Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 301 of 405 (454541)
02-07-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Percy
02-04-2008 3:20 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Percy writes
quote:
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.
ICANT writes
quote:
You mean the Big Bang Theory was not put forth to take the place of the static universe?
Percy, from the sound of ICANT, I think he meant the steady state theory, not the static universe. The expanding universe wasn't in conflict with the steady state theory. The problem for steady state theory were the really old objects like quasars and globular clusters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Percy, posted 02-04-2008 3:20 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 4:18 PM teen4christ has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 302 of 405 (454542)
02-07-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by ICANT
02-07-2008 2:50 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Son Goku writes:
Well it is the correct theory of the early universe. It's not a theory of the universe's origins and never was.
Son you may think it is the correct theory but there are many who disagree with you.
Significantly less than 1% of all astrophysicists and cosmologists is not many... it is insignificant.
The Big Bang could not have happened without a singularity.
Wrong
According to cavediver there was a singularity at T=O.
In the Friedman-Lemaitre-Roberston-Walker 'big bang' GR solution, there is a singularity at T=0. In reality, no there was not a singularity at T=0, as I stated in my first post in this thread:
quote:
Strictly, the singularity does not exist as it is simply the artifact of inapplicable mathematics
But there was no space time before the Big Bang.
This statement is meaningless gibberish. There are also no oceans 1000 miles above the equator.
Then there was no place for the singularity to be.
What? The singularity is at T=0 in the FLRW solution of GR. Just because T only takes values from zero upwards, does not mean that T=0 is not a valid point!
Therefore it could not exist.
What does not exist is your understanding...
That had to be some kind of compression to get all the energy in the universe in such a small space.
That small space IS the Universe. It cannot be in any larger space because that space does not exist at that time!
That is unless energy can be created.
You'll have to let me know what you mean by energy...
According to Hawking's statements in his public lectures it is impossible for a singularity to be present at T=O
Rubbish
There 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.
The singularity in the FLRW solution is surrounded by space-time. What are you talking about?
Neither would there be a black hole to produce a singularity.
What??? Where did this come from? What have black holes got to do with any of this?
Scientifically there is no way for a singularity to be present at T=O.
Well, there definitely is one at T=0 in the FLRW solution... as for reality, I think both SG and I told you that there most certainly isn't...
Big Bang can't happen if it is not there.
But of course it can...
We invent one more fudge factor. Such as. Imaginary time for the singularity to exist in.
Hawking REMOVED the singularity by use of 'imaginary time', which is neither a fudge nor invented but simply borrowed from particle physics mathematics, where its applicability is proved daily at every particle accelerator around the world.
Therefore my conclusions in Message 91 stands.
ICANT writes:
Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. Falsified
Hmmm, my very first line posted in this thread, in Message 13:
quote:
The Big Bang/Singularity is not the origin of the Universe
My conclusion, for which I have considerable evidence:
quote:
ICANT's grasp of this subject is very poor and seems to have become worse over the course of these 300+ posts. Obviously Cavediver is blameless and it seems the blame lies squarely with Son Goku

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 2:50 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 4:13 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 305 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 4:38 PM cavediver has replied

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


Message 303 of 405 (454552)
02-07-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by cavediver
02-07-2008 3:37 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
Hmmm, my very first line posted in this thread, in Message 13:
quote:
The Big Bang/Singularity is not the origin of the Universe
Why did you not finish the sentence.
cavediver writes:
The Big Bang/Singularity is not the origin of the Universe, it is merely one end of it.
my bolding of what you left off.
So which end is it the front end or the one yet to come?
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 302 by cavediver, posted 02-07-2008 3:37 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 304 of 405 (454553)
02-07-2008 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by teen4christ
02-07-2008 3:32 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Hi t4c,
teen4christ writes:
Percy, from the sound of ICANT, I think he meant the steady state theory, not the static universe. The expanding universe wasn't in conflict with the steady state theory. The problem for steady state theory were the really old objects like quasars and globular clusters.
Eactly, thanks for the correction t4c.
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 301 by teen4christ, posted 02-07-2008 3:32 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Percy, posted 02-08-2008 8:04 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 305 of 405 (454561)
02-07-2008 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by cavediver
02-07-2008 3:37 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
ICANT writes:
The Big Bang could not have happened without a singularity.
Wrong
If there was nothing at T=O, then the universe came from an absence of anything.
If there was something at T=O.
What do you want to call it?
cavediver writes:
Hawking REMOVED the singularity by use of 'imaginary time', which is neither a fudge nor invented but simply borrowed from particle physics mathematics, where its applicability is proved daily at every particle accelerator around the world.
Does this take place in real time or in the absence of any time?
cavediver writes:
ICANT writes:
That had to be some kind of compression to get all the energy in the universe in such a small space.
That small space IS the Universe. It cannot be in any larger space because that space does not exist at that time!
Explain how, if the space that is the universe and does not exist can be the usiverse that does exist today.
cavediver writes:
My conclusion, for which I have considerable evidence:
quote:
ICANT's grasp of this subject is very poor and seems to have become worse over the course of these 300+ posts. Obviously Cavediver is blameless and it seems the blame lies squarely with Son Goku
My grasp.
There was something at T=O.
From that something the universe has come into being as we see it today.
Science has tried to explain this by many theories.
The most accepted of those is the Big Bang Theory.
Everybody gets real uptight if you question this generally accepted theory.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : grammer

"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 302 by cavediver, posted 02-07-2008 3:37 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by cavediver, posted 02-07-2008 5:23 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 311 by cavediver, posted 02-08-2008 6:26 AM ICANT has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 306 of 405 (454568)
02-07-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by ICANT
02-07-2008 4:38 PM


Re: Big Bang.
There was something at T=O.
Yes
From that something the universe has come into being as we see it today.
Yes
Science has tried to explain this by many theories.
No... from T=10^-43 seconds to present, there is essentially one theory. For T<10^-43 there are several lines of current research.
The most accepted of those is the Big Bang Theory.
Essentially the Big Bang theory is the only viable theory.
Everybody gets real uptight if you question this generally accepted theory.
Not at all. Questions are always welcome. But professionals eventually become uptight when know-it-all laymen try to teach them their subject...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 4:38 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Parasomnium, posted 02-07-2008 5:28 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 308 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 6:53 PM cavediver has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 307 of 405 (454570)
02-07-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by cavediver
02-07-2008 5:23 PM


Re: Big Bang.
cavediver writes:
professionals eventually become uptight when know-it-all laymen try to teach them their subject...
This put a smile on my face. Well said.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by cavediver, posted 02-07-2008 5:23 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 308 of 405 (454601)
02-07-2008 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by cavediver
02-07-2008 5:23 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
ICANT writes:
Science has tried to explain this by many theories.
No... from T=10^-43 seconds to present, there is essentially one theory. For T<10^-43 there are several lines of current research.
I thought the Big Bang Theory replaced a couple of theories back in the 1920's. Was I mistaken?
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 306 by cavediver, posted 02-07-2008 5:23 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by cavediver, posted 02-07-2008 7:19 PM ICANT has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 309 of 405 (454605)
02-07-2008 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by ICANT
02-07-2008 6:53 PM


Re: Big Bang.
cavediver writes:
ICANT writes:
Science has tried to explain this by many theories.
No... from T=10^-43 seconds to present, there is essentially one theory. For T<10^-43 there are several lines of current research.
I thought the Big Bang Theory replaced a couple of theories back in the 1920's. Was I mistaken?
More like the 1960s, but then a couple is not many. And since then we have essentially had just the 'big bang' cosmology, with a tiny minority following 'plasma'-type cosmologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 6:53 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 310 of 405 (454632)
02-07-2008 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Modulous
02-02-2008 9:39 AM


Re: Entity
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
abe: I understand that you are a panentheist - which would mean that you are proposing an additional entity.
The Panentheist
A final point about panentheism worth consideration is the fact that being a holistic philosophy it refutes the notion of objective evil. For panentheists, what is deemed evil is simply a product of human subjectivity. As the renowned 20th century Unitarian theologian, Alfred Hall, remarked: “All that we mean or can mean when we say a thing is evil, is that it falls below our standard or idea of good.” The inference of this opinion is that human imperfection is but a stage both in the evolution of our species and, in a wider context, the unfolding of the cosmos.
I been reading up on this philosophy and "NO" I am not a panentheist.
I believe there is evil and that man is doomed to the lake of fire if he does not accept the free pardon offered by God.
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 266 by Modulous, posted 02-02-2008 9:39 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2008 7:01 AM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 311 of 405 (454651)
02-08-2008 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by ICANT
02-07-2008 4:38 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Missed these:
If there was something at T=O.
What do you want to call it?
It's there in my very first post Message 13:
quote:
Colloquially, the singularity refers to the ultra-dense, ultra-hot state around T=0 (up to say T=10^-43 secs), and all evidence points to this very much existing.
Does this take place in real time or in the absence of any time?
It takes place in a Euclidean region of the Universe, located around T=0, where time *as you think of it* does not exist.
That small space IS the Universe. It cannot be in any larger space because that space does not exist at that time!
Explain how, if the space that is the universe and does not exist can be the usiverse that does exist today.
All I am saying is that at a particular early time, space is the size of a pea. At that time there is no extra empty space - it is not that everything has been squashed into one small pea-sized corner of the Universe. Space itself is the size of a pea. So anything in space must be confined to that size.
How can you squash an entire line of latitude into less than 10 square feet? Easy if you are at the North Pole.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 4:38 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 312 of 405 (454653)
02-08-2008 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by ICANT
02-07-2008 10:55 PM


Created, or not created?
I been reading up on this philosophy and "NO" I am not a panentheist.
I believe there is evil and that man is doomed to the lake of fire if he does not accept the free pardon offered by God.
There are Christian panentheists that accept the existence of evil. Whether or not you agree with some particular members of a named philosophy is not really the point, though. My point remains quite firmly in place - your idea is less parsimonious. It would have been easier for you to just have accepted this and said that you are not interested in parsimony. It would be nice if you could get this over with in what remains of this thread since it would conclude it nicely.
Which is a better idea? Well that depends on what you look for in an idea. Personally I think an idea should reign in its unparsimonious entities because once you have one, there is no philosophical reason to stop adding more. I think we should stick with what we know and explore the mysteries we can 'see' as opposed to creating new mysteries that cannot, by their very description, be solved.
You think that because God seems to solve one problem that is all that matters: it makes the idea much better. My main issue is that it doesn't solve the mystery at all. I don't know who killed this man, it is a mystery, therefore a Djinn killed this man. That hypothesis completely solves the mystery. Therefore it is a good hypothesis. Better than the hypothesis that his brother killed him, which has some contradictory evidence for it which is hard to entangle. Forget hard problems, Djinn are much easier and completely solve the murder case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 10:55 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 8:21 AM Modulous has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 313 of 405 (454657)
02-08-2008 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by ICANT
02-07-2008 2:49 PM


Re: Big Bang.
ICANT writes:
Percy are you saying that we can not know for sure if there was a singularity at T=O?
Well, we can't know anything for sure in science, but what I'm saying is that theory and observation match very well back to about 10-43 seconds after the beginning, so we have a lot of confidence in the theory for that time and after. Before that time I would just echo what Cavediver has said, that we only have lines of research that may eventually bear fruit.
I know there was something at the beginning as this beautiful universe we live in could not have come fromt an absence of anything.
*You* might think you know this, but your task here is to convince other people that you know this. Given the lack of theory and evidence for the period before 10-43 seconds and the fact that you're not a member of the scientific cosmological community and are relatively unknowledgeable on the subject, the possibility that you actually know something science doesn't is minisculy small. If you could really contribute meaningfully and creatively to cosmology it would mean that we lived in a world where people off the street could walk into Einstein's study and help him complete his equations.
This is no dig at you, but it is appropriate to note the well known psychological reality that confidence is inversely proportional to knowledge, and you continually display a great deal of confidence in making pronouncements about things of which you know little.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 2:49 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 8:53 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 314 of 405 (454660)
02-08-2008 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by ICANT
02-07-2008 4:18 PM


Re: Big Bang.
ICANT writes:
teen4christ writes:
Percy, from the sound of ICANT, I think he meant the steady state theory, not the static universe.
Exactly, thanks for the correction t4c.
In that case, that changes what you said in Message 296 to this:
ICANT in Message 296 writes:
You mean the Big Bang Theory was not put forth to take the place of the steady state universe
This is less correct than when you said "static universe". The steady state universe was proposed by Fred Hoyle as an alternative to the Big Bang, not vice-versa.
You're being fed a ton of information. I hope some of it is staying with you.
Rather than learning cosmology piecemeal with the discussion's shifting focus, you should just check out a book on cosmology from the library. You don't have to accept what it says, but you would at least learn about our current scientific understanding of the origin of the universe. Though I've never read it, I heard good things about The First Three Minutes, but that book is old now. Maybe someone can recommend something more recent.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by ICANT, posted 02-07-2008 4:18 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 315 of 405 (454663)
02-08-2008 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Modulous
02-08-2008 7:01 AM


Re: Created, or not created?
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
There are Christian panentheists that accept the existence of evil.
I still don't fit in any of those groups.
You must of not every read anything I have written concerning religious matters.
Everything that flies under the banner of Christian ain't one.
In my book you have to be Christ Like to be a Christian.
I am working on being one. I am a born again child of the King.
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 312 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2008 7:01 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2008 9:07 AM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024