Before Big Bang God or Singularity

Hi Percy, Percy cavediver and Son Goku both answered questions to the affirmative concerning what hawking said. I drew conclusions based upon what Hawking said and what they said about what Hawking said. Aside: This brought a lot of traffic to the site what was the highest number?In Message 262 I lay out my case.In Message 269 I asked Son to take msg 262 line for line and show me where I am wrong.Is that too hard of a question or one that can not be answered?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."

Your mistake has been the same from the start, that of taking the singularity as a physical object that exists and demanding an explanation of where it came from. I keep explaining this to you and you keep ignoring it.
If you find me pointing this out insulting, then it's difficult for me to see what I should do. Should I allow you this factual error to avoid hurting your feelings? Surely you can see it from my point of view. Everything down to here is correct. The positive curvature of spacetime can be used to infer the existence of a singularity. Spacetimes with positive curvature (and satisfying certain conditions) contain singularities.I think you might be confusing the mathematical concept of inferring with the physical concept of creating. Hawking is proving a theorem about spacetimes. He is saying that given a general relativistic spacetime with positive curvature, there will be a singularity somewhere in the spacetime. However the curvature didn't "create the singularity".Think of Pythagoras' theorem. Given the properties of a right angled triangle then a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Where a and b are two sides and c is the hypotenuse. However a,b and c didn't "create the triangle".

ICANT, Nemesis and others ...I think I will repeat what has been pointed out to you by others a number of times on this thread. The big bang and the nature of the first mind bogglingly tiny fraction of a second before which the standard models of physics break down is one of the hardest - possibly the hardest - sciences that is being studied. This makes it impossible for scientists to explain the field to the public in a way that lets them really understand it. But it is not only hard, it is also extremely counterintuitive. Relativity and quantum mechanics are just the beginning of what makes "common sense" arguments and analogies break down. So not only is it impossible to teach a layperson to have a deep understanding, it is very difficult for cosmologists to explain this stuff in a way that even gives them a general sense of how things are.There are resources for the layperson out there. As you have discovered, Brian Greene and Hawking have tried to use analogies and extreme simplifications to explain to the public how early cosmology works. On this board, experts such as Cavediver and Son Goku answer questions and do their best to clear up obvious misconceptions. But no matter how much you talk to them or read books by Hawking, you won't understand it at anything resembling a fundamental level, and you won't understand it well enough to make any headway in the philosophical questions you’re pursuing. You won't know how to ask the right questions, and you won't even begin to understand the answers - you have to learn a lot of math and underlying physics to go as deeply as you are trying to go.If you really are serious about this, you have to learn the background material. There are no shortcuts. It may not require a university education anymore. All that you need to know is taught on the web. This site gives you a set of lessons to follow if you are serious about learning. The following topics off the lesson list are essential to understand if you want to be able to talk intelligently with cosmologists about what happened in the first fractions of a second:-primary mathematics
-classical mechanics
-optics
-statistical mechanics and thermo
-electromagnetism
-quantum mechanics
-atoms and molecules
-special relativity
-general relativity
-You probably need to know some of the advanced quantum, quantum field theory, and phenomenology information as well
-Nuclear and plasma physics are pretty important for this, but less essential
-No need to bother with the electronics and solid state lessons unless you truly want to become a physicistGood luck if you try to work through them. If you do, then these discussions could get a lot more fruitful for everyone. But if that sounds like too much work, then I think you'd better set your standards lower than understanding the nature of the big bang and what it means for God.

Hi Son, I am beginning to think the only mistake I made was expecting an answer. OK lets start all over.You are saying there will be a singularity somewhere in spacetime.
I can understand that.GR says there was a singularity at T=0.
I can understand that.At T=0+ expansion began which created space, time, gravity and everything that it took to create all the things that we see in the universe and the things we can not see.
I can understand that.Correct me If I got any of these wrong.God Bless,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."

Your question has no answer. I'm not sure what more we can do. This is wrong. Nothing is known about T=0 or the short period after it. The earliest thing we know is that the universe was expanding and was hot and dense.The reason we know nothing about T=0 is that it is proven that General Relativity has a singularity there and is unreliable.

Hi Son, I know the expansion didn't start at T=0.
I did think it started shortly after T=0As I stated: I stated at T=0+ (+ for shortly after)I think this agrees with what you are saying.Correct me if I am still not getting it.The rest of that sentence can happen at any time after expansion began.Since you did not address the other 2 I am going to assume you agree those are OK. Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.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."

The other two are correct.The basic picture is that the universe was expanding at T=0+ (to use your terminology). The expansion did not begin at the point, simply we know that the expansion was occuring then and it is the earliest period when we are sure of what was happening. Also this expansion didn't create the universe. Spacetime and gravity were already in existence at this point.Previous to that we don't know what was going on because Hawking and Penrose have proven general relativity is unreliable because there is a singularity. They proved general relativity has a singularity because of properties like spacetime curvature.
However this is a mathematical proof about the structure of general relativity and its predictive capability and not a statement that the curvature created some object called a singularity.Edited by Son Goku, : Expansion.Edited by Son Goku, : Detailing a point I missed.

Hi Son, "Also this expansion didn't create the universe""Spacetime and gravity were already in existence at this point"You lost me with these 2 points. This is where we have been having a problem if this is your view.Would you please clearify by giving me your understanding of the Big Bang Theory as it is taught today.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."

ok. so all your math and science is useless against the singularity.but you have determined the singularity is there.now, use logic of reality.reality: singularity WAS.singularity would have to be energy. (all energy in a timeless state from whence all things came)start asking what that means exactly.

---

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

The universe is in a small, hot and dense state at around 13.7 billion years. It expands from that state and eventually turns into the universe we see today.
Now internet sites and tv documentaries might say differently and will erreoneously claim the universe "came from a signularity" or came from "an infinitely small point", but this is not correct.Instead let's see what an actual cosmological textbook says:To quote P.J.E. Peebles' Principles of Physical Cosmology page 6: So what Peebles is saying is that the standard model of cosmology (sometimes called the Big Bang theory) describes the universe's early life. It starts at the point when particles were 10^10 times closer to each other than they are on average today. This is roughly 13.7 billion years ago. However it does not start at the beginning of the universe.

it does describe perhaps the beginning of a galaxy.what i see him saying is the big bang model has flaws, but evolution in the universe is evident.but if you follow all evolution to an eventual source, there still comes the first event, and the first event comes from the first "thing".eventually, no matter how many times you say what you don't know, the what we do know is going to be understood.T=0 is a true coordinate. and at those coordinates is something that can not be explored by science and math, that became laws from the first cause of whatever was at T=0.but after T=0 comes the events, so the events happened from whatever was at T=0.at these coordinates existed then: a timeless energy, OR the universe in a timeless state with no evolution before.which means: a timeless universe with never having evolved, and then evolving = direction.either and any way you view the "something" at T=0, intelligence is true by necessity.at T=0, there was a timeless energy, is law.now: you will want to dispute T=0.because of the before, and evident evolution, T=0 is inevitable.

---

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

Otherwise known as panentheism.

quote:

---

While pantheism says that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God.

---

So as I said, you propose an extra entity, making it less parsimonious. You are suggesting that the universe is a subset of a greater entity for which there is no evidence.

OK I have a question. Do many of the Cosmologists believe that the universe had a time prior to the hot dense state where it again was large, as it is now?

I wouldn't quite say there is anybody who believes anything about the period. Most are skeptical of even their own models. However there are those who propose that the universe was large again prior to the hot and dense state. For example Randall(Harvard), Turok(Cambridge), Steinhardt(Princeton).

I respect this, and would present it as the prime difference between Theological Faith/Belief models and scientific models. Skepticism is welcomed in Science, discouraged in Faith/Belief.