Before Big Bang God or Singularity

Nobody knows, because there is no working theory of that period.

God is an entity that is meant to have created the universe. That means it refers to an extra entity. I have no aversion to the word God. I just think we should use it how it is meant. If you want to suggest you are a pantheist you can just say so.

If spacetime existed then time dilation effects would occur when gravity distorted space. That is the case. Indeed, many predictions of what would happen if spacetime were a valid concept have been tested and verified to a significantly high degree of accuracy.

As I previously said, we don't know - there are some ideas but nothing is certain. Not what I am saying. I am saying that laws only formalise knowledge we already have about the world. Theories give us predictions about things we don't know and hopefully can test to see if they are true. Theories kick ass over laws every day of the week, and beyond.If you build all of your scientific knowledge on Newton's laws of motion, you will not be able to create GPS satellites (though you will get to the moon). They have to be built on the back of theory. Do it based on law, quicksand. On highly confirmed theory: reinforced concrete. Depends who you ask. Some would say energy=0, just like it is today. Others would say different. Others might say that T=0 doesn't really exist in the sense most people think of it.

now i know why icant keeps pointing out your circular attitude.t=0 is the coordinates. whats at the coordinates.nothing is "north" of the "north" pole.but what is AT the north pole.

---

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

well man has studied science long enough to start askin.

---

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

Yes, when we reach areas which are beyond the knowledge of man, I should just make absolute claims up about what is happening. There are some ideas. But essentially nobody knows. We'll need a good robust theory to help explain it to the physicists who can then ring up Hawking and Greene and Cox and cavediver etc and get them to try and explain it to us.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

People are asking. Nobody currently knows, it's a difficult area. I don't get your point.

mankind doesn't need a bunch of recordings from the previous era. mankind need scientists how can freely think on their own.the world is flat : echo: the world i flat the world is flat the world is flatwhy? um. cause that what we know and we'll never know any more than that.

---

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

Hi Son Goku, This was not a press release but a public lecture.I give 2 45 minute lectures every Sunday so I know you have to be brief.But what does that have to do with saying what you mean and meaning what you say? He is either correct or incorrect.Why not explain it? We got plenty of time. I have questions that have not been answered. The only way I know to get them answered is to keep asking until somebody answers them.Below is statements from Dr. Hawking concerning the singularity and the Big Bang.

quote:

---

Definition of Singularity
A spacetime is singular if it is timelike or null geodesically incomplete, but can not be embedded in a larger spacetime.

---

Hawking's comments on spacetime.

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.

---

Hawking's comments on production of singularities.

quote:

---

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)Does Hawking say a spacetime is singular?Does he say gravity curls up spacetime so that it has a begining and an end.Does he say 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.Does he say The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities at which classical general relativity broke down.Would you answer these questions and explain to me how a singularity could be produced taking into consideration what Hawking said.Edited by ICANT, : spelling

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Keep in mind that in a Cosmology Forum, the scientists should never be on the defensive. Theologians accept what they read on faith. That is all any of us have in that area of speculation.While these questions are good and will hopefully help there to be greater understanding between science and faith, we do have to defer to the discipline of science as being cautious and tentative when considering any answers to otherwise philosophical questions.

the "tesla" logiclets explore the realm of scientific enquiry.i view it as a problem such as :2+2=4 2+2 is the path and 4 is the definition of the path.now there are multiple ways to go about solving a problem with missing variables.the definition of 4 is as such:lets say, the argument is a "cup"path + path=cup.2+2=4 and 4 is the cup.in the argument, the argument against it by another individual is that it is ceramic. but ceramic is a different value than the initial object of scrutiny "cup"if the item under scrutiny was then "cup" value 4, and all arguments led to 2+2=4, and then an arguer redefines the value "cup (4)" to ceramic (3) then the argument that led up to cup falls apart.
2+2=3 (false)to determine the truth, ceramic needs to then be scrutinized, which if its the object of scrutiny becomes the value of 4, and the path of 2+2 would have to be hashed out again to find the 2+2. (path)lets look at evolution, which is starting with 4 in theory, but following the path to conclusion.so in evolution. 2+2 is being analyzed to find the value 4. missing variables in the 2+2 have left the value "4" inconclusive.now, exploring universe origin, universe origin is (4)and T=0 is a part of the variables in the path 2+2.the rest of what is or is not in that path by law should be observed in the path of what can be said or not said of the value (4).like so: 2+2=4 (4=origin)2+2 currently understood: 1+0=4 (or something like that)the first element of T=0 being 1.if we discover the other half of that 1, well find the 2, and applying that 2 of the first part of the path, we can potentially discover the other 2 of the equation to get an understanding of the value (4) [origin] in its simplest form.then when analyzing the complexity of the value 4, we can determine each complexity by attributing it with the value 4, and exploring its path individually.this is basic logic, the path to understanding complexity by first observing it in simplicity.

---

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

I'll play along! How do we know that this first element is 1?

Being brief in this subject can mean throwing out the necessary details. As I said in my previous post: He is correct. However due to the many ways this subject can be viewed what he says may appear to contradict what cavediver and others have said. Yes to every question.I am still failing to understand your point. What Hawking is saying, is that, given all these properties of spacetime and general relativity, we can figure out that general relativity has a singularity early on in cosmological time.Your thinking, if I am correct, is this:
1. Scientists say the singularity created the universe.
2. However they figure out the singularity was there by using gravity, which only came into existence after the universe was created.You think this doesn't make sense because it sounds like "singularity created gravity which created singularity".Now for the umpteenth time, the singularity is not a physical object. This is the main reason you are having trouble understanding people's posts. You keep saying "Where did the singularity come from?". This is a nonsense question.

Hi Mod, Whose definition of God is this?Yours or some YEC'ER or Some ID'ER It ain't mine.You going to have to quit classifying me with those folks cause we don't speak the same language.Here is my definition of God: Does that sound like a different entity or the entire universe wraped up into one entity which I call God?Why did you ignore the above statement and give your definition of God in an answer to my post?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."