Before the Big Bang

Please explain: Is the gravity force now acting as 2 attracting magnets drawing them together?If the masses are about 8,170,409,806,728,704,366.4996420901917 miles apart now and have been much father apart as they have been on collision course for some time now. How was it possible for this attraction to be strong enough to change their direction in the first place?

---

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

We can calculate this quite easily. If we take the mass of the Milky Way as 1 x 10⁴³kg and the mass of Andromeda to be 2 x 10⁴³ and the distance between them is about 2.37 * 10¹⁷metres we can use the old F = GMm/r2 to work out the force between them.

F=G x 2 x 1086
------------
(1017)2
​

F=1.33X1076
------------
1 x 1036

F=1.33 x 10⁴⁰ NewtonsThat's a lot of force between them! Maybe my physics/maths let up there, and I'm happy for corrections. The force was of course lower earlier; but remember as we go back - space is smaller so the distance between them doesn't get bigger and bigger forever, it starts to get smaller and smaller and at an earlier point in the universe the two galaxies were essentially very very 'close'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Teacher, is this the way you teach?In Message 193 I make the statement:

quote:

---

But teacher I have asked many questions without answers. Re: Nothing Before the Big Bang Message 155

​

I have referenced many sites without a mention of them coming from you.

---

quote:

---

2. created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself.

​

Space did not exist.
Time did not exist.
Particles did not exist.
Matter did not exist.
Energy did not exist.

​

If none of these things existed until after the explosion, would you please explain how a singularity that would be made up of all these things could exist?

---

cavediver, the above question was addressed to you.Then when I am making comments about what I think about the fact that the Milky Way and Andromedia are on collision course:You declare that I am an astoundingly arrogant person who is too stupid to make a comment. Maybe no one is questioning what is happening because the answer might not be in line with what they believe.Would you like to explain rather than rant?Anyone care to tell me how a singularity is formed?

---

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

If I understand anything we have been talking about at one time they occupied the same 0 space, as whatever was in the singularity had been crushed out of existence.

---

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

Almost. The Big Bang model cannot be used to say for sure what was going on before a certain point in time. The mathematics imply a singularity which leads us to believe that something else is going on, other principles can be used to determine the point where relativity doesn't work. More relevant to the subject at hand: It is difficult to say everything was 'crushed out of existence' since that implies there was nothing again. Instead, the singularity implies everything exists in zero space with an infinite density.

Hi Mobiogirl. You need to respect the fact that you are debating one who does not share your ideology. We broadly use the term creationist. Thus EvC Evolutionism vs Creationism. So I admonish you to tone down the personal implications that ICant is not debating in good faith. ICant is one against a host and has given a lot of time and effort in putting for his argument for the creationist side of the debates so as to challenge the many of his counterparts in a civil and exemplary manner. Without good counterpart members like ICant to debate you people sit twiddling your thumbs. Besides he raises a lot of logical challenges to science topics which when debated enlighten some of us member lay folks and the host of visitors who come to read and learn.Don't expect ICant to go away from this debate enlightened i.e. born again onto your side of the ideology isle. Methinks it aintagona happen. Nevertheless continue on doing your needful role in promoting your ideology in a more tolerant manner and may the best argument win. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : correct wording

---

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

Care to explain the following by Mr. Hawking then:http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/singular.html If this statement is true then there was a universe or at least a super massive super star was crushed out of existence at singularity, from which our universe emerged.But that creates a problem as you said:

quote:

---

since that implies there was nothing again.

---

---

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

What part of "it is Professor Hawking" do you not understand???? At the very least it is Dr Hawking. Why are you so intent on being so insulting to someone who has spent the best part of 40 years in a wheelchair, and has been unable to even speak for the past twenty years. Do you tend to kick cripples when you see them as well? Not at all. The singularity in a black hole is an end-product. The singularity at T=0 of a big bang cosmology is a start-product. It doesn't come from anything. He does not use the word "arise" in the sense you are reading.

I am holding a beach ball. It is made of plastic and has swirls of colour. Just underneath the beach ball there is a place where:The beach ball does not exist
The plastic does not exist
The colour does not exist
The swirls do not exist.Yet if I move upwards I encounter a point on the beach ball: the "start" of the beach ball. But how can this one point on the beach ball contain all of the elements: plastic, colour, swirls, etc that will become the beach ball? Where did all of these elements come from when underneath this point is "nothing"??? Of course, becasue this is how I do science. Thank you for being not only so utterly arrogant but so incredibly insulting. You really think that there are areas of science that I dare not question for fear of the answer??? Are you serious??? For fear of perhaps having to acknowledge that there is a god behind it all? And if I already acknoweldge this god, what then would be my reasoning???Oh, your asnswer... ever looked at a river? Ever thrown a stick in the river? Are you so utterly sure that that stick will immediately move downstream?Wind is strong easterly over London. I stand on the pavement in Windmill St, Soho. Which direction do I feel the wind blowing?

Okay, to get started I wonder if I could ask you a question ICANT.How, in your own words, would you describe a singularity. What is it?

To you this man may be a great Professor, teacher, prophet, priest, king, god, etc.I do not know this man, I have never seen this man. I have never met this man. I do not even know if this man exists. I have read what some people say about this man, I have read some things this man reportly has said, but in reality I don't even know if he exists or not.cavediver, I am sorry if you get all bent out of shape because I am only willing to go as far as putting Mr. in front of the name.But that is much better than the treatment of my God, and my Jesus here on EvC. But he does tell us the only way a singularity can come into existence.Are you saying the singularity at T=0 comes from the absence of anything?In Message 232
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/singular.html 1. A singularity must form...
2. When a very massive star reaches the end of its life,
3. all the matter in the core gets crushed out of existence at the singularity.He gives no alternative for a singularity to form. MUST FORMSince no exceptions are noted I assume that means ALL.Then if all matter is crushed out of existence at the singularity, singularity would equal the absence of anything.So please explain where I am misunderstanding. But you have a beach ball in your hand.Not an absence of anything.Or are you saying time, space, the universe, and eternity were there all the time and then this point appeared there, anywhere it wanted to be in time, space the universe, and eternity.Why do you need the point if everything was already completed as the beach ball was?

---

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

Yes, no, no, no, no, no, etc... but irrelevant. His title remains. Using Mr is incorrect. You are aware of his correct title. To use Mr is therefore an insult on your part. That is noted. Ask your wife how she would feel if someone started to deliberately refer to her as Mr.... Just read it again...

quote:

---

General relativity demands that singularities arise under two circumstances.

​

First, a singularity must form during the creation of a black hole. When a very massive star reaches the end of its life, its core, which was previously held up by the pressure of the nuclear fusion that was taking place, collapses and all the matter in the core gets crushed out of existence at the singularity.

​

Second, general relativity shows that under certain reasonable assumptions, an expanding universe like ours must have begun as a singularity.

---

Better? Two circumstances... "must form" falls under the first circumstance. Yes, though you better understand what that last word means in this context, as you have used the word twice in your question, with two very different meanings. I don't "need" the point. It is just part of the beach ball, as is every other point on the beach ball.

Your assumption makes no sense whatsoever. If I said that a chandelier must smash if it falls from the ceiling, that doesn't mean there are no other ways for a chandelier to smash. Also - you neglect to comprehend the full statement where an 'exception' is noted:

quote:

---

First, a singularity must form during the creation of a black hole. When a very massive star reaches the end of its life, its core, which was previously held up by the pressure of the nuclear fusion that was taking place, collapses and all the matter in the core gets crushed out of existence at the singularity. Second, general relativity shows that under certain reasonable assumptions, an expanding universe like ours must have begun as a singularity.

---

He actually tells us one way a singularity must come into existence in this universe, assuming this universe is a certain structure. He does not explain how a singularity that begins this universe must come about, at least not on the page you linked to. If there was as much evidence that Jesus held the title Professor as there was for Hawking - I'd call him Prof. Jesus. As it stands, I don't call Jesus, Mr. Jesus. ICANT - please reread what you wrote here and try and appreciate how childish it is. I draw attention to it only to help you appreciate that it is distracting away from the debate to do it - just call him Hawking if you can't stand to use the honorific/title - it is not difficult. Deliberately referring to someone with the wrong honorific is just puerile.Edited by Modulous, : I see cavediver got there first.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : sloppy wordings clarified a little.

Hi Son Goku,According to what I get from the following statements my conclusions would be:A singularity is an absence of anything as everything in a super massive star was crushed out of existence to form it.The only things I know about a singularity are what I read.http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/singular.html I understand this to say:General relativity demands,
two circumstances,
First, must form in creation of black hole, when a super massive star dies,
When all matter is crushed out of existence at singularity.Out of existence = absence of anything.Second, he gives none.But he does make a statement:

quote:

---

general relativity shows that under certain reasonable assumptions, an expanding universe like ours must have begun as a singularity.

---

This statement says:General relativity shows, (shows not demands)
Under certain reasonable assumptions. I have no idea what these certain reasonable assumptions are other than to me God did it is a certain reasonable assumption.
An expanding universe like ours must (again does not demand) have begun as a singularity.I have been told on this thread singularity is:A point like on a ball.Message 180
A point in spacetime.Message 224
A point as the north pole is a point. Explained by ? what is north of the north pole. Message 184

---

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

The only thing Hawking said about this universe was that it must have come from a singularity.He did not say in this universe the only way for a singularity to form was by a very massive star reaching the end of its life, its core, which was previously held up by the pressure of the nuclear fusion that was taking place, collapses and all the matter in the core gets crushed out of existence at the singularity.He said Then he goes on to describe how this takes place.

---

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