Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Before Big Bang God or Singularity
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 405 (452449)
01-30-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Son Goku
01-30-2008 11:51 AM


Re: Singularity.
Hey Son Goku,
Thanks for the insight. I just have one discrepancy...
windscreen glass
They're windshields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Son Goku, posted 01-30-2008 11:51 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Son Goku, posted 01-30-2008 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 405 (452452)
01-30-2008 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
01-30-2008 12:05 PM


Re: Singularity.
Catholic Scientist writes:
They're windshields
Windscreen is the British word and hence cooler and more popular with today's youth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-30-2008 12:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 78 of 405 (452457)
01-30-2008 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Son Goku
01-30-2008 11:51 AM


Re: Singularity.
Hi Son,
Son Goku writes:
Now Hawking and Penrose in the 1960s showed that Einstein's General Relativity has singularities in two cases:
(1) Inside black holes.
(2) At the Big Bang.
I understand black holes.
I do not understand that it is reasonable to assume a singularity at the Big Bang just because it had to have one.
Sounds like Faith like I have in God.
Son Goku writes:
We need a new theory,
Correction you need a new theory.
Mine is still sufficient.
I know I been told enough times I don't have a theory so you don't have to repeat that.
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Son Goku, posted 01-30-2008 11:51 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Son Goku, posted 01-30-2008 12:37 PM ICANT has replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 405 (452461)
01-30-2008 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ICANT
01-30-2008 12:24 PM


Re: Singularity.
ICANT writes:
I understand black holes.
I do not understand that it is reasonable to assume a singularity at the Big Bang just because it had to have one.
General Relativity has a singularity at the Big Bang, because one of its physical quantities diverges (becomes infinite) there. This is a mathematical issue in General Relativity. As I said, a singularity is not a "thing", it signals a break down in the theory. Hawking and Penrose showed that General Relativity has such a mathematical "breakdown" near the Big Bang. As such it is no longer capable of fulling predicting things.
You must not think of a singularity as an physical object that is supposed to exist and that Hawking and Penrose are claiming that they found it or something.
If you think that General Relativity hasn't a singularity at the Big Bang, then you are making an assertion about the formal structure of the theory. An assertion that is provably incorrect. You would be asserting that General Relativity does not break down at the Big Bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 12:24 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 1:07 PM Son Goku has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 80 of 405 (452467)
01-30-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Son Goku
01-30-2008 12:37 PM


Re: Singularity.
Hi Son,
Son Goku writes:
Hawking and Penrose showed that General Relativity has such a mathematical "breakdown" near the Big Bang. As such it is no longer capable of fulling predicting things.
I understand that it can not predict anything therefore it can not declare anything.
Anything at this point has to be assumed and there is an absence of anything to make the assumption from.
But Faith.
How about I insert God at that point and say: In the beginning God created the heaven and the universe. Gen. 1:1.
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Son Goku, posted 01-30-2008 12:37 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 01-30-2008 1:17 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 82 by Son Goku, posted 01-30-2008 1:24 PM ICANT has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 81 of 405 (452471)
01-30-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
01-30-2008 1:07 PM


Re: Singularity.
I understand that it can not predict anything therefore it can not declare anything.
Anything at this point has to be assumed and there is an absence of anything to make the assumption from.
But Faith.
How about I insert God at that point and say: In the beginning God created the heaven and the universe. Gen. 1:1.
Have fun,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 1:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 1:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 405 (452475)
01-30-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
01-30-2008 1:07 PM


Re: Singularity.
ICANT writes:
I understand that it can not predict anything therefore it can not declare anything.
It can't predict anything previous to that point. Of course it makes predictions in general, today and in the past. It is only near the Big Bang and inside black holes that it breaks down.
ICANT writes:
How about I insert God at that point and say: In the beginning God created the heaven and the universe. Gen. 1:1.
Well because:
ICANT writes:
Anything at this point has to be assumed and there is an absence of anything to make the assumption from.
In general though, that assertion doesn't really solve any of the pertinent problems or issues. It doesn't tell us anything about the new physics that replaces General Relativity. You must not treat this as some kind of "Atheistic science versus Christianity" battleground. It's a question about the physics of a region of the universe we currently know nothing about and need a new theory to describe. It would give us answers to questions such as "What is responsible for a Black Hole's entropy?"
Your assertion does not answer that and is little more than a declaration that you believe in God, which has no more to do with this than any other issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 1:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 2:07 PM Son Goku has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 83 of 405 (452479)
01-30-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
01-30-2008 1:17 PM


Re: Singularity.
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
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.
Glad you like my theology but not here OK.
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 01-30-2008 1:17 PM Rahvin has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 84 of 405 (452482)
01-30-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Son Goku
01-30-2008 11:51 AM


Re: Singularity.
GDR writes:
It seems to me that a singularity is a dimensionless point of infinite or almost infinite energy. If I can go further it seems that particles are pretty much the same thing except with defined amounts of energy.
Son Goku writes:
First of all, I'll begin with what you might call an operational definition of a singularity. A singularity is a point where a physical quantity becomes undefined. Usually due to the appearance of underlying physics not fully appreciated in the model.
It seems to me that these statements can be compatible. If it is undefined then it could well be dimensionless. It seems to me that most of the things I have read seem to imply that singularities and particles are dimensionless points but like you say the nearest thing that can be said with confidence is that they are undefined.
Is this a reasonable statement?
Thanks for this. Free school!

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Son Goku, posted 01-30-2008 11:51 AM Son Goku has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 85 of 405 (452483)
01-30-2008 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Son Goku
01-30-2008 1:24 PM


Re: Singularity.
Hi Son,
Son Goku writes:
It can't predict anything previous to that point. Of course it makes predictions in general, today and in the past. It is only near the Big Bang and inside black holes that it breaks down.
Does it breakdown after T=0?
At T=0?
Before T=0?
My understanding is it breaks down at T=0 and therefore can not declare anything prior to T=0. Correct me if that is wrong.
Son this is not my aim: "Atheistic science versus Christianity"
This is my aim: "It's a question about the physics of a region of the universe we currently know nothing about and need a new theory to describe."
I think I proved with my OP that a new theory is needed.
Is the Super string theory it. Maybe, maybe not.
Hawking's unbounded universe. Maybe, maybe not.
I like the imaginary time in this one.
Is God the answer. Maybe, maybe not.
But I can still believe in my God without fear of Him being blown out of the heavens by the Big Bang.
But in reality every thing beyond T=O will be believed by Faith as we have an absence of anything to base anything on.
Although I still have the Bible to inspire my Faith.
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Son Goku, posted 01-30-2008 1:24 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Son Goku, posted 01-30-2008 2:20 PM ICANT has replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 405 (452487)
01-30-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
01-30-2008 2:07 PM


Re: Singularity.
ICANT writes:
Does it breakdown after T=0?
At T=0?
Before T=0?
My understanding is it breaks down at T=0 and therefore can not declare anything prior to T=0. Correct me if that is wrong.
I don't like calling the Big Bang "T=0", but going on that wording it breaksdown between T = 0 and T = A very small amount of time.
ICANT writes:
But I can still believe in my God without fear of Him being blown out of the heavens by the Big Bang.
Naturally you can.
ICANT writes:
Is God the answer. Maybe, maybe not.
Not. Can you use God to explain the origins of a Black Hole's entropy?
If the question had been "What is behind reality?" or something similar then:
ICANT writes:
Is God the answer. Maybe, maybe not.
would be a resonable response. It is not a reasonable response to:
"What is the physical theory that treats the new degrees of freedom present at the Big Bang and inside black holes?"
The problem is you are still treating this as some kind of "origins issue".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 2:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 2:55 PM Son Goku has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 87 of 405 (452494)
01-30-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Son Goku
01-30-2008 2:20 PM


Re: Singularity.
Hi Son,
Son Goku writes:
I don't like calling the Big Bang "T=0", but going on that wording it breaksdown between T = 0 and T = A very small amount of time.
So that is after. Therefore it cannot declare anything at or before.
Thus anything from T=A and before has to be taken by Faith.
Son Goku writes:
It is not a reasonable response to:
"What is the physical theory that treats the new degrees of freedom present at the Big Bang and inside black holes?"
Why? Are you saying God is not capable of creating the universe?
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Son Goku, posted 01-30-2008 2:20 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Chiroptera, posted 01-30-2008 2:58 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 89 by PMOC, posted 01-30-2008 3:12 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 90 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 3:14 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 96 by Son Goku, posted 01-31-2008 7:33 AM ICANT has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 405 (452495)
01-30-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
01-30-2008 2:55 PM


Re: Singularity.
Thus anything from T=A and before has to be taken by Faith.
Or not taken at all until a better theory is devised.

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 2:55 PM ICANT has not replied

PMOC
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 41
From: USA
Joined: 06-01-2007


Message 89 of 405 (452498)
01-30-2008 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
01-30-2008 2:55 PM


Re: Singularity.
Why? Are you saying God is not capable of creating the universe?
Capable or not, the simple assertion that he/she/it did so is not USEFUL. What predictions can you make about black holes with the "God created the universe" model for the early expansion of the universe? What does the "god created the universe" model tell me about the location or behavior of distant clusters or galaxies? What are the implications for gravity and quantum mechanics from your nonfalsifiable "god created the universe" theory. How does your "god created the universe" enhance in anyway the understanding of our physical surroundings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 2:55 PM ICANT has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 90 of 405 (452500)
01-30-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
01-30-2008 2:55 PM


Re: Singularity.
Thus anything from T=A and before has to be taken by Faith.
Scientists do not give up when a theory has (possibly) fatal flaws.
Scientists do not concoct ridiculous explanations ("god") and hand wave away the ugly bits.
Scientists get excited when they find the boo boos.
Or, at least I know I do.
Were scientists to just give up when a (possibly) fatal flaw is detected in a theory (Newtonian physics) and settle for an absurd rationalization (goddidit), then we would be much, much worse off as a species than we are now.
Theories have flaws. All of them. No exceptions.
Which is why folks on this board fight so damn hard to correct creos who declare that such-and-such is "proven" or a "law".
Your ill-informed, god-awful misconceptions about physics -- driven by some pathological need to cram a god into the cracks of physics theory -- are painful to read.
I hope that you now understand that you don't understand.
And throwing around terms you couldn't define if your life depended on it -- like "string theory" or "unbounded universe" -- doesn't mean you understand one teensy tinsy bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 2:55 PM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024