Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?

OK, so nothing exists at T=0, what follows from your hypothesis?

Hi t4c, You should have seen how these guys pounded me when I mentioned before in another thread. If I am in a forest I would expect trees to be there.If I am looking nothing I expect nothing to be there. And since science can tell me nothing I have to guess. Add an assumption, or just have faith that something was there.But if it was, where did it come from?Now I got to make more assumptions.I have mentioned assumptions several times so I will now quote Hawking. Herepage 40. Hawking said these assumptions were necessary to predict anything.In other words we have to presume certain things existed.You call it anything you want too.As I have stated throughout the only way it can be there is if I believe it is there and that is faith.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."

First, I'm not sure why you keep typing the letter O instead of the numeral 0. Is this part of the learning disorder that you continue to exhibit?At any rate, you are correct. So far there is no evidence that anything existed at t=0. As far as we know, the universe may have began at t=2.3 x 10^-50. Or the universe may have began precisely at t=10^-43, although it would be a remarkable coincidence of the universe began at the precise moment when our current understanding of the laws of physics begin to be valid. In fact, so remarkable a coincidence that I think that it would be a matter of faith in its commonly accepted sense to believe that this is when the universe began.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

Hi Rahvin, If we go on that logic then it should exist prior to T=O.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."

How surprising - the same exact misconception that you demonstrated three threads ago. You'll note that I explained in greater detail in the same exact post you just quoted, but you either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or just ignored it.Time is part of the Universe. You cannot possibly have coordinates of time for which the Universe does not exist. It's like saying there is a latitude/longitude where there is no Earth! The coordinates T=0, T=10^-43, T=1, etc, are all locations in one dimension of the Universe. To say that the Universe may not have existed at a coordinate of the Universe itself is pure nonsense. It's like saying there is a place on my body where I don't exist.

Hi Mod, Well I actually believe something exists at T=0 and even prior to T=0.
And Yes I believe it by faith.I refer to it as pure energy and from that energy everything that ever was and ever will be had it's beginning. This same energy is what keeps things as they are.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."

That's funny. I actually don't believe that anything exists at t=0 or before t=0. Since we don't have a theory that explains what may have been happening at these alleged points in time, I honestly don't know what was happening.I guess that's the difference between the faith-based approach you use and the more pragmatic empirical approach that certain others have.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

Hi Rahvin, Sure you could all you would have to do is call it eternity.I like that better than I do imaginary 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."

OK, do you agree that the hypothesis 'nothing^* exists' leads to no hypothesis whatsoever, other than perhaps 'nothing exists now'? Since there is something now, would you agree that on the face of it - the hypothesis is falsified and we might get better understanding by theorizing possibilities where 'something' exists?By developing a hypothesis, there is no requirement to commit to that hypothesis as an article of faith. The only requirement is, does the hypothesis lead to predictions that can be tested? If so, let's test them and see what happens.If you disagree, why? If you do not, where is the necessity of faith? Where is the believing something without evidence?^* For simple definitions of nothing.

ICANT writes

quote:

---

You should have seen how these guys pounded me when I mentioned before in another thread.

---

I've skimmed through that thread. From what I was able to glean from it, they pounded you because of your persistence to treat the word "singularity" as a thing rather than a mathematical description of a state of complete unknown.

quote:

---

If I am in a forest I would expect trees to be there.

---

Well, ok. Scratch the forest part. Suppose you're walking in a desert or an arid environment. The analogy stands.

quote:

---

If I am looking nothing I expect nothing to be there. And since science can tell me nothing I have to guess. Add an assumption, or just have faith that something was there.

---

I think this is where other people might have a problem with the way you are presenting this.Many, if not most, people would agree that not all assumptions are faith based. Barrack Obama appears racially black to me so I assume that at some point in the past his ancestors must have originated from Africa. This assumption is not faith based at all. It is based on intuition from my previous experiences.From our previous experiences, if we've seen something at, say, point B and it is also moving toward point C, we could safely assume that at some point in the past the thing was at point A. This is not faith. This is simply an assumption based on human intuition that is derived from past experiences.From the evidence, we know that at very near T=0, the universe was very dense and very hot. Human intuition that is derived from past experiences would suggest that there must have been something right before this point that is very near T=0.Please do not confuse this type of assumption to faith based assumption. An example of faith based assumption is the belief in angels. There has been absolutely no physical evidence of the existence of angels. While some people have claimed to have seen angels, most have not. The belief in them, however, persist. This assumption of their existence is faith based.

quote:

---

But if it was, where did it come from?

---

Your guess is as good as mine.

quote:

---

You call it anything you want too.

---

Well, not really.

quote:

---

As I have stated throughout the only way it can be there is if I believe it is there and that is faith.

---

I must say that you have a very odd perception of what the word faith means.Perhaps this will clear it up. Many, if not most, people would agree with me that if I come across a fallen tree with burnt marks, especially after a stormy night, that my believing that lightning struck that tree down is not a faith based assumption. Do you dispute this?

Hi Chiroptera, You were answering Modulous and I thought you said you liked to read. So I pointed out this article. I thought the article was pretty good.It explains the redshift and does away with the need for dark matter.So if this is correct Nernst, Finlay-Freundlich, Max Born and Louis
de Broglie was correct and their theory of a Universe in dynamical
equilibrium without expansion and without continuous creation of matter, would be the correct Theory.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."

ICANT writes

quote:

---

What would happen if we could find something to make Max Born a little more of a prophet?

​

Discovery of H2, in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
Published in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring 2000

---

Could you provide a link?

Hi t4c, This is my definition of faith.Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. That is a normal assumption. But if you did not examine the tree stump and the burn mark because time was too short or for any other reason and went on your merry way believing it was caused by the lightning the night before you would be accepting that fact on faith.If you examined the stump and it was a fresh break then you examined the burn mark and found it to be fresh, then you would have pretty good circumstantial evidence.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 t4c, Sorry thought I did. Here it is.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."

ICANT writes

quote:

---

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

---

Some would argue that this is a useless definition because of its cryptic nature that could be applied to just about anything. From this definition, I could very well say that our knowledge of the aromatic nature of benzene is based on faith.

quote:

---

That is a normal assumption. But if you did not examine the tree stump and the burn mark because time was too short or for any other reason and went on your merry way believing it was caused by the lightning the night before you would be accepting that fact on faith.

---

1 - I did examine the burn marks.
2 - There was a thunder storm last night.
3 - The tree is fallen with no visible sawing mark.

quote:

---

If you examined the stump and it was a fresh break then you examined the burn mark and found it to be fresh, then you would have pretty good circumstantial evidence.

---

And circumstancial evidence for a very dense and very hot early universe as well as the inflationary nature of the universe is exactly what we have.I'm beginning to suspect that you're just being difficult on purpose.