|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Before Big Bang God or Singularity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Thus anything from T=A and before has to be taken by Faith. Scientists do not give up when a theory has (possibly) fatal flaws. Scientists do not concoct ridiculous explanations ("god") and hand wave away the ugly bits. Scientists get excited when they find the boo boos. Or, at least I know I do. Were scientists to just give up when a (possibly) fatal flaw is detected in a theory (Newtonian physics) and settle for an absurd rationalization (goddidit), then we would be much, much worse off as a species than we are now. Theories have flaws. All of them. No exceptions. Which is why folks on this board fight so damn hard to correct creos who declare that such-and-such is "proven" or a "law". Your ill-informed, god-awful misconceptions about physics -- driven by some pathological need to cram a god into the cracks of physics theory -- are painful to read. I hope that you now understand that you don't understand. And throwing around terms you couldn't define if your life depended on it -- like "string theory" or "unbounded universe" -- doesn't mean you understand one teensy tinsy bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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? There's a BIG difference between a finite universe and goddidit. To quote Prof. hawking:
"Does it require a creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe determined by a law of science?" Space News - Latest Space and Astronomy News ANSWER: The initial state of the universe is determined by a law of science. If you have any further questions re: Prof. Hawking's thoughts on "god" ... The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) You will note that he does not use the term. He simply references LaPlace and Einstein. And, at the very end, slips in a bit of a joke:
God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Well please enlighten us as to where it came from then? Just because GR breaks down at T=O does not mean that is the "beginning".
God Bless No thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Thank you, Mod. Great quote.
I just want to highlight something.
But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Allow me to translate, ICANT. Goddidn'tdoit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
But I am partial to the one about tricks up His sleeve. And. Guess what? This is a science thread. "God" is irrelevant. Please stick to science. Your god crap is OT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
i dont get the statement. Obviously.
surly, T=0 is the beginning. No. It isn't. And don't call me Surly.
for time to no longer be relevant, then it would mean singular energy. nothing before it. so its the start. as long as a second energy, that did not exist form the same point in time as the first, time would be relevant. so if time is no longer relevant: T=0 then we are discussing a singular complex energy, which is the beginning. This is incoherent nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
What is what? T=O? When time = zero.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
so, at T=0, a self contained system of perfectly ordered energy ... Wrong. Oh so wrong.
its something. we can say: energy, or call it: something. but not "nothing". Define nothing. And don't say "the opposite of something". Define it in empirical terms.
is it easier to say at T=0 there was something that was,that existed singularly as one, that all came from it, and that it was ordered? You haven't a clue what a singularity is. Seriously. Not a blooming clue. I suggest you read the thread. It's tiresome to repeat what has already been said.
if a self contained system that always was , without any time ... This is incoherent nonsense.
with a complexity that is beyond understanding of man Arguments from incredulity do NOT fly in a science thread.
including at some point in time, man, who has intelligence, can we say that such an ordered complex energy that existed singularly at T=0 with nothing before it, and evolved from its ordered form a sign of a greater intelligence? This is incoherent nonsense.
is a rock gonna make a computer? how then could a super complex timeless something begat an entire universe with no intelligence at all? This is what is technically known as "not even wrong". Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the phrase. It means: You are so far off the mark, you're not even wrong. You're spouting a whole different order of gobbledygook.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Could you please give me your definition of "zero". Sure. Zero = a mathematical element that when added to another number yields the same number.
Is it anything like my "absence of anything?" As a matter of fact, no.
BTW I think tesla mispelled surely. Duh. You didn't see Airplane, did you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
nothing: absence of anything. no energy, no time, "no-thing" absolutely is not there, never was, never will be. "no" "thing" Just as I thought. "The opposite of something". I said empirically. Look it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I am choosing to ignore you from here on out. It would be greatly appreciated if you kept your snide comments to yourself from now on. Bon chance, mon ami.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024