Stam Nicolis added an answer
Suresh Wanayalaege added an answer
Stam Nicolis added an answer
Suresh Wanayalaege added an answer
Suresh Wanayalaege added a reply
I'm interested to know if the so called non-physical 'bare' model especially for massive elementary particles, which treats the particles as mathematical dimensionless points without any volume and attributing to these physical intrinsic properties like mass, spin, charge is the main source of the infinities appearing in the calculations and therefore needing these to be neglected by using renormalization?
What kind of infinities appear if any due this adopted model?
And why is this model still used today in quantum theories? I can see that historically this model has served its purpose since for example we cannot measure any finite physical size for the electron but wondering as if this model is not causing in modern physics more problems than the merits it offers?
What prevents us to adopt today a more physical "dressed" model for elementary particles having for example a finite charge radius at rest? Would that not address the infinities problem appearing in the calculations and eliminate the need to apply re-normalization techniques which are accused by many as not being accurately describing the actual physical process and being a mathematical trick?
The bare model implications addressed by Dirac in his lecture:
(watch from the above time stamp and on)
Suresh Wanayalaege added an answer
Emmanouil Markoulakis added an answer
Suresh Wanayalaege added an answer
Suresh Wanayalaege added an answer
“Standard gluon particles are massless, but there are gluons in vacuum space with a mass, and travel slower than the speed of light.” In the dimensional structure (image), there is a set of candidates for the standard elementary particles and particles in the vacuum space. The calculation shows two sets/gluons. One with (+1-1)/3 dimensions like the standard gluons. Another with (+0.5+0)/3 dimensions like gluons in vacuum space. Because elementary particles most probably could get mass on the unstable Charge and Spin (unstable Spin:1/2). W and Z bosons don't have an unstable Spin (1/2), but they have dimensions like the dimensions/Charges in Fermions (x/3 without 0.5) to get mass from the Higgs fields. So they are massive too. The Standard Model has 9 unique and fundamental particles (Higgs particle, 4 Fermions, 4 Bosons). But “experiments show 19 extra parameters that need to be applied for the theory by hand (E.g., adding masses, charges, etc.)”. Likely, there are around 19 particles hidden between the 9 elementary particles. E.g., 9+19=28. And that seems like the 28 or 24(+4) material forms mentioned in Buddhism.
Jaykov Foukzon added an answer
Suresh Wanayalaege added an answer
Preston Guynn added an answer
Suresh Wanayalaege added an answer
Manuel Gößling added an answer
Suresh Wanayalaege added an answer
Manuel Gößling, I guess there is a misunderstanding in the Fine-structure constant on the misrepresentation of the Planck constant in that equation. I guess there is a fundamental reason that can explain the same equation removing the 2π. Then the equation would represent a different Fine-structure constant, but likely it would represent something fundamental. Using h would make change it from 1/137 to 1/22. And the 1/22 looks like a ratio that represents a structure between some real number of elementary particles.
According to Abhidhamma, there are 28 material forms:
Concretely Produced (Nipphanna)
I. Great Elements (Mahā Bhūta):
1. Pathavi (Extension/Hardness)
2. Apo (Cohesion/Fluidity)
3. Tejo (Heat/Hotness)
4. Vāyo (Motion/Pushing & Supporting)
The above 4 great (Mahā) elements are not the emerged/derived elements. And those four elements made the following 24 elements:
II. Internal (Pasāda) Rupa:
5. Cakkhu (eye element) ==== Photon?
6. Sota (ear element) ==== Z Boson?
7. Ghāna (nose element) ==== W Boson (1)?
8. Jivhā (tongue element) ==== W Boson (2)?
9. Kāya (body element) ==== Gluon?
III. Gocara (Objective) Rupa:
10. Vaṇṇa (visible) ==== Electron?
11. Sadda (Sound) ==== Up Quark?
12. Gandha (Smell) ==== Down Quark (1)?
13. Rasa (Taste) ==== Down Quark (2)?
* Phoṭṭhabba (Tangibility, warmth, and movement) comes
from 3 mahā bhuta of pathavi, tejo, vāyo
IV. Bhava Rupa:
14. Itthi (Feminine) ==== Neutrino (1)?
15. Purisa (Masculine) ==== Neutrino (2)?
V. Hadaya (Mind Base):
16. Hadaya Vatthu (seat of the mind) ==== Z (1/2)?
VI. Life:
17. jīvitindriya (Life faculty) ==== Higgs Boson?
VII. Nutritional:
18. Oja (Nutriment) ==== Magnetic Monopole?
Abstract (Anipphanna) Rupa
VIII. Limiting Phenomenon:
19. Ākāsa dhātu (space element)
IX. Communicating (Viññatti) Rupa:
20. Kāya Viññatti ==== AXion (A)?
21. Vaci Viññatti ==== AXion (X)?
X. Mutable (Vikāra) Rupa:
22. Lahutā (lightness)
23. Mudutā (Elasticity)
24. Kammaññatā (weildiness)
XI. Material Qualities (Lakkhana Rupa):
25. Upacaya (production)
26. Santati (continuity)
27. Jaratā (Decay)
28. Aniccatā (Dissolving)
Can you see the similarity between them?
If they are similar, don't you think that the supreme Buddha could teach the theory of everything?
There is a mathematical way to derive the detected elementary particles and the hidden particles. Please consider reading my book on Binary Mathematical Physics and Buddhism to learn more about dimensional sets.
Preston Guynn added a reply
Suresh Wanayalaege added a reply
Suresh Wanayalaege added a reply
Edward Wu, Binary Physics does not belong to the constructed mathematical physics and rules. Binary Physics is the ultimate mathematical rule in the universe. And it already proved and predicted the existence of elementary particles, forces, etc. Binary physics is real physics. Modern physics is just an emergence from binary physics. Everything must have a start. So, the only natural start is zero (0). The universe is filled with superpositions and probabilities. If you think 0 and 0.0 represent the same thing, it is fine. It is difficult to explain those things to everyone.
Initial Matter AND/OR Antimatter: {(+0-0)^6 AND/OR (-0+0)^6)} × n ---- ‘n’ is an initial or derived number. n>=1 (If n=1 in the 1st n×(-0+0)^6, 2nd n>=4×3or12+8 in n×(+0.0-0.0)^6 as n removes infinities between 2, 3 dimensions.)
(+0-0)^6 = (+1-(-1))^3 -- They ((+1-(-1)) x (+1-(-1)) x (+1-(-1))) could cause the 1st compression of energy as a unit/neutron.
x (+0.0-0.0)^3 -- They ((+0.0-0.0) x (+0.0-0.0) x (+0.0-0.0)) could cause the formation of Mass, Charge, Spin, etc.
@
The first universe could continue from 0 to 0.00000 range until interacting with the next origination of dimensions from the 0.00000 point (±1.…… -+0.000000 ±0.000000\ -+1.……). But it could possibly be the next significant origin of dimensions even if it had to share its dimensions with the previous universe. Neutrino shows the potential to reach the last (0.000000) point on (+1/+0.0)x0^5 superposition. Sharing its dimensions with the previous/next universe can change neutrinos (right-handed matter neutrinos and left-handed antimatter neutrinos are missing). The first universe could start from this initial state (±0-+0)^6. But the next initial state could be a little bit different. That formation could start from the last point (edge), making the next start or continuing the previous universe. E.g.,
(±0.00000-+0.00000)^6 OR (-0.00000+0.00000)^6 = the second origin of MATTER and/or ANTIMATTER
= {(+0.00000-0.00000)^6 and (-0.00000+0.00000)^6} OR {(-0.00000+0.00000)^6 almost without initial antimatter}
The universe could evolve from 0 to 0.0 and so on, making dimensions (1×n) to balance every 0.0 and 0.0×0^n positions, becoming superpositions. Zero (0) could continue making both 0.0 and 1 simultaneously. And it could continue making the radius in the universe from 0 to ±0.00000x0^n continuing the expansion. Accepting that as the origin of energy is easier/logical than believing an illogical story. And creating a God from nothing is not scientific.
The steps in this calculation represent the highest possible dimensional interactions based on the natural laws of dimensions (directional moments) and most possible symmetries. And it is NOT based on a 4 or 5-dimensional (4D or 5D) universe that already exists as spacetime, matter, forces, etc.
Edward Wu added a reply
Suresh Wanayalaege added a reply
Edward Wu added a reply
Suresh Wanayalaege added a reply
Edward Wu added a reply
Suresh Wanayalaege added a reply
Edward Wu added a reply
Suresh Wanayalaege added a reply
Edward Wu added a reply
What If Charge is NOT Fundamental?
Charles L. Harper - What's Real About Time?
Where Is The Center of The Universe?
Suresh Wanayalae:
If the center of the universe should have a higher density, and matter moves away from the center of the universe, then a Big Bounce would make the required density at the center again.
These Experiments Could Prove Einstein Wrong
How can a photon have momentum?
Suresh Wanayalae:
I think, E = ((p+mv)/v)c^2 is better. However, Dark Energy is a scientific lie. Space existed before the Big Bang, and matter is moving into space, and space comes into matter areas. Dark Energy is a lie that hides (is being used to hide) the existence of the universe before the Big Bang.
Dan Edwards:
"Dark Energy is a scientific lie. " - well then, that's that! Can you tell us what "dark energy" is supposed to explain?
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Dan Edwards , There is nothing that really exists called Dark ENERGY. The density of the space beyond the island universe and inside the island universe is different because there was space beyond the island universe before the Big Bang. Therefore, the galaxies have to move away from each other to balance the density between those areas. Using the word Energy to explain that process is misleading and ignores the fact that Big Bang didn't create all the space. And ignores the fact that the universe is gaining space from somewhere.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Dan Edwards , Matter makes gravity, and physicists use the word 'matter' in the phrase 'dark matter' to mention the invisible matter. So, same like that they mention the word energy in the phrase 'dark energy'.
Dan Edwards:
@Suresh Wanayalae No. In "Dark Energy" the term energy arises because of the fundamentals of physics. The universe expansion accelerating means galaxy clusters are being accelerated away from each other. This acceleration thus means a force acting on these masses (galaxy clusters). A force acting over a distance is a defintion of .... energy. (E=F*d).
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Dan Edwards , It is a force/energy. But they don't mention space to describe that process. The word Dark Energy is not talking about the growth of space. A word like Extra Space mentions that process better than using the word energy to mention the output of that process. Using the word energy makes people think that there is hidden energy in the universe. And that phrase doesn't mention the growth of energy/space. And it makes people ignore the fact that the universe gained space from somewhere. Most likely, the universe started to gain space after the big bang using the space between the matter areas that existed after the Big bang.
------------------
g:
Thank you for all you do. Please NEVER "apologize" for including math in your videos.
Suresh Wanayalae:
Isn't Dark Energy is being used to ignore the fact that Big Bang didn't create space, and space existed before Big Bang?
Space could exist before the Big Bang. And therefore, the matter could move into space, and space could come into matter areas. Seemingly, the concept of Dark Energy is a scientific lie because it hides (is being used to hide) the existence of the universe before the Big Bang.
If the center of the universe should have a higher density, and matter moves away from the center of the universe, then a Big Bounce would make the required density at the center again as a cyclic process. Seemingly, space causes to continue that process somehow. And there is nothing else that really exists called Dark ENERGY. The density of the space beyond the island universe and inside the island universe is different because there was space beyond the island universe before the Big Bang. Therefore, the galaxies have to move away from each other to balance the density between those areas. Using the word Energy to explain that process is misleading and ignores the fact that Big Bang didn't create all the space. And most people ignore the fact that the universe is gaining space from somewhere. So, using a name like Dark Space to mention the growth of space in the observable universe is better than calling it Dark Energy.
Science is being used to ignore reality.
Definitely, the word Dark Energy is a misrepresentation of the growth of space in the universe. CMB radiation showed that the density of the universe was very high after the Big Bang. But the universe could gain space to remove that density. So there was space beyond the Big Bang area. So the Big Bang was not the beginning.
TheReaverOfDarkness:
@Suresh Wanayalae "CMB radiation showed that the density of the universe was very high after the Big Bang."
Yes.
"But the universe could gain space to remove that density."
How?
"So there was space beyond the Big Bang area. So the Big Bang was not the beginning."
You have not demonstrated this.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@TheReaverOfDarkness, Matter moves to the space beyond the Big Bang area. Dark Energy is a wrong interpretation of that process. The energy can't increase after the Big Bang if the Big Bang created energy. Scientists don't tell how the universe gains space/energy from somewhere else. So ask scientists about that. Some scientists try to bend science to support Abrahamic religions. And they want to ignore (stop talking about) the existence of the universe (at least space) before the Big Bang. They ignore the conservation of energy density in the entire universe.
TheReaverOfDarkness:
@Suresh Wanayalae "Matter moves to the space beyond the Big Bang area."
What space beyond it? What evidence do you have of this? And if matter is moving there, why is it not disappearing from our space?
"Dark Energy is a wrong interpretation of that process."
Dark energy isn't an interpretation of that process at all.
'The energy can't increase after the Big Bang if the Big Bang created energy."
That's irrelevant even though it's a non-sequitur.
"Scientists don't tell how the universe gain space/energy from somewhere else."
Scientists don't claim that it does. There are other interpretations of dark energy. But it's a moot point; we don't need to explain how something happens if we have evidence that it does happen. If you saw a tree fall down and someone tried to explain that you hadn't given a reason that a tree can fall down, would that convince you that the tree did not fall down?
"Some scientists try to bend science to support Abrahamic realigions."
Those aren't scientists. They are liars and grifters pretending to be scientists, and scientists and science communicators are exposing them constantly all over every public media outlet and many private ones as well.
"And they want to ignore (stop talking about) the existence of the universe (at least space) before the Big Bang."
Correction: that's a debate which doesn't exist because you haven't started it. First, you need to demonstrate any evidence at all to support your hypothesis. Until then, it's just a wild baseless claim.
"They ignore the conservation of energy density in the entire universe."
There is no conservation of energy density, at all, anywhere.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@TheReaverOfDarkness , the matter is moving to space beyond matter because space is coming to the areas of matter. If the Big Bang was like a fart of someone, imagine how a fart is going everywhere. A fart is moving because there is space beyond it. Your questions are childish.
According to science, when space expands, the energy in the universe increases too. Don't waste my time asking the wrong questions. Science is being used to make predictions about the past and future. So don't ignore it. Scientists can't say that the universe makes space from nothing. So they shouldn't ignore the existence of space beyond the universe to explain the growth of space.
If scientists talk about science, they should talk about the energy density of the entire universe to explain the existence of the universe scientifically. But Scientific Creationists would not like to talk about that. If you check a closed system, there is a conservation of energy density inside that system even though energy moves away from each other. I don't have time to teach science to you.
It is difficult to teach some creationists about reality those who don't like to remove their religious and scientific beliefs. So bye
THE IRRELEVANCE OF GOD IN PHYSICS, Sean Carroll
Suresh Wanayalae:
The Big Bang didn't create space (and matter). It was a Big Bounce of matter that happened inside the existing space. The observable universe expands on the Extra Space beyond matter areas in the universe. Scientists ignored that possibility by introducing the unknown energy called Dark Energy.
SCHOLARvid:
Well, before the Big Bang there was no space nor time. If the BB didn't create it, what did?
Suresh Wanayalae:
@SCHOLARvid , Big Bang was just an output. The energy density in the entire universe could be uniformly distributed during the formation of matter and space. And matter and space could become a cyclic process with the expansion of the universe and the wave nature of the universe. The start of the 1st universe and the expansion of the universe could make all the matter and space. So the density of the entire universe could be somewhat conserved before and after the Big Bounce even if the density of matter increases before the Big Bang. So, there could be extra space that could come inside the density of matter after the Big Bang. Also, the CMB radiation showed that there are large areas of space between matter areas, just like extra space beyond matter areas made large areas of space between the matter areas. I have created a few contents about the creation of spacetime from Binary Physics. It is a very simple process that could uniformly make spacetime that could be a probabilistic/wave process between matter and space.
001_Rupa 001_2021-12-04_Rupa Chapter_Fundamentals of Theravada Buddhism ( 2021 lecture series )
Do Black Holes Really Have A Singularity?
Suresh Wanayalae:
Some theories make people confused. General Relativity changed the concept of time. But the relative time is not the real/absolute time. Relative time is a fake time that emerged due to a delay/disturbance in absolute time.
Joseph Pacchetti:
Joseph Pacchetti:
How can you say, Relative Time is a Fake Time? Please Explain.
Suresh Wanayalae
@Joseph Pacchetti, Photons are changing as a wave while they are traveling. So, we can't say that Photons don't experience time just because they could conserve their energy while traveling. According to my analysis, massive particles emerged on a positive disturbance in absolute time. And massless particles emerged on a negative disturbance in absolute time. Also, we can't say that we experience changes around us less when we observe or something reaches us if we travel near the speed of light. So, we would experience time equally in any reference frame even if the reference frame impacts the body and causes it to live longer. So, if we travel at the speed of light for many years we would experience that time even if the energy in the body doesn't cause to make our body older. Therefore, the relative time is a fake time relative to us.
Joseph Pacchetti:
@Suresh Wanayalae Photons {particles of light} have No Mass, they must obey E=pc and therefore get all of their energy from their momentum, Now there is an interesting additional effect contained in the general equation, If a particle has no mass {m=0} and is at rest {p=0}, then the total energy is zero {E=0}. Are you referring to time dilation?
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Joseph Pacchetti , I was talking about a fixed time like the Planck time that everything experiences regardless the speed they travel.
You (Probably) Have Free Will
Suresh Wanayalae:
Seeing/experiencing something is not a choice. But our habits make the choice after the experience. And habits could depend on a lot of reasons that are similar to our free will. If relative time doesn't impact our observations, then we would experience time even if we travel at the speed of light.
What Lies Beyond The Observable Universe?
Suresh Wanayalae:
The edge of the universe would make the smallest matter zones by removing infinity between the gaps of 2 and 3 dimensions. The first start could remove infinities, making 6 dimensions. And probably, the interactions between matter zones could make different densities. So perhaps, the matter areas at the edge of the universe are somewhat similar to space with an ocean of smallest matter zones.
Mohsin Atta:
There is one Center of Universe. I Am The King 😎. I am The Alpha and The Omega. Science I challenge you to Prove Me Wrong.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 These people really like to Imagine things 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Mohsin Atta , It is a proven theory. It is called 0theory.
Mohsin Atta:
@Suresh Wanayalae Yeah! If it all the way true Then why it is Not A (ಡ ͜ ʖ ಡ)Law in Science.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Mohsin Atta , I discovered it. Some people are reviewing it. Also, an Indian researcher told me that he wants to start similar research. And he invited me to join it. Sometimes, science fictions are more popular than real science.
What Is Life? (featuring Prof. Brian Cox)
Be Smart:
Life, man. What is it even?
Suresh Wanayalae:
Life is experiencing the continuation of time. We experience forces that use/consume the mass of the body. And it possibly observes only 1 force (a pixel) at a time. But it makes pictures like a living process. Buddhism explains the process of mind as a continuation of 3 moments that arise, exist, and dissolve while moving through matter areas. And a matter zone is like a Planck scale that lives for 51 moments and allows the mind to continue in it for 17 mind moments. And most minds have the potential to continue through matter zones even after the death of the body.
(009_Rupa)
46 - The Cosmic Rays Raining Down On Us | Why This Universe
Suresh Wanayalae:
If the observable universe expanded into extra space outside the matter areas in the universe, then space could come to matter areas very faster after the Big Bang and cause to accelerate some particles during that process. So perhaps, the interactions of space with matter areas could make very high-energy particles while making large areas of space between matter areas. Most likely, the universe existed before Big Bang and somehow increased the density of the universe at the center of the universe.
(009_Rupa)
Suresh Wanayalae:
There are generations of particles (E.g., Electron, Muon, Tau) that we can compare with Rupa Santhati. And likely, the particles are the Rupa Sarira that contains Rupa Kalapa without nothingness between them. So probably, the particles and virtual particles are Rupa Sarira that contain mass/energy like many Rupa Kalapa.
004_Rupa 004_2021-12-12_Rupa Chapter_Fundamentals of Theravada Buddhism ( 2021 lecture series )
006_Rupa 006_2022-01-02_Rupa Chapter_Fundamentals of Theravada Buddhism ( 2021 lecture series )
Suresh Wanayalae:
Most likely, all the Rupa exist in a Human body without reducing male or female Rupa because male and female Rupa are not males or females. They are just qualities of those Rupa. Kamma and Bija (seeds) would make male and female bodies using the qualities in those Rupa.
What is Quantum Mechanics Really Trying to Tell us about Reality? Featuring @Sabine Hossenfelder
Sabine Hossenfelder:
Thanks so much for the collab Arvin, quantum mechanics is eternally fascinating to me!
Suresh Wanayalae:
Binary Mechanics is better. I have published a paper about it. Binary dimensions could make wave functions and other processes mathematically. Arguably, a mathematical universe is somewhat deterministic. But spontaneous/new possibilities that may impact the current structures/particles would make it or make it look undeterministic.
Neeraj Mehta:
@Suresh Wanayalae interested to read. Can you send me the source of access?
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Neeraj Mehta , There is a video about it in the list of videos.
Geekcraft studios:
@Suresh Wanayalae my guy but does it accept the wave as the fundamental reality
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Geekcraft studios , No. The waves emerged mathematically from the interaction between real and potential dimensional groups. And that process could make probabilistic energy like virtual energy.
Geekcraft studios:
@Suresh Wanayalae wow, I feel like, uncertain. It's most pro because I am beyond my boundaries. I will absorb and digest this new concept and hope that it is easier to relate to than pilot waves like in bohmian? Mechanics
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Geekcraft studios , It is somewhat different than pilot waves because of the differences in moments between real and virtual energy waves. But the real and potential energy groups are somewhat like particles in those waves. So it is similar to pilot waves theory.
015_Rupa 015_2022-02-13_Rupa Chapter_Fundamentals of Theravada Buddhism
Suresh Wanayalae:
The expansion of the observable universe and the density of the universe after the Big Bang/Bounce shows that space is increasing and space is coming into the observable universe reducing the density related to the growth of the observable universe. So it seems that Dark Energy is not the right explanation for the expansion of the universe. Also, space is making virtual particles (matter and antimatter) that appear and disappear instantly. So seemingly, space is a conditioned process that makes virtual Rupa Kalapa appear and disappear. And both space and matter could emerge uniformly after the first formation of the universe. And perhaps, virtual particles in space don't reduce with interactions, but forces consume energy from matter particles and cause them to reduce gradually. If the universe is removing nothingness with the expansion of the entire universe, then possibly the universe is going to infinity without stopping. Also, the universe could increase its density at the center of the universe as a cyclic process to balance the density between matter and space in the entire universe. Probably, Big Bounces could conserve the energy density in the universe. Big Bang doesn't provide an explanation for the formation of energy. Introducing the originless energy called Dark Energy is like a trick that was used to change science to ignore the existence of space/universe before the Big Bang. And they tried to introduce a singularity with infinite density by applying a negative time to the General Relativity theory to explain the size of the universe. But General Relativity is a geometric theory that is not related to Quantum Reality. And according to General Relativity, the universe was a very large object when the time is equal to zero or larger than zero. Particles become massless when they travel at the speed of light. So a singularity can't be massless unless it was formed as a Big Bounce that happened very faster.
Max Tegmark - Why There is "Something" rather than "Nothing"
K31R616:
This mans's book 'Our Mathmatical Universe' is superb.
Suresh Wanayalae:
A small nothingness could expand into a large nothingness. But there is a mathematical difference between them that could cause the change in mathematical structures. A difference between two nothingnesses is also a mathematical difference.
018_Rupa 018_2022-02-26_Rupa Chapter_Fundamentals of Theravada Buddhism
Suresh Wanayalae:
I guess, the lifetime of a matter unit is 16 and 1/3 mind moments. And the mind moment continue to another matter unit after the 16th mind moment. And perhaps, the next matter unit of the previous matter unit appear/arise after the 17 mind moment.
Why Did The Buddha Mention Rebirth And Planes Of Existence?
An Infinity of Worlds: Cosmic Inflation and the Beginning of the Universe - Will Kinney:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whIADtZVzYw
The MIT Press:
In the beginning was the Big Bang: an unimaginably hot fire almost fourteen billion years ago in which the first elements were forged. The physical theory of the hot nascent universe—the Big Bang—was one of the most consequential developments in twentieth-century science. And yet it leaves many questions unanswered: Why is the universe so big? Why is it so old? What is the origin of structure in the cosmos? In An Infinity of Worlds, physicist Will Kinney explains a more recent theory that may hold the answers to these questions and even explain the ultimate origins of the universe: cosmic inflation, before the primordial fire of the Big Bang.
Suresh Wanayalae:
Cosmic inflation could happen within an existing universe as a cyclic process that balances existing energies in expanding universe. So, the Cosmic Inflation could be a result of many particles that could travel at/near the speed of light to hit each other (at the center of the entire universe). The expansion of the observable universe and the density of the universe after the Big Bang/Bounce shows that space is increasing and space is coming into the observable universe reducing the density related to the growth of the observable universe. So it seems that Dark Energy is not the right explanation for the expansion of the universe. And both space and matter could emerge uniformly after the first formation of the universe. And perhaps, virtual particles in space don't reduce with interactions. But forces consume energy from matter particles and cause them to reduce gradually. If the universe is removing nothingness with the expansion of the entire universe, then possibly the universe is going to infinity without stopping. Also, the universe could increase its density at the center of the universe as a cyclic process to balance the density between matter and space in the entire universe. Probably, Big Bounces could conserve the energy density in the universe. Big Bang doesn't provide an explanation for the formation of energy. Introducing the originless energy called Dark Energy is like a trick that was used to change science to ignore the existence of space/universe before the Big Bang. And they tried to introduce a singularity with infinite density by applying a negative time to the General Relativity theory to explain the size of the universe. But General Relativity is a geometric theory that is not related to Quantum Reality. And according to General Relativity, the universe was a very large object when the time is equal to zero or larger than zero. Particles become massless when they travel at the speed of light. So a singularity can't be massless unless it was formed as a Big Bounce that happened very faster. Perhaps, gravitational attractions in the previously expanded universe caused to accelerate matter to one single direction (to the center) after the expansion of the universe. So it is difficult to say that we are living in a new universe. Using the theory of cosmic inflation to make a new and single universe from nothing supports creationism. And trying to use the concept of the multiverse and cosmic inflation to make a new universe from nothing also sounds like creationism. Possibly, the first expansion of spacetime could make matter and space, but it doesn't mean that the universe die one day and everything will be disappeared. So the universe could make a cyclic process even after the first cosmic expansion.
022_Rupa 022_2022-03-20_Rupa Chapter_Fundamentals of Theravada Buddhism
Suresh Wanayalae:
Perhaps, virtual Rupa-Kalapa make those Kammaja-Kalapa, just like the Rupa-Kalapa make Rupa-Sarira. I think that is why those Rupa can interact separately as Dasaka Kalapa. However, thank you for the great explanations. Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.
Suresh Wanayalae:
I think Jivithaidriya is similar to the basic function of the Higgs Particle because most elementary particles get mass due to the Higgs field. Perhaps, the force-carrying particles are the 5 Pasada Rupa that absorb mass from massive particles as a function of Kamma. I think the word Kammaja doesn't refer to a personal Kamma. I guess, it is a process 'like Kamma' or a 'different causal action/impact' of dimensions called Kamma. Maybe, the Kammaja Rupa arises from interactions of both personal and universal reasons/Kamma because our world is our body and our body is a product of the world. There are around five force-carrying particles including the anti w boson particle. Also, there are hidden forces like Magnetic Monopole particles and a few other particles. So perhaps, the forces and masses increased on Kammaja Rupa during the evolution of the universe. Perhaps, there were a lot of zones of Chitta (fields of mind moments) that could impact the evolution of the universe from many Aeons since the start of the cyclic process in the universe. However, there are profound explanations in Buddhist teachings about the universe that are useful to make a mathematical and scientific theory about the process in the universe. Thank you so much.
The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi (Class #1, 5 Mar 2018)
Katherine KT:
Each and every word is precious ..My ears are filled with joy and pleasure after hearing Dhamma 🙏🙏🙏
Suresh Wanayalae:
The main Abhidhamma teaching is not the five aggregates. Abhidhamma is a teaching of Paramartha/Ultimate Dhamma. Those teachings are like quantum physics. As mentioned, there are 28 forms of matter that are raised with immaterial elements. Perhaps, some people don't understand those teachings. So, they think that those teachings originated later. Those teachings are the only teachings in the world that can challenge modern science.
Greg LeJacques:
"Those teachings are like quantum physics"
a philosophy lacking an algebra isn't enough to explain particle phenomena.
but the spiritually deficient often use lies to cloak their apathy & ignorance in the aroma of empty poetry.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Greg LeJacques, I made a theory to find the formation of matter and forces. I could verify that theory using Buddhist teaching about Quantum Physics. So Theravada Buddhism is more reliable than quantum physics.
Greg LeJacques:
@Suresh Wanayalaege "I made a theory to find the formation of matter and forces."
then where's your quantum computer, my precious fruitcake?
"I could verify that theory using Buddhist teaching about Quantum Physics."
then explain E=mc^2 in Buddhist terms.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Greg LeJacques, You are wrong. Prof. Albert Einstein didn't make nuclear weapons even if he discovered that Energy (E) is equal to mc^2. I guess you don't see the difference between theorists and experimentalists. Your argument showed that you are a joker. I have shown that the 'E equal to mc^2' equation is not a fundamental equation. Quantum physics doesn't use it as a fundamental equation. They use Electron Volts (eV) to measure energy. So I don't think the Buddha needs to talk about that classical/conceptual and somewhat wrong equation. The speed of light depends on the medium. If you know that you can understand that that equation doesn't show space density. The Buddha explained the process of mind and the nature of matter at the most fundamental level. The Buddha explained the process of matter in 51 smallest universal moments. But scientists couldn't discover time smaller than Planck time. So, there are a lot of things scientists have to learn from Buddhism before they talk about fundamental reality.
How will the Universe end? – with Katie Mack
dementus420:
I love how despite our vast knowledge of the cosmos and existence itself, we still have things that we totally don't understand like, at all. That's what makes science so great.....the continued quest to obtain the answers to the seemingly unanswerable.
Suresh Wanayalae:
There are some teachings about the nature of reality that most people ignore because of their ignorance about the limits of modern science. A calculation shows that dimensional interactions could make four great forms, and then they could become 24 material forms, becoming a matter zone. There is a similar explanation in Theravada Buddhism. I could make an equation to derive some dimensional interactions that are similar to the material forms explained in those teachings. Those elements are like material qualities in a matter zone. Abhidhamma mentions matter zones that make matter body/particle (Rupa Sarira) that can make connected formations/atoms (Rupa Santhana). Also, it mentions 24 Generations of zones (Rupa Santhati). Similarly, there are generations of elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics. Abhidhamma is the greatest teaching about the nature of reality. Unfortunately, most people ignore those teachings on their ignorance and other religious beliefs. There are a lot of teachings about the quantum nature of mind and matter in Buddhism.
Hawking Radiation And Ergosphere
Suresh Wanayalae:
Why most people don't talk about this 'NASA X-ray Telescopes Find Black Hole May Be a Neutrino' - NASA - Release 14-169.
BloodLust•SHORTS:
😂😂NASA Have Next Level Scientists , Not School Students Without Degree
Suresh Wanayalae:
@BloodLust•SHORTS, I don't have a degree. But I made a theory that I could verify using teachings in Buddhism.
BloodLust•SHORTS:
Suresh Wanayalae 😂😂😂Tmkc
Suresh Wanayalae:
@BloodLust•SHORTS, Perhaps, some highly educated people are shy to say that they learn from students. And perhaps, they steal knowledge from them without mentioning their name. Pablo Picasso said: “Good artists copy; great artists steal.”
I have seen people talking about teachings in Buddhism without mentioning Buddhism.
BloodLust•SHORTS:
@Suresh Wanayalae Galti Ho gyi bhai maaf kar de 😂😂 Gyaan Kyo Ch*d rha he etna
Suresh Wanayalae:
You don't want to ask for forgiveness. I can understand Hindi, but I'm a Sri Lankan. Most Educated people (including Nasa) are doing business and politics. Sometimes, they hide the truth from the public for personal, religious, or political reasons.
1. ABHIDHAMMA - THE PROCESS OF COGNITION
Suresh Wanayalae:
A superb explanation. According to Buddhism, there are 3 main mental qualities called Greed, Anger, and Delusion that technically cause problems. But Karma is a result of 4 main thinking patterns. (Arhat/Enlightened people don't think like that) 1) Taking impermanent things as permanent. 2) Taking suffering as happiness. 3.) Taking non-self as self 4.) Taking bad things as good.
Abhidhamma teachings in Buddhism explain how the mind processes good and bad Karma. There is a fundamental process in the mind called Citta Series/Vithi that receive information within a mind moment and processes our actions within a few mind moments. But the actions of enlightened people don't make good and bad Karma. Their actions are just actions. But they have to face the results of their previous Karma until their last death. Also, there is a mind consciousness that arises on a mental object. So, not only the 5 senses take the conscious object/intention. As mentioned, there are 28 forms of matter that emerged with immaterial elements. And the sense consciousness arises on vibrations in matter called Rupa-Kalapa that live for 17 mind moments and pass away, leaving the conditions to arise again like the mind moment itself. Thank you so much for making people aware of those great teachings.
How Could The Big Bang Arise From Nothing?
Suresh Wanayalae:
The Buddha said, “If you count the total number of sand particles at the depths of the Ganges river, from where it begins to where it ends at the sea, even that number will be less than the number of passed Kalpas.” - Epstein, Ronald (2003): The Buddhist Text Translation Society. Everything would come back to a center of gravity according to General Relativity. Likely, there was no antimatter at the beginning of our universe to annihilate with matter. And probably, the extra photons in the universe showed by CMB radiation are remnants of previous universes.
Does The Universe Expand Everywhere?
Suresh Wanayalae:
Dark Energy is a lie that is being used to create space from nothing. If the Big Bang was like a fart that could mix with extra space that existed before the Big Bang, then Dark Energy would decrease after the expansion of matter into the extra space. Seemingly, extra space is the cause of Dark Energy. So, Dark Energy is not Dark, and it is like pressure energy that tries to be balanced in the densities of space and matter areas. So, the universe existed before the Big Bang. The extra photons showed by the CMB radiation could be the remnants of the previous universe. Also, seemingly, there was no antimatter to annihilate with matter. Perhaps, some people try to hide that truth to support creationism. And seemingly, some people try to say that this universe is a completely new universe. However, the matter would come back to the center of gravity with an acceleration causing it to make an energy packet at the center like a singularity. But it would not be a uniformly distributed singularity. The universe could start from the Planck scale and continue forever. But gravity could make a cyclic process in the universe. CMB radiation showed a lot of large areas of space between matter areas. So perhaps, extra space entered into matter areas, making those spaces. There are high energy cosmic rays that were created on the unknown high acceleration of matter. So perhaps, early space accelerated those matter particles while space was coming to the matter areas. And perhaps, some spaces still accelerate particles like that between galaxies.
අභිධර්මය 71 - කල්ප විනාශය වන අයුරු | 2022-04-09 | Abhidharma Lesson 71
Suresh Wanayalae:
Gravity would bring all the matter back to the center as a rain of High Energy Plasma of elementary particles. Gravitons would turn back and return to the center of the universe and accelerate all the matter making them high-energy particles. And then, they would cool down and become compact objects again. The duration of Cosmic inflation is like the Vivatta Kalpa. And then, galaxies formed during Vivattai Kalpa. The universe would contract during the Sanwatta Kalpa. And the universe remains without planets during the Sanvattai Kalpa. If we put the cosmic inflation to the end, then Maha-Kalpa starts from Vivattai Kalpa.
A Universe From Nothing? The Ultimate Free Lunch
Suresh Wanayalae:
The universe continues from a small nothingness to a large nothingness relatively. So probably, the universe would not reverse again. The dimensional relationships between each point of nothingness would make them look like something. And gravity and pressure would continue the contraction and expansion of the universe.
Mountain Fisher:
When you say nothingness what do you mean by nothingness? Not anything, non existence? If that is not what you mean then stop saying No-Thing. This nonsense of calling something nothing needs to stop. Say vacuum flux if that is what you mean. Empty space is something, waves travel through it. Couldn't happen if it was nothing because it isn't there. Non-Existence is not going from point A to Point B because it isn't anywhere, it is Nowhere and it obviously isn't capable of doing anything because it is not anything.
First do not listen to the sophistry of Krauss because he changes the meanings of words to suit his version of reality whatever that may be. He despises philosophy while spewing forth his solipsist bad philosophy. Learn the rules of logic because if you cannot be logical you cannot do science and the only logic you'll get from Kraus is Sophistry where he must always be right. Do you believe that a paradigm like How the Universe began can be contradictory and yet true? I mean a true contradiction where words mean what they have always meant. Does Krauss's statements make any sense if Nothing means Non-Existence like it always has? Particles spewing forth from non-existence nowhere sounds asinine.
Or Hawking's contradictory summary of his last book, is it true, can it be true? There are three contradictions in it.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
First is gravity nothing or something? How can the Universe create itself before it is? 2 contradictions.
The Law of gravity is a complex description, it is an abstract concept and has no physicality and does nothing. 3rd contradiction. 3 contradictions that cannot be logically true in the real world, Quantum or otherwise. If something seems like a contradiction it simply means we are ignorant of what the true property is.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
He is just blowing smoke, spontaneous creation from what? It certainly is not non-existence it is something.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Mountain Fisher, Nothingness is nothingness. But nothingness is not static and nothingness makes dimensions between directions because of the continuation of time of nothingness. So nothingness makes relative dimensions between points of nothingness created by time. Absolute time doesn't stop or reverse. But absolute time is moments between points of nothingness that become relative dimensions. The universe change from moment to moment like becoming matter and antimatter. Nothingness continued for the first time from 0 to 0.0 and so on. But the universe continues to exist between those points on the interactions of dimensions. If you can understand the difference between 0 and 0.0 then you will be able to understand the different types of nothingnesses.
I don't know the person you are talking about. I tried to understand nothingness using Buddhism. I did research about nothingness. The research is called Binary Mathematically Physics and Buddhism. It is research about the formation of the universe. The universe could make 1 from 0. There is an equation that can show how it happens.
Did the W Boson Just Break Physics? The Mass Anomaly
Suresh Wanayalae:
The undiscovered 2nd Higgs Boson could increase the mass of the W Boson. Likely, there should be 3 generations of Higgs Bosons.
asdf asdf:
Would that not change the gauge group? And I mean, gauge bosons in general aren't forced to be split into 3 generations anyway right?
Suresh Wanayalae:
@asdf asdf Higgs Boson is a fermion/lepton. It is not a gauge boson. And that is why it decays quickly. So don't worry about that.
asdf asdf:
@Suresh Wanayalae The Higgs boson is 100% not a lepton, I'm pretty sure it's a scalar boson?
Suresh Wanayalae:
@asdf asdf, As I know, the quick decay of the Higgs boson makes it very difficult to measure the spin of the Higgs Boson to confirm the spin experimentally. According to my theory, the spin of the Higgs boson is 1/2. Also, it has an extra dimension for the scalar field. If you can study my theory well then you will be able to understand it.
Mr. Gold:
@Suresh Wanayalae Where can we read and study your theory? Do you have a website or have you done any publications in the past?
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Mr. Gold, It is called 'verifying the origin of everything.' There are a lot of details about the formation of elementary particles.
asdf asdf:
@Suresh Wanayalae oh okay you clearly don't know what you're talking about, the spin of the Higgs boson is, incontrovertibly, 0.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@asdf asdf, I don't think Higgs boson has time to show its spin. So it's not a problem even if we call that it has a 0 spin. I'm not talking about experiments. I can theoretically show that it has a spin. But I don't know how much it is active as a lepton. All the fermions/leptons have 1/2 spin. So I know what I talk.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@asdf asdf, Higgs Boson is a Fermion (like Quarks and Leptons).
asdf asdf:
@Suresh Wanayalae No, it is not. Fermions have half integer spin, the Higgs has 0 spin. That's not something that's debatable, trying to "hypothetise" that the Higgs particle has spin 1/2 is completely meaningless, the lack of spin of the Higgs is one of its defining features, and if it weren't 0 then pretty much everything about it that we expect (and observe) in the standard model would be incorrect. That is not observed to be the case.
Laypeople having "theories" about physics they don't understand enough to even know the meaning of the words they're saying is absolutely infuriating.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@asdf asdf, I can understand it. I don't say that the Higgs particle behaves like it has 1/2 spin. Scientists don't know the mechanism of the spin. So, they can't reject the possibility of cancelation of spin 1 or 1/2 by something else. Perhaps, the scaler dimension or the symmetry cancels its spin. But I think, it decays quickly and appears again quickly without allowing its motion to show its spin. The action of spin impact relative to other fields, but the Higgs particle doesn't receive time to interact with other fields. Perhaps, the 3rd generation of it is a sold particle that can make a tiny Black Hole. Perhaps, massive stars start to make a Black Hole at their center when they die after the formation of the 3rd Higgs particles. I could verify the theory using an old set of knowledge. So I have no doubts about that theory. But it is deeper than modern science. That is the problem I have to solve.
asdf asdf:
@Suresh Wanayalae idk if you're trolling or something but that is literally just schizophrenic word salad, are you the sort of person prone to believe in conspiracy theories?
Suresh Wanayalae:
@asdf asdf, I used binary physics and mathematics to develop the theory. Physics is not pure mathematics. Scientists use a lot of extra parameters to adjust the results. So sometimes, modern science is also making conspiracy theories. Don't think experiments are perfect. There is a lot of hidden knowledge some scientists and educated people ignore on their ignorance. Mathematics is the mother of science and physics. I developed the theory using mathematics. So there are no conspiracy theories. There is only a set of mathematical rules and laws. Perhaps, you don't have time to study it. So it is not my problem. But the problem is some people think that their set of knowledge is enough to solve every problem. But don't try to measure knowledge from its popularity.
asdf asdf:
@Suresh Wanayalae friend I am literally doing my masters on particle physics, I'm far from an expert but it doesn't take one to see that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@asdf asdf , You don't have any idea about what you are learning. It is the funniest thing. I discovered how elementary particles originated. And I could confirm it using Buddhist teachings about ultimate realities. So you don't know what I talk. Bye.
Is there an afterlife? Here’s what he saw while he was ‘dead’ | Bruce Greyson for Big Think
Frank Wilczek - How Did Matter Form in the Early Universe?
Suresh Wanayalae:
Antimatter didn't annihilate with matter. Perhaps, there was antimatter in the first universe, but CMB radiation doesn't show any supporting clue for the existence of antimatter. If there were antimatter, then the CMB radiation could not show empty spaces between matter areas. If the annihilation made Photons, they could come from those empty areas of space from a time earlier than 37000 years after the Big Bang.
Our Universe Could Burst Just Like A Water Bubble:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHjENF6ISmg
Suresh Wanayalae:
Cosmic Inflation is a wrong concept. According to Buddhism, The universe ended with a rain (called Sampaththi Mahamegha rain) like high energy plasma of elementary particles that filled the universe with them after the contraction (Sanvattai) that starts to expand (Vivatta) again during the time called Cosmic Inflation. And the duration of the further expansion (Vivattai) is similar to the duration of Cosmic Inflation. Again it contracts (Sanvatta) within a similar duration. So the so-called Cosmic Inflation couldn't happen quickly. Something must be wrong with the hypothetical theory of Cosmic Inflation. The General Relativity doesn't allow faster than light expansion. So perhaps, some people tried to change science to make that to support creationism. It is a shame to the scientific community. Someone with a good brain should be able to understand that scientists or the universe didn't have a good reason to be very small like an atom or elementary particle. Space doesn't have a process that can expand matter quickly making cosmic inflation. Space is still increasing. So the Big Bang didn't create space to expand matter. I'm sure that something big is wrong with the scientific community and the people who are popularising science because of the influence of Abrahamic religions. They usually don't talk and ignore a lot of topics that are against the concept of creationism.
අභිධර්මය 72 - කල්ප විනාශය වන අයුරු - දෙවන කොටස | 2022-04-23 | Abhidharma 72
Secrets of the Cosmic Microwave Background
Suresh Wanayalae:
A flat universe doesn't support the concept of Cosmic Inflation from a curved singularity. CMB Radiation showed that the universe was not a curved universe. So the Big Bang was not like a breaking of a curved geometry of spacetime. Therefore, the CMB radiation doesn't show that the Big Bang created matter and space, breaking the curvature of so-called singularity. Seemingly, matter came closer to each other on gravitational forces that acted in the flat universe that already existed. So the Big Bang was likely a Big Bounce (crossover/exchange). And there was no need for a Cosmic Inflation to expand matter and energy faster than light.
DOES GOD EXIST, Dan Barker
Cosmic Inflation Is 'Fantasy' (2014) - Roger Penrose
Turok destroys inflation
48 - A Wrong Picture Of Cosmology | Why This Universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je9MMLj4Ye0
Suresh Wanayalae:
It is mathematically wrong to say that a single thing decayed into our universe. If a single thing contained a lot of energy, it was not really a single thing. Entropy doesn't change energy. Likely, matter and space emerged uniformly with the earliest expansion of the universe. And gravitons (Eg: neutrino oscillation) could change that distribution of matter. A curved singularity would not make this flat universe. Probably, the Big Bang was an exchange (crossover) of matter from one direction to another direction in the flat universe that already existed. The earliest universe could expand into many points of spacetime with the initial expansion. E.g., 6 infinitely small points that symmetrically emerged around an infinitely small point could cover that middle point. And then, those points of spacetime could interact relatively, becoming matter and space.
The First Few Minutes of the Universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6GWOBXaVto
Suresh Wanayalae:
The theory of cosmic inflation is wrong. The previous universe could have ended with a rain of high-energy plasma of elementary particles that filled the universe after the contraction (Sanvattai). And then the universe could start to expand (Vivatta) during the time called Cosmic Inflation. And the duration of the further expansion (Vivattai) is similar to the duration of Cosmic Inflation. Again it can contract (Sanvatta) within a similar duration. The General Relativity doesn't allow faster than light expansion. Someone with a good brain should be able to understand that the universe didn't have a good reason to be very small like an atom or elementary particle. Space doesn't have a process that can expand matter quickly making cosmic inflation. Space is still increasing. So the Big Bang didn't create space to expand matter. A flat universe doesn't support the concept of Cosmic Inflation from a curved singularity. CMB Radiation showed that the universe was not a curved universe. So the Big Bang was not like a breaking of a curved geometry of spacetime. Therefore, the CMB radiation doesn't show that the Big Bang created matter and space breaking the curvature of the so-called singularity. Seemingly, matter came closer to each other on gravitational forces that acted in the flat universe that already existed. So the Big Bang was likely a Big Exchange of matter from one side to another. And there was no need for a Cosmic Inflation to expand matter and energy faster than light. Scientists can't detect the duration of the existence of accelerated particles to decide the time of the Big Bang.
Blake Alexander:
Because it’s blatantly a load of nonsense from NWO Jesuits etc., that blatantly defies the very few scientific LAWS that actually exist.. which is even worse, because there’s very few actual scientific LAWS, and they couldn’t even follow them/stay within the parameters of them
Ozymandias Nullifidian:
The matter isn't expanding, space is, and things can't go faster than light IN space, there is no such limit to the space. Try reading the usual science stuff, and after that decide if Buddhism has anything to say about physics.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Ozymandias Nullifidian, Likely, matter uniformly expands into space that already existed beyond matter areas before the Big Bang. Seemingly, gravitational forces had changed the distribution of density before the Big Bang. Therefore, the pressure between densities could cause the expansion of matter. The speed of light depends on the density of the medium it travels. The speed of light in water is slower than the speed of light in space. Quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling don't support proving cosmic inflation.
Ozymandias Nullifidian:
@Suresh Wanayalae "matter areas before big bang?" gravitational forces had changed the distribution of density before the Big Bang"? "the pressure between densities could cause the expansion of matter"? Do you comprehend what are you writing? OK, you have your weird religious - "scientific" hypothesis, I hope you know enough math to write everything, to be able to predict things, to do suitable experiments, give that to peer review and if it is worth something, we will talk. I know where you are getting this, and that is a pseudoscience that is not explaining anything, can't predict anything, and is not falsifiable. I recommend learning scientific methodology, and read Popper and maybe Kuhn about scientific revolutions and changing scientific paradigms.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Ozymandias Nullifidian, Hypotheses are not science. Scientists didn't create particles using particle accelerators. They just accelerated particles and made high-energy particles using the existing energies. But some creationists try to make particles without acceleration or without using a theory to explain the origin of energy. They are doing pseudoscience. Trying to create matter/particles using a hypothetical singularity and trying to expand particles faster than light is the real pseudoscience. I guess you don't know how to decide what is falsifiable and what is not falsifiable. A few months ago, I met a creationist who said that the shape of the earth (flat earth) is not falsifiable using science. Some creationists argue that the earth is flat. Pseudoscience in creationism (Abrahamic religions) surely makes people crazy. Some creationists can't understand some simple and logical arguments because of their beliefs. If the mainstream western scientific community is not doing pseudoscience to support Abrahamic religions, then they should not dismiss major theories (Eg: GR, Pressure energy) in science. According to the great mathematician Rojer Penrose, cosmic inflation is a fantasy. So please try to learn from him if you are not sure about me.
Ozymandias Nullifidian:
@Suresh Wanayalae First, I am an atheist, second, I have read Penrose and I know his ideas, third, all scientific theories started as hypotheses. Abrahamic religions or Buddhism, for me all religions are big bat lies. Why don't you write without using terms you collected from Buddhism and try to explain things like Penrose? And, the last thing, you think Penrose is dismissing inflation? No, if you think that, you don't understand the core of his ideas.
There is no "pressure" energy. You mix a lot of things and at the end, you have some strange hymera.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Ozymandias Nullifidian, According to Buddhism, there are 4 main elements as 8 pure elements in 24 material forms. Those material forms exist in a zone called Rupa-Kalapa. I guess, a matter zone is like a quantum field where matter emerges as ripples in quantum fields. Also, those matter zones make the matter body called Rupa-Sarira. And then, they become a Matter group called Rupa-Santhana. That is the formation of atoms according to Buddhism. Buddhism explained a contraction of the universe with the destruction of the world. And according to Buddhism, the expansion of the universe start with a rain called Sampaththi Mahamegha that fills the universe (the Big Bang area) with a lot of beams of liquid matter. So, even if those beams of liquid matter can collide and make matter and antimatter and make photons after the annihilation they don't need to move faster than light to expand matter uniformly. Buddhism didn't dismiss General Relativity. But some scientists try to support creationism by ignoring General Relativity and the matter distribution in the flat universe.
විද්යාඥයින් මවිත කරවමින් ලෝකයේ ආරම්භය සහ විනාශය ගැන බුදුරජාණන් වහන්සේ වදාළ දේ
The Big Bang Theory in Buddhism
How was the Universe Before the Big Bang?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBguG6QaClc
Suresh Wanayalaege:
According to the explanations in Buddhism about the world and universe, the world starts to end during the contraction period of the universe which begins with a rain of liquid energy and destroys the world and heavenly worlds including material Brahma worlds within a duration called Sanvatta Asankhya Kalpa. The contraction of the universe continues without material worlds during Sanvattai Asankhya Kalpa. And then, the universe starts to expand with a rain of liquid energy called Sampatthi Mahamegha during a similar period called Vivatta Asankhya Kalpa. Also, the duration of the further expansion (called Vivattai Asankhya Kalpa) that starts with the formation of worlds is similar to the duration of the first period of expansion that filled the universe with a rain of liquid energy beams (called Sampatthi Mahamegha), the rain that stopped falling before the start of the formation of worlds that happens with the further expansion. Again, the universe contracts and destroy worlds during Sanvatta Asankhya Kalpa. It is the correct explanation. The crossover of energy could collide and make matter and antimatter, but likely there are more energies that didn't collide and pass through the center of the universe. So the Big Bang energy would return again and destroy the worlds before the contraction of the material worlds.
Chill Theory. This Is Why the Universe Wasn't Born from the Big Bang
Suresh Wanayalaege (1 month ago @ Moonlit):
Gravitons would come back. The Buddha said, “If you count the total number of sand particles at the depths of the Ganges river, from where it begins to where it ends at the sea, even that number will be less than the number of passed Kalpas.” - Epstein, Ronald (2003): The Buddhist Text Translation Society. Everything would come back to a center of gravity according to General Relativity. Likely, there was no antimatter at the beginning of our universe to annihilate with matter. And probably, the extra photons in the universe showed by CMB radiation are remnants of previous universes. Also, the entire universe undergoes an infinite expansion
Ozymandias Nullifidian:
@Suresh Wanayalaege There was antimatter, and scientists know exactly how much antimatter there was, for every billion particles of antimatter there were one billion and one particles of matter, That one that was left, what we see as matter in the universe is made of those particles.
Religion has nothing to do with science, religion and science mix as much as oil and water, and you can't develop theory, you may develop some hypothesis about something, you must have incredible hubris to claim that you can explain the formation of everything. That is tragicomical, someone to say such a thing...
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Ozymandias Nullifidian, Matter and antimatter asymmetry ratio is not exactly 100000001:1000000000. According to Fermilab, it is 3000000001:3000000000. I guess, some scientists tried to make a fake interpretation. Or perhaps, a collision of two high-energy beams that make matter and antimatter cause them to annihilate and leave a small amount of matter according to a geometrically or mathematically required ratio. In that care, the matter and antimatter asymmetry ratio depend on their natural asymmetry. Some experiments show a few differences between matter and antimatter interactions (Why is There More Matter Than Antimatter in the Universe? - The Royal Institution). So perhaps, there is a natural asymmetry in the production or annihilation of matter and antimatter. So probably, the number of high-energy beams that collided and made matter and antimatter are not responsible for the ratio of annihilation.
Big Bang से पहले क्या था? | What happened before big bang?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wgJAI1Gzks
Suresh Wanayalaege:
The Buddha explained the Big Bang. Here it is 'Did the Buddha explain Big Bang or Cosmic Inflation according to Buddhism'. It is a video that explains a lot of things about the universe mentioned in Buddhism.
Vijayadhari:
Dude don't try to make Buddha a God, he was a normal sensible dude
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Vijayadhari, I said, the Buddha knew the universe's cyclic construction and destruction process. Some Hindus tried to make Buddha an Avatar of Vishnu but Buddhists know that the Buddha was an enlightened being who could know everything about the universe. As mentioned in the Buddhist text, the universe undergoes a cyclic process after a rain of liquid energy that destroys the world. The universe made the first expansion before the formation of the world. So, Buddhism rejects the so-called high-speed expansion of the universe. Perhaps, gravity would bring energy back to the island universe, destroying the world. Also, the universe could make matter after a collision between high-energy liquid beams that made matter and antimatter. So the extra energy that didn't collide during the contraction could pass through the center of the island universe (Sakwala). The current standard model of cosmology is based on the pseudoscience of creationists. According to scientists, CMB radiation comes after 37000 years after the Big Bang. But matter and antimatter could start to collide and annihilate making photons a few seconds after the Big Bang. So seemingly, matter and antimatter collisions started to happen gradually before 37000 years with the collisions of high-energy beams. Also, those collisions could start before that period without making a lot of collisions. According to scientists, the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. But astronomers discovered a start older than 14 billion years (but some scientists say that it can be a part of an error in the results). So likely, there were a few more collisions before 13.8 billion years. Particle accelerators don't make new energy. So scientists can't use the condition after the energy collisions to make a theory to create energy. Seemingly, creationists used scientists to make a wrong standard model of cosmology to explain the Big Bang mixing a lot of unrelated observations, theories and hypotheses carelessly. It is a fraudulent religious invasion that they do by manipulating science instead of using weapons to spread Abrahamic religions. Modern science started to destroy Abrahamic religions, but the mainstream western scientific community protected Abrahamic religions by making a fake model to explain Big Bang.
Scientists Say We Were Wrong About the Big Bang and the Universe
Have astronomers disproved the Big Bang?
Matteo Betti:
"have you tried turning dark energy off and on again?"
Mike Barnes:
Unplug from power source, wait 60 seconds, and then plug it back in.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
Perhaps, the expansion rate (68) that the CMB radiation showed (Hubble Tension) was a result of a cyclic process of the universe that (Dark Energy) depends on the amount of matter and energy ratio or gravitons crossover in the universe. Likely, the conversion of energy into matter or gravitons expansion increased the pressure energy (Dark Energy) in the universe (up to 73). The slow expansion rate doesn't support the theory of cosmic inflation. So the theory of cosmic inflation does not belong to the early universe that showed by the CMB radiation because the CMB radiation didn't show a very small universe. The universe it showed didn't expand quickly. Astronomers never proved an expansion faster than light to call it an inflationary Big Bang. Seemingly, the slow Big Bang started inside a very big area which was many light years big. So using a fake diagram to show Cosmic Inflation with the slowly started Big Bang to tell that the Big Bang is correct is misleading. Talking about the slow expansion rate to prove the Big Bang doesn't prove the cosmic inflation shown in the standard model of cosmology. So scientists are misleading people for many years using a fake standard model of cosmology that shows a faster than light expansion.
Venerable Kusalasami Abhidhamma Kurs 02
Suresh Wanayalaege:
The 52 Mental Factors are not only mental, they are connected to qualities in fundamental realities that can generate mental qualities. According to my analysis, there are material (28) and immaterial (24) forms that cause producing the 52 mental factors.
Are We Close To Finding Planet 9?
Suresh Wanayalaege (@Jacob):
The speed of the sun likely impacted the orbit of the planets and moved them to one side. However, Planet nine could cause to accelerate that process. If the Planet nice doesn't exist or is very small, it challenges the theory of general relativity a lot. I think gravity depends on gravitons that relatively move planets to a direction depending on the speed of the sun, rather than depending on a uniform curvature of space that doesn't change with the speed.
49 - When The Universe Changed in an Instant | Why This Universe
Suresh Wanayalaege:
Cosmic Inflation is a lie. Thank you for the great explanation.
Mike Petersen:
Please explain why you say that.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Mike Petersen, The observed expansion rate of the universe was slower (68 Mpc - Hubble Tension) than the current (73 Mpc) expansion rate. Dark Energy is just a slow process that gains space into the observable universe. It is very likely that Dark Energy couldn't make an expand faster than light, and then reduce it in the middle. If scientists say that the expansion of the universe will continue forever because of the current expansion rate, then they should accept that the expansion rate of the universe could be slower than the current expansion rate earlier because the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation showed a slow expansion rate. According to scientists, the inflationary Big Bang should make Monopole particles separately. But scientists couldn't find Monopole particles. And there were a lot of empty areas between matter areas. And the universe was flat and it couldn't emerge from a curved singularity. Likely, there were a lot of energy collisions that filled an area (center) of the universe after the contraction of the previous universe.
Scientists May Have Finally Discovered the True Size of the Universe. Is it True?
Suresh Wanayalaege:
A rain of energy called Eon-Destructive mega rain destroys the world with the start of the contraction of the universe as mentioned in Buddhism. Likely, the energies that didn't collide during the previous contraction will return to the center of the universe and destroy the world. According to Buddhism, the universe is infinitely large (forever expanding), and the Buddha could know almost anything about the entire universe. Also, the Buddha had a special power within a field of around a thousand billion island universes/galaxies (Sakwala) large. As mentioned in the texts, those thousand billion Sakwalas undergo a destruction process together, and then, undergo a construction process together. Perhaps, the distant Sakwalas are somewhat disconnected from the other Sakwalas. Perhaps, there are gravitationally separated universes with different sizes and cyclic periods.
"Physicists Reveal the Shocking Truth on Vacuum Energy (Zero-Point Energy)": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF-wdNAcx_I
Suresh Wanayalaege:
According to my theory, there are 8 virtual particles. The gluons in the vacuum have a mass because they are like fermions (spin 1/2). But I don't know why there are more virtual particles than stable particles.
HINDSIGHT 20\20:
@Suresh Wanayalaege time
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@HINDSIGHT 20\20, Maybe. Perhaps, entropy (decaying process) makes more virtual particles (space) during the matter and antimatter annihilation while making photons.
There is Absolutely No Reason to Believe in a Big Bang Singularity - Sean Carroll
The Big Bang | 5 Alternative Theories You Might Not Know
Suresh Wanayalaege:
The Cosmic Background Radiation is many light years big. And it showed a slow expansion rate, slower than the current expansion rate. There are a lot of things that the mainstream western scientific community is hiding. Perhaps, they hide the requirement of gravitons (according to quantum physics) and mostly talk about the curvature of space to ignore the speed of gravity that is likely limited to the speed of light (maximum).
Graeme H.:
So many words about the universe, and yet so little idea about reality...
I'm not going to try to correct this but it should be highlighted that the current standard model of cosmology is based on the "psuedoscience" of maths, but most ppl have no problem identifying maths as the sound basis by which many observations are made and theories derived.
If you want to talk about creationists running some sort of conspiracy, can you say which church Carl Sagan went to?
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Graeme H., Most Western atheists don't care about religions, but seemingly, they support creationists to gain support from them. Perhaps, they did it to fulfill their requirements to develop scientific experiments with the support of the political powers of creationists. Prof. Albert Einstein said that the universe and human stupidity are infinite. But he said that he is not sure about the infinity of the universe. I can explain reality using a mathematical equation. I can say for sure that the universe didn't expand from a point. And the universe expanded from point to point, and that is why the universe is flat. But pseudoscience of creationists made scientists make a curved singularity. So it is clear that western creationists are more powerful than atheist/agnostic scientists. And they, created the energy called Dark Energy to make a scientific story to make space from nothing even after the Big Bang. Likely, there are universes as separated regions where gravity and an expansion of matter play the role. But most scientists don't talk about that possibility because of the current expansion rate of the universe and the influence of creationists. Scientists mostly talk about unimaginable multiverses. It is clearly cheating.
Could We Decode Alien Physics?
Suresh Wanayalaege:
Electrons are positive in terms of attraction because electrons are filled with enough dimensions that don't require an attraction. Also, the positrons are not attracting dimensions from the negative charge. So positrons are positive too.
Frank Wilczek on the Future of Science | Closer To Truth Chats
Frank Fritter:
Gravity is definitely an enigma!
Suresh Wanayalaege:
I think Gravity is a byproduct of neutrinos. Neutrinos change their mass during neutrino oscillation which can cause gaining mass from space, making gravity.
Big Bang or Big Bounce? Avoiding the Multiverse. A Conversation with Anna Ijjas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGlLjq4OcmE
Suresh Wanayalaege:
Faster than light cosmic inflation theory is an unscientific joke. Entropy can always increase in the Big Bounce model if there are more energies outside the observable universe. Also, the particle accelerators make high-energy particles using low-energy particles showing that entropy is a byproduct of acceleration. So cyclic expansion and contraction of gravitons can increase and reduce entropy in some parts of the universe. The particles that became energies during the contraction could go from one side of the island universe to another side until colliding with another high-energy particle. So the energies that were exchanged between a large area of the universe could exchange temperature from one side to another while filling the universe with a lot of collisions. And they would not make one single Black Hole because energies don't make gravity, and gravitons that existed between a large area of space couldn't collide into one location within a small period because of the limited speed of gravitons (limited light speed) and the exchange of gravitons from one side to another. Also, the contraction of the previous flat universe (uniformly expanded matter) wouldn't bring matter easily to one single location within a short period of time to make only one Black Hole.
Issam Mohanna added a reply
Suresh Wanayalaege added a reply
Issam Mohanna added a reply
Emmanouil Markoulakis added a reply
Emmanouil Markoulakis added a reply
Suresh Wanayalaege added a reply
Issam Mohanna, The question from the audience: "You talked about the open question of trying to solve and understand empty vacuum and empty space. Could you elaborate on what that would mean?"
Here is what David Tong said (the way to create heavy/massive gluon particles from quantum fluctuations in vacuum space using the quantum field of the strong nuclear force):
"There are two features of these fluctuations. And if you could prove these features from the first principle, you would win a million dollars. So these are the features. This, I should say is a particular quantum field. It's the quantum field that's responsible for the strong nuclear force. That, it turns out is the one that fluctuates most wildly. 1.) ... 2.) The second thing is the following. That, if you want to now splash this field to create a little particle. It's called the gluon. If you look naively at the equations the gluons should, like the photon, be completely massless and travel at the speed of light. But it turns out it's not. That, it gets slowed down by this quantum mess. And the gluon is actually heavy and massive." - David Tong (Q&A - Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong - The Royal Institution)
It is very clear that there are two types of gluon particles. There are massless gluons that travel with quarks. Also, there are hidden massive gluons in the vacuum space. And that is why they could detect those massive gluons using the quantum field of the strong nuclear force that fluctuates in the vacuum space. Those massive gluons would travel slower than the speed of light because of their mass. Scientists don't know the reason for it. And that is why they called it an open question. I guess experimentalists couldn't measure the Spin of those massive gluons because of their hidden nature. But it is not the issue here.
Issam Mohanna added a reply
Richard Lewis added a reply
Suresh Wanayalaege added a reply
If the Universe Formed from Nothing, Who Created the Nothing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPEmBzlSU2I
Bunny:
I’m always going to be a firm believer in the Multiverse. The multiverse theory has been a favorite of mine ever since I was a teen.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
The universes in Multiverse are just separated from gravitationally separated regions. The scientific community ignores Big Bounce model a lot to support creationists. Likely, mainstream western scientists mislead people.
David Sheckler:
@Suresh Wanayalaege You're not proving anything. Just memorizing and posting.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@David Sheckler, It is theoretically more acceptable than the fake faster than light Big Bang theory. If astronomers say that a larger Black Hole has less gravity, then general relativity is wrong about gravity. Seemingly, scientists try to hide the impacts of quantum gravity to prove the classical General Relativity theory by fraudulently using that theory turning it upside down to start time with a fake singularity. But General Relativity doesn't show singularities with high energies. There are a lot of things that mainstream scientists try to hide.
David Sheckler:
@Suresh Wanayalaege NASA 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@David Sheckler, I think NASA and the western scientific community intentionally mislead people without explaining a lot of errors in scientific theories and observations that go against the standard model of cosmology and a new universe. And that is why they don't encourage universities to teach Big Bounce models and gravitons seriously. Likely, there are creationists in NASA who try to manipulate NASA and make people in NASA behave like goats to make them happy.
David Sheckler:
@Suresh Wanayalaege There's nowhere to go space is Santa Claus for adults
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@David Sheckler, Stay safe. Bye.
ORDINARY STARS, like our sun, do indeed get smaller as they acquire more mass and more gravitational energy. This acquired gravitational energy squeezes an ordinary star to a smaller radius.
But there’s a limit to the amount of mass that can be squeezed into a given volume of space. A black hole represents this limit. A black-hole gets bigger as its gravity increases.
A bigger black-hole has more gravitational-energy than a smaller one. On-the-other-hand, a very small black-hole can produce a level of gravitational force that far exceeds any force known to nature. This seems to be a source of confusion and contradiction. But it’s one of the weird ways black-holes work.
The way black-holes work is truly “beyond belief” and worthy of further attention. But this may not be the time to ‘unpack’ the contents of this “borderline belief” suitcase.
Or conventional theory simply does not describe them.
Thanks DWE for your comment. The existing laws of nature must be “extended” and reinterpreted, in order to explain what’s going with black-holes. I believe we’re in agreement about this.
I think a number of Gravitons turn back and return to the bigger Black Hole, reducing its gravity. Likely, Bigger Black holes are large enough to keep a few gravitons within their gravitational fields, reducing the strength of the gravitational fields.
Is the Two Truths Doctrine a Problem for Early Buddhism?
Suresh Wanayalaege:
Abhidhamma is highly scientific, and only a Buddha could teach Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma proves that Buddhism is much more accurate than modern science. I could mathematically derive the ultimate truths mentioned in Abhidhamma. So Abhidhamma is helpful to develop faith in Buddhism. Also, Abhidhamma explains the formation and destruction of worlds. I could understand the scientific process in the Big Bounce theory mentioned in Abhidhamma. No one added a new element to those realities. The texts mentioned one element later to maintain the relativeness of the teachings. I think it is the biggest misconception about the Abhidhamma. But they named the heart the main location of the mind to make it easy to teach simply. Abhidhamma teachings are much deeper/fundamental than modern science.
29 Subatomic Stories: How will the universe end?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ4B793uLQM
Mahipal Yadav:
The simple answer is "we don't know"
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Jay Dunstan, Gravity must be a product of a particular set of particles. Prof. Albert Einstien was dealing with the curvature (Geometry) in space that could behave like a force. So it's not like discovering a force that causes gravity. General Relativity is not about energy. Energy depends on mass, but gravity would depend on an elementary particle. Eg:
1.) “NASA X-ray Telescopes Find Black Hole May Be a Neutrino Factory”-Nasa (13-11-2014, R:14-169).
2.) Around 2 hours before the supernova 1987a star explosion (that happened when a dying star turned into a small Black Hole) the dying star started to release energy as neutrinos and continued that for around 2 hours before releasing light. But that light was only around 1% of the total energy that the star released, and around 99% of energy was released as neutrinos before making a Black Hole. I don't think there is a faster-than-light gravitational force inside a Black Hole. Perhaps, Einstien didn't like to accept that too.
Jay Dunstan:
@Suresh Wanayalaege Excellent argument, there is certainly that possibility Bravo!
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Jay Dunstan, If mass bends the space around an object, then we can't explain why larger black holes make less surface gravity. I don't know how to demonstrate it using the curvature of space. Some people try to bend general relativity to start time with a singularity to support creationism and reject Big Bounce models. Perhaps, that is why they don't like to accept that general relativity depends on graviton (neutrino) particles. Thank you.
Jay Dunstan:
@Suresh Wanayalaege Look at the remarkable work of Leonard Susskind.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Jay Dunstan, Yes. I watch his lectures sometimes. He is very open-minded. Thank you.
Does the Past Still Exist? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwzN5YwMzv0
Suresh Wanayalaege (@M):
Traveling on light would make us get hit by other lights. So the faster-than-light traveling doesn't stop the time of the fundamental observer. But relative observers (lifeless detectors) would experience time differently.
Buddha and Philosopher | Buddha story | Moral Story | Motivational story | Power of Silence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_LDcJav3iM
Tut Dvd:
The zen saying, the answer is there is no question.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
As I know, It is not a true Buddhist story. I didn't hear it from Theravada teachings, and the Buddha gave a lot of answers. I guess it is a Zen or any other story. Theravada Buddhist teachings are the most reliable and original Buddhist teachings. Most Indians don't know Buddhism well.
Tut Dvd:
@Suresh Wanayalaege Most of the Theravada is debated and controversial as well. People who take to the Theravada suttas treat them like they are a bible or the word of God, and its just stories like any other old wisdom. The line that the Theravada sutta are most reliable is just Theravada propaganda, and common line of people in the cult.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Tut Dvd, Theravada Buddhism is near perfect. Also, The higher/Abhi doctrine/dhamma in Theravada Buddhism is highly scientific. The Buddha mentioned Rupa/Matter (28 including the 4 great elements), Chaithasika (52), Chitta (1), Nibbana (1). Living beings use those things. I made videos about it too. There are mathematical quantum physics in Buddhism. Most people don't know about those teachings, and that is a problem they have with them.
Tut Dvd:
@Suresh Wanayalaege Near perfect? Thats a red flag of a statement if there ever was one. Most of the suttas is recognized as additions and not truly of the Buddhas words. Once again, you get these cult members talking about one form or the other as gospel and history suggests otherwise, that it was all just add ons from the monastic communities over the years. Abhidhamma in particular is considered pretty much across the board as being added in latter.
Every new age teacher now is citing quantum physics out of context for their cause, what suttas show this math and physics exactly?
The abhidhamma(though not actually of the Buddha) is impressive as an early phycological system, I will give it that. But it has limitations.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Tut Dvd, A few days ago an Indian said to me that Buddhism is a near-perfect religion and that is why I said it to you. But I think Theravada Buddhism is perfect. If you know Buddhism, the rate of words that the buddha said was very higher (120 times faster) and clear than that of a normal person. Those teachings were protected soon after the Parinirvana of the Buddha by the enlightened monks who remembered and practiced those teachings for a long time. Don't try to waste my time with fake arguments. The Buddhist texts mention the origin of those teachings. Buddhists can trust the words of enlightened people instead of ignoring those teachings because of an ignorant and unenlightened researcher/scholar. Abhidhamma teachings were included in Buddhist suttas and then they were separated later to mention the three major groups of teachings. 42000 teachings from the 84000 Buddhist teachings are Abhidhamma teachings. If you know Abhidhamma, you will understand that only a Buddha could discover those scientific facts mentioned in Abhidhamma. Seemingly, some fake scholars and some scholars in non-Buddhist countries make wrong arguments and misguide people on their ignorance. Buddhist teachings explain a lot of details about the mind and matter and the process of the universe better than modern science. And science is not developed enough to explain those things in detail. But a special theory that I made to explain the existence of the universe explained the existence of fundamental elements mentioned in Abhidhamma. So, I'm sure that Theravada Buddhism is the perfect set of knowledge about the nature of the mind and matter. Unfortunately, some scholars who don't use their brains or don't know how to use their brains be easily misguided by some liars who make wrong interpretations and wrong claims about some knowledge systems and the nature of reality.
Tut Dvd:
@Suresh Wanayalaege And here I thought the idea of Buddhism is to not be deluded. But if a real live Indian said it, I guess I was wrong. Buddha spoke 120 times faster? Woah, never heard that one. Its miracles like that that validate the suttas truly are perfect.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Tut Dvd, I didn't say that the Buddha spoke 120 times faster all the time. And I didn't tell it to validate that the suttas are perfect. You are a perfect example of a person who makes wrong interpretations. I don't have time to waste with a person like you. Bye.
Tut Dvd:
@Suresh Wanayalaege And here I thought the idea of Buddhism is to not be deluded. But if a real live Indian said it, I guess I was wrong. Buddha spoke 120 times faster? Woah, never heard that one. Its miracles like that that validate the suttas truly are perfect.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Tut Dvd, I didn't say that the Buddha spoke 120 times faster all the time. And I didn't tell it to validate that the suttas are perfect. You are a perfect example of a person who makes wrong interpretations. I don't have time to waste with a person like you. Bye.
Adam Yixiao Wang:
@Suresh Wanayalaege Buddhism is not just the teachings taught by the Buddha. It is a whole set of teachings inspired by the Buddha developed by countless later thinker much like the greater sages in Hinduism. For example, if you judge Theravada Buddhism as the most authentic, teachings like the Middle Way, Emptiness, Buddha nature then become entirely absent. But that is ok. Theravada preserves the earliest Buddhist teachings the best, that is true. But theravada as you know it today also takes much wisdom from Mahayana traditions. End of the day, the Buddha only taught one thing: suffering and the end of suffering. And whatever that is wholesome and conductive to the cessation of delusion/ suffering is Buddha dhamma. We Buddhists do not think like , for example, Muslims or Christians , digging into material to categorise them as authentic and inauthentic. If it works then it works, be it theravada or zen or Tibetan or simply sitting by a lake so long it helps you to see the true nature of reality.
Adam Yixiao Wang:
@Suresh Wanayalaege The way you talk reminds me much of a Sunni Muslims or a protestant Christian... Can I recommend you a classic Theravada sutta called Atthakavagga Sutta ( couplet of eights) if you know your Buddhist textual history, you'd know it is dated as possibly the earliest sutta alongside the Pārāyanavagga sutta forming a part of Sutta Nipata. So I am sure it will be to your liking. I hope it brings you much joy and peace.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Adam Yixiao Wang , Theravada Abhidhamma is very important to understand the nature of reality. I don't care much about the interpretations of Buddhist scholars. Wrong interpretations of the scholars and wrong beliefs made Mahayana Buddhism. Some scholars think that they are intelligent enough to reject the original texts. It is a result of the human ego. Don't marry any religion to live with it forever. Try to find the best and perfect teachings about reality.
Adam Yixiao Wang:
@Suresh Wanayalaege From the Atthakavagga sutta:
Each attached to their own views,
They dispute, and the experts say,
“Whoever knows this understands the Dhamma,
Whoever rejects it is imperfect.”
Arguing like this, they disagree, saying
“My opponent is a fool, and is no expert”
Which of these doctrines is the truth,
Since all of them say they are experts?
If by not accepting another’s teaching
One became a fool of debased wisdom
Then, honestly, all are fools of debased wisdom,
Since all are attached to views.
...
Strongly asserting their own path,
What opponent would they take to be a fool?
They would only bring trouble on themselves
By calling an opponent a fool of impure teachings.
Convinced of their own theories,
Comparing others to oneself,
They get into more disputes with the world.
But by leaving behind all theories,
They don’t have any problems with the world.
(4.12 )
Here my friend, are verses that are commonly understood as the earliest recorded words by the Buddha within the Pali Canon. Enjoy. Peace out.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Adam Yixiao Wang, I didn't try to compare theories. There is a different set of knowledge in Theravada Abhidhamma teachings. People should know those teachings before they compare those teachings. If ignorance is bliss, you can ignore those teachings. Ignoring arguments stops problems/quarrels with the opponents, but the buddha recommended discussing them to remove misunderstandings. I know that it is difficult to debate with some people, but there are people who can understand the truth behind an argument. So don't try to use only one set of teachings in Buddhism to escape from the discussions. But I can understand that some people don't care about the truth and they care about their beliefs a lot, and they feel offended when others try to discuss original teachings or about the perfect truth.
The Biggest Ideas in the Universe | 24. Science
Gravity - a physics perspective with Jácome Armas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEu9YQ2iU9o
Suresh Wanayalaege:
Gravity should depend on the quantum gravitational force of gravitons. General relativity is wrong about the surface gravity If astronomers say that a larger Black Hole has less surface gravity. Seemingly, scientists try to hide the impacts of quantum gravity to prove the classical General Relativity theory to fraudulently use that theory, turning it upside down, to start time with a fake singularity. But the correct General Relativity doesn't show singularities with high energies. Some people try to bend general relativity to start time with a singularity to support creationism and reject Big Bounce models. Perhaps, that is why they don't like to accept that general relativity depends on graviton (neutrino) particles. The neutrino oscillation is likely responsible for the gravitational force. Also, NASA detected a lot of neutrinos that come from Black Holes.
Tony Marsh:
Hello Suresh, I feel that with the whole of quantum physics, things have got too compicated. I have an hypothesis for gravity that is very simple and is based on logic and not mathematics.
I believe that gravity is a combination of both attraction and repulsion. It is directly linked to ' Dark Matter ', and ' Dark Energy ', and is due to an interaction between two as yet undetected incredibly small particles.
One is a negatively charged monopole particle called a ' Harveytron ', which fills every available empty space between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom, and every available empty space throughout the universe. These particles make up the ' Dark Matter ', and the negative force of repulsion that is produced by them trying to repel each other in every direction, is the ' Dark Energy '. This is the force that keeps all of the planets susspended, and stops them from being drawn to each other, and is what is causing the expansion of the universe ( if it is ).
The second, is a corresponding positively charged monopole particle, called a ' Dannytron ', which, in combination with the ' Harveytrons ', make up all of the nuclei and therefore all of the neuclear matter in the universe. They are what makes up the other force of gravitational attraction between the neulear matter of the universe. I am happy to explain more if you are interested
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Tony Marsh , Gravitons are neutrinos. The mass of neutrinos changes when they travel. So they make attractions and repulsions that become very weak quantum forces because of the penetration they make without a big reversal while traveling through almost every object.
Buddhism vs Advaita Vedanta—What's the Difference? Swami Sarvapriyananda : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i4LI2kmu_8
Suresh Wanayalaege:
A moment of observation in the mind/Citta has a minimum of 7 qualities/activities called 'fair for all the minds' (Sabba Citta Sadharana), the mental activities/factors (Cetasika). It is a big process that happens during a single observation of the mind. Those 7 simultaneous activities are as follows:
1.) Touch, Collision (Passa)
2.) Feeling, Intensity (Vedana)
3.) Signal, Reminder (Sangna)
4.) Intention, Action (Chethana)
5.) One-pointedness, Concentration (Ekaggatha)
6.) Vitality, Life Faculty/Density (Jivitindriya)
7.) Mental Advertence, Remembering (Manasikara)
There are 52 mental factors/activities that join with the mind/Citta in many different combinations while making a mind/Citta moment. Likely, the mind/Citta doesn't require an external soul to remind the previous activity of the consciousness/Citta. As mentioned in Buddhist texts, a moment of consciousness/Citta is filled with a lot of simultaneous functions that can behave like a stream of souls (living moments). The mind/Citta is NOT the only absolute reality mentioned in those earliest texts. The smallest material/Rupa unit lives for 51 smallest moments repeatedly. Also, the mind/Citta usually continues a series of mind/Citta activities (Citta Vithi) like a thought process within 51 smallest moments. So likely, the mind moment depends on the lifetime of the material units. The Buddha didn't reject the existence of the material world outside of the mind.
Part 1: Sir Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff: What is Consciousness? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXkyxTZB58
Suresh Wanayalaege:
Consciousness is a process in a moment that continues from moment to moment. It is the theory of the mind explained in Theravada Buddhist teachings.
Kiran:
@Suresh Wanayalaege weak compared to Advaita.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Kiran , Can you please elaborate?
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Kiran , It is a simplified explanation. According to the Buddha's teachings, the mind continues as 3 universal moments that arise, exist, and dissolve. And a stream of the mind (Pali: Chitta Vithi) has a maximum of 17 mind moments because likely it is going through a matter unit (in Planck scale) that live only for 17 mind moments. And during that process, the mind continues as many rebirths every 3 moments. And also, the stream of thought stops within 17 mind moments conditionally, like another death. The normal death is a conditional death, and it can continue to the next 17 mind moments of the conditioned life until the mind moment stops continuing as a result of that 17 conditioned mind moments. It is a very fundamental/deep process in the universe. Also, the many world interpretation that is being used to explain the collapse of the wave function is compatible with the 31 or 30 planes of existence (30 worlds if we don't separate the animal and human world) mentioned in the texts because the moment of observation in the mind is limited to only one universal moment within the series of mind moments that usually continue for 51 universal moments. Likely, there are 50 universal moments that we don't use to observe the outside world. If the world we observe is separated from the other worlds because of the wave function, then the other worlds/matter and beings would appear within those moments without allowing us and our detectors to observe them.
I never knew this
Albert Einstein.
In 1946, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist traveled to Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, the alma mater of Langston Hughes and Thurgood Marshall and the first school in America to grant college degrees to blacks. At Lincoln, Einstein gave a speech in which he called racism “a disease of white people,” and added, “I do not intend to be quiet about it.” He also received an honorary degree and gave a lecture on relativity to Lincoln students.
The reason Einstein’s visit to Lincoln is not better known is that it was virtually ignored by the mainstream press, which regularly covered Einstein’s speeches and activities. (Only the black press gave extensive coverage to the event.) Nor is there mention of the Lincoln visit in any of the major Einstein biographies or archives.
In fact, many significant details are missing from the numerous studies of Einstein’s life and work, most of them having to do with Einstein’s opposition to racism and his relationships with African Americans.]
How Many States Of Matter Are There?
What Happens Inside a Proton?
Why Don't Protons Fly Apart in the Nucleus of Atoms? RESIDUAL Strong Force Explained
Can you try to demonstrate the surface gravity of larger Black Holes using the curvature of space?
to you23 hours ago- to you23 hours ago
- to you23 hours ago
15 hours ago- to you12 hours ago
- 8 hours ago
- to you2 hours ago
- 5 minutes ago
- to you14 minutes ago
- 4 minutes ago
- to you2 days ago
- 1 day ago
- to you1 day ago
- 1 day ago
- to you1 day ago
- to you1 day ago
- 1 day ago
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics
Eternal Growth Of The Megaverse
Buddhism and Fake Science - බුදු දහම සහ ව්යාජ විද්යාව
Sabine Hossenfelder | Existential Physics
What Is beyond the Universe? Shocking Discovery!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5A-YBIZINc&lc
scotty moondog jakubin:
Even with the most powerful technologically advanced telescopes what we see may not even exist anymore not because of time but distance
Suresh Wanayalaege:
Seemingly, Big collisions happened between matter that converted to energy beams with the contraction of that universe in the space that already existed. And Dark Energy shows that extra space that already existed. It is the truth that western scientists try to hide from the world to support western religions.
scotty moondog jakubin:
@Suresh Wanayalaege ya ! There was even a time were astrologists thought the sun orbited the earth and the earth was flat ! and alot were jailed for there findings ! we come a long way since !
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@scotty moondog jakubin , Yes. Seemingly, nowadays they buy scientists using the John templenton foundation, and scientists support them to get funds from them and prevent attacks from them.
scotty moondog jakubin:
@Suresh Wanayalaege i did not know that !
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@scotty moondog jakubin, Almost all the western scientists don't talk about an alternative explanation to explain Dark Energy. They use Dark Energy to make space from nothing. They mostly talk about and popularize the topics that support creationism, directly or indirectly. E.g., They usually don't talk about Big Bounce models. But they mostly talk about the creation of energy from a singularity in a new universe, without evidence, and based on pure assumption. They made a standard model of cosmology with a singularity, making it difficult for theorists to talk about Big Bounce models publicly. And they try to popularize that there were no space and time before the Big Bang, using a fake interpretation of General Relativity. Most creationists use the argument of the creation of space and time to survive in the modern world, ignoring their most wrong arguments (about evolution, etc) in their religions, and to spread their religions. I heard that argument when I was a small child. So, I feel upset about the western scientists who popularized that assumption and helped Abrahamic religions survive and stand up against the truth. I don't think that most western scientists care about religions. But seemingly, they support the religious invasion (by force and lies) of Abrahamic religions for political reasons. Perhaps, Newton survived between creationists because he didn't try to reject beliefs in Abrahamic religions. Perhaps, some scientists are doing the same thing to survive. But some creationists try to use the names and findings of some scientists to baptize modern science.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic.
Read more: https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
Science And Buddhism - Abhidhamma - Origin Of Everything - Material Forms - Rūpa - Page 2: https://buddhist-essentials-and-concepts.blogspot.com/p/science-and-buddhism-abhidhamma-origin.html
scotty moondog jakubin:
@Suresh Wanayalaege dark matter / dark energy in my opinion could be just large pockets of the vacuum and or gravity in space ! and of course matter and anti - matter !
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@scotty moondog jakubin, Dark Energy is a wrong interpretation about the origin of space. Most likely, space doesn't make more space. And seemingly, matter and space maintain their density uniformly, using quantum effects even if scientists can't identify them. Probably, space and matter move into each other to balance their density, or gravitons cause them to behave like that. Probably, matter and antimatter interactions that happened again and again because of the energy collisions (many Big Bangs) made a lot of space (neutral/virtual energy) while making photons with their total energy. I think we are living in an island universe that is separated from other universes because of the space between them. But according to some early texts, the duration of an eon (Antak-Kalpa) can change (an intermediate eon (Antak-Kalpa) becomes an innumerable eon (Asankya-Kalpa)) from time to time. So perhaps, island universes collide and separate too.
scotty moondog jakubin:
@Suresh Wanayalaege if multiverses exist they too can have different laws of physics ! Ive read a few papers stating the great voids much like bootes void for example was a collision between our universe and another ! some other interesting reads was the white hole theory stating that white holes are decayed black holes older than our universe ! this is prob why i like studying it !
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@scotty moondog jakubin, Probably, the nearest island universes would not have many different laws of physics. Perhaps, the edge of the megaverse is filled with more material elements than space. Perhaps, the ratio of space and photon between matter caused to make different laws of physics. Perhaps, both total energy in space and in energy particles (E.g., photons) is relative to the total mass in the universe. But most likely, there are no different types of material elements in distant island universes. Thank you.
10 Disturbing Discoveries About the Universe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ym9HuCwfyo
Factnomenal:
💥😮 What's the most disturbing fact about the Big Bang Theory?
Suresh Wanayalaege:
We observed only the island universe in which we live. Eternal expansion of the megaverse can make island universes. Prof. Albert Einstein made his theory to support the observations of that time. He didn't want to say that the universe is not expanding. Sean Carroll explained it and a lot more things about the early universe in his lectures.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km0_hlNXy54
Suresh Wanayalaege:
CMB doesn't show an explosion. And it is a mirror that hides the history (start) of the universe. The matter that became energy during the contraction of the universe could make matter and matter somewhat uniformly. Likely, it was a Big Exchange of energy from one side to another. Probably, antimatter couldn't make stable matter. The number of energy collisions that happen during many different island universes during their Big Bangs could make different temperatures. And that temperature causes the duration it requires to cool down the particles in the universe. Probably, the CMB radiation shows both matter and antimatter annihilation radiation and the radiation that originated during the temperature that was required to form the hydrogen atoms. But perhaps, the total temperature of the CMB radiation is somewhat related to the size of our island universe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suresh Wanayalaege:
The temperature/density of the earliest visible universe was not infinite. The temperature showed by the CMB radiation represents the photons/matter in the observable universe. If the entire universe (megaverse) grows with time and makes island universes, then many different island universes can make many different temperatures during Big Bounces of matter/energy, making cyclic processes. Possibly, the temperature of the early universe that we can observe using the CMB radiation in the observable universe is related to the size of our island universe and our location in it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Big Bang didn't happen
What do the James Webb images really show?
To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic.
Read more: https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What If Dark Energy Is A New Quantum Field?
PBS Space Time:
A few of our eagle-eyed Space Time fans have noted that 3:48 what is labeled as Dark Matter and should be labeled as Dark Energy. They are all technically correct, the best kind of correct.
Objects in Motion:
@zerooskul Good riddance! We only want people who believe in the real science behind dark energy here so glad to see you go 😃
Suresh Wanayalaege:
If a field in space or space causes to produce the capacity of the mass in matter particles (fermions), then probably, both mass (extra mass in pure space) and energy (extra energy on top of pure space) in particles depend on the density of space. Perhaps, matter and antimatter collisions increased the density of the existing space during the Big Bounce/Bang. Suppose cooling and eternal expansion of the universe reduce the density of space, causing matter particles to be less massive. In that case, space will turn/return into a somewhat neutral/pure state (closer to pure/undisturbed time), converting the extra mass into energy to conserve the energy in mass in the almost pure fabric/points of the space. And then, the energy would collide, and make a lot of low-mass matter and antimatter particles. And those particles would collide and make virtual matter and antimatter particles (extra mass/points), increasing the mass density in space. And then, the higher density in space would support making more matter and antimatter particles with a higher mass. Perhaps, there is a mass range for the same type of matter particle (E.g., The mass of Up Quark (2.2MeV) is between 1.8 to 2.7 MeV). And the mass of elementary particles would slowly reduce after each Big Bounce/Bang. Also, the mass of elementary particles would relate to the area of the Big Bounce/Bang.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge to mass ratio of an electron
Suresh Wanayalaege:
If the charge of an electron must relate to the mass of an electron to maintain the mass ratio of an electron, then calculating the mass of an electron using that ratio would depend on the calculation/measurement of the charge of an electron. And if the measurement of the charge of an electron depends on the charge of a proton, then it would not relate to the real mass of an electron. So perhaps, many small electrons are making an opposite charge to balance the charge of a proton.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🤔 Tesla & Logic on the ELECTRON 🌑
Live Q&A: Curved Spacetime & Gravity
Did James Webb Space Telescope Images Prove Big Bang Never Happened?
Letters and Words:
Even as a kid in school I thought the Big Bang was such a stupid idea. JWST you done proved me right again. Love you my boo.
Brian Sexton:
I still am having trouble understanding how the universe is flat but the inflation model at 2:55 (like most models) is pyramid shaped
Morgun Styles:
Ive been saying that my whole life. Big bang bunk
Ward Out:
The Big Bang = the Big Dud.
Joseph Dewey:
The ancient Hindus taught that the life of a universe is 311 trillion years. Maybe science is getting closer to that figure.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
As mentioned in Buddhist texts, the world starts to end during the contraction period of the universe which begins with a rain of liquid energy and destroys the world and heavenly worlds including material Brahma worlds within a duration called Sanvatta Asankhya Kalpa. The contraction of the universe continues without material worlds during Sanvattai Asankhya Kalpa. And then, the universe starts to expand with a rain of liquid energy called Sampatthi Mahamegha during a similar period called Vivatta Asankhya Kalpa. Also, the duration of the further expansion (called Vivattai Asankhya Kalpa) that starts with the formation of worlds is similar to the duration of the first period of expansion that filled the universe with a rain of liquid energy beams (called Sampatthi Mahamegha), the rain that stopped falling before the start of the formation of worlds that happens with the further expansion. Again, the universe contracts and destroy worlds during Sanvatta Asankhya Kalpa.
Perhaps, gravitons or any other force would bring matter back to the center of gravity with an acceleration, causing them to become beams of high-energy particles that gain energy with the contraction that causes matter to pass through the center of the universe.
The period between the start of Vivattai Asankhya Kalpa and the end of Vivatta Asankhya Kalpa is called a Mahā-Kalpa.
Joseph Dewey:
@Suresh Wanayalaege Interesting. Thanks.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Joseph Dewey, You are welcome.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
The early universe was very huge. And the name called Big Bang was helpful for creationists to prevent people from thinking about energy collisions that could happen in an existing universe. If energy beams collided and made matter and antimatter during the Big Bang, then it is safe to say that it was a Big Bounce. Likely, electrons are not single elementary particles. And perhaps, there are smaller elementary particles that would contribute to the mass in particles but relate/belong to the previous Big Bounces. Astronomers and scientists should try to change that name (Big Bang) if they are really truthful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Webb Telescope's Discovery of Galaxies That Shatters the Big Bang Theory
What is the ORIGIN of all MASS in the Universe? Physics of symmetry breaking
Did the Big Bang happen?
Victor Souza:
For those wondering why only empty areas of space expand and other don't, there's a PBS Space Time video on that: 'Space does NOT expand everywhere' (https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY). Basically, the area where there's mass is explained by the Schwarzchild metric (yes, the one that also describes black holes), which doesn't have the lambda (Λ) factor that makes the rest of the universe--which is better described by the Friedman equations--expand. But what is this lambda? It's dark energy, and PBS ST also has you covered with the playlist 'Dark Energy Explained!' (though it takes three videos for a very complete answer, 1, 2 and 7). https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsPUh22kYmNAv1_8MA9-USkY6f2lfr1hb I recommend these three videos even if you already have a physics undergrad, they are that in depth.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
Energy beams are solid if they collide with each other. A lot of energy beams could collide and make matter and antimatter during the Big Bang. So it could definitely be a Big Bounce. Perhaps, matter and antimatter collisions increased the density of the existing space during the Big Bounce/Bang. I think the collisions of energy beams make virtual matter and virtual antimatter particles (extra mass/points), increasing the mass density in space while converting to photons. The flatness of the universe indicates that the entire universe is expanding forever. But the density of the universe could increase with time due to a lot of interactions and cyclic processes. The Buddha said that this great universe which has a thousand billion Sakwala (Galaxies) undergoes a cyclic process within a duration called a Maha-Kalpa. The Buddha explained a lot of things about the process of the universe. And we can find those teaching in the Higher (Abhi) Doctrine (Dhamma) in Theravada tradition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWfB-DkDivs
Suresh Wanayalaege:
Gravitational singularity is most likely a fake interpretation of general relativity. It is like the concept of wormholes which is another interpretation of the general relativity that doesn't make sense in the real universe. Also, General Relativity is most likely wrong inside Black Holes. The flatness of the universe couldn't come from a curved singularity.
Laurent Cassaro:
@Suresh Wanayalaege Oh yeah? Please demonstrate that. Because it looks like you didn't understood what "flat universe" means.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Laurent Cassaro, The distribution of matter in the early universe shows that the universe was flat. If a curved singularity created the universe, then the matter distribution should be somewhat centered. Also, the matter distribution shows a lot of empty areas. So it doesn't show any clue of a singularity. I uploaded a video to demonstrate the expansion of the flat universe. Also, there are more details about the early universe.
Laurent Cassaro:
@Suresh Wanayalaege You're confounding curvature and topology.
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Laurent Cassaro, No. I was not talking about Quantum Fluctuations. The CMB showed the flatness of the early universe. It is not my opinion.
Laurent Cassaro:
@Suresh Wanayalaege Never said the Universe wasn't flat.
Yes, the Universe doesn't have a homogeneous distribution. No, it doesn't disproves the Big Bang theory. No, I don't want to "talk" about quantum physics, since neither you or me are qualified for this.
If you have anything that disproves something in the Bing Bang theory, go on, publish a paper for peer review, instead of making CLAIMS in a YouTube channel. Here, uneducated people won't understand you or write nonsensical fantasies, and educated people will either ignore you or laugh at you... so, what's the point?
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Laurent Cassaro, No I was talking about density distribution. If a singularity made the universe, the density can't be flat. Only a box can make a flat universe. Most likely, the universe is a box. I already published a paper.
Laurent Cassaro:
@Suresh Wanayalaege Explain me what a flat density is...
Yeah, sure, "published" 🤣. So weird that nobody has ever heard of you 🤣
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Laurent Cassaro, You don't know about the flatness of the universe. That is the problem. A curved singularity could make a higher density at the center. And we should be able to see that density from the singularity. But the flat universe doesn't have a center.
Laurent Cassaro:
@Suresh Wanayalaege ... word salad.
Yes, space curvature has been measured. It's ZERO (aka it's flat), with an extremely low margin of error.
Still waiting for your "flat density" 's meaning, BTW 🤣
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Laurent Cassaro, The flatness of the matter distribution is the flat density I mentioned. I tried to make it simple for your small brain.
Laurent Cassaro:
@Suresh Wanayalaege P.S. We can't and never will be able to see the singularity, no matter how far future telescopes can observe. The absolute limit is the CMB's age.
Yeah, actual scientists use the word "observe", not "see". 🤭😅😂🤣
Suresh Wanayalaege:
@Laurent Cassaro, I'm not a scientist. I'm an uneducated person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abhidhamma Seminar: Unravelling the Matrix: Patthana, Bhavanga and Abhidhamma Meditation Part 1
Suresh Wanayalaege:
According to Abhidhamma, Nibbana is an ultimate reality (Paramartha Dhamma) that helps to cease the ultimate reality called Citta (the fundamental mind moment). There is another ultimate reality called Rupa (material forms). There are small matter zones (Rupa-Kalapa) with 17 Citta/mind moments. According to Abhidhamma, the mind lives between two arising and dissolving moments. So likely, there are two invisible moments between the observation of the living moment that anything can exist. According to the Buddhist explanations, it seems that the lifetime of a matter zone/unit is equal to 16 + 1/3 mind moments. And the mind moment continues to another matter zone after the 16th mind moment. And perhaps, the next matter zone of the previous matter zone appears/arises after the 17 mind moment. So likely, the matter zones live for 16 mind moments and disappear for 1 mind moment as a cyclic process. Perhaps, Nibbana is the moment that matter zones disappear for a moment. Likely, Magga Citta and all the other active Citta moments arise in the middle of a Citta stream/Vithi, before the stream of Citta ends at the 17 Citta moment. And the Nibbana moment exists at the end of the Citta stream at the 17 Citta moment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abhidhamma Concept of Attention - Rupert Gethin
Suresh Wanayalaege:
The right mindfulness is supported/motivated by the Mental Factor called Intelligence/Knowledge (Pali: Gnana). Mindfulness is a process of moments of awareness. But mindfulness can be bad/wrong if it is not processed with intelligence/Knowledge (Gnana).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If science is objective, why do scientists disagree?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Page:Science And Buddhism - Abhidhamma - Origin Of Everything - Material Forms - Rūpa - Page 2: https://buddhist-essentials-and-concepts.blogspot.com/p/science-and-buddhism-abhidhamma-origin.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
We highly admire your helpful comments on our posts.