Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Before the Big Bang
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 286 of 311 (414106)
08-02-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by molbiogirl
08-02-2007 6:08 PM


Re: more on singularities
You lucky critter you. As you know, I [heart] physics, but I doubt I could have followed that lecture anyway.
Don't worry - you wouldn't have been alone. For some crazy reason, the lectures had been advertised around town as 'public lectures' open for everyone. So they were packed out with joe-public all expecting something digestible. It was quite embaressing actually. But there was worse. The lectures were being introudced by Sir Michael Atiyah, a genius of a mathematician from the Wizarding School of Mathematics and master of Trinity at the time. At the end of the first lecture, Atiyah stood up, thanked Hawking (or Penrose - can't remember who went first), and invited the audiance to offer up any "pertinent" questions. With that one word, he cast a silence spell over the entire audience. We desperately wracked our brains trying to come up with something worthwhile to say to simply break the god-awful silence!!! In the end, as I remember it, only Atiyah actually asked a question... (though Gibbons may have as well)
Good times...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by molbiogirl, posted 08-02-2007 6:08 PM molbiogirl has not replied

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


Message 287 of 311 (414120)
08-02-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by molbiogirl
08-02-2007 6:08 PM


Re: more on singularities
ICANT. Listen carefully. Duck No. 1.
The big bang is the result of what happened at T=0.
I got no problem with that.
Dr. Hawking:
Classical general relativity cannot predict how the universe will begin.
I got no problem with that.
Duck No. 2.
Wiki:
The singularity theorems use the notion of geodesic incompleteness as a stand-in for the presence of infinite curvatures. Geodesic incompleteness is the notion that there are geodesics, paths of observers through spacetime, that can only be extended for a finite time as measured by an observer traveling along one. Presumably, at the end of the geodesic the observer has fallen into a singularity or encountered some other pathology at which the laws of general relativity break down.
Is this speculation supposed to refute what Dr. Hawking said?
Notion??????????
Presumably??????
paths of observers through spacetime
Sounds like science fiction to me.
Where did the spacetime come from?
Now do you get it?
Sure I get it Dr. Hawking said:
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.
Dr. Hawking's comments on production of singularities.
quote:
The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities at which classical general relativity broke down.
According to what Dr. Hawking said in these quotes I am left with my understanding in:Message 257
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 choose choice #2.
You are free to choose anything you want to believe.
You can jump up and down, scream and shout all you want, blow all kinds of smoke screens but you can not refute the fact that Dr. Hawking made the statements in the above 2 quotes.
Now do you get it?

"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 285 by molbiogirl, posted 08-02-2007 6:08 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2007 1:39 PM ICANT has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 288 of 311 (414168)
08-03-2007 2:51 AM


Summary
I'm off on my jolly holidays but a quick summary. ICANT's original position is this: The big bang is
[A] story about the singularity appearing from nothing and expanding into the universe.
I have not been trying to convince ICANT that the big bang is correct or the best explanation for the cosmos. I have not been trying to convince him that Genesis 1:1 isn't good enough for him. I have simply been trying to show him what cosmologists have concluded with regards to the early universe.
Once again I quote Hawking, in a lecture to an intelligent lay audience, which should clear this up:
Hawking writes:
[After Einstein our view of Time and Space was that] they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of the time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the south pole. It is not defined.
...
Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself predicted the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun.
So, the idea of a before the big bang doesn't make sense, and the singularity theorems of Hawking and Penrose do not say how the universe began only that it had a beginning. ICANT has found a couple of sections of a very complex lecture that he thinks supports his points, but the man himself refutes the idea right there. One problem ICANT seems to have is the insistence that the universe was created and the big bang attempts to explain this. It doesn't, "A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory ... that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after what happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself." -- Brian Greene
If the universe was created, then we need another theory to explain it, relativity (Big Bang) is not up to the task. So the options are not limited to "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" There is a third and fourth option:
3 The universe was created out of something and we need another theory to explain how that happened.
4. The universe is self existing in the same fashion theists sometimes attempt to visualise the prime deity.
I'll allow the reader to make up their mind.
-The singularity is an artefact of an incomplete mathematical model.
-The big bang singularity didn't 'come' from anywhere, it is the Alpha.
-The big bang is not a theory of cosmic origins.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 12:19 PM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 289 of 311 (414214)
08-03-2007 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Modulous
08-03-2007 2:51 AM


Re: Summary
I'm off on my jolly holidays but a quick summary. ICANT's original position is this: The big bang is
Have a happy holiday, may you have good weather.
I have not been trying to convince ICANT that the big bang is correct or the best explanation for the cosmos. I have not been trying to convince him that Genesis 1:1 isn't good enough for him. I have simply been trying to show him what cosmologists have concluded with regards to the early universe.
I thank you for this and commend you on your debating in good faith.
My problem is not with what happened after T=0
But with where this massive amount of matter that form our universe came from.
Modulous writes:
Once again I quote Hawking, in a lecture to an intelligent lay audience, which should clear this up:
Hawking writes:
[After Einstein our view of Time and Space was that] they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of the time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the south pole. It is not defined.
...
Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself predicted the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun.
I have no problem with the universe having a beginning.
I have no problem with science not being able to say how it begun.
I do have a problem with just about everyone telling me I have to accept singularity as the beginning.
I ask where singularity came from? Best answer science has is we don't know.
So I am asked to believe by faith it happened as it is the most accepted scientific theory.
ICANT has found a couple of sections of a very complex lecture that he thinks supports his points, but the man himself refutes the idea right there.
Saying:
quote:
singularity theorems of Penrose and myself predicted the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun.
Does not refute:
Dr. Hawking writes:
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.
The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities at which classical general relativity broke down.
Lectures the nature of space and time at: The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
The statement:
gravity curls up spacetime....
(it) Spacetime has a beginning and an end.
The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities.
No gravity No Spacetime.
No Spacetime No singularity.
No singularity No big bang.
Therefore if singularity happened it had to happen out of an absence of anything.
I am not saying this is what happened.
I am saying that with the foregoing information that is the only logical conclusion that I can come to.
If the universe was created, then we need another theory to explain it, relativity (Big Bang) is not up to the task.
The universe is definitely here and it had to come from somewhere, or did it?
Modulous points out my choices I came to the conclusion that existed in Message 257
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"
Modulous adds other possibilities.
Modulous writes:
There is a third and fourth option:
3 The universe was created out of something and we need another theory to explain how that happened.
4. The universe is self existing in the same fashion theists sometimes attempt to visualise the prime deity.
#3 would be a possibility but as I understand it no one is looking into that possibility only trying to prove the big bang model by shoring it up with some type of string theory.
#4 is a definite possibility as you can incorporate this one into my understanding of Genesis 1:1.
As I have stated in earlier posts I am an eternalist. I believe the universe has always been here in some form or other and will always exist in some form.
-The singularity is an artefact of an incomplete mathematical model.
If by artefact you are referring to Philosophy I agree.
-The big bang singularity didn't 'come' from anywhere, it is the Alpha.
Alpha the first letter of the Greek alphabet, the beginning.
The big bang singularity may not have come from anywhere but it had to exist somewhere.
If the big bang was the beginning of everything there was an absence of anything for the singularity to exist in.
-The big bang is not a theory of cosmic origins.
I agree.
I'll allow the reader to make up their mind.
Nice thought but they will do that anyway.
What I have been trying to point out is that Science does not have all the answers, far from it.
But there are those who have come to believe their conclusion which much of it has to be based on faith that they have made a religion out of Science.
This is the worst possible thing that could happen to True Science as Science as I understand it must have open fresh minds to proceed forward.
I leave the reader with this thought.
A quote from Dr. Hawking which he made in the lectures I have been referencing. Dr. Hawking probably made this statement not meaning it to be a complement. But it was the most profound statement that I found that he made.
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)
You decide, your decision determines your destiny.

"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 288 by Modulous, posted 08-03-2007 2:51 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by jar, posted 08-03-2007 1:41 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 292 by Son Goku, posted 08-03-2007 1:59 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 294 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2007 2:37 PM ICANT has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 311 (414217)
08-03-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by ICANT
08-02-2007 8:41 PM


Re: more on singularities
Can you even admit that it is poosible that you are misunderstanding what Prof. Hawking said about spacetime having a beginning and an end?
He is NOT saying that the universe came from an absense of anything. You have misunderstood him. "Beginning and end" are describing something other than the birth/death of our universe.
Can you not see that as a possibility?
Or are you going to continue to make yourself look like an idiotic asshole by closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and screaming "La, La, La!, Hawking says the universe cane from nothing!"???!!!!!!!!?????
Man, your pissing me off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2007 8:41 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 291 of 311 (414218)
08-03-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by ICANT
08-03-2007 12:19 PM


Summary including nonsense and irrelevancies.
When you add thoughts like
You decide, your decision determines your destiny.
which is not only simply totally fallacious, but also irrelevant and silly, all you do is diminish the value of anything you post as well as make God look like a petulant little child.
Your posited "God did it" tells us nothing, has no relevance to the issue of "Before the Big Bang" and is totally content free. In addition, it is no more supported than
quote:
When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 12:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 3:40 PM jar has not replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 311 (414221)
08-03-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by ICANT
08-03-2007 12:19 PM


Re: Summary
The electric field I don't get as it takes x energy to get x amps.
No it doesn't, not always. Very close to an electron, the electric field is really a "gas" of virtual photons and ampage would be a useless concept.
(Not to mention that ampage measures current, not the electric field itself.)
Is this speculation supposed to refute what Dr. Hawking said?
Notion??????????
Presumably??????
paths of observers through spacetime
Sounds like science fiction to me.
Really, do you actually understand the piece you quoted? In that piece Hawking is describing the standard technique used to find where singularities are located in a given solution to Einstein's Equations.
I do have a problem with just about everyone telling me I have to accept singularity as the beginning.
I ask where singularity came from? Best answer science has is we don't know.
So I am asked to believe by faith it happened as it is the most accepted scientific theory.
No. Look, a singularity is where a specific quantity becomes nonsensical.
Physics comes with its own lingo and it makes no sense to rant on and on about it unless you specifically understand what that lingo means.
The Big Bang singularity is not a "thing", it marks an early point in the universe where distance and curvature break down as sensical concepts. Hence it makes no sense to say where it came from. Replace the word singularity with "The point early in the universe's history where distance breaks down as a concept".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 12:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 3:02 PM Son Goku has replied

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


Message 293 of 311 (414224)
08-03-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2007 1:39 PM


Re: more on singularities
Hawking says the universe cane from nothing!"???!!!!!!!!?????
I did not say Dr. Hawking said the universe came from nothing.
I said if he was correct about what he said in his lecture as I have quoted numerous times that:
The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities...
Gravity curls up spacetime so that it has a begining and an end.
Then:
No gravity no beginning of spacetime.
No spacetime no singularity.
No singularity no big bang.
Gravity supposedly came after the big bang.
If that is true then the singularity that the universe came from had to be somewhere which did not exist until after the big bang.
That means if the universe came from singularity the singularity had to come from an absence of anything.
Who has the blinders on?

"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 290 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2007 1:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2007 2:48 PM ICANT has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 294 of 311 (414225)
08-03-2007 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by ICANT
08-03-2007 12:19 PM


Another try at explaining
I'm going to try an help too. Of course, that may only make things worse but I'm not sure anyone has noted one problem.
You are told that spacetime originated with the big bang. Since spacetime is everything there is that we know you conclude from this that the big bang came from "nothing". As nonsensical as it sounds this is not a correct conclusion.
Spacetime is a very well defined thing in general relativity. Space and time as we use the terms in English are not really all that well defined. We kind of take them as obvious. What Einstein showed us is that what we take as obvious is wrong.
Since the definition of spacetime is a GR concept and GR breaks down (becomes meaningless; does not apply) at the point we have been calling T=0 (or the singularity) there is no spacetime definable at that point. Our English words of "before", "after", "from" etc. no longer have a proper meaning.
However, that doesn't mean that there isn't an "anything" for all this to come from. That "anything" simply won't be something defined by GR. It won't be space or time as we bumble about trying to use those terms.
Maybe it will be a umpteen dimensional hypertime thingymabob; Something barely graspable outside of mathematics defining it but not "nothing". Though you should note that even defining "nothing" can be tricky in this context.
That may or may not leave a gap for a god to sit in. We simply don't know what it will look like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 12:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 3:26 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 306 by Rob, posted 08-04-2007 1:06 AM NosyNed has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 311 (414229)
08-03-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by ICANT
08-03-2007 2:36 PM


Re: more on singularities
Who has the blinders on?
You do.
That means if the universe came from singularity the singularity had to come from an absence of anything.
No, it doesn't.
If that is true then the singularity that the universe came from had to be somewhere which did not exist until after the big bang.
Wrong. The singularity did not have to arrise because of gravity.
No gravity no beginning of spacetime.
This is your false premise.
Gravity curls up spacetime so that it has a begining and an end.
This is the formation of A singularity. This is not how the singularity formed (the one that our universe arrose from).
That is where your misunderstanding is.
Now do you understand?
Or are you just going to re-post the sameold bullshit you have, what?, like 10 times now?
It really does make you look foolish.
But I think that you will continue to choose to beLIEve and choose to be blind to the facts so that you can continue to believe that somehow the science is ridiculous and your Gen1:1 has value.
You are disingenuous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 2:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 3:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 296 of 311 (414234)
08-03-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Son Goku
08-03-2007 1:59 PM


Re: Summary
Really, do you actually understand the piece you quoted? In that piece Hawking is describing the standard technique used to find where singularities are located in a given solution to Einstein's Equations.
I think I do maybe I don't.
Notion=Idea
Presumably=thinking it to be so.
paths of observers through spacetime=wormholes
Sounds like science fiction to me.=Something Eugene Wesley Roddenberry dreamed up.
it marks an early point in the universe where distance and curvature break down as sensical concepts.
But Son Goku, there was no universe until after the big bang.
There was only an absence of anything.
So where could this point you are referencing exist, in other words where did it come from? God? Tooth Fairy? Santa Clause?
Unless you want to go the route of some form of string theory or bounce theory. But that was not the discussion.
Thanks for the info on the electric field. I only made electricity, used it, and respected it, never tried to understand it.

"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 292 by Son Goku, posted 08-03-2007 1:59 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Son Goku, posted 08-03-2007 3:31 PM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 297 of 311 (414237)
08-03-2007 3:10 PM


Summary includng Pictures
Oh well, who cares about VAT returns... nothing like a cosmology thread summary to distract you from urgent work.
ICANT has almost completely failed to understand Hawking's lectures... no disgrace as this is not beginners' stuff. However he does disgrace himself in assuming that he does understand it and by making idiotic statements such as
#3 would be a possibility but as I understand it no one is looking into that possibility only trying to prove the big bang model by shoring it up with some type of string theory.
We also have
My problem is not with what happened after T=0
But with where this massive amount of matter that form our universe came from.
Which is a separate issue from much of what has been discussed but is simply a misunderstanding of the nature of mass/matter. If the Universe has an earliest time, it does not need an injection of mass/energy at this point. Mass and matter are aspects of the Universe itself - ripples in its struture. One cannot insert pre-existing rippples into the Universe - this is nonsense.
Ok, we have confused ourselves with various T=0 scenarios so I thought some pictures were in order...
Here we have ths standard big bang scenario. The black dot is the singularity and the universe expands away from this point through time (vertical) and space (horizontal) This is essentailly the south pole region of our globe analogy. I have left the top of th universe off as we don't know yet whether it will close back up or spread apart for ever. The globe analogy assumes it closes back up but this is far from certain and probably unlikely given current evidence. I should also stress that the Universe is the surface of this cup/cone shape. Inside/outside/above/below (the white region) is non-existence. You cannot say any point outside the Universe is 'before' or 'after' the Universe because these points simply do not exist. They are simply there for us to be able to take a God's-eye view on the Universe.
Now, the first major attempt to get a quantum correction to the big bang picture was with the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal. It makes a huge difference to the above picture... see:
Spot the difference What Hawking and Hartle managed to do was remove the annoying singularity, and replace that region with a nice bit of Euclidean space where 'time' is simply a spatial dimension. It is only as you move upwards does time smoothly become its familiar self with causal and temporal properties. There was no 'before' in the first picture, but now there is DEFINITELY NO BEFORE!!! as there is simply no time-like dimension in the vicinity of the point of interest!
That's the 'Universe with an earliest time' dealt with. Now we come to:
Here the quantum corrections have revealed that the Universe did not begin at T=0 of the big bang, but emerged from an earlier time. This enlarged Universe may well have been eternal, stretching back infinitely into the past... or it may well have an earliest time, just not at T=0, but at T=-?? somewhere to south of our diagram.
Finally, the Universe may well be embedded within a larger space-time - larger in physical size, number of dimensions, or it may have a very different nature altogether - and multiple universes may well be springing into existence with their own big bangs:
This picture represents a whole range of possibilities: chaotic inflation, ekpyrotic universe, the 'Landscape' of string theory, etc. Of course, the question is then where did this larger Universe come from? Any of the possibilities we have considered so far could equally apply to this larger space...
Ok, so how does God possibly fit into any of these pictures? The most common idea, espoused here by ICANT but also many theists, the Vatican , etc, etc is also the most incorrect from a relativists point of view:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Here we see God magicking the Universe into existence at T=0, and the Universe evolving on from here. The probloem is this presupposes 'time' as continuing outside the Universe, 'before' its existence. The more 'logical' view is:
This retains time and space as integral parts of the Universe. And if the Universe is eternal and has no beginning... does this preclude creation? Of course not...
Hope this clears the muddy water a little... if not, start a new thread and I'll try and devote some time. Now, about that VAT return

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 3:38 PM cavediver has replied

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


Message 298 of 311 (414241)
08-03-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2007 2:48 PM


Re: more on singularities
This is the formation of A singularity. This is not how the singularity formed (the one that our universe arrose from).
Ok you are saying Dr. Hawking told us how A singularity was formed.
Would you care to inform me and the world where the singularity our universe arose from came from or how it was formed?
Or do you prefer to keep your head in the sand, and just come up and rant every now and then.

"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 295 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2007 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 299 of 311 (414242)
08-03-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by NosyNed
08-03-2007 2:37 PM


Re: Another try at explaining
Hi Ned,
However, that doesn't mean that there isn't an "anything" for all this to come from. That "anything" simply won't be something defined by GR. It won't be space or time as we bumble about trying to use those terms.
Ned I have no problem with there being somewhere for the singularity to come from. As in string theory of some sort or bounce theory.
I do have a problem with the singularity as I find it in Dr. Hawking's lectures and all the other information I find on the different web sites about singularity.
Some of the posters have a problem with reading english statements and understanding what they say. They have to incorporate their personal knowledge and beliefs into what they read.

"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 294 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2007 2:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Chiroptera, posted 08-03-2007 3:34 PM ICANT has not replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 311 (414243)
08-03-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by ICANT
08-03-2007 3:02 PM


Re: Summary
Notion=Idea
Presumably=thinking it to be so.
I'm asking about the technical terms.
paths of observers through spacetime=wormholes
No. "Paths of observers" refers to the collection of points in spacetime that an observer (piece of matter) occupies.
But Son Goku, there was no universe until after the big bang.
Maybe, maybe not. The standard Big Bang Theory doesn't make claims either way.
There was only an absence of anything.
I have no idea what this means. In the standard Big Bang theory there is no general "null" state or anything.
So where could this point you are referencing exist, in other words where did it come from?
This is the crux of the debate and you take a point of view that I don't understand. Your claim is that because we don't know the physics preceding this point it somehow invalidates physics afterwards?
What has been said here repeatedly is that the Big Bang is a theory of the universe's evolution after a certain point. You appear to be criticising this based on the fact that we don't know where the universe as a whole comes from.
Why?
Surely you don't need to understand the origins of something in order to model it from a certain point onward. For example if a fisherman asks the weather station will it be stormy later based on the weather now, he won't criticise them for not explaining where weather comes from in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 3:02 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by ICANT, posted 08-04-2007 2:46 AM Son Goku 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