Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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 Big Bang God or Singularity
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 181 of 405 (453198)
02-01-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by cavediver
02-01-2008 4:22 PM


Re=T=0
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
I can do that, but I need you to promise to stop running off with mad conclusions - in my first post in this thread, I presented quite a bit of information and given the responses I sorely regretted getting involved in this thread. I'm doing my VAT return, so time is at a premium this weekend.
Whenever.
But this past Tuesday night and Wednesday morning would have been the best time when we averaged over 1,000 visitors for several hours.
God Bless,

"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 178 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2008 4:22 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 182 of 405 (453206)
02-01-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by ICANT
02-01-2008 4:43 PM


How can you discuss these when everything stops at T=0.
The question makes no sense. If everything stops at T=0, then there wouldn't be T>0.
The only explanation for your question not making sense is that you are still thinking of the universe as a 3d entity with time independently ticking away - which is not accurate.
Mod the last time I check this was EvC. Evolution verses Creation.
And this is the cosmology forum. I gave you two non-religious models and two creationistic models of how the universe came to be. On the other hand, you gave a model that is not about how the universe came to exist and a single creation model about how the universe came to exist. You see why this is a problem?
You want to discuss which model is best for explaining the origins of the universe, I gave four such models:
1. It has no origin, it just exists.
2. It has an origin, the thing it comes from has no origin.
3. It was originated by a deity that has no origin.
4. It was originated by a deity that has an origin.
The reason that the discussion isn't moving forward is because we are trying to explain why the big bang model is not about the origins of the universe. If you want to discuss actual models about the origins of the universe, then that is great. If you want to insist that a model that is not proposed to explain the origin of the universe does not explain the origin of the universe - then you go right ahead...you'll excuse the rest of us for not being interested and trying to steer the conversation into the real world.
Hopefully we can move on and discuss actual proposals about the origin of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 4:43 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by tesla, posted 02-01-2008 5:40 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 185 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 5:57 PM Modulous has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 183 of 405 (453228)
02-01-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Modulous
02-01-2008 5:05 PM


The only explanation for your question not making sense is that you are still thinking of the universe as a 3d entity with time independently ticking away - which is not accurate.
ok. good. it should be apparent that T=0 would be defined either: chance, or direction for the point after it.
this means, intelligence, or not intelligent.
regardless of its complexity.
if science determines, that chance is impossible for either an ordered or disordered energy to beget of itself as it would exist singularly, then it would mean intelligence.
this means : that religion is based on the T=0 energy to be true, and not based on a God that exists outside of that energy, which would be impossible. another way to put this is: "because nothing can exist outside of existence" but it may not be understood by that terminology.
so to continue:
t=0 energy, multiple realities, all existing in one singular state and great complexity:
singular timeless complex energy from whence all things came:
intelligent? not intelligent? ordered energy? chaotic energy?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 5:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 5:57 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 184 of 405 (453233)
02-01-2008 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by tesla
02-01-2008 5:40 PM


if science determines, that chance is impossible for either an ordered or disordered energy to beget of itself as it would exist singularly, then it would mean intelligence.
It is ordered energy: If you are talking in a theromdynamic sense, then it stands to reason that if 'disorder' is increasing into the future, it must be less in the past. The Big Bang represents the highest 'order' the universe has ever possessed.
Then, chance doesn't come into it. The tendency for energy to dissipate (and the tendency for space to inflate) makes it a necessity. Probability is really only considered in the specifics.
How the early universe could have this seemingly highly improbable state is interesting, and 'Fabric of the Cosmos', Brian Greene, has an interesting discussion of it.
That was something of a digression, but its all I understood from your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by tesla, posted 02-01-2008 5:40 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by tesla, posted 02-01-2008 6:08 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 185 of 405 (453234)
02-01-2008 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Modulous
02-01-2008 5:05 PM


Re-Orgin
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
The reason that the discussion isn't moving forward is because we are trying to explain why the big bang model is not about the origins of the universe. If you want to discuss actual models about the origins of the universe, then that is great. If you want to insist that a model that is not proposed to explain the origin of the universe does not explain the origin of the universe - then you go right ahead...you'll excuse the rest of us for not being interested and trying to steer the conversation into the real world.
I can understand the delima whih my sticking to my point. Which is
Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe.
"we are trying to explain why the big bang model is not about the origins of the universe."
But if I do a Yahoo search on Big Bang theory I get:
This
Which says this
The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.
and this Which says this
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
and this which says:
Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.
and this which says:
The Question
(Submitted November 08, 1997)
What is the big bang theory? What do you believe?
The Answer
The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since.
This has been well-established by observations, such as the apparent movement of galaxies away from us, and the cosmic microwave background radiation believed to be the leftover light from the big bang.
The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case.
However, if your real question is "why did the big bang happen in the first place?" then that ceases to be an astronomical question, but a religious one.
Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth ...
However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the ``why'' questions than anyone else.
On the other hand, it is safe to say that as scientists we can agree on an approach to learning about nature and the universe. This approach is one of using observations to test theories. And when a theory has been tested as much as the big bang theory, with each test reconfirming its validity, then we believe that it likely true -- at least more true than those theories which have failed the observational tests.
Good luck on your quest for the truth.
Jonathan Keohane
for Ask an Astrophysicist
Then I get serious and I find this:
Best Paytm Cash Earning Games in India | Free Apps to Win Cash online
Which says:
“For thousands of years, people have wondered about the universe. Did it stretch out forever or was there a limit? And where did it all come from? Did the universe have a beginning, a moment of creation? Or had the universe existed forever? The debate between these two views raged for centuries without reaching any conclusions. Personally, I’m sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang. But will it go on forever? If not, how will it end? I’m much less certain about that. The expansion of the universe spreads everything out, but gravity tries to pull it all back together again. Our destiny depends on which force will win.” ”Stephen Hawking
I am told be serious that is a PBS article quoting Hawking.
So I find this:
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
Hawking on the beginning.
Public Lectures - The Beginning of Time
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.
Hawking said:" but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted."
Now this man is held in very high regard around here.
Who or what am I supposed to believe you or him?
Do you see my delima?
God Bless,

"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 182 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 5:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 6:55 PM ICANT has replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 405 (453235)
02-01-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ICANT
01-31-2008 3:48 PM


Re: Orgin
ICANT writes:
Son, did the Big Bang spawn out of a singularity?
No, or to be more accurate the question makes no sense.
The singularity is the mathematical breakdown of GR, so things do not "come out of it".
I will cut the analogies and attempt to make this crystal clear. The Big Bang is the theory that the universe has been expanding for the past several billion years from an initially very small state. Not an infinitely small state, simply small. Small like a flea for example.
Before this point nobody knows what happened, because everything breaks down. However "nobody knows what happened" is not equivalent to "It happened like Genesis 1 says".
That is were things stand. The Big Bang describes the early history of the universe, but not how/why it exists. However the Big Bang is correct, as observations support it. There is no better theory of the early universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 01-31-2008 3:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 6:06 PM Son Goku has not replied
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 6:31 PM Son Goku has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 405 (453237)
02-01-2008 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by cavediver
02-01-2008 3:22 PM


Re: ... In the beginning
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)
I guess I'm waiting for the punchline or some explanation as to why singularity has no relevance to space-time, especially when it is a point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.
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.
Common sense would say that something coming from nothing is preposterous. Again, no PhD's required for axioms. But if you have some legitimate reason for your assertion, then please present it so that we all can learn.
quote:
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????
Something doesn't come from nothing. That is a given. If it is not, I would be most interested in hearing why it is otherwise.
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.
Its nonsense to think that the cause of everything is inconsequential? That's half-baked nonsense?
Do you really think you understand what Hawking is saying well enough to be able to claim that he is question-begging??? Really?
I've read a couple of books by Hawking, particularly where his famous dictum comes from, which is. I believe, The theory of everything. This book is not technical. In fact, he wrote in such a way so that even people with a passing knowledge of astrophysics could get a grasp.
You seem to think that I am misinterpreting what he meant by his north pole analogy. If so, explain what I'm not getting.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2008 3:22 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 6:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 191 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2008 6:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 188 of 405 (453240)
02-01-2008 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Son Goku
02-01-2008 5:59 PM


Re: Orgin
Just wanted to add one little thing to what you've said, Son Goku.
I will cut the analogies and attempt to make this crystal clear.
ICANT. The Big Bang is just a nickname. It does not mean there was an explosion. Let me repeat that. It. does. not. mean. there. was. an. explosion.
A singularity is not a "thing". Nothing can "come out of it" because it is a mathematical expression, not a physical object.
You seem to think that a singularity is a very, very tiny dot that then exploded into the universe.
FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Son Goku, posted 02-01-2008 5:59 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 6:26 PM molbiogirl has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 189 of 405 (453244)
02-01-2008 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Modulous
02-01-2008 5:57 PM


ok, so T=0 is : timeless ordered energy spanning multiple realities.
so, since its ordered, and it spawned the universe and time, does this mean:
intelligent? or not intelligent?
does not a singular ordered timeless energy mean : intelligent?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 5:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 7:07 PM tesla has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 190 of 405 (453245)
02-01-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Hyroglyphx
02-01-2008 6:01 PM


Re: ... In the beginning
You are making cavediver's point with your obvious ignorance of basic physics. High school level physics.
Common sense would say that something coming from nothing is preposterous.
No physicist would argue that "something came out of nothing".
The question shows just how very little you understand.
Its nonsense to think that the cause of everything is inconsequential? That's half-baked nonsense?
No. What's nonsense is someone who can't even grasp rudimentary concepts purports to speak for Prof. Hawkings (as ICANT has done on too many occasions to count).
I've read a couple of books by Hawking, particularly where his famous dictum comes from, which is. I believe, The theory of everything. This book is not technical. In fact, he wrote in such a way so that even people with a passing knowledge of astrophysics could get a grasp.
Evidently not, given your "something from nothing" BS.
You seem to think that I am misinterpreting what he meant by his north pole analogy. If so, explain what I'm not getting.
I'm no physicist and even I can explain this. Please be more specific re: what you don't understand. What part of the analogy don't you "get"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-01-2008 6:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 6:35 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 219 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-01-2008 8:59 PM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 191 of 405 (453249)
02-01-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Hyroglyphx
02-01-2008 6:01 PM


Re: ... In the beginning
I guess I'm waiting for the punchline or some explanation as to why singularity has no relevance to space-time
Who says it has no relevance?
Common sense would say that something coming from nothing is preposterous
Yes, 'common sense' would - but until you can actually define what you mean by 'something', 'from' and 'nothing' in the context of a solution to the Einstein Field Equations, the phrase has absolutely no meaning. I can assure you that this is not trivial.
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.
Its nonsense to think that the cause of everything is inconsequential? That's half-baked nonsense?
Let's see what you wrote in post 101:
The multiverse theory is the only attractive alternative to answering the question of the First Cause without invoking the supernatural
Complete nonsense
he Hawking solution, which seems to be just pretend that such a question about the singularity is immaterial, is begging the question.
Unbelievable nonsense
You seem to think that I am misinterpreting what he meant by his north pole analogy. If so, explain what I'm not getting.
Hawking's solution to the singularity is not the 'north pole' analogy... the analogy is a way of explaining his solution to the layman. His (and Hartle's) solution is a fantastic piece of quantum cosmology mathematics in semi-classical quantum gravity. And this is what you refer to as question-begging If I find time, I'll derive the whole thing for you here and you can let me know where he went wrong. I take it you're fine with the standard ADM 3+1 decomposition and the Wheeler-deWitt equation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-01-2008 6:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 6:45 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 222 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-01-2008 9:29 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 192 of 405 (453251)
02-01-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by molbiogirl
02-01-2008 6:06 PM


Re: Orgin
Hi molbiogirl,
mobiogirl writes:
You seem to think that a singularity is a very, very tiny dot that then exploded into the universe.
Now you know better than that. I believe God did it however He did it.
I don't care if it was as big as the Andromeda Galaxy. It had to come from somewhere or from and absence of anything.
God Bless,

"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 188 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 6:06 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 6:33 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 193 of 405 (453255)
02-01-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Son Goku
02-01-2008 5:59 PM


Re: Orgin
Hi Son,
Son Goku writes:
That is were things stand. The Big Bang describes the early history of the universe, but not how/why it exists. However the Big Bang is correct, as observations support it. There is no better theory of the early universe.
Why does Hawking say: "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted."
Is he wrong?
God Bless,

"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 186 by Son Goku, posted 02-01-2008 5:59 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 6:43 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 240 by Son Goku, posted 02-02-2008 4:28 AM ICANT has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 194 of 405 (453256)
02-01-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by ICANT
02-01-2008 6:26 PM


Re: Orgin
Hee! You're showing your abysmal ignorance again!
I don't care if it was as big as the Andromeda Galaxy. It had to come from somewhere or from and absence of anything.
See Message 191 or Message 190.
Something from nothing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 6:26 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 195 of 405 (453258)
02-01-2008 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by molbiogirl
02-01-2008 6:14 PM


Re: ... In the beginning
Hi molbiogirl,
molbiogirl writes:
No physicist would argue that "something came out of nothing".
Well please enlighten us as to where it came from then?
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

"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 190 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 6:14 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 6:45 PM ICANT 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