Fireworks!

(cue John Phillip Sousa in the background)

NASA is government, and like all government, they are not to be trusted.

I used to see discovery ,natgeo channels. Ihave also read some mythological books. All these agree that our universe is created in a certain time .So logical we can think that the universe stands on a time scale .this was created and also is going towards destruction.here only the time exists.We calculate time from the starting of existence of universe.like that we also are calculating the year from the time of come down of lord Jesous on earth. But calculation of time was before also. We have to take a assumption of a time scale like the number scale starts from infinite and ends at infinite.
-€<----------------- 0------------->+€
(universe -->)
TIME SCALE *

What is in the BIBLE?. Can you tell us the part it is? I knew that there is noting like "BIG BANG" related in the Bible. Scientists are just having faith their own premodial research.

We are not talking about the Bible. We are talking about scientific theory.

If you were familiar with the Two-Element Metaphysics being explored by some early Greeks, and understood how it applies to all forms of reasoning, you would be able to comprehend the error in so many theories today.

One cannot predicate of an element, because one cannot abstract from an element, therefore, time does not have a beginning, nor an end.

The "end of time as we know it" does not mean the end of time.

The end of time as we know it? You mean time is different from time? Besides, we do not know time qua time. We know minutes, seconds, etc, but since we cannot abstract from an element, in this case time, we do not know it. Just like we do not know linearity qua linearity, but do know line segments.

Truth in language is maintained when we respect the principles of predication, predication is the inverse function of abstraction.

These were ideas Plato, Zeno, Parmenides, were working with.

Time as we know it for this world is in relation to the movement of bodies through space. The earth around the sun, etc.

Time as the human consciousness perceives it might not be the same as time as we know and use it on this planet.

Also, the bending of spacetime distorts time "as we know it."

And you really believe all that non-sense?

As I said, it is logically impossible to predicate of a first principle. Once you say that time is different from time, you have contradicted yourself. This inability to keep standards for the meaning of terms is what makes people pre- or proto- linguistic.

Now, if you want something really interesting, think of this. I have discovered a new analogic, I can pair 4 systems of reasoning that all come to the same results for mathematics.

This means, that your non-Euclidean concepts cannot even call math to its aid, for if you negate any of these systems, you must negate them all.

You can cite all the references you desire, however, I can also do what Linguist cannot do, walk you through common grammar using the two-element metaphysics. Plato did it well, and people never could figure out how. Not enough grey matter.

There are well defined principles on how words cannot and cannot be combined. If one does not know them, they never know when they are speaking gibberish.

:You can see my work on the Internet Archive or YouTube.

I can see you have a very high opinion of yourself and wish to demonstrate how much you know.

You also seem to find great joy in talking down to people.

I'm not interested in seeing your work.

I've seen enough already.

I see you are more emotionally moved than rationally. Don't you think it is a contradiction, to pretend to be interested in reasoning, but then cop out on ego and emotion?

Nothing like a common display of appearance versus reality.

You are the one who seems to have a huge ego.

If you want to discuss a subject, then discus the subject. Don't make it personal.

Talk to me as if I were a real person please.

Be polite, if that is possible for you to do.

Otherwise I'm not interested.

I can have conversations with computers if that is what I wanted to do.

Me, listen to yourself. I said nothing but the truth and you retorted with your childish character references.

I will say this again. It is not about me.

Talk about a subject.

I did.

Your not listening.

The subject of this thread is about the big bang and time. It is not about me.

Or this could be a situation of "lost in translation".

Some people don't realize right away that what they type will be interpreted differently than they intend because of how "impersonal" the medium is.

Also, too much technical jargon makes it difficult to understand. If that is unintentional, then it is typical of a person who types as he thinks (stream of consciousness). This can make someone appear to have a big ego or simply socially mal-adjusted.

In any event, leaping to conclusions on either side is a no-win slippery slope. If something was lost in translation, then both sides will have egg on their face when the dust settles.

If you feel the subject is too simple or complicated then why not start your own thread about something philosophical?