The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

Nothing worse... Look like Holmes got zapped in the Coffee House too. Talk to you soon...

Chomsky came up with a wonderful sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."Your statement means about the same thing.

I'll leave SG to tell you that his post implied none of these But please please explain to me the meaning of

Does or does not mainline science insist there's no "before" the BB? If so, do you agree? 1. Nearly all.
2. The attitude that aspects of BB science cited in the message I was responding to are speculative. That's not what I said. My comment was addressing the statement about the speculative aspects of the BB being cited.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Are you going to yada or are you going to refute the specifics of the statement above?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

1. The present is an instentaneous immeasureable moment.
2. The present is an extension of history/the infinite past.
3. What presently is has eliminated the present from being inclusive of the eternal future.Edit errorThis message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-03-2006 12:31 AM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

quote:

---

Buz interpretation writes:

​

1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng.

​

nwr writes:

​

Chomsky came up with a wonderful sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
Your statement means about the same thing.

​

Are you going to yada or are you going to refute the specifics of the statement above?

---

At first glance, your statement (about the universe) looks like a meaningful sentence. But when you examine it closely, you can see that it makes no sense. That's what I was trying to illustrate by quoting the Chomsky sentence.If the statement makes no sense, then there is nothing there to refute.

buzsaw If the universe had no beginning is this not the same as saying that it never began?

It seems it is at least the orgin of spacetime and matter. Of which energy manifest everything. Orgin, originate....begin, begun...lets call the whole thing off.

There is already no universal "before" anyway.If we then attempt to discuss a construct like the universe, that has distance and time has observer dependant fields sitting in it, I think the words "before" and "after" have lost their usefulness.In any discussion of this kind, I think humans will have to get rid of the idea that everything is measured by a giant universal grandfather clock sitting somewhere out there.However that doesn't mean the Universe isn't a result of some process or thing or......e.t.c........
Simply that, whatever the Universe is a result of, causal language can't apply to it. Quantumist?
I would simply say I adopt the view of the world suggested by the experimental success of Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity.

quote:

---

It seems it is at least the orgin of spacetime and matter

---

I'll try and answer this.General Relativity tells us that the universe is the entire 4-D structure of spacetime. The universe doesn't evolve through time since time is just as part of the universe as space. The BB just refers to one section of this 4-D structure, and hence cannot be said to be the origin fo anything.[EDITED] for vaguenessThis message has been edited by JustinC, 04-03-2006 10:52 AM

There seems to be a some confusion as to what constitutes a "beginning" and what the word: "orgin" means in this discussion. If there was no space prior to T=0 then there was no time. Now how does one reconcile that space and time existed always if the Big Bang is the point where our physics ends and begins. General Relativity, String, Matrix, M, or any other theoretical phyisics can not begin to have meaningful answers to a event that began our cosmological clock ticking.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Thanks for showing up, 1.61803. Finally someone has showed up willing to incorporate some logic and common sense into the discussion.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Hi again, SG. Before we address this post we need to back up. I've been hoping you'd show up to address the specifics of my above from message 206. Is the above a fairly accurate interpretation of your statements in your first message before this? If not, why specifically for each item?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Nwr, it appears that you either don't want to or cannot present a forthright answer.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW