rationalskepticism.org

Spearthrower wrote:

This means that a 'Big Bang' interpretation cannot rationally be true on grounds of logic. [

Then that logic is flawed if evidence suggests that the inflationary models are true. The primacy flows that way, not in favour of philosophy.

And what is this logic that is meant to falsify inflationary models?

Too far ahead. You're missing the point about the fact that I'm stating what cannot be even begun as a foundation about the theory, not an addendum to theory assuming it is already established.

The point (before devolping it here) is that if TIME AND SPACE (which also happen to be one as the "space-time continuum") then the point is a sincere assymptote and a place in which you could NEVER reach.

It doesn't even actually offer any semantic sense. Cut the ellipses out: The point is that if TIME AND SPACE then the point is a sincere assymptote and a place in which you could NEVER reach.

What is that meant to convey?

This is the big point you're making, apparently, but it seems to be lacking any definable idea.

If we are inside a space-time, you cannot use the perception of a point to infer an actual beginning but a converging virtual one. Thus, all you CAN be certain of is that time and space has always existed in our Universe. It defines it. There is no possible rationale to permit even an assumption of a sudden origin because it breaks every rule of what is supposed to be based upon empricism: our capacity to observe from where we are anytime we are.

The paradox occurs ONLY if you assume a real singularity because you'd require a sudden INFINITE FORCE to go from nothing to ANY finite quantity.

Energy is a measure of Force through a distance. Force is an acceleration of mass. You'd need both to POP into existence (the 'Bang') a finite mass + energy AT that singularity if time and space is itself originated. But where other than some magic being could supply such power? [Enter the political justification to conserve this theory over the Steady State one, since it DOESN'T rule out even the Diestic interpretation if space and time is infinite.]

But taking the little bit that is comprehensible: why would being unable to reach a past event or not matter in terms of reversing time to get to it? That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, only that it would be unreachable from the later state. Such irreversibility happens routinely in the natural world, not least in terms of thermodynamic processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_process

In the paradoxes, what gets missed is that there is a real wall that implies something is still beyond it. The 'goal' to reach the wall though is the distance to it finitely in Zeno's example. Also, we know that time still exists for the challenge. That is why the paradox fails in Zeno's particular cases. But IF time and space both do not exist at that point, it can only be an assymptote which means that Zeno's cases are true in those cases.

This can only mean that the closer you try to get to it, some distance, it has to match with the time in a way that you could never reach it. Thus the point is an illusion as the only way you could not reach there is if the appearance is an infinitismal point where there is always some time and space. ....an infinite reality. Big Bang theory is dependent on a finite interpetation that suddenly pops in a special quanity of matter and energy in no time at all.

The Big Bang is a religious theory for this reason alone. The fact that it was kept has to mean it is a political closed door decision. Likely science would not get the funding for the same justification you feel that I was insulting you here for, but by the collective taxpaying religious people everywhere in the world who would be insulted should the Steady State model be adopted.

Note too that regardless, a Big Bang or Steady State theory MUST be in a space that accelerates from the singularity if at least by the perception alone.

Then add the fixed speed of light. If given the point is virtual, what we see has to be interpreted that far back as appearing hot because the RELATIVE speed of light further back we look is faster (by illusion) and thus denser when we see galaxies further away. This is because if time and space appear to shrink looking further back, then the ration of any speed based upon a quantity of space as distance/time.

So how one presumes even the CMBR or quasars don't fit with Steady State models is a mistake or intentional lie.

All complex natural processes are irreversible.[1][2][3][4] The phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system, which is any system of sufficient complexity, of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable.[5][6] Some "transformation energy" will be used as the molecules of the "working body" do work on each other when they change from one state to another. During this transformation, there will be some heat energy loss or dissipation due to intermolecular friction and collisions. This energy will not be recoverable if the process is reversed.

Many biological processes that were once thought to be reversible have been found to actually be a pairing of two irreversible processes. Whereas a single enzyme was once believed to catalyze both the forward and reverse chemical changes, research has found that two separate enzymes of similar structure are typically needed to perform what results in a pair of thermodynamically irreversible processes.[7]

I agree with processes to be reversible. See the last point to understand the difference of interpretation of what we see.

Do you think that the speed of light stays fixed in all times relative to us HERE? If we can't make space and time disappear like this locally, we have to assume that such appearance of that inferred by any theory must make the theory more dubiously anti-scientific than to a simpler more realistic one of it being a normal appearance due alone that the (or a) Steady State theory implies. The Big Bang not only falls on the fact that we cannot infer this phenomena locally but to the logic I just presented.

We SHOULD see a CMBR....we should see further objects in space look different then closer objects as well because the apparent intensity of light as a field is closer together just as fields of gravity or electromagnetism is stronger closer to its 'point' location.

If you are not yet satisfied with the paradox, I have some illustrations that I can add here that might make it easier to see.