Before Big Bang God or Singularity

So the standard model now is not a model inclusive of the beginning of the universe. Science has no model for how the universe began. Is that what you're saying?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

There is no experimentally confirmed model of how the universe began (however much "began" and other such words make sense in these contexts), that is correct. It'd be major headline news if there was. We can only track it back to 13.7 billion years ago.

Hi Son, Would this dense state then be in spacetime?Everything below this is me doing that stupid thing again of thinking. So don't pay any attention to it unless you would like to.I think the word small is not the real word that should be used.I also think point is not correct either.When people think of a point they think of a pen point. Then the mind says wait a minute how could you get the universe in that small of a place.Would not area be a better description of that hot mass.There had to be enough mass there to create some 100 billion galaxies.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."

Hi Son, Son will there ever be any way to track it past that hot dense area?Since there was only a hot mass, how would we ever be able to get any evidence other than what comes out of someone's mind or imagination?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."

Were the blackholes in the center of the galaxies believed created after the big bang or singularity?Each galaxy are they not more of a flat spiral plane even our sun orbits in a flat plane around the center of our galaxy.The universe including all the galaxies has been said proven to be a flat plane universe? including the diluting thru the expansion that makes space expanding appears to be related to the flatness of the universe?I would of thought the expansion being faster than light would of rounded out the universe but interestinglyThe expansion of the universe is not making it appear the universe is spherical in spite of space said to be expanding in all directions. It appears the expansion is primarily lateral and not longtitudinally, etc...?P.S. Is this the believed premise that the universe is flat including all the known galaxies, etc...?Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

all I've seen stated by science is "we only know that T=0 is a place or location for a cause, nothing more"but there is a refusal to examine whats at that place because all laws of science become useless. math included.the better question would be: at T=0, was whatever there destroyed upon T=.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001i believe: no. because if you take a rock from a foundation, everything on top crumbles.i view T=0 as energy, the most basic truth, because "something" was there, and everything that i real is either energy ina conserved sense (matter) or energy in its free sense (lightning, light, sound,fields, etc)so at T=0 is timeless energy. and what more could be said of that stated truth?

---

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

Well gravitational wave astronomy may be able to see further when the technology is advanced enough. The Large Hadron Collider in CERN may be able to learn something. Plus there are several cosmological tests of theories about the previous era. However it's a difficult area and it could take some time. Small possibly isn't the best word, that's true. It's actually that there was (I know this will sound wierd) less distance around back then. To be honest, what ever word helps you to make sense of it is probably the best word.
You suggested area, I think volume would be better. Area is only meters squared and matter occupies meters cubed. Then again you might mean area in a looser sense.This thread is ending soon, but I think we're coming to a better understanding of cosmology. So maybe a fresh thread in light of this one would be a good. Maybe one were people can ask about what we do know of the history following the hot dense state 13.7 billion years ago. For example if people are interested in questioning how stars or galaxies formed.An interesting fact that might get people interested in such a thread is that we know the whole history of the universe following the hot dense state, except for what caused an unusual event roughly five billion years ago.I apologize if I have been snapy with you ICANT, it can be difficult for me to appreciate how confusing this stuff is to somebody outside the field.Edited by Son Goku, : Adding prospects for future thread.Edited by Son Goku, : Apologize

Hi Son Goku, I was thinking like we live in an area of the universe called the Milky Way.As I understand it the universe is about 156 billion light years across at the present time.If we go back in time to T=0 we have a mass between 5 and 7 billion light years in diameter. I have no idea what shape it would be. But I would assume it was probably pretty much the shape of the universe today.A light year is equivalent to about 5.9 trillion miles.That would mean that first mass was about 295,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter, to
413,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,miles in diameter.To say that is small or a point is misleading. I think that would be great but I am coming up on a time when my time is going to be limited for at least a couple of months. But if you would be inclined to start one I would love to participate as much as possible and enjoy the information. This is a debate board. No apology needed. I have been kind of obnoxious at times.I was trying to point out that the Big Bang Theory as presently taught was not sufficient to the task of explaining things. I think I did a pretty good job of holding your feet to the fire and cavedivers. Both of you agreeing that we needed a new theory.I stated in Message 91Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. FalasifiedI still think this conclusion is correct according to the information that was examined.But that does not change the fact that it is the most accepted theory around.But does that make it correct?In my opinion No.But you guys were trying to put forth Hawking's unbounded theory and I did not want to get into that discussion in this thread.The fact remains that there was something at T=0.
It was very large.
The questions remains:
Where did it come from?
Why did it exist?
What did it exist in?I do not see any way of gathering evidence beyond T=0 as it was approximately 15 million degrees at that time.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."

I'll leave Son Goku and Cavediver to respond to the rest, but about this: We don't know whether or not the universe is infinite, so cosmologists often confine estimates of the present size of the universe to just the observable portion. The current size of the observable universe is around 92 billion light years. The 156 billion light year figure is a common misconception. See the Wikipedia article on the Observable Universe.--Percy

13.7 billion years ago the whole universe was about the size of a pea. With the same amount of matter packed into it, hence it was very dense. It wasn't 5 billion light years wide until a while later. The Big Bang was never intended to be a theory of the origin of the universe. It only purports to explain the early history of the universe and is well established in this regard. It is slightly unfair to say it failed at a task it never attempted. At the earliest point we can measure the universe is already at 1,160,400,000,000,000 degrees. (roughly) (1 quintillion degrees) I only discussed the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems. I think the Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal was only mentioned once. Well it is the correct theory of the early universe. It's not a theory of the universe's origins and never was.

Hi Son, You mean the Big Bang Theory was not put forth to take the place of the static universe? The universe has about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe which is around 92 billion light years across.(Using corrected numbers from Percy) That is a lot of solid material that came from somewhere.Now you are telling me it was about the size of a pea.
Would you please explain how this is possible? That is a tad warmer than I found. Message 1
In this topic I would like to discuss which is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. God or the Singularity including the Big Bang. Message 91
Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. Falasified I take it then that you are agreeing that the Big Bang Theory is not the best theory for the orgin of the universe.Premise 2: God is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe.I know you don't even consider this one so we skip it.Maybe, Maybe not but not falsified.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."

Hi ICANT,I again leave it to Son Goku and Cavediver to respond to most of your post, but about just this: Through the 1st third of the 20th century it was assumed that the universe was eternal and static. The only supporting evidence for this view was that the stars in the sky appeared unchanging, though I suppose the occasional nova was a small clue that this view wasn't correct.The next hint for a non-static universe came from Einstein's theory of general relativity, whose solution required that the universe could not be static, but had to be either shrinking or expanding. Convinced the universe was static, Einstein added a compensation factor (the infamous cosmological constant) to force his solution to yield a static universe.Edwin Hubble's work during the 1920's revealed that the universe is actually expanding. The idea of a static universe, which was unsupported by much evidence anyway, was replaced by an expanding universe because the visual evidence allowed no other conclusion.So it was the idea of an expanding universe, not the big bang, that replaced the idea of a static universe. The big bang derives from extrapolating the expanding universe backward in time. If you do that then you find that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter and energy of the universe, in fact, the entire universe, existed within an extremely tiny volume. We cannot project backward in time to a singularity because the model, based upon general relativity, breaks down at that point. But the theory can be used to very accurately project backward in time until just after the singularity.--Percy

If E=mc2 Your pea appears to be the reverse of a black hole where mass has broken down and all you have is energy.Like energy trapped in time no mass until the expansion of time is this your singularity?P.S. That pea too me is just a point in time from which the expansion of energy & time was being released by him, the Word, the Alpha and the Omega, etc...

Hi Percy, Percy are you saying that we can not know for sure if there was a singularity at T=O?If so why do we hear there was one there?I know there was something at the beginning as this beautiful universe we live in could not have come fromt an 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."

Hi Son, Son you may think it is the correct theory but there are many who disagree with you.I guess if you are willing to accept a theory that has to have as many fudge factors as the Big Bang Theory it could be considered the correct theory,GR requires that a singularity be at T=O.
The Big Bang could not have happened without a singularity.
I have been told in this thread many times that the Big Bang can not and does not address T=O. I will accept that.I am also told that The Big Bang covers from 1/200,000,000,000 billionths of a second after T=O. I will accept that.Son since you say the Big Bang Theory is not a theory of the origins of the universe, I guess you mean the universe was created between T=O and 1/200,000,000,000 billionths of a second.I understood the Big Bang Theory to start at T=O+ and explain what happened from that moment and onward. This would include the formation of the universe and everything in it. Correct me if this is wrong.In this topic I have been trying to discuss the best explanation for the origin of the universe as stated below from my OP. Message 1
God the best explanation for the origin of the universe. I am told this is none falsefiable.That leaves Singularity with the Big Bang theory following to be examined as the best explanation for the origin of the universe.In Message 34 I presented my case. Hawking on Singularity,

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.

---

cavediver answering questions concerning what Hawking said. According to cavediver there was a singularity at T=O.It was produced by the positive curvature of space time.But there was no space time before the Big Bang. Then there was no place for the singularity to be. Therefore it could not exist.But there had to be something at T=O. Now we got the whole universe in something about the size of a pea.This sounds like something physical.That had to be some kind of compression to get all the energy in the universe in such a small space.That is unless energy can be created.We all agree there was something at T=OIt could not be a Singularity although GR demands that one be there and the Big Bang requires one to be there and many say one was there.According to Hawking's statements in his public lectures it is impossible for a singularity to be present at T=OThere is no space time, or gravity, therefore there can be no positive curvature of space time to produce a point that the singularity would be. Neither would there be a black hole to produce a singularity.Scientifically there is no way for a singularity to be present at T=O.Is it possible for a singularity to be present at T=O.Sure. Because Gr demands that it be there. Big Bang can't happen if it is not there.We are here so it had to be there so:
We can just believe by Faith it is there because we got to have one.Or:We invent one more fudge factor. Such as. Imaginary time for the singularity to exist in.It is OK for Science to propose imaginary time but it is not OK for Christians to believe in a creator called God as He is just a figment of our imagination.There is no singularity at T=O.Therefore it can not be the best explanation for the origin of the universe.Therefore my conclusions in Message 91 stands. 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."