Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Before Big Bang God or Singularity
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 31 of 405 (452072)
01-29-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PMOC
01-29-2008 1:24 PM


Re: Faulty Premise
Hi PMOC,
And welcome to EvC
PMOC writes:
I have my own question. Are we going to be mucking up the cosmology boards with this stuff as well?
It does look like everybody is trying to muck up the cosmology board instead of address the question.
Have you noticed nobody has said:
God is the best explanation.
Singularity and the Big Bang theory is the best explanation.
Other than myself and we are at 30 posts.
Maybe this should be in something called: "Faith and bash the Creo".
Have fun,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PMOC, posted 01-29-2008 1:24 PM PMOC has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 32 of 405 (452083)
01-29-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
01-29-2008 1:31 PM


Re: Not a trick question
I was born the first time in 1939 I was born again in 1949....
...I am presently my pastor so I don't have anyone to go to.
Yes, I am well aware of these facts
My post remains.
Would you like to discuss my question or throw up smoke?
I attempted to give you some meaning to the word singularity, which you and others throw around with little to no understanding. In return, you act like an idiot teenager who thinks he's sooooo clever.
Until you understand what is meant by a 'singularity' how can you possibly ask your question? If you are completely unwilling to learn what the word singularity means, why would I even begin to answer your question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2008 1:31 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2008 2:03 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 33 of 405 (452086)
01-29-2008 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2008 1:09 PM


Re: Not a trick question
FYI, actually, I think he's an old fart
CS, I hereby offer an invitation to come over to England and stay at my place, where you will be instructed in the ancient arts of sarcasm, irony, and satire

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 1:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 2:34 PM cavediver has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 34 of 405 (452092)
01-29-2008 1:58 PM


Re Singularity
Since no one will engage in debate only in insults I will present my case in full.
Below is statements from Dr. Hawking concerning the singularity and the Big Bang.
"NOTICE" I say if Dr. Hawking is correct in what "HE" says in these lectures there could have been no singularity the universe expanded from. There is no way one could form under the circumstances he described that they were created in.
"NOTICE" I am not saying that there is no way possible for a singularity to exist. But I am saying that under the understood Big Bang Theory it could not have. Under an amended Big Bang Theory it could exist.
But as the Theory is today God is the best explanation of what happened in the beginning.
If you care to refute Dr. Hawking, Have fun,
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. OR
2. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1
I 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)
Have fun

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 2:32 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 42 by teen4christ, posted 01-29-2008 3:51 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 35 of 405 (452099)
01-29-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by cavediver
01-29-2008 1:49 PM


Re: Not a trick question
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
unwilling to learn what the word singularity means, why would I even begin to answer your question?
I do know what it means I looked it up.
Do you have a better definition than Dr. Hawking?
Have fun,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 1:49 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 36 of 405 (452109)
01-29-2008 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
01-29-2008 1:58 PM


Re: Re Singularity
Why do you insist on making such a prick of yourself by refering to Hawking as 'Dr Hawking'? We've been through this before - his title is professor. It evens says this at the top of the page in your link!! Why do you insist on changing it? What perverse pleasure do you gain from this? Is it because of his disability and it gives you a sense of superiority?
And the lectures were not at the Isaac Newton Institute - they were at Lady Mitchell Hall on the Sidgwick Site. We had far too many visitors to fit into the old Isaac Newton lecture hall.
cavediver writes:
you are unwilling to learn what the word singularity means, why would I even begin to answer your question?
I do know what it means I looked it up.
The arrogance is astounding. You think you can read some of Hawking's comments and suddenly 'I know what it means'!!! I think you seriously overestimate your ability here.
No gravity no beginning of spacetime.
No spacetime no singularity.
No singularity no big bang.
Gravity supposedly came after the big bang.
utter bollocks
Now if I understand this.
oh, believe me... you don't
"NOTICE" I say if Dr. Hawking is correct in what "HE" says in these lectures there could have been no singularity the universe expanded from. There is no way one could form under the circumstances he described that they were created in.
"NOTICE" I am not saying that there is no way possible for a singularity to exist. But I am saying that under the understood Big Bang Theory it could not have. Under an amended Big Bang Theory it could exist.
Utter, utter bollocks... you have completely failed to understand what he is saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2008 1:58 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 01-29-2008 3:08 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2008 4:14 PM cavediver has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 405 (452110)
01-29-2008 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by cavediver
01-29-2008 1:52 PM


Re: Not a trick question
CS, I hereby offer an invitation to come over to England and stay at my place, where you will be instructed in the ancient arts of sarcasm, irony, and satire
Awe shucks, thanks! I'm on my way... I know that I have a lot to learn of those arts. What kind of beer should I bring?

Sarcasm is hard to spot, ya know... And since your participation is sporadic, I really did think that you thought that ICANT was a teenager. He seemed like it to me when I first met him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 1:52 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 2:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 38 of 405 (452118)
01-29-2008 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2008 2:34 PM


Re: Not a trick question
What kind of beer should I bring?
I'll supply the beer
I really did think that you thought that ICANT was a teenager. He seemed like it to me when I first met him.
I just cannot understand his attiutude here. He's reading notes from a highly technical (albeit advanced-layman) talk and expecting to be able to use what he's learned to formulate his own ideas. And then expects those original notes to back up his ideas... and says that anyone challenging his ideas is essentially challenging Hawking!!! Truly bizarre.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 2:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 3:11 PM cavediver has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 39 of 405 (452132)
01-29-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by cavediver
01-29-2008 2:32 PM


Re: Singularity
Here, cavediver. Allow me.
wiki writes:
This led, in 1970, to Hawking proving the first of many singularity theorems; such theorems provide a set of sufficient conditions for the existence of a singularity in space-time.
Got it, ICANT?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 2:32 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 3:35 PM molbiogirl has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 405 (452133)
01-29-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
01-29-2008 2:46 PM


Man, I would really like to visit the UK someday...
He's reading notes from a highly technical (albeit advanced-layman) talk and expecting to be able to use what he's learned to formulate his own ideas. And then expects those original notes to back up his ideas... and says that anyone challenging his ideas is essentially challenging Hawking!!!
yeah, he does the same thing with the Bible....
I just cannot understand his attiutude here. Truly bizarre.
I think its a n00b issue with the lack of humility, even though he's not all that new anymore.
But humility seems to be proportional to participation, so there hope that one of these days he'll "grow up".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 2:46 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 41 of 405 (452146)
01-29-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by molbiogirl
01-29-2008 3:08 PM


Re: Singularity
Here, cavediver. Allow me.
wiki writes:
This led, in 1970, to Hawking proving the first of many singularity theorems; such theorems provide a set of sufficient conditions for the existence of a singularity in space-time.
Yes, the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems show the necessity of singularities in classical space-times. Then in the early eighties, Hawking and Jim Hartle developed the No-Boundary Proposal, in semi-classical quantum cosmology, which potentially removed the singularity from a Big Bang type cosmology, leaving a smooth 'South Pole' to the Universe around T=0.
This is what Hawking is describing in this lecture. Somehow ICANT has managed to get this completely arse-about-face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 01-29-2008 3:08 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2008 4:40 PM cavediver has replied

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 42 of 405 (452150)
01-29-2008 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
01-29-2008 1:58 PM


Re: Re Singularity
ICANT, speaking as a college student, I can understand why other people here are frustrated with you. I had the same attitude as you now seem to have, too. I'm a chemistry student more than a physics student, although I think I will declare both as my major. When I first started learning this chemistry stuff back in high school, I thought it was soooo easy. Everything I read in the book made perfect sense to me. Then of course came the first test and I totally bombed it. The lesson I learned that day was that self-delusion could be a very real thing.
We could always tell ourselves that we understand something inside-out and that our conclusions must be just as good, if not better, than the conclusions of real experts. As long as we have this mindset, we will never learn anything. As a college student, I realized long ago that layman's stuff probably only tell about 3% or so of the whole story. How do I know this? Before I started taking college physics, I had read many many books by prominent physicists. I really honestly thought I knew most of the stuff about physics. Then it hit me while I was taking my first physics courses that all the stuff I read in all those books were just the very thin gloss layer of a much bigger globe than I initially imagined.
Hawking is a very smart man. I've read his books very carefully, and yet I still few nervous when a conversation like this comes up because I know that I only know just the most basic stuff about it and that beyond this basic stuff is a whole world of knowledge that for now I can't even imagine.
In regard to chemistry, I've taken quite a few chemistry courses and I'm still struggling with the current courses. The big bang theory along with the rest of modern physics (just like chemistry) is not something that we can read a few pages written in layman's terms and then claim to know what it's all about.
Hopefully, you will think it over before you continue to make these inaccurate assumptions. We are talking about topics that have taken very very very smart people whole lifetimes to work on. By reading a few words on the matter and claiming yourself an expert on it, you are basically downplaying the whole of modern science. If indeed anyone can read a few layman's words and be an expert on the topic, then we could effectively close down all colleges and universities everywhere because there wouldn't be a need for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2008 1:58 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 3:58 PM teen4christ has replied
 Message 47 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2008 4:29 PM teen4christ has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 43 of 405 (452151)
01-29-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by teen4christ
01-29-2008 3:51 PM


Re: Re Singularity
From out of the mouths of babes
Thanks T4C, you'll go far...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by teen4christ, posted 01-29-2008 3:51 PM teen4christ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by teen4christ, posted 01-29-2008 4:01 PM cavediver has replied

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 44 of 405 (452152)
01-29-2008 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by cavediver
01-29-2008 3:58 PM


Re: Re Singularity
One day you'll regret saying that when I'll use everything I'm learning now to effectively prove creationism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 3:58 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2008 4:05 PM teen4christ has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 45 of 405 (452154)
01-29-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by teen4christ
01-29-2008 4:01 PM


Re: Re Singularity
One day you'll regret saying that when I'll use everything I'm learning now to effectively prove creationism
If you demonstrate it using good replicable science, then who's to complain?
But $1000 to the charity of your choice says you don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by teen4christ, posted 01-29-2008 4:01 PM teen4christ has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024