I don't think he is catching that our universe could have existed before time and that time is a product of our universe.
ICANT has a history of being completely unable to comprehend a finite but unbounded dimension. We've been over the issue with him many times as to the actual nature of time, and what it means when discussing "beginnings" and "causes." He continues to insist that, if the Universe has a "beginning," it must also have a "cause," as if the notion of a preceding event has any meaning when discussing an absolute minimum value for time. As we've said to him many times, it's like asking what's farther North than the North Pole.
He also likes to compare "eternity" to Hawking's imaginary time, an additional timelike dimension that I don't completely understand (and neither does ICANT - the difference is that i admit it ).
Our resident physicists, cavediver and Son Goku (cavediver at least having actually taught cosmology at the University level, so he knows what he's talking about), have even tried to help ICANT understand. And failed. Repeatedly.
The problem is that ICANT isn't looking to understand facts or scientific models. He already "knows" the Truth. He's looking for similarities from science to support his preconceived position. If it sounds like it supports what he already believes, he'll jump on it - even if the actual theory doesn't even remotely resemble what he thinks it says on the surface. That which outright disagrees with his pet model...well, he has faith that "someday" we'll figure it our, and he'll have been right all along.
It is my understanding that 13.7b years ago is simpy when time started in our universe. Space still existed in the singularity state, no? Whether or not there is a multiverse is still hypothetical, no?
The singularity is not an object. It's a mathematical conundrum, a place where our current understanding of physics is incapable of making accurate predictions.
At T=0, roughly 13.7 billion years ago, reversing the observed expansion of the Universe leads us to a point where the spacial dimensions consist of a single, dimensionless point, in which all of the mass/energy of the Universe was compressed. This point is the Universe. It does not exist in space, it is space, as well as time (time is just another dimension, like length or width or height). Basically, the incredible density of the Universe at this location in time means that spacetime would have been warped to an infinite degree.
The Universe is not expanding into space - space itself is expanding. Length, width, and height are getting larger. Matter is not flying apart from a central explosion; literally the space in between any two objects is increasing without movement, something like stationary ants on an inflating balloon.
It's not "when time started." T=0 is simply the minimum value of the time dimension. Saying that "time started" is no more accurate than saying that the North Pole is where the surface of the Earth started.
The problem when discussing this topic is that the closer we approach to T=0, the less human beings are able to intuitively grasp and understand what's being talked about. We need incredibly complex math to model these concepts, and when physicists "dumb it down" to the level of the layperson, we wind up with the sorts of misconceptions that ICANT commonly clings to.
The words "beginning" and "started" stop being useful when we discuss an absolute minimum value for the time dimension. Saying time "started" requires a previous moment in time where time was "stopped," which is self-contradictory because it requires a coordinate outside of the scope of the coordinate set. What coordinate is farther North than the North Pole? The question has no meaning.
Ok, so essentially a singularity has no dimensions but it expanded into the universe that we live in today?
I think we need to open a thread on singularities..??
No. A singularity is a mathematical artifact. It's a word we use to refer to "singular" phenomenon that aren't describable with current models. "The singularity" isn't a physical object, and it's not a "form" the Universe took at T=0. It's how we say "at this particular coordinate of time, we can't effectively describe the Universe with what we know right now." Black holes also have a singularity at their center, which basically means "at this location, current models cannot accurately predict what's going on."
The Universe has been expanding for the entire length of time. You could say that it's been expanding forever, even though time has a minimum value (much like the surface of a sphere has no beginning and no end, but it has a finite surface area - it's finite but unbounded). The Universe did not "expand out of a singularity." The Universe expanded (and is still expanding - it seems to be a basic property of space to expand); the word singularity only refers to that point in time where the conditions of the Universe don't allow current physics models to make accurate predictions. Does that make more sense?
We've had several threads on the subject. Take a look at cavediver's posts for some of the most informative bits. He's an actual physicist and former cosmology professor. You can also take a look at Son Goku, another resident physicist.
The beachball is a representative of time. So, the singularity is the pole of the ball, as it were. Each infinitely small strip around that pole is a snapshot of the universe at a particular moment in time. We are currently in a thin slice around that pole, closer to the equator where the universe (that strip of ball) is larger than it was in previous moment of time. The singularity is on the ball because it is the "starting point" of the universe, and as such, must be represented on a timeline of the universe, no?
You feel free to bash your head against the wall; maybe you'll make it through this time.
My head still hurts from last time - that Wall of Ignorance is thick.
Explain how something can be accelerating and continuint to circle the earth in just under 12 hrs.
Before cavediver has too much of a laughing fit...
"Acceleration" in physics has a very specific meaning: change in velocity (velocity has a specific meaning as well - it includes both speed and direction). Reducing speed is acceleration. Changing directions is acceleration.
If you swing a ball on a string, even if the ball's speed remains constant, the ball is accelerating - its velocity is changing, because its direction is changing.
A satellite in orbit is exactly the same - even if the speed of the satellite remains exactly the same to maintain geosynchronous orbit, its direction is constantly changing - and so it is accelerating without speeding up.
This has consequences, because acceleration means that work is being done, and so entropy must increase. But that's a bit off-topic at the moment.
And yes, this means that when you hit your brakes in your car, you are accelerating. Yet another one of those cases where "common sense" usage of terms just winds up confusing laypeople when physicists start talking...and why you have a terminal case of foot-in-mouth disease.
Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, ICANT. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!
Well, Bob, ICANT has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, ICANT gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.
But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat.
You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you?
You have that saved away for copy/pasting just for these occasions, don't you.