Summations Only

Inadequate, you might consider suing the institution you got your Ph.D from. They need to return your tuition fees with a good compensation to boot. You got Ph.D in math and you cannot spot the elementary arithmetic errors the big bunk hypothesis is founded upon? That's a disgrace casting a heavy shadow on the whole education system in your country.

Hi Panda, I don't know of but one and you would not accept it.Therefore I will say existence exists.Now if you have a mechanism whereby existence could begin to exist in and from non-existence I will conceed that I might be wrong about existence being eternal.God Bless,

Hi Mod,So you do not believe the universe began to exist from non-existence but rather came from something that existed in the past of the universe.In your opinion is it possible for the universe to begin to exist in or from non-existence?God Bless,

So - you don't know of a mechanism where existence could exist eternally.
I think you made a typo and you actually meant "I don't know of but one and you would not accept it."
Well, I can think of a method for how existence could begin to exist - but you would not accept it. I agree, but it says nothing about how existence originated. So, you are asking me to supply a mechanism for existence beginning to exist that is acceptable to you - but you are unable to describe a mechanism for how existence could exist eternally that is acceptable to me.
In summary: we don't have an accepted mechanism for how either option could happen.But, arbitrarily, you have chosen one.
I suppose there's nothing wrong with you plucking one at random - but it has no more credibility than the other option.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hi Son, I ask because I can.Also the answer is important.There is before planck time 10^-43.Prior to planck time it is PRESUMED that all 4 fundamental forces were united into one force.It is also PRESUMED that all the matter, energy, space and time expanded outwardly from the original singularity.Nothing is known about this period.Things are just presumed.Not much is known about the periods that followed.So yes the models do refer to the singularity and what followed.Source:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...astro/planck.html#c2God Bless,

So you feel it's nothing more than blind guesses based on pure imagination, and not based on any mathematics? Telling a working physicist what the models actually say, who is going out of his way to help you understand where you are worng... that's your best one yet ICANT!- Oni

He's done more to earn my respect in this topic than you have, that much could be said of him. The entire point of the discussion was to explain why there is apparent direction in a universe of directionless physics. Since you've assessed Carroll's argument thoroughly, you know that already. It seems strange to compare the entropy of the whole system to a subset of it. I'm not sure how to go about doing that, or even what use it would do.Are you telling me that you think the universe was less ordered in the past (say before humans came along)?Because that would involve contravening the laws of thermodynamics.And that's what quack's like to do.I can say that the universe is less ordered (ie more diffuse, less workable energy, less probable) today than it was yesterday. And that reasoning applies all the way back to the beginning.

I hold no beliefs at all on the matter. I don't know, I don't pretend to know. The universe may have no past and may simply exist. It may have a past. I really don't know. As best as I can understand your meaning, no.

No, Mod. You've missed the point. Mapping time in any direction has nothing to do with Sean Carroll's inane fantasies about baby universes and suchlike. It means that assuming light signal's speed is constant in any direction, the perceived chronological order of cosmological events may depend on the location of the observer in respect to the locations those events are occurring at.Thus no universal conformal time of bigbangist dogma may have any physical meaning. There is neither common universal past nor shared universal future destiny. Time is an abstraction of motion while the direction the objects move in is strictly relative. Simple.You evaded the question with your talk about sets and subsets. The question was: in what respect any subset of the alleged primordial quark soup represents a higher order or structure than yourself or yours truly Cheshire?

Hi Oni, So you are saying the source I used should not be in the education business of teaching about the Big Bang.I agree with that. But I was not saying what I believed but what they taught.God Bless,

This seems to be a recurring issue. Time and relative motion are certainly related, but you can't go from realising that two distinct concepts are related, to saying that they are the same thing, or that one is an abstraction of the other. It's like temperature and motion again, (or your earlier temperature and density faux pas).I get that you would like the universe to be simple and easy to comprehend - and maybe your desire to reduce the whole marvellous complexity of it to simple Euclidian motion is part of that desire - but it ain't that simple.

Hi Mod, Thanks.The universe has existed eternally in the past. That statement according to science is false. Even though they have devised many ways to get around the singularity problem.Eternal inflation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe, are three proposals.According to a paper (arXiv:1204.4658) submitted April 20, 2012 by Audrey Mithani, Alexander Vilenkin none of those could be eternal in the past."The first two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning.""The third, although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past. "For any of those to have a begining to exist would require that they begin to exist in and out of non-existence, as does the beginning to exist out of a singularity as the singularity was non-existence.So the delima I have presented.The universe has always existed in some form.
OR
The universe began to exist in and out of non-existence.God Bless,

OR
It was created by a natural phenomena that already existed (e.g. branes)
OR
It was created by a god-like entity.

I don't know to which exactly sect of bigbangism you personally belong. The orthodoxy mentions Planck epoch and the preceding singularity alright. It is irrelevant whether it all is kept as vague as it is in the orthodox interpretation or is repudiated completely as your sectarian approach may suggest, the bottom line is: there is no physical justification for whatever that may be claimed to come afterwards in the hypothesis. Therefore you do not even have any hypothesis and your presentation may be dismissed for what it is- an incoherent guessing.

I'm reasonably sure I was the one making the point, but OK. Any reason you are calling them 'inane fantasies' when in fact they are merely 'consistent with what we know speculations'? That's just standard relativity, albeit filtered through your mind, isn't it?Carroll and I were talking about ideas beyond relativity, since relativity clearly isn't quite right. You can argue with the physicists about the meaning of 'the universe began 13.7 billion years ago' in terms of relativity. I've seen it explained, but I don't have the capacity to do so myself. In the sense that it had a higher density of workable energy or a lesser density of entropy. As I've explained several times, contrary to your claims I've evaded the question.I've never actually claimed that I as a human happen to be more or less ordered than the big bang. What I have claimed is that the universe now, is less ordered than it was in its earliest stages.