|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Before Big Bang God or Singularity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
So are you saying there was space-time before the Big Bang? No, of course not...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
It is impossible according to what you say in the above quotes for us to be having this conversation What? Based on your phenomenal understanding of physics? Well, I guess I must concede the point. Well done, you've proved God created the Universe. Are you going to be on TV tomorrow? If so, I'll look out for you. Goodnight
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I think what we have discussed does prove what many even Hawking was putting forth in his unbounded theory is that we need something better than the Big Bang Theory You think you with your armchair musing and infinitesimal knowledge of the subject have managed to understand ANYTHING, never mind 'proving' something in a field of study covered by thousands of the brightest scientists in the world... you have not listened to anything that has been explained to you in this thread. You have your deluded conclusions and you're sticking with them. Well done. I guess it's true about old dogs... What we have proved is that you have an arrogance and pride beyond belief that you will be called upon to explain one day... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Let's try this another way...
It is impossible according to what you say in the above quotes for us to be having this conversation. No, it is not impossible. Why do you claim this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The multiverse theory is the only attractive alternative to answering the question of the First Cause without invoking the supernatural No, not at all. There are several ideas...
If we understand singularity to be the nanoseconds prior to Planck's Time, where energy was infinitesimal, then we still are dealing with why and how something -- anything -- can come from absolute nothingness. No, we're not. Something does not 'come' from nothing. But you are assuming that the thing it comes from has to be 'before'. Why is that?
This is precisely why questions of origin are so appealing to so many people. Its a fascinating subject. The only problem is that even in our advanced technological state, we are still as clueless to answering that questions now than when we first started asking it. Those outside the field are clueless - just like everyone is clueless about the frontiers of any discipline other than those working at that frontier.
The Hawking solution, which seems to be just pretend that such a question about the singularity is immaterial, is begging the question. No disrespect, Nem, but the No-Boundary proposal is physics so advanced that whatever it 'seems' is immaterial. Let me assure you that there is no pretending, and there certainly is no begging the question.
If one cannot go beyond the North Pole, it doesn't negate what North means in relation to the laws of physics. Yes, it definietly does. That is the point of the analogy. At T=0 in classical big bang, or in no-boundary, there is no concept of before. But as I asked earlier, if you are looking for a cause, why does it have to be in the past?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I'm going to sleep, so will reply in the morning...
But I'll just leave you with this:
I was just relaying the only theories that seemed plausible to me. That seems rather axiomatic to me. It seems everyone is clueless in that arena, even brilliant cosmologists, whose real power seems to lie in jargon. That also may be a straw man where someone will say that its so complicated that no explanation is either necessary, nor will it suffice. I mean, isn't that the very definition of the singularity -- the point at which time-space, matter, and energy came in to existence? Doesn't actually sound like I need to reply; you seem to have it all figured out. In how many other ultra-technical frontier sciences are you an expert, or have you just specialised in this one? goodnight
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Would it be in the general direction of the North Star. Yes it would... wow, I forgot that North is straight-up oh dear, it is too late for this level of humour stimulation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
It can't be in the future. No definately not. Really? I wish I'd known you were such an expert on space-time physics. Why can it not be in the future? BTW, it is 'definitely' - think of it as de-finite, you won't go wrong again... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
ICANT writes: So are you saying there was space-time before the Big Bang? cavediver writes: No, of course not... You said there was no space-time before Big Bang = T=0+. No I did not You should read what I said... I said that I was NOT saying that "there was space-time before the Big Bang" It simply makes no sense. There is no 'before' so it impossible to talk about it. Of course there is space-time. The singularity is surrounded by it. The singularity is a feature of that space-time, and arises because of the nature of that space-time. Simple...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Thanks for the spelling correction. It's an old error of mine, so I always notice it
Then we don't exist and this exchange never took place yet. You keep saying this and I have no idea why.
Now are you are talking about it happening in the future again? Yes, so what? We are talking about theories of space-time and existence here. You don't expect it to be obvious, common sense, and easy to understand did you?
According to the Bible this universe I really don't trust the Bible as a cosmology textbook, but even so, how does this negate what I am saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Where that space-time came from? I'm not sure what this means - all possible 'froms' are contained within the space-time.
Who or what created it? Why should it need creating? Why can it not just be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If it has always existed and the Big Bang Theory is that it came into existence then the Big Bang Theory is False. Although it is vaguely amusing watching you make such proclamations from a position of near complete ignorance, please justify this statement. Why is the Big Bang false?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
thus far you seem to condescend to people without giving explanations. I thrive off explaining this science to those with a desire to learn, because I love educating (why it was my career for so long) and I love this science (why I was a scientist in this field) But I condescend to those that think they can make bold claims in a field with which they have but the most passing aquaintance - and not only any field but one of the most esoteric and far removed from common sense in the whole of scientific endeavour.
No one needs be an expert with the givens No, they don't, especially if they don't mind naively spouting unadulterated bullshit. This is quantum mechanics and general relativity all rolled up together... do you want to dare to tell me what the givens are???? This is my field, and I'm not confident that I would ever claim that something is a given.
If they are not, then an explanation as to why not would be helpful -- far more so than condescending to people. Let me explain:
If there is no actual singularity, then there was no beginning. I think - arsehole
Surely if there is no actual singularity, then there was no beginning? I think - oh bugger, how am I going to expalin this...? oh, I know... Sorry to use one of your examples, but it was to hand. I should really be using any of the far worse statements that ICANT repeats in every one of his hundred-odd posts in this thread. That said - look at my post 13, and your reply 101. I don't see many questions there - I see posturing and half-baked nonsense claims. Why? Do you really think you understand what Hawking is saying well enough to be able to claim that he is question-begging??? Really? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Would you care to refute my conclusions that are based upon those two learned men or are we going to dance around here for another 130 plus post with my conclusions still not refuted. When a gentleman approaches with his underpants on his head, a pencil up each nostril, and announces 'wibble', one's first reaction is typically not 'I must refute this'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I'll go on record saying that I've learned a whole hell of a lot from you Thanks, I can tell It's nice being to sit back and watch you, Mod and Rahvin do the work
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024