Before the Big Bang

As I pointed out earlier, you're not looking.I just googled "Hawking" and "singularity". First hit, PBS. Second hit, Wiki.Had you bothered to look at the Wiki entry you would have found the following: By definition, "a point in spacetime" is "in the universe". Let me repeat that, since time and time again folks have tried to explain this to you and you have yet listen.Spacetime = Universe. Period. Full stop.And here's the whole quote from PBS: These are not Dr. Hawking's words. These are the words of some schmuck at PBS.If you are "debating in good faith", per buz, then I suggest you come up with material from some place other than PBS, tripod, space.com and science@nasa.gov. I mean, seriously. Tripod? Tripod??? And these others sites are for children. Children.

Hi molbiogirl, I like this post much better than Message 213How about we try Hawking's definition of singularity?

quote:

---

Definition of Singularity
A spacetime is singular if it is timelike or null geodesically incomplete, but can not be embedded in a larger spacetime.

---

Hawking's comments on spacetime.

quote:

---

I have emphasized what I consider the two most remarkable features that I have learnt in my research on space and time: first, that gravity curls up spacetime so that it has a begining and an end. Second, that there is a deep connection between gravity and thermodynamics that arises because gravity itself determines the topology of the manifold on which it acts.

---

Hawking's comments on production of singularities.

quote:

---

The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities at which classical general relativity broke down.

---

Now if I understand this.The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities...Gravity curls up spacetime so that it has a begining and an end.Spacetime has a beginning and an end.No gravity no beginning of spacetime.No spacetime no singularity.No singularity no big bang.Gravity supposedly came after the big bang.That leaves me with 2 choices.1. The universe was created out of the absence of anything. OR2. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1I particularly enjoyed one comment made by Dr. Hawking in the lectures he made at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge.

quote:

---

It seems God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.

---

Lectures the nature of space and time at: The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Chiroptera, In other words God could have spoke everything into existence and everything in the universe coming into being and moving about to get in their positions would look just like what we see by observation.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Yes, since we don't know enough about it to say that isn't so.However, that is a god of the gaps approach. Is your belief destroyed if M-theory turns out to be well supported?

ICANT I think that would depend on what the definition of spoke is in the context used.

Um, no, those aren't other words for what I said at all.What I said is that a singularity arises because of the inadequacies of the mathematical model being used.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

I like the avatar. Breathtaking background.I am definetly not YEC
I do not believe in a gap.
I am an eternalist.I am more on the line of Aristotle with modification. I believe the universe has always been here, just in different forms at different times and one day it will cease to exist as we know it. But it will still exist in a different form. In other words I believe the universe to be eternal.When I talk about eternity I like to think of a circle as eternity and say put a mark on the circle at 9:00 AM note it as the beginning of time as man knows it. At 9:15 AM make another mark on the circle note it as the end of time as man knows it.Time is marked off for mankind.The universe does not need time.
God does not need time.Both are eternal.So I have no problem with any age that science could ever come up with for anything, I will just think it was a lot longer.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I agree, and since I believe it was in the realm or sphere of the beginnings and the universe being eternal in some form, that would be things forming in the form we see them today from whatever form they were in. Then the laws that control everything being put into place.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Sorry for not being clearer, I was really asking a question. General relativity saying that our universe must have started as a singularity does not make it a fact, even though it is the most accepted theory.There are theories that do not need a singularity for the universe to exist.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

That is very true. In fact, it is already known that General Relativity by itself is inadequate to deal with the very first tiny-fraction-of-a-second moments of the universe. This is not in dispute. The question is, when an adequate theory is developed, what will be found?

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

No it doesn't make it a fact as you say.What makes it very, very likely that the universe started in a state near to a singularity is GR and a host of observations all of which support that idea very strongly.It is the most accepted theory because of that strong support.Do you have a suggestion for another one or for modifications to this one? That is how science progresses. It does nothing to say that one idea might be wrong; that is how science operates. It is necessary to decide how likely that it is to be wrong and what one should do next.

You quote Dr. Hawking as saying: However, Dr. Hawking goes on to say, in the very next sentence: I assure you, Dr. Hawking and Dr. Penrose would object to your contention that: In fact, having read the relevant sections of the paper you quoted, I find your quote mining reprehensible. Taken out of context, this quote... ...sounds like Drs. Hawking and Penrose are advocating that ALL of spacetime has a beginning and an end, which is UNTRUE.Since you've chosen this highly technical paper to illustrate your point, why don't you take this opportunity to walk us through the Penrose-Hawking theorem and then explain why you think it supports the idea that all of spacetime has a beginning and an end.Edited by molbiogirl, : My bad. I missed a link.

The question is, when the facts are known what will they be?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The source is Dr. Hawking himself from his website.
Found in a series of 3 lectures he delivered at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge. Titled, The Nature of Space and Time.This link will take you to the pdf format of the lectures, you need Adobe reader.
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)The link in Message 257 will take you to a different part of the site where you can get them in postscript format.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

What facts are you talking about, and how can they be known? We cannot directly observe the earliest history of the universe. We can only observe it indirectly, by observing how the universe is structured today -- well, taking into account the fact that the speed of light is finite, by observing the farthest reaches of the universe we are observing an ealier stage of its history, but even here we can only observe directly nothing earlier than several hundred thousand years after the singularity (if there was indeed a singularity).The only thing we are capable of is to devise a theoretical framework as complete as possible from which we can predict how the universe should look today, and then to compare these predictions with what we actually do see today.I'm not sure what "facts" we can know about the early universe, and how we can really be sure whether we really "know" them. But this is the usually problem of epitstemology.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders