The forbidden questions of comsology and physics

I studied plate tectonics some time ago. Unlike the big bang theory, I don't recall anything in plate tectonics that indicate a point where "every law of physics is violated" or every known principle of geology in this case. If plate tectonics required that every million years, giant tortoises arose from the ocean and lifted each continent on their backs and placed them in a new location, I would hope and expect that books would come out challenging that theory. And I would be concerned for the state of Geological science if the majority of geologists attacked anyone who dared to speak up against the giant tortoise theory.

unfortunately, the world is NOT made up of lots pf people whove been exposed to the evidence of plate tectonics, In fact, the many many actually "believe" there is evidence of lots of events that deny it.
The best evidence for physical laws and theories (at least to me) is that they work in normal practice. So far Newton at rest has a damn good law of universal gravitation that works nicely, as we approach the speed of light , however, a new set of constraints becomes that which defines reality of computation.

Im curious, how do Quantum theory and the Big Bang violate every law of physics?
I see much evidence from the laws of physics to support em. In fact, as far as QM, ALL our lab chemistry equipment (with the exception of ion probes and thermometers) seem to be based upon QM theory I was a late arriver to it and Im all ears to hear about where it falters in the evidence department.

(Im an applied scientist, not theoretical).So I will sit at the feet and believe those who can suitably deliver. But Id hate to hear that my Relitavistically corrected GPS surveying equipment needs to add a couple feet every 0.000001 second. Thats really **** up some maps of mining claims.

Some of the problems with the big bang/big crunch theory have to do with infinite thresholds akin to "divide by zero" problems. I've brought up the angular momentum problem above at several points above. As a skater spins and draws her arms in, she spins faster, as there's conservation of angular momentum. However if she could pull her arms in tighter, reducing her entire mass into a single two-dimensional line through her axis of rotation, we have some big problems. Where does the angular momentum go? Angular momentum is often described as the largest force in the universe, far more significant than the gravitational weak force. But if the skater rotates at 10rpm with arms extended and 20rpm when drawing the hands to the chest, speeds continue into the millions and billions of rpms as we get to millimeters to microns from the axis, then what? Poof? Magic? That is the scenario in the big crunch/big bang that doesn't sit well with me...
1) Gravity "magically" overcomes the stronger force of angular momentum,
2) speeds of rotating elements as the universe approaches a singularity would exceed the speed of light
3) mass of the singularity (divide by zero) would reach infinity
4) gravity would likewise reach infinity
5) at the point of infinite mass and gravity, time dilation reaches infinity (again divide by zero)
*
So.... if time has literally stopped, how can a big bang occur?

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

so youre a quantum grqvity fan eh? I have to admit that Ive not kept up with those Das papers in SCience . However, The Das geometrics do not have anything that serves up as anything but a series of evidence-free hypotheses, based upon uncomfortableness with A universe or multiverses with a fixed (c).

To me, thats another religion .

That illustration depicts a sea turtle, not a tortoise.

I think that's kind of missing the point there, InfraBlue. The illustration isn't mine, it was just to make a point. But if such a story were anywhere close to true I suppose we'd have to ponder whether the creature lives in water, on land, or in space as depicted above.

Looks like an illustration for Sir Terry Pratchett's Discworld Series. A comical series and the only stuff in the realm of fantasy I ever found worth reading. He died recently. He was a genius. Just an aside. Don't let it interrupt the flow.

Terry Pratchett's Discworld is indeed written in this setting, but the myth of the world carried on elephants upon a giant tortoise or turtle's back is far older and appears in Chinese, Indian, and Native American cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle

Sounds about right, it is a religion after all.

I asked you a simple high school physics problem (for which I will post my answer soon) and you haven't responded. I also asked you to give a very brief summary of conventional cosmology (with both the math and an explanation) and you haven't responded. If you don't like the mechanics problem I gave you, I can give you a high school level problem in thermodynamics, electrodynamics, or optics. I think this is the part where you tell me that you could solve the problem and summarize conventional inflationary cosmology easily, but just won't lower yourself to do it. No, a person who doesn't know pre-college physics isn't qualified to tell the world's physics community that they're full of crap about cosmology.

It would be closer to the truth if it actually depicted a tortoise.

You might want to look up the history of this mythology. In Hindu literature, their version of the "world turtle," found in Jñānarāja is indeed described as a tortoise. In Chinese mythology, the creator goddess Nüwa holds up the sky with the legs of a sea turtle. A land turtle is featured in the Lenape myth of the Iroquois. Closer to WHICH "truth" is the question.

Sure, but I was commenting on your statement and the picture that you provided to illustrate it.

m = mass of the block
g = acceleration due to gravity
d = distance the block moves along the inclined plane
k = the spring constant
x = distance the spring is compressed
θ = the angle of inclination of the plane, in this case 30 degrees

The energy used in compressing the spring came from the gravitational potential energy lost when the block descended.

mgd sin θ = 1/2 k x ^2

Rearranging this:

d = (k / 2mg sin θ) x^2

We can calculate k, the spring constant:

F = kx
100 nt = 100 kg-m/s^2

k = [(100 kg-m/s^2) / (1 m)] = 100 kg/s^2

Therefore:

d = (k / 2mg sin θ) x^2 = [(100 kg/s^2) / 2 (10 kg) (9.8 m/s^2) (.5) ] (2m)^2
= [10 s ^(-2) / 9.8 m/s^2] (2m)^2 = 4.08m

Not necessarily... though it's a respectable effort to reconcile differences between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Gravitational time dilation however is both adequately described by general relativity and confirmed through numerous experiments, ie it is not an evidence-free hypothesis. GPS systems wouldn't work correctly without compensating for it. Fixed (c) doesn't amount to much in my mind, it's like standing on an island and noticing that the water level is rising. With respect to the probability of drowning, it doesn't really matter if the water is rising or the island is sinking. Saying that the train approaching the speed of light gets shorter preserves (c) but really we can't account for the physics of changing the dimensions of objects, and it's indistinguishable from changing the very nature of the dimensional axes on which we measure.

Space and time are creations of minds.

Physics is largely based upon five categories of error:

(1) Circular definitions

(2) Contradictory premises

(3) Ill-defined vaguaries that have no truth value because they are ill-defined, just as "booga-booga-booga" cannot be evaluated as either true or false

(4) Infinite regresses

(5) Foundationless arguments

It's all about borders and foundations, and it's hard to find either.

Aside from your example of a Big Bang which has no physical explanation and would lead to an infinite regress even if it did, but which nevertheless purports to be the explanation for all physical phenomena (from an undifferentiated point to the observable universe (at what stage?) without any in-between process -- MAGIC!), there are some obviously flawed fundamentals:

(i) All of modern physics is based on point-set geometry. A point is supposed to be a geometric entity, yet it is said to have zero geometric extension in any dimension. It is a nothing posing as a something, and fits into category (2) above, and probably others.

(ii) The continuous space of physical point-set geometry is based upon real numbers. For example, every physical distance is based upon the concept of an abstract geometric line, and usually modelled as one. The line is said to be composed of geometric points, and each point of the line corresponds to a real number, such that every point in a line corresponds to a unique real number, and every real number corresponds to a unique point in a line.

First, note that a closed line segment of unit length has the end points 0 and 1. If you remove these end points (i.e., consider an open line segment of unit length), the distance from end to end is unchanged. That's because individual points have no magnitude (including length). So they aren't really there, yet they are there; and they can't contribute to the line's length, yet the line, which has length, is composed solely of points.

Second, note that even though one can move along a line, and a line is composed only of points, the set of real numbers isn't well-orderable, hence there is no "next point" after the first point. So you supposedly have definite motion in one direction, but cannot define the order of locations of this movement.

Third, the real number corresponding to each point is an infinite sequence of digits. An infinity is by definition unbounded and unfinished. Yet, because any finite sequence of N digits, for arbitrarily large N, is shared by more than one number of N+1 digits, the only way to distinguish between real numbers is to compare the full infinity of digits of each. That is to say, every real number is defined as a completed infinity. This is a contradiction in terms and fits into category (2).

Note that both of these contradictions occur at extreme ends of the conceptual spectrum: the border of the very small, and the border of the very large.

I've never accepted this; indeed the line is a separate construct from the points that can be described upon it in a number of areas of mathematics including incidence geometry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidence_geometry
It's of course a mental game, but if you imagine translating (moving) a line, that's easy to do as we manipulate a line equation, or translate two points the line passes through, or multiply a vector and a translation matrix, etc... but if instead the line is an infinite set, we can never complete translation of the line. I figure point-set geometry is kind of a crutch, it's convenient for checking your work with computers, but it's akin to thinking of the world and everything you see as a collection of pixels. Higher order constructs are less convenient to work with but they're essential.

Interesting article from one of the top scientists at CERN. Some questions may not only be forbidden, but unknowable. You don't often hear scientists say something like that. Here's the link to it and the punch line from the article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-end-of-physics-as-we-know-it-2016-1

Thanks, it is indeed an interesting article and I'll listen to the Ted talk when I have some more free time

Outer space involves full inertia (it is black, and it is fully invisible). Outer space is FULLY DETACHED and completely removed from our touch/tactile experience. Outer space cannot be experienced AS IT IS at all, as it completely precludes and entirely eliminates us and all of our experience. Importantly, outer space (FULL INERTIA) involves NO EXPERIENCE, as outer space cannot be experienced AS IT IS at all. So, there is (and there can be) NO real/true/direct/FULL/actual EXPERIENCE of outer space as it is AT ALL. The understanding of this space is inherently limited, AND the ultimate understanding (AND unification) of physics balances being and experience.

Full gravity involves fully visible space (and the Earth/ground is opaque).
FULL GRAVITY INVOLVES FULL EXPERIENCE.

The space that is between (and in the MIDDLE of) these two spaces involves invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance consistent with half gravity and half inertia, AND this is necessarily the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space.

THE MIDDLE DISTANCE and the FULL DISTANCE are in balance. We want stabilized and balanced distance in/of space. We want to combine, balance, and include opposites. We want to balance (or match up) being and experience.

By Author Frank Martin DiMeglio (the world's leading theoretical physicist).