsum" and the "ruach elokim" and vacuum or vague darkness of Genesis 1:1,2 was the super black hole as inflationary event. Hindus believed in Big Bang-Big Crunch scenario related to Brahma's own body swelling or collapsing with universe which was part of himself. Eventually now astronomers and physicist do believe we have to replace the Big Crunch or Big Bang ending of the universe into the Big Rip ending like a whimper in an endless sea of space.
    www.cox-internet.com/hermital/holopara1-4.htm
    www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-174a.htm
    By the way, this "recent discoveries" were not known when physicist and theologist, Gerald L.Schroeder formed in Massachusetts Institute of Technology mentioned the issue "blak fire" in 1990 in his book "Genesis and the Big Bang, The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible".
     
  16. Apr 25, 2004 #15
    For the skepticals who still believe Jewish people have been as ignorant as Christians, my advice is check Onkelos translation -based upon Hebrew texts- of the Torah (Translations of Torah) WRITTEN 1800 YEARS AGO considering the order coming out of chaos using the expression "it was UNIFIED ORDER" in Genesis 1:31 as taken from Hebrew words of "morning" (order) after the "afternoon" (chaos) and not before. This translation was made BEFORE THE GREEK WORDS "CHAOS" AND "KOSMOS" WERE EVER WRITTEN FOR THE FIRST TIME. The problem with American education is you choose the areas you wanna study at the university and even a moron if he (she) is a good sportman can be "graduated" in the university. So, we can have a nice chat with a mathematician or physicist who doesn't know where the hell is his (her) city. BRAVO!
     
  17. Apr 25, 2004 #16
    By the way, the physicist Schroeder I quoted before, knows Hebrew and that language and Jewish legacy was the fundament of his book written 14 years ago rather than Christian wrong ideas.
     
  18. Apr 25, 2004 #17
    I am out of my element here. But I am going to type anyway. The Hindus have this concept called Prana. This is the in and out breath. It is a central theme. Their vedas go back more than a hundred thousand years, as they mark their yugas in twenty five thousand year increments.

    I was looking at this horn shape postulated for the shape of the Universe. I was thinking that this was the perfect thing. If there were a big bang, or a rushing outward from a central point, then; perhaps we span out of that and this long form that might even twist around other similar events. like a giant rope. But maybe one of the outward forces of that form is the closure of the bang original location, behind the event. Maybe the black hole is the tear we make in space time as we propel forward , but it travels forward with us to on one hand pushing the matter forward, and at the same time redevouring the matter at the tail of the phenomenon. This was the first thought.

    This takes me back to prana, maybe these big forms (these universess) go back and forth, blow out, and then are taken back up and the collapse of the whole thing recreates the potential from which the big bangs occur. This would make Prana, that breathing in and out, and would remain as one of those knowledges, whose scientific basis was lost, but persisted in myth.

    I am never going to get over Carlos Casteneda, and his purported discussions with the arbiters of eternity. But there was a discussion of the "Eagle", an immense darkness that the sages compared to an Eagle that took all energy and flattened it with its beak, and then reconsumed it. The knowlege of existence was its food.

    So I see this great seething orb of dark intensity where, everything is compressed. Then there is almost an ideation that streams out to become a long tubular universe stretched to the limit of its energy, and resistance, blooming of sorts, and then falling back to reabsorption, and rebirth. This is almost as if the act of becomming were of more weight than being, though there is plenty of being in the process. It is just temporary on such a grand scale, that we perceive it as ancient.
     
  19. Apr 25, 2004 #18
    Scientists are reaching to a point in which rather than having a cocky-peacock attitude they should research all ancient wisdom. Egyptians and Incas and other civilizations always associated Sun with feather-snake. Check:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3226844.stm
    So if the Sun changes its "skin" like a snake, why the universe can't do something similar?
     
  20. Apr 25, 2004 #19

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And why can't we all rely on that chicken named George, mentioned as a possible creator of the universe by Johnny Carson? Just because bunk is old doesn't mean it's not bunk. And BTW, the Maya weren't an extremely old civilization, they got their start in around 500 of the Christian Era. This is in spite of their calendar having an extremely old start date. That's a common trick and means nothing. The Maya were preceded by the Olmecs, but we have almost nothing from that civilization. At least the real archeologists don't; I'm sure the cranks have all kinds of stuff.
     
  21. Apr 25, 2004 #20

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So, to oscar, and perhaps Dayle Record: if these ancient tomes (tombs?) hold such deep knowledge, how about a few concrete predictions? Fame and fortune will surely follow, if you get it right!

    A few warm-ups:
    - nature of inflation (read Guth for some background), e.g. one inflationary episode or two?
    - mass of the Higgs
    - mass of the lightest SUSY particle
    - mass of the non-zero mass neutrino(s)
    - nature of dark matter
    - nature of dark energy
    - when life first arose on Mars (or firm prediction that it didn't, and so no fossil evidence will be found there)
    - nature of extinct life on Mars
    - ditto, Io and Ganymede (and Callisto?) oceans
    - detailed connection between the Ediacara biota and the Cambrian explosion; in particular the number of Ediacara phyla/divisions which went extinct
    - number and location (RA and dec will do) of all pre-historic supernovae seen on Earth (not counting those recorded by Chinese, Korean and other far-Eastern observers)
    - size of the geoditic and frame-dragging effects that Gravity Probe B will observe
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Moses or Hawkins' Big Bang?
  1. Before the 'BIG BANG' (Replies: 1)

  2. Big Bang (Replies: 10)

Loading...