|
Author
|
Topic: Before the Big Bang
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 301 of 311 (414244)
08-03-2007 3:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 299 by ICANT
08-03-2007 3:26 PM
|
|
Re: Another try at explaining
Some of the posters have a problem with reading english statements and understanding what they say. Yes, I especially notice this among those posters who tend toward monotheistic religious views in the the Abrahamic tradition. Some of the rest of us actually have training in the physical sciences and know what the word "singularity" means.
I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 299 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 3:26 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
Re: Summary includng Pictures 
Here we have ths standard big bang scenario. Stupid question, Why would the universe only go one direction rather than in all directions?
Here the quantum corrections have revealed that the Universe did not begin at T=0 of the big bang, but emerged from an earlier time. This enlarged Universe may well have been eternal, stretching back infinitely into the past... This one makes sense.
'time' as continuing outside the Universe, 'before' its existence. Why would time as we know it have to exist in eternity if it was just one great big now? Enjoyed the input.
"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 297 by cavediver, posted 08-03-2007 3:10 PM | | cavediver has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 303 of 311 (414247)
08-03-2007 3:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 291 by jar
08-03-2007 1:41 PM
|
|
Re: Summary including nonsense and irrelevancies.
jar, thank you for your vote of confidence.
"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 291 by jar, posted 08-03-2007 1:41 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 304 of 311 (414248)
08-03-2007 3:44 PM
|
|
|
Re Final post
I want to thank those who participated and those who just did their rant's. It was educational believe it or not.
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 305 of 311 (414249)
08-03-2007 3:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 302 by ICANT
08-03-2007 3:38 PM
|
|
Re: Summary includng Pictures
Stupid question, Why would the universe only go one direction rather than in all directions? The only stupid question is the one not asked  I need up-down on the page to represent the time dimension, so I've only got left-right and back-forward (i.e. perspective on the page) to represent space. Take a horizontal slice through my cup. This the Universe at a particluar time. You get a circle, and this circle represents the whole Universe at that moment. As time proceeds, you go up the page, and the circles get larger. This is the Universe expanding. As you down the page, back in time, the cirlces get smaller and smaller until they collaspe into a point - the singularity in classical cosmology.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 302 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2007 3:38 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 306 of 311 (414399)
08-04-2007 1:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 294 by NosyNed
08-03-2007 2:37 PM
|
|
Re: Another try at explaining
Nosey: Though you should note that even defining "nothing" can be tricky in this context. Defining nothing is tricky in any context. I once heard that Aristotle defined nothing as, 'That which rocks think about'. I don't know if the source is true... but it's a fitting illustration. Nosey: That may or may not leave a gap for a god to sit in. We simply don't know what it will look like. Well well well... Why not try the simple yet unfathomable trinity; It fits. Or maybe some fishermen got lucky... The good news is, you can 'know' if you want to.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 294 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2007 2:37 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 307 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2007 2:34 AM | | Rob has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 307 of 311 (414419)
08-04-2007 2:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 306 by Rob
08-04-2007 1:06 AM
|
|
Knowing if you want to
As Sagan said: "Believing is seeing." Since that is true I would like to know how I can "know"? I am happy to consider solid reasoning based on objective data. We asked for that and got almost nothing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 306 by Rob, posted 08-04-2007 1:06 AM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 308 by Rob, posted 08-04-2007 2:39 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 308 of 311 (414422)
08-04-2007 2:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 307 by NosyNed
08-04-2007 2:34 AM
|
|
Re: Knowing if you want to
It all depends on what you want to believe. So... what do you want the truth to be Ned? And why? Answer that to yourself not me... Ned: I am happy to consider solid reasoning based on objective data. Then why do you reject the design inference? Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 307 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2007 2:34 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 310 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2007 3:09 AM | | Rob has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 309 of 311 (414423)
08-04-2007 2:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 300 by Son Goku
08-03-2007 3:31 PM
|
|
Re: Summary
This is the crux of the debate and you take a point of view that I don't understand. Your claim is that because we don't know the physics preceding this point it somehow invalidates physics afterwards? No I am saying if Dr. Hawking is correct in what he said: Message 257 The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities...
Gravity curls up spacetime so that it has a begining and an end.
There could be no singularity that the universe came from and there has to be a better explanation.
ICANT writes:
Spacetime has a beginning and an end. No gravity no beginning of spacetime. No spacetime no singularity. No singularity no big bang. Gravity supposedly came after the big bang.
Enjoy
"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 300 by Son Goku, posted 08-03-2007 3:31 PM | | Son Goku has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 310 of 311 (414427)
08-04-2007 3:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 308 by Rob
08-04-2007 2:39 AM
|
|
Rejecting the design inference
Then why do you reject the design inference? Because I am waiting for you to explain why living things are the wrong kind of design.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 308 by Rob, posted 08-04-2007 2:39 AM | | Rob has not replied |
|
AdminPhat
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 311 of 311 (414456)
08-04-2007 9:40 AM
|
|
|
Time to turn out the universe for now
This topic is over its limit. It started out with a Bang but may end with a Whimper!  Thanks, everyone for your input. Feel free to start new topics and let the show go on! ====================================================================== CLOSING TOPIC ======================================================================
|
™ Version 4.2