Before Big Bang God or Singularity

Yes, finally, this is exactly what I am saying.Not becasue you are stupid or dumb but simply becasue it is not possible to extrapolate from analogies. The real language of this subject is mathematics - and rather complex mathematics. I am translating the mathematics into some vague words and pictures so some of the ideas can be explained to non-cosmologists/mathematicians. Hawking is doing the same thing, though aimed at a slightly different audiance. Our analogies only correspond to each other in part - we have our different ways of explaining the subject. So there is no way you can combine what we are saying to conclude anything. Even your chance of successfully extrapolating from what either of us are saying in isolation is extremely remote - the language we are using is not designed to be used to make predictions. For that you need the real mathematical language. Sad but true. I can do that, but I need you to promise to stop running off with mad conclusions - in my first post in this thread, I presented quite a bit of information and given the responses I sorely regretted getting involved in this thread. I'm doing my VAT return, so time is at a premium this weekend.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Who says it has no relevance? Yes, 'common sense' would - but until you can actually define what you mean by 'something', 'from' and 'nothing' in the context of a solution to the Einstein Field Equations, the phrase has absolutely no meaning. I can assure you that this is not trivial. Let's see what you wrote in post 101: Complete nonsense Unbelievable nonsense Hawking's solution to the singularity is not the 'north pole' analogy... the analogy is a way of explaining his solution to the layman. His (and Hartle's) solution is a fantastic piece of quantum cosmology mathematics in semi-classical quantum gravity. And this is what you refer to as question-begging If I find time, I'll derive the whole thing for you here and you can let me know where he went wrong. I take it you're fine with the standard ADM 3+1 decomposition and the Wheeler-deWitt equation?

Significantly less than 1% of all astrophysicists and cosmologists is not many... it is insignificant. Wrong 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

---

This statement is meaningless gibberish. There are also no oceans 1000 miles above the equator. 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! What does not exist is your understanding... That small space IS the Universe. It cannot be in any larger space because that space does not exist at that time! You'll have to let me know what you mean by energy... Rubbish The singularity in the FLRW solution is surrounded by space-time. What are you talking about? What??? Where did this come from? What have black holes got to do with any of this? 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... But of course it can... 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. 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

---

Yes Yes No... from T=10^-43 seconds to present, there is essentially one theory. For T<10^-43 there are several lines of current research. Essentially the Big Bang theory is the only viable theory. Not at all. Questions are always welcome. But professionals eventually become uptight when know-it-all laymen try to teach them their subject...

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.

Missed these: 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.

---

It takes place in a Euclidean region of the Universe, located around T=0, where time *as you think of it* does not exist. 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.

No 'think' about it Yes, this is very true; your 'c' analogy is apt. Using Universe to refer to both the 4d entity and the 3d space slice at a particular time causes untold problems when communicating to the layman, but is not even noticable between professionals. However, you will note that I tried a little terminology straightening in my very first post, which was immediately quoted-mined, misunderstood, and misrepresented by our resident pastor. I am thus not too convinced that untangling terminology would be of that much practical benefit in this case... other than to the peanut gallery of course. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Completely untrue - vrtually all of the recent papers are available for free if you know where to look. Here is Hawking's latest on the No-Boundary Proposal from two days ago. Let me know what you think. Once you've digested that, I'll find some more for you... Really? And what are these sites? The singularity has never been an explanation of the origin of the Universe, as you have been told repeatedly so what have you acheived? No, you have not. You have simply completely failed to grasp what has been explained to you ad nauseam. That you insist that you have managed to reason something in this field contrary to what Son Goku and I have been telling you is the height of arrogance. Let me know how you get on with that paper...

Yep, that's a good peanut understanding. Minor quibbles would include:Stressing the 'zero-dimensional' as possibly something odd, when all points are zero-dimensional. The North Pole is zero dimensional, but that doesn't mean anything strange happens there.It is infinite energy density, not infinite energy; and I would possibly advise saying that the energy density grows without bound as you approach T=0.I would avoid saying gravity, as that gives the wrong impression. Space-time curavture grows without bound as you approach T=0.Take these on board, and it's looking rather good.

That does not follow at all... you can fool yourself that you understand this, but you will not fool me. Complete nonsenseWe are talking about the physics and mathematics of General Relativity and space-time, where time and space swap identities, time can loop back upon itself, and everything you think you know about 'common sense' and 'the way things must be' is utterly invalid. Welcome to being totally out of your depth.As I said long ago, you need to stop making proclamations, empty your mind of all preconceptions, and ask questions. If you find yourself about to make a proclamation, make a quick check... if you have not yet made it past masters level cosmology, hold the proclamation and keep asking questions...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

It didn't 'appear' from anywhere. It just is. If God (or a god) created the Universe, he didn't bring it into being at some point. He brought the whole of it into existence - past, present, and future. Stop looking towards the T=0 point for the act of creation. If there was an act of creation, then it applies to every point in space-time..

Given the reams of counterproductive drivel from Tesla and ICANT, I think it should die (and thought so 100 posts ago.) If basic analogies are still being argued with at post 399, I do not see the discussion benefiting anyone, certainly not at this late stage.