Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Before Big Bang God or Singularity
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 226 of 405 (453343)
02-01-2008 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by tesla
02-01-2008 9:38 PM


Re: Re-Orgin
what is "it"
Let me reword it for you.
Not necessarily. Spacetime could simply exist. Whatever is true about reality, I'm sure that there is some entity which simply exists. That we both probably agree upon.
the "before" is relative, because we see the evolution unfolding now, and were asking about before that.
Yes before is a relative word. It means 'a point in time that occurred previously'. Since there was no points in time occurring prior to T=0, by definition, then you can't describe anything happening before it. T=0 is a rare point in the universe for which there is no before - it would be absurd to tell ask an explorer what he can see happening north of where he is if he is standing at the point defined as diversion from north=0 (ie., the North Pole).
this means it is agreed that T=0 is "something" but with no measurable time, which can only mean singular and always was.
Erm, I'm not sure we entirely agree.
Why can it only mean 'singular'? What does 'singular' mean?
can you further explain how you see T=0?
The simple answer is, T=0 is a mystery. Some solutions to the problem have T=0 as a point in the universe where there are four spatial dimensions and no time dimension, at a slightly different space nearby, one of the four dimensions becomes more timelike. As we move our frame of reference we find this spacelike dimension becoming more and more timelike until it is what we now call time. I believe this is what is proposed to happen between T=0 and Planck Time, but I might be getting that last point wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by tesla, posted 02-01-2008 9:38 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by tesla, posted 02-01-2008 10:02 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 228 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 10:04 PM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 227 of 405 (453344)
02-01-2008 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Modulous
02-01-2008 9:55 PM


Re: Re-Orgin
Why can it only mean 'singular'? What does 'singular' mean?
it means that regardless of complexity there was no other points before that point. which means the "always existed" existed in perfect timless unity as one energy. regardless of complexity of planes of existence or whatever.
The simple answer is, T=0 is a mystery. Some solutions to the problem have T=0 as a point in the universe where there are four spatial dimensions and no time dimension, at a slightly different space nearby, one of the four dimensions becomes more time like. As we move our frame of reference we find this spacelike dimension becoming more and more timelike until it is what we now call time. I believe this is what is proposed to happen between T=0 and Planck Time, but I might be getting that last point wrong.
i think your closer to the truth than could be comfortable. but it cant be proven.(yet)
what can be proven by that we are, is that the first energy from whence the cause of the universe came, IS by necessity. and that it existed before any time could be relevant, and is complex beyond the human mind's ability to reason.
however, you know the point i have pushed time and again, that something that complex and the order of all that is coming from it, that it is intelligent by necessity as well.
many wont even touch the possibility.
but if you take T=0 and look at it in simplicity, before adding the complexities, there can be no other conclusion.
eventually, its going to be realized by someone besides me.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

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 226 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 9:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 10:16 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 228 of 405 (453345)
02-01-2008 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Modulous
02-01-2008 9:55 PM


Re: Re-Orgin
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
Not necessarily. Spacetime could simply exist. Whatever is true about reality, I'm sure that there is some entity which simply exists. That we both probably agree upon.
I will agree with that.
Now what do you want to call that entity?
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 226 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 9:55 PM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 229 of 405 (453346)
02-01-2008 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by ICANT
02-01-2008 9:44 PM


nasal analogies
The spot 5 inches from my nose was in the exact same spot it arrived when the universe expanded to the point that the spot 5 inches in front of my nose existed, prior to that moment it did not exist and if the singularity had not expanded it would not have been there.
I also included a time coordinate. That was important to the point.
The point 5 inches from your nose 5 seconds ago 'came from' exactly the same place the point described as T=0. They are both equally valid coordinates of spacetime.
So If I say I believe the universe has always been here in some form or another. That should give the idea that I think it self-exists. I just believe God is what is the self that makes it exist.
Yes, you believe the self-existing entity is God (requires no creator). I think the self-existing entity is not likely to be God and that we might as well just say it is spacetime (or whatever braneworld type place that it exists within) that self exists. If you start to add entities at whim, you can do so forever. After all, God could itself be created by a self-existing megaGod and God could just be an assistant to it. Or maybe the megaGod is subservient to the actual self-existing entity that created it. And so on.
I choose to cut off the chain of self-existent entities at those for which there exists evidence (braneworld or this universe). You choose to allow the chain to go into the unevidenced realm by one step and arbitrarily stop there because of the tenets of your faith.
Which one is better? By definition my answer is more parsimonious (it proposes no more entities than are required). Whether or not it being parsimonious makes it better is a philosophical argument we can safely ignore here.
Does the universe self-exist (all inclusive)?
Maybe.
Is there something more than the universe which caused the universe to exist?
Possibly. It is a terribly exciting area of research, I look forward to seeing what other answers hard-working under-paid wizards of the natural world can plumb from the anti-intuitive universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 9:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 10:27 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 230 of 405 (453348)
02-01-2008 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by tesla
02-01-2008 10:02 PM


Re: Re-Orgin
it means that regardless of complexity there was no other points before that point.
OK.
which means the "always existed" existed in perfect timless unity as one energy
Why does it mean that? What does that mean?
i think your closer to the truth than could be comfortable. but it cant be proven.(yet)
Research into those mysteries continues to this day. Let's hope the governments of the world don't do silly things like close Observatories down in favour of funding twenty minutes worth of war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by tesla, posted 02-01-2008 10:02 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by tesla, posted 02-01-2008 10:24 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 231 of 405 (453350)
02-01-2008 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Modulous
02-01-2008 10:16 PM


Re: Re-Orgin
Why does it mean that? What does that mean?
it means, that in order for time to equal zero, there can be no second "thing" or energy "after" the first, because time would be relevant.
in order for the "before thats" to be irrelevant, time also must be irrelevant. and at that point, is whatever was "one" even if its a very complex form.
Research into those mysteries continues to this day. Let's hope the governments of the world don't do silly things like close Observatories down in favour of funding twenty minutes worth of war.
if the simplicity of the T=0 energy is understood, then the "law" of what it must be being established, would allow for theories to be built. building a theory on a theory is building a house on sand. building theories on laws is building a house on the rock.
the simplest form of what T=0 (which IS law by necessity) (because we ARE) needs to be established first as what it IS or IS not by law, before building the "maybes"

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 230 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 10:16 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 10:49 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 232 of 405 (453351)
02-01-2008 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Modulous
02-01-2008 10:08 PM


Re: nasal analogies
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
The point 5 inches from your nose 5 seconds ago 'came
What difference does it make if it was 5 seconds ago or 10 billion years ago it was in the same spot. Created by the expansion of whatever.
Modulous writes:
Which one is better? By definition my answer is more parsimonious (it proposes no more entities than are required). Whether or not it being parsimonious makes it better is a philosophical argument we can safely ignore here.
So if I said:
Spacetime could itself be created by a self-existing megaspacetime; Spacetime, could just be an assistant to it. Or maybe the megaspacetime is subservient to the actual self-existing entity that created it. And so on.
Would that not be the same thing you are saying?
So what's the difference?
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 229 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 10:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 10:42 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 233 of 405 (453353)
02-01-2008 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by ICANT
02-01-2008 10:27 PM


Re: nasal analogies
What difference does it make if it was 5 seconds ago or 10 billion years ago it was in the same spot. Created by the expansion of whatever.
But it isn't the same spacetime coordinate. 5 seconds ago and 10billion years ago have different time coordinates. I'm talking about space time coordinates.
Spacetime could itself be created by a self-existing megaspacetime; Spacetime, could just be an assistant to it. Or maybe the megaspacetime is subservient to the actual self-existing entity that created it. And so on.
Would that not be the same thing you are saying?
So what's the difference?
The difference is that we know that spacetime exists. We have emerging evidence that megaspacetime might exist. We have no existence that God, megaGod or supermegaGod exists. I stop appealing to entities when evidence of their existence runs out. It maybe the case that megaspacetime is not self-existent. I don't know, maybe we'll never know.
The point is that I know of two entities for which there is evidence of their existence that are possible candidates for self-existing. You have no reason to reject either of these as inherently impossible, and they have the bonus of being something we can examine. Thus we are in the following position:
Me: That which self-exists is at least the last megaspacetime we have evidence for.
You: That which self-exists is at least one further step beyond the entity for which there is evidence.
Either could be true, but my version is more parsimonious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 10:27 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 11:05 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 237 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 11:15 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 234 of 405 (453355)
02-01-2008 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by tesla
02-01-2008 10:24 PM


Re: Re-Orgin
it means, that in order for time to equal zero, there can be no second "thing" or energy "after" the first, because time would be relevant.
That doesn't make any sense. There can exist a T=1 that occurs after T=0, by definition.
in order for the "before thats" to be irrelevant, time also must be irrelevant.
How can time be irrelevant when we are discussing the universe at a particular time coordinate when there is no before and there is only after? (like there is only south at the north pole)
if the simplicity of the T=0 energy is understood, then the "law" of what it must be being established, would allow for theories to be built. building a theory on a theory is building a house on sand. building theories on laws is building a house on the rock.
Laws are not a rock, they are quicksand. They are only local descriptions of the universe and they may have many exceptions. The only way to know those exceptions is by developing a sound theory that can explain why the law is the way it is and what problems it has.
the simplest form of what T=0 (which IS law by necessity)
T=0 is a coordinate. It is no more a law than 45 degrees north is a law.
needs to be established first as what it IS or IS not by law, before building the "maybes"
You cannot understand what happened at T=0 by defining what happened at T=0. Laws simply define relationships between things based on observation. There are certain 'laws' and 'principles' that come into play in the understanding of the universe - but we don't have a complete enough picture to be sure beyond that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by tesla, posted 02-01-2008 10:24 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by tesla, posted 02-01-2008 11:40 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 235 of 405 (453357)
02-01-2008 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Modulous
02-01-2008 10:42 PM


Re: Entity
Hi Mod,
You: That which self-exists is at least one further step beyond the entity for which there is evidence.
Whatever gave you that Idea?
I thought you knew what I believed about God. Since you aparantly don't I will give you how Genesis 1:1 would read if I was writing it knowing what a couple of the other writers in the Bible wrote.
Gen. 1:1 Before all things was I Am created the universe and streached it out, with all its majesty, and in Him we live, and move, and have our being the universe and everything in it resides in God and by Him all things can exist and without Him nothing exists.
Either could be the same if you did not have an adversion to the word God.

"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 233 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 10:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Modulous, posted 02-02-2008 7:45 AM ICANT has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 236 of 405 (453358)
02-01-2008 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Hyroglyphx
02-01-2008 8:59 PM


Re: ... In the beginning
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-01-2008 8:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 237 of 405 (453360)
02-01-2008 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Modulous
02-01-2008 10:42 PM


Re: Spacetime
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
The difference is that we know that spacetime exists.
I'm sorry but I been doing that stupid thing Catholic Sientist told me to stop. Thinking.
We know time exists.
We know space exists.
How do we know spacetime exists?
Thanks
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 233 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 10:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 11:18 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 243 by Modulous, posted 02-02-2008 7:47 AM ICANT has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 238 of 405 (453363)
02-01-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by ICANT
02-01-2008 11:15 PM


Re: Spacetime
How do we know spacetime exists?
Yes. How do we know?
We only have space and time!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 11:15 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 239 of 405 (453367)
02-01-2008 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Modulous
02-01-2008 10:49 PM


Re: Re-Orgin
the observation is of energy. im looking not at the coordinates alone, but what energy was present at those coordinates.
what did the universe look like at T=0?
thats where laws can come into play. if you say all science laws are quicksand, and prove nothing, thats the same as saying science is completely useless...so go buy a bible because we don't know anything.
my question again, what energy was present at the coordinates T=0?

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 234 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2008 10:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Son Goku, posted 02-02-2008 4:31 AM tesla has replied
 Message 244 by Modulous, posted 02-02-2008 7:54 AM tesla has replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 405 (453407)
02-02-2008 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
02-01-2008 6:31 PM


Re: Orgin
ICANT writes:
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."
For two reasons:
(1)You have to be brief and simple when making public press releases.
(2)He is correct in a certain technical sense, but I would rather not go into explaining it.
ICANT writes:
How do we know spacetime exists?
Experimental tests of Special Relativity and any experiment in CERN, Stanford, e.t.c. They all are evidence of spacetime.
However, I am beginning to think you are being purposefully difficult. I've explained to you several times that the singularity is not the beginning of the universe, but an artefact of General Relativity. However you still keep asking "where did the singularity come from?"
However none of this in any way affects the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a theory of the universe's early history and observations show it to be correct.
In order to describe what happens previous to General Relativity's breakdown you need a new theory. However any old "new theory" will not do. The new theory would have to explain "What is the origin of a black hole's entropy?". If the theory can't do that, it isn't good enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 02-01-2008 6:31 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ICANT, posted 02-02-2008 8:29 AM Son Goku has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024