Before Big Bang God or Singularity

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said, sorry.

Hi Mod, You said: "as we know it" If you had said I that would have made a difference.We know the universe as we see it by looking out the window, up at the sky or through a telescope. I am just guessing.ABE maybe I should have said I also.I don't think I would recognize it at 1 quintillion degrees.I am sorry if I confused you.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

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

Merriam Webster definition of algorithms: I don't understand proceedural matmatical algorithms as imperical and observable models

---

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

In a nutshell, yes. That concept is easy enough, in principle, to understand. But you seem to be having difficulty with a four dimensional reality, understanding the implications of an n-dimensional universe (where n is greater than 4) is just going to needlessly complicate issues. Yes, it is. Try this experiment.Follow a fly in your room. At any time you can describe the location of that fly with respect to its distance from the ground (height), its distance from the wall on your left (width) and the distance from the wall opposite (length). Our coordinate system is these three numbers {height, width, length} if the fly is 5 feet from the ground, 5 feet from one wall and 5 feet from the other we would say the fly is at {5,5,5}. If 10 seconds later the fly has moved it might now be at {2,5,7}.We represent the entirety of the fly's movement by including a time coordinate. So now it looks like {time, height, width, length}{0,5,5,5}
{1,4,5,6}
(2,3,6,7}
...
{10,2,5,7}Now we have a four dimensional description of the existence of the fly over whatever time period we choose. And space is a measurement of length. We can measure the distance between two time coordinates and we can measure the distance between two space coordinates.We can also measure the distance between spacetime coordinates - but let's not get into that right now. There is no difference between them. Imaginary time is just a different way of mathematically representing the dimension of time using imaginary numbers.

Models don't exist to be observable. However, your definition includes the broad definition: broadly : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computerThat is to say, simple mindless step-by-step procedures that can solve a problem or accomplish some end. We have observed this to happen, so the empirical and observable demand of yours is satisfied.

Certainly it would have a different average energy density. The universe from 50 minutes ago also had a different average energy density. The word 'know' that I used was in response to the phraseology of tesla, I would not have normally used it - I would have simply said that there is nothing necessarily magical or special at this time, and it would be no fundamentally different from any other point in the universe as we understand it.

Hi Mod, He moves too fast for me to get all those mesurements.The only thing the time element can tell you is when he was at a particular point in the room.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."

An interesting historical note: The coordinate system used in maps, known as the Cartesian coordinate system was said to have been developed after Descartes observed the movement of a fly in his room when he was bedridden with an illness. That's why I chose it as an example Correct. It acts as a coordinate to tell us 'when' and the other coordinates are spatial and tell us 'where'. If you specify a time coordinate you can look up the measurements and tell someone where the fly was at that time. You can also look up all the times when the fly was 5 feet away from the floor.

at the singularity, all laws of science and math break down.your trying to solve a mathematical equation with zero understood variables. including lack of time.even with the 4 realities your wishing to observe, you may be looking at a cause after T=0, or a complexity of what was at T=0.but at true T=0, there is no before. whatever was, was timeless. with no points of observation.singular for that reason.everyone just keeps skipping the reality of the issue. including you modulous. i like you. your smart. think about it please?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : spelling etc.

---

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

Or better: The maths breaks down because of a singularity that emerges in the equations. More like one ends up dividing things by zero, try it on your calculator and you'll see it doesn't like it. I see no reason that it has to be timeless just because you are talking about one end of time. That's like saying that the North Pole is directionless. Of course it isn't. It's just that every direction from there is South. I'm only talking about 1 reality with four dimensions. I am not talking about causes after T=0 and you're the only one talking about complexity. Well either your communication skills are severely lacking, you don't understand the subject (so you are the one skipping the reality) or my communication skills are lacking. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

then please do tell me, what is AT the north pole?

---

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

You can look it up. If you are actually asking what is at T=0, you have already received an answer to that question.

last post i made before these you never followed up.this argument has been a revolving door to nowhere. evading questions is not answering them.saying "no one knows" isn't an attempt to answer them.at one point, discussing the singularity it was described by science as "singular energy". then when i asked some hard questions, people put on the "dumb" face and said it doesn't say that.what is the truth modulous? what can or cannot be said of the singularity, as it MUST be, because we are, and T=0 is inevitable?what IS at the north pole, as opposed to what might be?

---

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

It is the only answer we have. I'm not currently employed as a cosmologist, nor have I had the necessary education to stand a hope of advancing the science. As it stands, there are people who are currently trying to answer these questions and those related to them. Hawking's idea has been presented as one of them. I don't remember anybody mentioning singular energy. Since I don't know what that means it would be odd of me to say that this is so. I honestly don't know, and I'm not going to try and make something up and pretend I do. That it is an artefact of a mathematical model. That is all that I know that can be said with any sense of certainty. No, it doesn't have to be. Our existence does not demand that a singularity must exist in the universe. Each time you ask, you receive the same answer: I don't know. That is the only truth there is. If I knew, I'd probably write a paper and maybe claim my money from Nobel's prize. If you don't want to discuss some of the possibilities, then all we have is the stark truth. We don't know.It would be a shame if you think that saying 'I don't know' is evasive. I think it is upfront honesty. The only alternatives are to say I do know but I'm not telling you, or taking one idea and claiming special knowledge that means I know it to be true. Those alternatives seem dishonest to me.

i like your honesty. but lets explore honestly, the possibilities and the implications past the numbers. it is inevitable. mathematically, and realistically, for any other conclusion. before that's do stop at one thing. and truly singular means timeless.reality modulus, is that something cannot come form absolutely nothing, regardless of appearance. you don't dispute that.so lets try to ask some questions about what that means of the mathematical time-point (T=0).no pressure, lets just see what happens when we try to determine the "what" at the "where".would you then answer for me?can we say absolutely, that at the coordinates of all that is being singular, that the something at T=0 would have to be "energy"?

---

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