Before Big Bang God or Singularity

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

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.

eh? What? In a sense it means spaceless and timeless, which of course makes no sense. That's the kind of nonsense we get when we apply a model that is not up to the task of describing that level. Agreed. No, I don't think we can say that absolutely. Imagine trying to peer through the thickest fog - we cannot say absolutely what lies on the other side. I've seen one idea that the net energy of the universe is zero, and some theories say that T=0 doesn't really exist since time wasn't really like time at that part of the universe, but more like space. Given the almost inherent uncertainty, how can we expect to know anything with anything approaching absolute certainty?

Great. That's what I said. Right, and every direction from T=0 is forwards in time. There exists only one direction to travel in time at T=0 just like there exists only one direction at the North Pole. The North Pole isn't directionless and T=0 doesn't have to be timeless. It doesn't matter. You could define the north pole as being the desk where you are sat at and then everywhere you look would be south by definition. Then I wouldn't be at the definition of the North Pole we are working from. I am referring to the most Northern Point. There has to be one, however you want to determine where it is. At that point, there is nothing north of you - only things south of you.

So you agree that it doesn't have to be timeless? You just believe that it is. By definition, nothing is. Because that is true. Tell me one direction that is not south that you can travel in. For help in this, feel free to read the Encarta page (the first paragraph has some good hints). NOAA has a pertinent page too:

quote:

---

The North and South Poles are special points on the Earth, because they are singularities of our coordinate system. All directions from the North Pole can be called South, because they are directed exactly away from the North Pole. The directions of North, South, East and West lose the meaning they have elsewhere on the Earth.

---

Hey, singularities in a coordinate system, where have I heard something similar? Anyway, you can also go to the Arctic studies center for more information to aid your quest to show how what I said was not a true statement. Good luck with that.

Why? I don't know. We can debate various possibilities, but that's not what you are asking. Is there? How do you know? That makes no sense. If time progresses as normal, then the time period that things were like that is quite determinable. If time isn't as normal, then there might not even be a T=0, as we really understand it. Well, I wouldn't say that exactly. But let's move on for the moment. The universe we have today is the current result of events that took place in the early universe and the subsequent events thereof. You keep saying we can do this, but you haven't actually done it here. Perhaps a new thread would be a good place to show your working? I don't understand what you are talking about, how am I meant to 'see' anything with your strange use of language. Clearly express what you mean, and we might get further. You've made a whole bunch of claims about a part of the universe for which you have no evidence. Some of the claims aren't written in normal English. You might think it is the truth, but when you engage in obscurantism, nobody is going to be able to make it out. It ain't that we're blind or even pretending to be. Other possibilities include that at T=0 there was a net energy of zero. Or that there was no T=0.

Up and down aren't included intentionally. I see you are still having difficulty with even the most simply of analogies. So we're agreed at last. It doesn't have to be timeless. I suppose that's a good as place as any to finish the thread.

Not really, no. No, actually not all mathematics does this. Observation cannot do it. And logic is irrelevant at this scale. Not until I see that someone has done the work to demonstrate that it is a possibility. Otherwise it is just pointless philosophical/theological drivel. You might as well ask me to accept that the truth of my table is multiple with intelligence as a possibility. Why should I?I suggest you take a long look at the word you are using, and try and form a new thread in which to hash out what you are saying. I probably won't participate but then at least it is out of your system.