Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

[Alec Smart]

Assuming you believe in the 'Big Bang' as the starting point of the Universe - the question might be asked as to where this
happened? Since supposedly the Universe begins with the Big Bang and all time and space also would so begin, where is the
place where it happened? - But if there was no time or space there also wan no place - no place where such an event could
occur. The conclusion one might reach is that the Big Bang could not have occurred unless there was a place for it to occur.
Hence, the Big Bang could not represent the beginning of the Universe. Therefor the next conclusion to be drawn is the
Universe could not have had a beginning since there was no place for the beginning to occur - Existence and the Universe
always existed for if there was ever a point of non-existence existence could never have occurred.

You seem to be assuming that all possible knowledge and information concerning the origins of the Universe is already accessible to us. You know damn well that your question cannot be answered but that doesn't mean it will always be unanswerable.

[Rr6]

Withing macro-infinite, non-occupied space, we eternally existent occupied space Universe. Even in multi-verse scenarios, all local universe's are at minimum, connected by gravity ergo they sum-total as the finite, occupied space Universe.

This is simple, rational, logical deductions that have credence because of validity of the 1st law of conservation...physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed....

I have heard the response to this one some years back, that, space-time was created in big bang. Gravity is a property of space-time, so apparently conventional belief systems say that gravity was created with big bang.

In this latter scenario the space, of space-time, is gravity. I have no problem with that, and have extrapolated out on those ideas of specific mechanics of how that occurs.

My scenario adopts dark energy as another intrinsic property of space-time so as I believe the correct identity should be space-time-space, wherein the first space, as gravity, is positive shape geodesic arc associated with a torus vector, and,

the 2nd space, as dark energy is negative shaped geodesic arc associated with the torus vector.

r6


[quote="Rr6"]Putting aside exactly what the big bang may have been, the question of where is irrelevant, because, our finite, occupied space Universe has no other universe as relative reference much less any triangulation potentials.
"U"niverse-1: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, spirit-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space etc.....
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------
...1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space,
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe
2) Universe aka God, Cosmos etc....
....2a} fermions and bosons aka spirit{ 2 }
......2b} gravity aka spirit{ 3 }
......2c} dark energy aka spirit{ 4 }.

r6[/quote]

[Alec Smart]

"U"niverse-1: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, spirit-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space etc.....
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------
...1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space,
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe
2) Universe aka God, Cosmos etc....
....2a} fermions and bosons aka spirit{ 2 }
......2b} gravity aka spirit{ 3 }
......2c} dark energy aka spirit{ 4 }.

r6

Is this an equation supporting your assertions about "space-time-space" or did you just screw up with your editing?

[Rr6]

[quote="Alec Smart"][quote="Rr6"]
"U"niverse-1: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, spirit-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space etc.....
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------
...1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space,
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe
2) Universe aka God, Cosmos etc....
....2a} fermions and bosons aka spirit{ 2 }
......2b} gravity aka spirit{ 3 }
......2c} dark energy aka spirit{ 4 }.

r6
[/quote]
Is this an equation supporting your assertions about "space-time-space" or did you just screw up with your editing?[/quote]

Equation? I think an equation is same as a formulaa and neither exist in my post. I think your confused. I can send you link to whole page of actual equations/formulae and they look nothing what I type above.

I dont know if I can post URLs yet but will try. Here is [url]link to page full of equations/formulae.[/url]

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... MwgfKAIwAg

Please share if you have additional questions that are relevant to my post. Thx r6

[Steve3007]

Rr6:

Unfortunately most of your posts appear to be nonsense. I don't mean that as an insult. I just mean it literally. For example, this:

Withing macro-infinite, non-occupied space, we eternally existent occupied space Universe.

is not a meaningful sentence in the English language. It appears, at first glance, to be a random collection of cosmology-related words. It also appears that way at second glance. It sounds like you have some interesting ideas. It would be good if you could compose them into meaningful sentences that form posts which are, as far as possible, self-contained. By "self-contained" I mean that, ideally, they should say something interesting without a great deal of reference to un-cited sources of extra information.

[Rr6]

To Steve3007, the grammar may be part of your problem. You dont mention that. I will correct the grammar as best as I know how in the comment of mine you quoted. So here is corrected as follows;

Within the macro-infinite, non-occupied space, we have the eternally existent, occupied space Universe. Simple imho.

In addition to that comment by me, and in other more previous posts, I posted same general concept in differrent way that is very clear English. imho Maybe you missed those or just ignore some of what Ive stated previously. I dunno. Here is that one also.


......"Within the non-occupied space we have an eternally existent, finite, occupied space.
We call this eternally existent, finite occupied space, Universe."......

Also since I learned how to turn on BBCcode Ive revised my cosmic heirarchy for more info and clarity. Hope this helps you find even once concept that you can understand. There all actually pretty simple, of those with an open mind. imho. Also, in this revised version of my Cosmic Hierarchy, instead of trying think of a few words on a line as a sentence, think of them as guides to a concept that is being conveyed.

I like to think of my cosmic hierarchy as the table of contents of book entitled "U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy
I'm not sure, but in some table of contents of a book there may not be sentences in some circumstances. I dunno, as Ive not looked at group of various books table of contents for some years to take notice of that specifically.

"U"niverse-1: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........

-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------------------------------

...1b} macro-infinite, non-occupied space aka metaphysical-2

....1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka UniVerse

2) Universe: Occupied Space aka God, Cosmos, UniVerse etc....

....2a} fermions and bosons
......aka observed physical/reality aka spirit-2.........

......2b} gravity
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3......

......2c} dark energy
.........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-4 and spirit-4...........

Hope that helps. Again think of it as table of contents. If you dont understand a word or concept in a line of text, I will glady assist you if possible.

r6

Rr6:

Unfortunately most of your posts appear to be nonsense. I don't mean that as an insult. I just mean it literally. For example, this:

Withing macro-infinite, non-occupied space, we eternally existent occupied space Universe.

is not a meaningful sentence in the English language. It appears, at first glance, to be a random collection of cosmology-related words. It also appears that way at second glance. It sounds like you have some interesting ideas. It would be good if you could compose them into meaningful sentences that form posts which are, as far as possible, self-contained. By "self-contained" I mean that, ideally, they should say something interesting without a great deal of reference to un-cited sources of extra information.

[Steve3007]

Rr6:

Thanks for the clarification. I'd like to explore it a little further. Your clarification says this:

Within the macro-infinite, non-occupied space, we have the eternally existent, occupied space Universe. Simple imho.

Judging from your other comments I assume that when you say "occupied" here you mean space that contains matter and/or energy (fermions and bosons). So you're proposing that there is infinite space but finite matter/energy. This is radically different from the generally accepted model, yes? If the unoccupied space contains no matter and no energy, in what sense do you believe it to exist? What is your definition of existence? How does the proposition that this infinite space exists help us to describe and predict that which we can observe?

---

Some comments on your description of your hierarchy:

You appear to place "God" and "Universe" at both 1a and 2. Is this deliberate or a typo?

You appear to single out the physical concepts of gravity and dark energy to mention in your hierarchy. Why just those? Why not other things such as the electromagnetic or string nuclear forces?

I can see why you might regard gravity as a metaphysical concept but I don't know why you refer to it as "spiritual" and I don't understand the significance of the numbers after the words "metaphysical" and "spiritual". (I also don't understand the significance of all the dots.)

I don't see the purpose of this hierarchy. What does it do for you? For me, the ultimate purpose of all physical principles, laws and patterns is to describe and predict observations. What is their purpose for you?

---

That will do for now.

-- Updated Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:52 pm to add the following --

Correction: In the above post, where it says "string nuclear" please read "strong nuclear"!

[Rr6]

"Steve3007"Rr6:--Thanks for the clarification. I'd like to explore it a little further. Your clarification says this:

r6--Within the macro-infinite, non-occupied space, we have the eternally existent, occupied space Universe. Simple imho.

Oh good my aim is to have a rational, logical common sense disscussion of ideas/concepts relevant to this topic and some tangents.

Judging from your other comments I assume that when you say "occupied" here you mean space that contains matter and/or energy (fermions and bosons).

That is correct, however, you leave out the part of the complete answer i.e. fermions and bosons{ observed reality } are only part 2a subcategory of 2}Universe: Occupied Space. You leave out 2b} gravity and 2c dark energy.

So you're proposing that there is infinite space but finite matter/energy.

Steve, yes there exists infinite space. I hope you understand that and do not disagree. I no where stated matter/energy. I do use the statement physical/energy. It is best if you can reference my comments as stated so we on the same page, navigational course.

We live in a finite, occupied space Universe. Again see 2 for the complete listing of fundamentals of occupied space. These are really quite simple concepts, as long as you or others stay on course of what my cosmic hierarchy/outline/list/table-of-contents states. imho

This is radically different from the generally accepted model, yes?

This is not a model. It is a cosmic hierarchy/outline/list/table-of-contents. Im not aware of any conventional model that excludes any ideas of macro-infinite space, non-occupied space. Even if they do exclude this concept of a macro-infinite non-occupied space, does that mean that it is irrational, illogical and not common sense?

If you believe the concept of a macro-infinite non-occupied space, that embraces our finite, occupied space Universe is irrational, illogical or not common sense the please state where, why and how you came to not believe my concept, as stated.

If the unoccupied space contains no matter and no energy, in what sense do you believe it to exist?

Steve, do concepts exist? Yes they do, as metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept. However they are concepts of space, they are not space. First of all Steve, let us start with aone-- of many ---dictionary definitions of space.

....'1.a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied.'........

So here they say unoccupied. This is of course a local Earthian definition of the word space. There is space in the closet, or the is and empty parking space. Take note here that if the word space truly means unoccupied or non-occupied space, then there is no need for the preceding word 'empty'.

So we can use dictionary definitions as a basis or guideline for what we mean when we use words. Of course there can exist many definitions for some words. So there is leeway. My approach is to refine my definitions to what is most accurate i.e. what is closet to truth.

So again, in local Earthian or even local cosmos referencing, I presume you know that, that any empty space on Earth, is filled with air molecules, and/or EMRadiation, gravity, neutrinos, electrons, etc....and same goes for the seemingly empty/unoccupied space between Earth and moon or our solar system and nearest star, except leave out the air molecules part.

The we come to the largest cosmic set we observe. Our finite, occupied space Universe. Since it is finite, then the only rational, logical common sense conclusion is that what is beyond( meta )/outside-of, is macro-infinite non-occupied space. Perhaps we can even say that, our finite occupied space Universe, can expand into or contract from this macro-infinite non-occupied space.

Hope that clears your understanding of the generalized/generic word space. In some versions of my hierarchy the first line "U"niverse includes the generic term Space. Wherein fall to fundamental catagories, non-occupied and occupied. Simple imho

What is your definition of existence?

Steve, see 1) "U"niverse: Cosmic Hierarchy has three subcategories that the fundamental kinds of existence;
1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ex concepts of Space, God, Cosmos, Universe etc.....
.....spirit-1 aka spirit of intent......

----line-of-demarcation---------------------------------

1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space,

1c} finite, occupied space aka Universe or UniVerse

All of three of those exist as that which they are.

How does the proposition that this infinite space exists help us to describe and predict that which we can observe?

I don't know that our knowledge of macro-infinite non-occupied space helps humans and to be clear I have not stated otherwise. I don't know that it helps to make in predictions regarding our finite, occupied space, and to be clear, Ive never stated otherwise.

You appear to place "God" and "Universe" at both 1a and 2. Is this deliberate or a typo?

1a is a concept of God. Concepts are not space. They exist beyond space and time.

2 is occupied space Universe. I believe many people refer to God as everything i.e. all occupied space things ergo God is Universe. However, God I include God in 1 i.e. God is also 1a, 1b and 1c and not just our finite, occupied space Universe aka UniVerse.

You appear to single out the physical concepts of gravity and dark energy to mention in your hierarchy. Why just those? Why not other things such as the electromagnetic or string nuclear forces?

In category 2, there is 2a, 2b and 2c. EMRadiation{ photons } and strong nuclear forces( mesons ) fall in category 2a bosons as observed occupied space aka physical/reality. Gravity is property of space-time. I speculate that dark energy is also a property of space-time.

I have scenarios that actually explain the mechanisms of gravity and dark energy and time processes and that led me to the color coded expression UniVerse.

I can see why you might regard gravity as a metaphysical concept but I don't know why you refer to it as "spiritual" and I don't understand the significance of the numbers after the words "metaphysical" and "spiritual". (I also don't understand the significance of all the dots.)

Huh? I think your confused here above Steve. Gravity is not a metaphysical concept. Your not reading correctly words as stated in the hierarchy. We can only have rational logical common sense discussion if you reference what I stated.

As for the numbers attached to words metaphysical and spirit, think of them this way. In a dictionary we may find many different definitions for a the same word. I have 4 clearly defined, different definitions for the words metaphysical and spirit. And again, they are dealing with most cosmic and fundamentals of the most comprehensive cosmological considerations.

Each line of text where you find metaphysical or spirit is how that word usage is being defined.

I don't see the purpose of this hierarchy. What does it do for you?

If I did not state this early on, then I stated it again. My cosmic hierarchy is and outline/list. Many people all over the world use outlines/lists. Especially in educational venues. The easiest way to approach my cosmic hierarchy is to clear your mind of all preconditioning about cosmos, Universe, etc.........

Then see my cosmic hierarchy as a book titled "U"niverse: The Cosmic Heirarchy and the table of contents/outline/list begins with "U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy. The rest has been posted so go back and read with open to the most cosmically comprehensive set of cosmos.

For me, the ultimate purpose of all physical principles, laws and patterns is to describe and predict observations. What is their purpose for you?

I have not regarded cosmic laws/principles as having a purpose. Universe does not have a purpose. Finite, occupied space Universe, and its complementary finite set of cosmic laws/principles just exist without purpose. Only humans apply a purpose.

Pleae share if you have more relevant questions, addendum's etc.....I will assist if possible.

r6

[Steve3007]

Steve3007:

So you're proposing that there is infinite space but finite matter/energy.

Rr6:

Steve, yes there exists infinite space. I hope you understand that and do not disagree.

I can neither strongly agree nor disagree because I do not know. Standard models of the universe appear to point to a finite size. They appear to be supported by some evidence. So, with my current limited understanding (undergraduate level physics and occasional reading of popular science articles) I'll go with a finite amount of space for now. If you have observational evidence of something different, please do share it.

Rr6:

I no where stated matter/energy. I do use the statement physical/energy. It is best if you can reference my comments as stated so we on the same page, navigational course.

But you did reference the standard physics terminology of "fermions" and "bosons". If you are using those standard terms then I have to assume, unless you state otherwise, that you are using them in the way that they are normally used in physics. That means that the other standard terms "matter" and "energy" are also appropriate. A photon, for example, is an example of a boson. It has energy but no rest-mass. An electron is an example of a fermion. It has some rest-mass. etc.

If you disagree with these bits of standard physics but still want to use some, but not all, of the standard terminology then you need to explain clearly your new definitions of the terms. Otherwise I will have no way to know what you are talking about.

Rr6:

We live in a finite, occupied space Universe. Again see 2 for the complete listing of fundamentals of occupied space. These are really quite simple concepts, as long as you or others stay on course of what my cosmic hierarchy/outline/list/table-of-contents states. imho

They may be simple concepts, but being simple is not enough. For a concept to be useful in physics you have to show why it is a better model of our observations than the infinite number of competing simple concepts.

Rr6:

This is not a model. It is a cosmic hierarchy/outline/list/table-of-contents. Im not aware of any conventional model that excludes any ideas of macro-infinite space, non-occupied space. Even if they do exclude this concept of a macro-infinite non-occupied space, does that mean that it is irrational, illogical and not common sense?

There are plenty of ideas that are rational and logical, but the test of whether they make good physics is their ability to describe and predict observations.

The Big Bang model of the Universe, as I understand it, posits that space-time is finite. You therefore appear to disagree with it. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. Just that you appear to disagree with this and with some standard physics.

Rr6:

...The we come to the largest cosmic set we observe. Our finite, occupied space Universe. Since it is finite, then the only rational, logical common sense conclusion is that what is beyond( meta )/outside-of, is macro-infinite non-occupied space. Perhaps we can even say that, our finite occupied space Universe, can expand into or contract from this macro-infinite non-occupied space.

We could say that, but it's not the only thing we could say. It is not, for example, what the Big Bang model says. You seem to ignore General Relativity and imagine an essentially Newtonian universe of finite matter existing in a small corner of an infinite space (not space-time). I don't know of any currently accepted mainstream model that agrees with you. Again, I emphasize, that doesn't mean you're wrong. But it does mean that you have to justify your ideas in terms of observed evidence. Unfortunately you can't do it with just logic and common sense. Common sense (i.e. the evolved instincts of small ape-like creatures on one small planet) is not necessarily a good guide to observed reality when it comes to things that are way beyond the direct Earth-surface environment in which we evolved.

-- Updated Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:24 pm to add the following --

Here is the reference to what you stated:

Rr6 in post #36:

......2b} gravity
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3......

Steve3007's comment on this in post #37

I can see why you might regard gravity as a metaphysical concept but I don't know why you refer to it as "spiritual" and I don't understand the significance of the numbers after the words "metaphysical" and "spiritual". (I also don't understand the significance of all the dots.)

Rr6's comment on this in post #38:

Huh? I think your confused here above Steve. Gravity is not a metaphysical concept. Your not reading correctly words as stated in the hierarchy. We can only have rational logical common sense discussion if you reference what I stated.

In post #36 I assume the acronym "aka" stands for "also known as". If so, then in post #36 you state that gravity is also known as "quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3". You therefore appear in the quoted passage to be proposing that the words "gravity" and "metaphysical-3" refer to the same thing.

Have I misquoted you?

-- Updated Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:30 pm to add the following --

Rr6:

I have not regarded cosmic laws/principles as having a purpose. Universe does not have a purpose.

I can accept that the Universe might not have a purpose, but the laws and principles of physics clearly do. Their purpose is to describe and predict the observed behaviour of the universe. If they do not have that purpose, then why talk about them?

If you can show me how your cosmic hierarchy links to something observable I'm interested. The fact that you borrow words from physics like "boson" and "fermion" appears to suggest that it aspires to do that. If it's just a sort of mental meditation that has no relation to anything I see when I open my eyes then it's not really my cup of tea.

Thanks for the chat.

[Rr6]

Steve3007:

So you're proposing that there is infinite space but finite matter/energy.

Again, I to clarify, I did not state matter/energy/ When I use a slash / mark it is two show two words are like synonyms of each other.

Rr6:

Steve, yes there exists infinite space. I hope you understand that and do not disagree.

I can neither strongly agree nor disagree because I do not know. Standard models of the universe appear to point to a finite size. They appear to be supported by some evidence. So, with my current limited understanding (undergraduate level physics and occasional reading of popular science articles) I'll go with a finite amount of space for now. If you have observational evidence of something different, please do share it.

You need to re-evaluate your own comments above Steve, because your stating a contradiction. If as you state, stand models point to finite Universe, then what that means, is that, we live in a finite, occupied space Universe. That is what Ive stated and your above adds credence to my given statements.

It does not take a brain surgeon or rocket scientist, to deduce, that, if we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, the there is only one conclusion, and that is 1b in my hierarchy, that, macro-infinite non-occupied space embraces our finite occupied space Universe.

I hope you can follow this rather simple, rational, logical common sense scenario. I think I gave a shorter version of this to you in previous post and it is what laid out in my cosmic heirarchy.

Rr6:

I no where stated matter/energy. I do use the statement physical/energy. It is best if you can reference my comments as stated so we on the same page, navigational course.

But you did reference the standard physics terminology of "fermions" and "bosons". If you are using those standard terms then I have to assume, unless you state otherwise, that you are using them in the way that they are normally used in physics. That means that the other standard terms "matter" and "energy" are also appropriate. A photon, for example, is an example of a boson. It has energy but no rest-mass. An electron is an example of a fermion. It has some rest-mass. etc.

Fermionic matter and bosonic forces ergo my givens in heirarchy as fermions and bosons. And in that same line of text, observed physical/energy, not matter/energy. You do not seem to understand that those two forms of energy are both physical.

Physical/energy are likened to being synonyms. Physical/energy are occupied space. Occupied space is what we observe as reality and time. Time/freqeuency being inherent to XYZ occupied space things. Occupied space things come in 3 fundamental kinds;

2a} fermions and bosons ergo physical/energy aka reality and occupy space.

If you disagree with these bits of standard physics but still want to use some, but not all, of the standard terminology then you need to explain clearly your new definitions of the terms. Otherwise I will have no way to know what you are talking about.

Ive been very clear what I'm talking about and continue to attempt to clarify when you do not understand.

Fermions are physical/energy. Bosons are physical/energy. Reread my 1a as is stated. My terminology may not be exactly as your or others in stand physics use, however, if anything, my terminology is actually more accurate ergo more true.

Ex. physics and everyday language still says radio-active material, when there is no radio-frequencies involved with ionizing radiation.

Rr6:

We live in a finite, occupied space Universe. Again see 2 for the complete listing of fundamentals of occupied space. These are really quite simple concepts, as long as you or others stay on course of what my cosmic hierarchy/outline/list/table-of-contents states. imho

They may be simple concepts, but being simple is not enough. For a concept to be useful in physics you have to show why it is a better model of our observations than the infinite number of competing simple concepts.

We begin with what is true/accurate and then each and every individual can decide what is useful. It is useful to me, because it is the reference point of for all true/accurate philosophical discussions that are directed towards truth. Ive never claimed any use or predictions etc....beyond what Ive stated.



Rr6:

This is not a model. It is a cosmic hierarchy/outline/list/table-of-contents. Im not aware of any conventional model that excludes any ideas of macro-infinite space, non-occupied space. Even if they do exclude this concept of a macro-infinite non-occupied space, does that mean that it is irrational, illogical and not common sense?

There are plenty of ideas that are rational and logical, but the test of whether they make good physics is their ability to describe and predict observations.

You've already given statements that allude to the validity of our living in a 1c and 2 finite,

occupied space

, Universe. And Ive stated once, if not more times, why that can only lead to one rational, logical common sense conclusion, that, our1c and 2, finite,

occupied space

Universe is embraced by a macro-infinite, non-occupied space.

As for 1c if you need proof that metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept exist as concepts of God, Space, Universe etc......then I'm not sure anyone can offer you anything that be a proof of their existence, as they exist as.

As for 2, I presume you don't need any additional proof that we live in finite, occupied space Universe. I'm not offering a proof only what is obvious to millions of humans.

As for proof testing of fermions and bosons, there is ample evidence.

As for gravity, we have not quantized nor quantified, yet many humans-- since Newton ---believe it exists, minimaly as a property of space-time. Whatever space-time is. Side tangent for us at this time, tho again, I clearly lay that out those mechanisms with some other scenarios involving geometry that I have developed

The Big Bang model of the Universe, as I understand it, posits that space-time is finite. You therefore appear to disagree with it. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. Just that you appear to disagree with this and with some standard physics.

No I do not recall stating that nor is that in my cosmic hierarchy. I think your still confused as to what my statements actually say. Space-time is peculiar tangent--- see gravity and time ---that we can go off into. First tho, we just need to come to agreement or not of what laid out clearly in cosmic hierarchy and explained, so far.

Remember, gravity is property of space-time.

Rr6:

...The we come to the largest cosmic set we observe. Our finite, occupied space Universe. Since it is finite, then the only rational, logical common sense conclusion is that what is beyond( meta )/outside-of, is macro-infinite non-occupied space. Perhaps we can even say that, our finite occupied space Universe, can expand into or contract from this macro-infinite non-occupied space.

We could say that, but it's not the only thing we could say. It is not, for example, what the Big Bang model says.

Which of my comments exactly, diverges from some big bang statement?

You seem to ignore General Relativity and imagine an essentially Newtonian universe of finite matter existing in a small corner of an infinite space (not space-time). I don't know of any currently accepted mainstream model that agrees with you.

Gravity is a property of space-time. We can go off on this side tangent at some point, however, suffice it to say, that I touch on space-time via 2b gravity as space--- see properterys of space-time Steve --- and time as our observed reality. Time/frequencies{ ^v ) all particles have associated frequency/pattern.

Again, I emphasize, that doesn't mean you're wrong. But it does mean that you have to justify your ideas in terms of observed evidence.

Steve, gravity has not be directly observed, quantized or quantified. Do you believe gravity exists?

Dark energy is even more remote than gravity, yet many scientists believe it exists. They do not yet no where to assign it. I assign to space-time just as many do with graivty. Sort of side tangent i.e. subcategory of gravity, dark energy is the word space, in space-time. I have a whole scenario with the exact mechanisms for that. Were not there yet.

Unfortunately you can't do it with just logic and common sense. Common sense (i.e. the evolved instincts of small ape-like creatures on one small planet) is not necessarily a good guide to observed reality when it comes to things that are way beyond the direct Earth-surface environment in which we evolved.

We can do plenty with rational, logical common sense, and again, that is really the only kind of discussion I want to have with others, in these regards to philosophy.

Steve, I must leave now. Enjoy rational, logical, common sense and relevant disscussion. Cannot get to the following at this time sorry. I'm late. Gotta go.

r6

Rr6 in post #36:

......2b} gravity
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3......

Steve3007's comment on this in post #37

I can see why you might regard gravity as a metaphysical concept but I don't know why you refer to it as "spiritual" and I don't understand the significance of the numbers after the words "metaphysical" and "spiritual". (I also don't understand the significance of all the dots.)

Rr6's comment on this in post #38:

Huh? I think your confused here above Steve. Gravity is not a metaphysical concept. Your not reading correctly words as stated in the hierarchy. We can only have rational logical common sense discussion if you reference what I stated.

In post #36 I assume the acronym "aka" stands for "also known as". If so, then in post #36 you state that gravity is also known as "quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3". You therefore appear in the quoted passage to be proposing that the words "gravity" and "metaphysical-3" refer to the same thing.

Have I misquoted you?

-- Updated Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:30 pm to add the following --

Rr6:

I have not regarded cosmic laws/principles as having a purpose. Universe does not have a purpose.

I can accept that the Universe might not have a purpose, but the laws and principles of physics clearly do. Their purpose is to describe and predict the observed behaviour of the universe. If they do not have that purpose, then why talk about them?

If you can show me how your cosmic hierarchy links to something observable I'm interested. The fact that you borrow words from physics like "boson" and "fermion" appears to suggest that it aspires to do that. If it's just a sort of mental meditation that has no relation to anything I see when I open my eyes then it's not really my cup of tea.

Thanks for the chat.

-- Updated April 1st, 2016, 10:37 am to add the following --

Hi Steve, I'm back to finish my reply to message #39 from you

Rr6 in post #36:

......2b} gravity
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3......

Steve3007's comment on this in post #37

I can see why you might regard gravity as a metaphysical concept but I don't know why you refer to it as "spiritual" and I don't understand the significance of the numbers after the words "metaphysical" and "spiritual". (I also don't understand the significance of all the dots.)

Again, gravity is not a concept it conventionally believed to be a property of space-time. Humans have a concept of gravity, just as we have a concept of any occupied space phenomena. Our finite, occupied space Universe, and each and every part, is complemented by a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

I.e 1a exists in eternal complementary to 1c in my hierarchy. 1a also exists in eternal complementary to 1b macro-infinite non-occupied space. This is clearly stated in 1a.

Rr6's comment on this in post #38:

Huh? I think your confused here above Steve. Gravity is not a metaphysical concept. Your not reading correctly words as stated in the hierarchy. We can only have rational logical common sense discussion if you reference what I stated.

In post #36 I assume the acronym "aka" stands for "also known as". If so, then in post #36 you state that gravity is also known as "quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3". You therefore appear in the quoted passage to be proposing that the words "gravity" and "metaphysical-3" refer to the same thing.

Four kinds of metaphysical in my cosmic heirarchy. And again, all occupied space phenomena have a complementary metaphsical-1, mind/intellect/concept.. Please reread hierarchy and see there is four kinds of metaphysical, and four kinds of spirit being defined.

Gravity is metaphysical-3. Or quasi-physical is also ok way of stating it. This is because gravity has not be observed directly nor has it been quantized or quantified. We do not observe gravity ergo it is beyond our observed physical/energy/time reality.

Gravity has only recently been indirectly verified here on Earth via LIGO's laser beams being slight out of time with each other. That is clock measurement of delay of photons caused by space-time ergo gravity. The first indirect verification of gravitational space-time aka property of space-time.

Remember that 2a is observed physical/energy/time reality as fermions and bosons. That is spirit-2. They occupy space.

Gravity also occupies space, however, it is meta{ beyond } ergo it is only quasi-physical in my hierarchy. Gravity is 3rd kind of spirit in my cosmic hierarchy. In dictionary spirit has more definitions than maybe any other word in dictionary.

Have I misquoted you?

No Steve, I do not believe you have misquoted me. I do believe, that, you have not yet been able to make clear distinction of 4 kinds of metaphysical in my cosmic hierarchy

Rr6:
[quoter6--]I have not regarded cosmic laws/principles as having a purpose. Universe does not have a purpose.

I can accept that the Universe might not have a purpose, but the laws and principles of physics clearly do. Their purpose is to describe and predict the observed behavior of the universe. If they do not have that purpose, then why talk about them?

We observe Universe and deduce the metaphysical-1 concepts of a cosmic law/principle that details how the Universe functions in specific non contradictory processes. There is the occupied space processes of Universe, and there is the complementary metaphysical-1 cosmic laws/principles.

Laws/principles to not guide, nor do they govern our finite, occupied space Universe they only exist in as complemenatary metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts, that we discover via our access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

Universe functions, and we discover those complementary laws/principles-- ergo mathematics also ---that co-exist. Laws/principles do not guide nor govern. Occupied space Universe guides itself via its functions, not via metaphysical-1 concept of mind/intellect.

If you can show me how your cosmic hierarchy links to something observable I'm interested.

'Something'? Steve, show me something my cosmic heirarchy does not link too. I can hardly believe your making this statement.

Reread hierachy. 1a] metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept do not exist, then how is it were having this conversation, on computers invented via humans access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

We deduce from obserations of living in a finite occupied space Universe, that, 1b, macro-infinite non-occupied space is what exists beyond our finite occupied space Universe.

We observe 1c, our finite, occupied space Universe. You do not seem to grasp what a hierarchy is how this the most is most comprehensive cosmic hierarchy, even tho it is not longest detailed list.

The fact that you borrow words from physics like "boson" and "fermion" appears to suggest that it aspires to do that. If it's just a sort of mental meditation that has no relation to anything I see when I open my eyes then it's not really my cup of tea.

I use English language that is referenced via dictionary of words. I use words in dictionary. You have begun to border on being irrational, illogical and lacking common sense. When you can actually offer a rational, logical common sense comment, that actually invalidates any of my givens in hierarchy, or other then please do so.

You refer to the standard model says this or that, as if it were likened to the constitution of the United States. Show me web site to this so called Standard Model, and the specific line of text that invalidates or contradicts what Ive given in hierarchy or elsewhere.

Thanks for the chat.

I'm fine with chatting, as long as others want to use rational, logical common sense and truth. You've offered no rational, logical common sense specifics, that show my hierarchy is not true, correct and valid in every way.

r6

[Atreyu]

The question was asked relative to our own space, as if the big bang occurred relative to us in a specific direction, and that theoretically one could travel to it via spaceship if one had the time and necessary velocity to get there.

And the answer is that it began Everywhere. Any direction you point to would be pointing towards the Big Bang. As the Universe expanded, space/time expanded. The question is being asked as if the Universe expanded from some central point, but it didn't.

It's been expanding everywhere, from all points, ever since the beginning. There is no "central point" from which everything expanded from. The entire apparatus is expanding....

[Steve3007]

...and it in not expanding into anything because there is nothing for it to expand into.

That, at least, is the model which is deemed to best described the available observable evidence. I think the problem arises when people think of it as something other than a mathematical model for describing observations and think that it has to make sense in an every day "common sense" way. Common sense, at least as I understand the term, is a set of everyday rules of thumb extrapolated from a few decades of everyday experience on the surface of the planet Earth. Not necessarily a good guide to describing and predicting observations of phenomena far removed from that environment.

-- Updated Tue May 17, 2016 6:38 am to add the following --

(Welcome back Atreyu)

[Rr6]

...and it in not expanding into anything because there is nothing for it to expand into.

Finally some rational logical common sense. See my cosmic hierarchy this is identified as;

....1b) metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces our finite, occupied space Unvierse/UniVerse.

Simple stuff that so few appear to be able to grasp.

The truth is out there for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it.

r6

[Gordon975]

I believe there is a very simple answer to the question "Where did the Big Bang occur?".
What we observe as the creation of all matter in the universe and the acceleration of galaxies
away from a point in space has occurred in the now point in time, a point between the past
and future please see my post and observations on the subject in this forum as -
“Space the now point in time”
[url] http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 12&t=13268

[YIOSTHEOY]

Assuming you believe in the 'Big Bang' as the starting point of the Universe - the question might be asked as to where this
happened? Since supposedly the Universe begins with the Big Bang and all time and space also would so begin, where is the
place where it happened? - But if there was no time or space there also wan no place - no place where such an event could
occur. The conclusion one might reach is that the Big Bang could not have occurred unless there was a place for it to occur.
Hence, the Big Bang could not represent the beginning of the Universe. Therefor the next conclusion to be drawn is the
Universe could not have had a beginning since there was no place for the beginning to occur - Existence and the Universe
always existed for if there was ever a point of non-existence existence could never have occurred.

"The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe."

You need to think of this theory of Hubble's more like a flour dust explosion in a grain silo. It supposedly according to the theory of it happened all at once everywhere.