I don’t think you know the incredible story of the absolutely brilliant question “What was of the Big Bang”, so I have the same naive brazen answer ready for you especially for you.
The story of NOTHING and the madness “ What was before the Big Bang “
Isn’t it strange that everyone is talking about NOTHING or?ask for it as if it were ETWAS?But it is only the complement to be able to describe the opposite of ETWAS. But it is therefore not really anything physically substantial, but only a product of our mind in order to be able to distinguish things. Therefore, the NOTHING should never be a physical matter that could change to become SOMETHING. And it certainly should not be an academically recognized thing that could represent the scientific basis of this universe, whereas a theological thing would be an ingenious solution. The concept of singularity is also only a meager substitute for the perplexity of the scholars, that is, precisely those who nevertheless constantly question the causality of other alternative thought processes. So so the collective arrogance watches over the wrong or right?
NO, that’s just not possible, we need a physical, pre-existing substantial medium that can change and for that the NOTHING is absolutely unsuitable.Therefore, the factually truly singular process must be explained differently, why an existing state changes once and then, plausibly and endlessly, continues to go through the continuous changing processes forever.
Well, nothing is easier than that, the solution is that if time can often change the state of the existing, but the quantity is finite, then this inevitably ends with a random emergence of the chronology, because that is a possibility, which cannot be called into question orour irrefutable primal knowledge is, contrary to hypothetical assumptions of singularity or belief. Therefore, it must have been something existential beforehand, the possibility of combining until it happened to be something that put an end to the chaos.
The result of this consideration is that the universe arose from an indeterministic chaos, in which a random deterministic state excluded the indeterministic.
In the indeterministic chaos there is the possibility of a truly chronologically disordered coincidence, in contrast to deterministic chaos, where only chronologically ordered changes of the states are possible.This was to answer the question about the “What was before the beginning“.For now there is something that has always existed before and is now called the universe by us. Thus, the whole thing is basically still the same, a chaos of possibilities, just chronologically arranged.
This would therefore only be a change in the present state of order, whereby the consequence of this consideration presupposes the existence of time.And now the question of the ETWAS has to come. So that thing that changes, what substantial medium? Which is whereby a further consequence of this consideration presupposes the previous existence of space. Thus, time becomes the cause and the space is needed to work, which we also know as movement. This again leads to a new question of what we want to move, because the medium of space is still empty. Other people like to call it NOTHING.
So we continue to stand before the NOTHING and ask ourselves, what is the WHAT that moves WHEN, WHERE?Now that the NOTHING is out of the question, an even medium, where every point would be zero, would make the space appear far too even to represent the randomness of indeterministic chaos. Therefore, I assume that all points are wild and arbitrary states of mutual relations among themselves, the assumption of an even NULL distribution is absolutely unlikely.
Therefore, the new question now arises as to how does the WAS now stand out in the medium and now we are at the point where the scholars agree that the failure so far in principle could only lie in the fact that the right insight into the space-time structure of the submicrocosm.As mentioned at the beginning, scholars continue to determine what is wrong or right with the collective lack of insight.
Therefore, I now contradict the standard model of physics and say time is never stretchable and the same time is indispensable.Only then will we achieve the right insight into the space-time structure of the submicrocosm. If one replaces the 4th dimension of Einstein’s view of time with a real spatial 4th dimension, then no scientific knowledge is contradicted, but some things simply have to be reinterpreted.
In my blog I describe what time and space is.And therefore time is only a product of our mind, which allows us to grasp a real existential spatial 4th dimension as a period, as a temporal distance of a spatially existing relationship. For the real effects must have a present existential size, because the universe works exclusively, so it does not have to understand it. On the other hand, we want to understand it and then do not always notice that some relationships do not really exist, but are only a product of our minds.
And so the medium of our minds is a four-dimensional idea of reality.The first three dimensions form the place coordinates for the WO and the 4th dimension determines the degree of curvature, which I call amplitude, because everything in this universe follows a circular function and the temporal contemplation of this curvature always ends as a wave.
All scientific findings suggest that absolutely everything ultimately follows a circular function.Why would the Big Bang want to contradict this? Therefore, the universe is unlikely to expand indefinitely, but will reach a point where the circular function changes its signs when it reaches the point of the speed of light. This is supported by the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 and is described in my blog under “My Universe”.
The alternative is that everything continues as it is taught, only the Big Bang is a constantly ongoing process, which resolves many inconsistencies.So, everything stays as usual, but from now on it will be causal. Why does science have a problem with this?
So I turn the mosquito into the elephant, that is, from the NOTHING the only law of the universe, that everything in this universe follows a circular function and therefore the maximum determines how small the minimum will be and vice versa.