An honest answer for a newbie, please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
I am wondering: Where did the gasses that caused the BB originated?

---

No BB theory I know of posits that gasses caused the BB.I think what you are really asking is what caused the BB, and the honest answer is that nobody knows. The idea of causality doesn't even apply as space and time did not exist prior to the BB. No space, no time == no causality.The physics we understand do not work at a singularity. At a singularity the equations get filled with zeros and infinity and things get very weird. Think of it as trying to do what your math teachers tell you not to do-- divide by zero.The most intriguing idea for me at the moment is the observable phenomena of zero point energy. Basically, sub-atomic particles pop into and out-off existence and do so quite regularly. One such quantum fluctuation could have been our start.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
Question: (It's hard to ask without sounding snotty, excuse.) Who told you that?

---

Stephen Hawking for one.

quote:

---

The BB obviously had to have a cause.

---

No it obviously didn't. You are looking at this from a perspective inside of space and time-- ie. the world we live in. Causality is tied to that space and time. Prior to the BB.... well, there was no prior because there was no space and no time. You cannot have a cause when there was no preceeding moment. Got it?

quote:

---

If it did not, then we are forced to admit that all material is infinite

---

I'm not sure how you derived this.What we are forced to admit is a huge unknown. None of the math works. The physical laws that we know break down at a singularity. Nothing works.

quote:

---

If I understand correctly, you are saying the BB had no cause? Please clarify.

---

At least no cause in the way we understand cause and effect. It simply doesn't apply.Science cannot reach that far back, even in theory.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JJboy:
[B]
And how does he know? Was he there before the BB? He can only guess, same as you or me. [/quote][/b]Hawking is one of the leading minds in cosmology. I won't tell you or anybody else to accept his conclusions based on that alone. That would be an appeal to authority and I don't do that. But it is a mistake to ignore the work of people who have spent their lives trying to answer these questions.

quote:

---

Got it. But I do not agree. So the Big Bang just happened? But I will call a truce on this, because neither you nor I can prove our point. I can not prove that the Big Bang didn't happen to you, and you can't explain that it did happen, based on these arguments.

---

It works like this. Cosmologists study whatever data is available-- cosmic background radiation, galactic velocities, whatever. Then, based on that data, construct a model which produces the same results. It is like reverse engineering a piece of software. The model that explains the most data wins. The BB, at the moment, is the best contender for the title.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 09-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by steppjr:
If you read the new book the universe in a nutshell you will hear the latest idea as to what was around before the big bang. It has to do with the fact that there are more than the 3 dimensions that we see. There are 11 dimensions to the world; just we don’t see them all as we do the three spatial ones. The theory says that the explosion that created our universe might have happened inside one of the other 7 dimensions that are outside our own. And this other dimension is thought to be infinitely large. I hope this has answered your question. This would also allow the laws of physics to exist before out universe was created. This is the same idea as I posted before about the brane worlds.

​

[This message has been edited by steppjr, 09-04-2002]

---

Hawkings book is good one, but remember the part in there about there not being any strong experimental evidence for the brane theories? The jury is still out.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
anyway, you appear to be saying "that which begins to exist has no cause" or "for *every* effect there isn't a necessary cause" or something like that... is this in fact the case?

---

Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. Remove time and space and try to imagine causality. It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
in your opinion, did the universe 1) begin to exist or has it 2) always existed?

---

There is a pretty good case for the former and a pretty good case against the latter. In both cases using the concept of beginning almost colloquially.

quote:

---

if 1), do you affirm or deny the premises "that which begins to exist has a cause"...

---

This is where what I said earlier has relevance. Cause and effect exist in the space-time we inhabit. However, at the extremes -- black holes and singularities-- all the rules change. In other words, in the case of the universe itself, the question simply doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

note that i'm not asking you for any kind of explanation as to *when* the cause existed, if it existed, given the nature of space/time, i merely want to know if you affirm or deny the above premise

---

But you are asking *when* Cause and effect requires an element of time. This, I think, is the part you are missing.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, that's fine... in that case, the universe either is or isn't on a scale greater than a planck length.. all i kept asking john was whether or not he affirmed or denied a certain premise.. it seems very difficult to get an answer to that question, which makes me wonder why

​

---

Do you want the honest complicated answer, which is what I gave you, or do you want the simple dishonest one?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest... i have no idea from anything you wrote whether or not you believe that "that which begins to exist has a cause"... it's a simple question, and how in the world can an honest answer to a simple question be dishonest? but if you wish to categorize it as such, then i want the simple dishonest (sic) answer

​

---

It isn't a simple question. It is a question about the fundamental structure of reality. You don't seem to realize that.Within the boundaries of our experience things seem to most often have causes. Outside of that experience all bets are off. Space-time collapses at the extremes. What happens at those point is not known.Ever heard of the Casimir effect? It is worth looking into. It appears to be a measure of the force exerted by particles spontaneously popping into and quickly back out off existence.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest...

---

I am sorry that you do not understand but I cannot force you to think outside of your trick question.

quote:

---

it goes without saying that if a premise is false so is the conclusion

---

Actually you are a bit confused here as well. False premises do not make the conclusion false. The premises can be wrong and the conclusion still be true. Like this:The earth is rubber
Rubber is sentient
Therefore, John lives on earth.See. Bad premises. Invalid argument, but the conclusion is nonetheless true.False premises mean that the conclusion is unsupported by the argument, not that the conclusion is false in any absolute sense.

quote:

---

(i) that which begins to exist has a cause

​

(ii) john (he of the non-answers to whom i write) began to exist

​

therefore, john had a cause

---

You, of course, forgot to mention the conditions of causality which I have been trying to explain to you.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Forgiven has put the question in its simplest form, a) do you believe that the big bang was consisted out of ordinary materia or energy.
:yes.

---

I don't remember this question having ever been posed. Secondly, the answer you give is your answer, not mine. What exactly is 'ordinary materia or energy'?

quote:

---

b)Hasent every observable materia or energy had a cause.(even the casimir effect wich is caused by "space-time").
:yes.

---

You are absolutely right, Delshad. What forgiven and now you seem to be missing is that NO ONE has ever observed conditions anywhere near those of the BB. Everything we think we know about time and causality gets thoroughly screwed. Why is this hard to understand?You are applying ideas which are dependent upon the EXISTING STRUCTURE of SPACETIME to the origin of spacetime.

quote:

---

c)I must then state that the first cause has had to be made by a being that stands above all physical laws ,whom is the prime-mover, the only uncaused being.
:No, at the beginning there was no "space", therefore no "time" therefore your theory stays false.

---

LOL.....You understand the concept when you are talking about God but garble it otherwise. That is funny.That there was no space and no time at the beginning is exactly my POINT. How exactly does that falsify itself?Well, if I could imagine to picture the first cause in my head, and then imagine stepping into that picture.
What is to stop me from standing next to that very first cause, a wall with a zero volume?, nothingness?, well, I dont mind that, I will just hold my breath and cut through that "thin" wall and step into that nothingness thus prove you wrong,beacuse where I am standing there is a space, thus there is time thus ive pointed out out your fallacy with your theory of an infinite regress.Im standing in it and you tell me, what is stopping me from standing right beside the original cause? Sincerely Delshad[This message has been edited by Delshad, 11-14-2002][/B][/QUOTE]------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
hi quetzal... my argument is both sound and valid...

---

Your argument is a deductive argument. You are subtracting out a subset of the whole. This is fine. The problem is with the definition of the whole, which is premise #1. In premise #1 you define the set of things-which-begin-to-exist. It is this premise that is the subject of criticism. Maybe that hasn't been clear to you?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
what's clear is your reluctance to answer simple and straightforward questions... when you say the major premise is the subject of criticism, can i (at long last) take it to mean you do *not* agree with it?... or will you again refuse to go on record as to your thoughts?

​

---

My thoughts have been on record since my first reply to you. Sadly, they do not fit into the box you have constructed.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by graedek:
Guide to the World's Philosophers - philosophers.co.uk

​

curious on your thoughts of this article

---

It strikes me as being pretty descriptive of how science actually works. I'd venture the statement that other arenas function the same way, not just science. Maybe you have a more specific question? Comment? I don't know if I'm on the right track.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Your 'explanation' seems to be only correct in rhetoric, but completely inapplicable in reality. This sounds like sophistry.

​

---

Nope, it is a simple reference to the fact that at a singularity what we call causality breaks down-- as per most theories. There isn't much to it really. At the BB singularity, prior to space-time, causality simply doesn't apply.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--You have no singularity either. A singularity is an 'asymptote' in space-time. You have neither of these to work with. So, do you have the resources to answer my questions?

---

TC, call it what you will. It makes not difference. The point is that causality is tied to space-time-- causality as we know it anyway. Causality implies time and space. No spacetime, there goes our comfy rules of causality as well. Now maybe there is causality without space and time but it isn't what we know from experience within spacetime.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com