Before Big Bang God or Singularity

If that's your only reason for introducing the Christian god into the equation, you may as well replace your god with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Odin, Zeus, or a miniature giant space hamster. You're using the God of the Gaps, adding your god to any gap in current knowledge. It violates parsimony and is the method of a sloppy mind.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Oh for crying out loud! It's an analogy, ICANT!And aside from that, the rocket would be heading "up." Not North. The North Star is called the North Star because it happens to be aligned with our North pole, but the star itself doesn't designate the direction.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

ICANT, time is part of space-time. Speaking about "before" space-time is like taking this ray:*------------------------------>and asking "what point is farther to the left of the start of the ray?"It doesn't make sense - there are no points on the line farther to the left of the start of the ray."Before" is defined as "earlier in time than x." You're trying to ask "what is earlier in time than time?" That question doesn't make sense.If you stand exactly on magnetic North and pull out a compass, how do you go further North? The question doesn't make sense.If you ask "which is higher up, Mars or Venus?" the question doesn't make sense - "up" from the perspective of Earth doesn't make sense after you get a relatively short distance from the ground.Any of this helping? The questions you're asking and the things you say when you think you understand are like asking "what's wider than width?"

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Your concept of time may be the problem.In the number set (5-20), what comes before 5? The question doesn't make sense.We experience time in a linear fashion because the chemical and electric reactions that produce our consciousness function only in the direction of increasing entropy - ie, in a single direction in time. But time is just another dimension of the Universe, like width, or height, or length. It's had for us to understand, because our perception of time is like only being able to walk forward without turning or stopping. In your case, you're trying to ask what your footsteps look like farther back than when you began walking.If you ask what in this room is higher than the ceiling, the question doesn't make sense. Likewise, asking what came before time when the word "before" requires the dimension of time to exist doesn't make sense either. You're asking what's further than "left."Cavediver, please feel free to correct my innumerable analogies.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Why does it have to "come from" anything at all?Why does it need to be "created?"We know that the Universe does exist. We have a pretty good idea of many of its properties (by no means a complete understanding). The idea that it needed to be "created" or at some point did not exist is an assumption on your part (and the latter doesn't even make sense - the Universe has existed at every single point in time, because the Universe includes time).

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

You're assuming there ever was "nothing." Modern physics says nothing of the sort. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, the Big Bang has nothing to do with creation ex nihilo. The Universe did not come into existence from nothing, or by chance. It simply followed out the extrapolation of its natural properties in the direction of increasing entropy (in other words, it is expanding in one direction of time, which we experience linearly but is simply another dimension like width).

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

No. As has been explained to you, T=0 is simply a point in time. The Big Bang does not say that anything at all came from nothing. Your analogy has no basis in physics or Big Bang cosmology. There is not reason beyond your incredulity that the Universe needs an actual "beginning." You were not told that space and time were created in the Big Bang. Go back and read what cavediver actually told you. The Singularity is a feature of the Universe at T=0, not the "cause" of anything.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

The Universe exists at every point on the timeline, because time is a dimension of the Universe. There is no time at which the Universe did not exist. By definition, the Universe has always existed.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

NO IT WAS NOT! You've been told this over and over again in this thread. Stop listening to what the Discovery Channel and Popular Science tell you in their watered-down versions made so even kids can understand, and start listening to Cavediver, who knows the actual claims of the Big Bang model and physics! No! Again, you're using a strawman version of Big Bang cosmology, gathered from your understanding based on layman's explanations for the Big Bang. News flash: The Discovery Channel and other "sciency" channels have programs that are extremely simplified to the point of being fairly inaccurate, because the average person doesn't have a prayer of comprehending the complex math and theory that goes into the Big Bang model. Your comprehension is flawed.The Big Bang was not the "beginning" of the Universe as you're stating. Nothing was "created in the Big Bang. The Bang is what we call the expansion of the Universe from the Singularity to what we see today - not a scientific verification of your "creation ex nihilo" fantasies. If and when cavediver provides a definition of the actual Big Bang model, I somehow doubt you'll comprehend it. As it stands, you haven't been able to wrap your head around fully 80% of the posts in this thread, as you continue to make claims regarding the Big Bang and the Singularity that you have been told are false.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

You're still repeating the exact same things you have said for 300+ posts. You haven't learned a damned thing.We do not suspect anything about T<0, for the same reason we don't wonder at what is North of the North Pole.We do know that there was something in the fractions of a second after T=0, but the conditions at that moment were such that it causes a singularity with current mathematics, so we have no way currently to describe those conditions in a meaningful way. From the barest fraction of a second after T=0 and onward, we have a pretty good understanding - it's only that teensy fraction of a second that we don't have a working model.The Big Bang model is so accurate in its predictive qualities that there is nearly zero argument - disputes and additional research occur over the details, but the idea that the Universe expanded and is still expanding is almost universally accepted with the same degree of certainty that, say, gravity will still work tomorrow the same way that it works today.There are multiple approaches being studied for that teensy moment after T=0, because our math simply doesn't work for the conditions prior to that.This has nothing to do with T<0. Nothing at all. You, in fact, are the only one talking about nonsense like T<0. We have told you, in more than half of the responses in a 300+ post thread, that Tstill insist on saying "we suspect there was something prior to T=0." Do you have any idea how ridiculously silly that statement is? It's silly enough to generate half of the replies in this thread to tell you that your most basic assumption is false and meaningless. You, of course, simply refuse to comprehend it.Let's try one more time: What weighs less than nothing, ICANT? What has less mass than empty space? The question is meaningless unless you propose negative mass - as observed in our Universe, mass is always >= 0. Just like length, or width, or height, or time.T=0 is a point in spacetime where our current math reaches a singularity - this means that equations like speed = distance / time make no sense whatsoever when applied at a point where space essentially would have existed as a single point. For any equation that would look like "Speed = 0/0", or gravity equations where mass and energy density approach the infinite, we simply don't have an answer yet.Do you know what an asymptote is? It's a curve that approaches a value infinitely, but never actually reaches it. There's an asymptote at the speed of light when talking about accelerating any object with mass - the energy required to accelerate further increases exponentially, and it would require infinite energy to actually accelerate any mass to the speed of light.Our understanding of T=0 is like an asymptote - as we approach the actual moment where T=0, our understanding breaks down. Current math can get almost imperceptibly close, but cannot actually describe the Universe in the tiny fraction of a second immediately after T=0.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

"Before" T=0 is a nonsense statement. You are asking "what weighs less than nothing," "what is North of the North Pole," and "what is farther than left."Nothing "appeared out of an absence of anything." The Universe exists at T=0 in a state current mathematics cannot describe, which we call a "singularity." Saying that something came "before" T=0 requires negative time, which is complete and total nonsense. Time is always >= 0. It is never < 0. Exactly as mass is always > = 0, and never is mass < 0.Your incomprehension is based upon the silly notion that you can go below 0 in a non-negative number set. You lack comprehension of basic math, and cannot wrap your head around this no matter how many times it is explained. You repeat the same nonsense, every time.Let's go over this, shall we? Because it's nonsensical. "Points" are human assigned coordinates. Space-time exists, and at one coordinate in space-time (when T=0), current mathematics reaches a singularity. A singularity is not an object, it is a point where we say "wow, all of our physics equations stop working in those conditions." At the point T=0, there is a mathematical singularity that prevents us from describing the barest moment immediately after T=0.This has nothing to do with T<0. Nothing at all, because that would be a nonsense statement.Given a graph that contains only positive values for x and y, there is a point at x=0. Asking what is farther to the left on that graph than x=0 is nonsense, because the graph has no coordinate less than zero! We say that we cannot say exactly what y is at x=0 because the graph reaches an asymptote, and you go off insisting that there must be something to the left of x=0! You don't even make the beginning of sense, ICANT, and you repeat gibberish in every post. There is no such thing as T<0. Time is always > = 0, and never negative.You can no more have "a few moments prior to T=0" than you can have "a few grams less than nothing at all!"

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Oh for the love of...That was a metaphor, used to describe what an asymptote looks like!The rest of your post is in the "so off the mark it's not even wrong" category.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

At no point in the dimension we call time did the Universe not exist. "Before" loses all meaning when speaking of T=0. You are the one presupposing that something came from nothing, nobody else.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

I can neither agree nor disagree. Again, your comments are so far departed from reality that you aren't even wrong.As we understand physics, nothing can move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Energy can be transmitted at the speed of light, but not faster. However, we simply cannot describe the conditions that existed immediately after T=0 with current mathematics - we don't know much at all about that fraction of a second, and are at present unable to.While energy can become mass (photons in the form of gamma rays generating electron/positron pairs for example), we cannot say that the Universe consisted solely of "energy" in that fraction of a second. Baryonic matter (that is, matter made up of the particles we are used to like protons, neutrons, etc) may or may not have existed in that brief time and for a period of time after that, but that doesn't mean the Universe was "pure energy" or anything along the nonsense tesla likes to suggest.Cavediver can feel free to correct me on any of that, of course.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

There is no point in time where the universe does not exist. As T approaches 0, the universe was much smaller than it currently is. When T=0 and for a brief fraction of a second afterwards, conditions were such that our mathematical models of the laws of physics break down, and we call the breakdown a singularity. The singularity is neither an object nor a cause. There you go again with "before." That word doesn't apply - it's meaningless in this context. Stop it, ICANT. You're still asking what weighs less than nothing. That doesn't even make sense. The singularity is what we call a breakdown in the math - it's not an object.T=0 marks the closest point in time to T=0 - it's the North Pole. You're trying to ask "what is closer to T=0 than T-0", which is the same as asking "What's North of the North Pole." "Before" is a term that means "closer to T=0 than the event in question," as it applies to this discussion. You're asking if North caused the North Pole. The curvature of spacetime creates a mathematical singularity. Spacetime simply exists - it requires no cause. Non sequitur. Non sequitur.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.