|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Before Big Bang God or Singularity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
so, at T=0, a self contained system of perfectly ordered energy ... Wrong. Oh so wrong.
its something. we can say: energy, or call it: something. but not "nothing". Define nothing. And don't say "the opposite of something". Define it in empirical terms.
is it easier to say at T=0 there was something that was,that existed singularly as one, that all came from it, and that it was ordered? You haven't a clue what a singularity is. Seriously. Not a blooming clue. I suggest you read the thread. It's tiresome to repeat what has already been said.
if a self contained system that always was , without any time ... This is incoherent nonsense.
with a complexity that is beyond understanding of man Arguments from incredulity do NOT fly in a science thread.
including at some point in time, man, who has intelligence, can we say that such an ordered complex energy that existed singularly at T=0 with nothing before it, and evolved from its ordered form a sign of a greater intelligence? This is incoherent nonsense.
is a rock gonna make a computer? how then could a super complex timeless something begat an entire universe with no intelligence at all? This is what is technically known as "not even wrong". Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the phrase. It means: You are so far off the mark, you're not even wrong. You're spouting a whole different order of gobbledygook.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Could you please give me your definition of "zero". Sure. Zero = a mathematical element that when added to another number yields the same number.
Is it anything like my "absence of anything?" As a matter of fact, no.
BTW I think tesla mispelled surely. Duh. You didn't see Airplane, did you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Define nothing. And don't say "the opposite of something". Define it in empirical terms. nothing: absence of anything. no energy, no time, "no-thing" absolutely is not there, never was, never will be. "no" "thing" keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
nothing: absence of anything. no energy, no time, "no-thing" absolutely is not there, never was, never will be. "no" "thing" Just as I thought. "The opposite of something". I said empirically. Look it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Just as I thought. "The opposite of something". I said empirically. Look it up. ? yup. im dis here stupidister man on duh face o de' planat. i guess i go n cut mah shoes now so i can maybe walk on wadder. good luck with yourn sciences n all dat schtuff. i am so's sorry i treis to make some sense o dees things. i withdraw. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think I said somewhere that sounds like Sci-fi. Seems he did also. What he said was that it sounds like sci-fi but it is a genuine piece of science. ie not fiction. It is just a different way of treating time mathematically. Of course if you had not only 'know[n] what he said about his unbounded theory' but also understood it, the last 200 posts wouldn't have been necessary.
What does that have to do with what he said about the beginning of the universe. It kind of explains what beginning in this context means. It doesn't have to mean 'originated from somewhere else at some externally derived time'. Indeed, Hawking explains it as meaning that 'the beginning' is a human invention since that reflects how we think the universe should be.
He is trying to find a way to shore up the Big Bang Theory, just like all the other new theories that are floating around out there. You appealed to the authority of Hawking, and now you suggest that he is only trying 'shore up' the theory when you discover that he says everything we've been trying to explain to you for the past however many threads. Criticize his 'attempt' to 'shore up' the theory, or accept it. Dismissal is an intellectual failure.
Hawking is talking about one, cavediver is talking about expanding the BBT, You are talking about replacing it. Son Goku says we need a new theory. cavediver has already explained that words are not sufficient to understand what is going on, and that different people explain it in different ways hoping that a new approach might help you click. Nevertheless, it has never been in dispute that there are more than one cosmological model. It is not in dispute that what we know about it is incomplete and that a new theory is needed to complete it. Hawking talks about a new(ish) theory (which you casually dismissed as 'shoring up') but nobody thinks that any theory is complete and some think a whole new theory will be needed.
So what is the problem? You are getting yourself tangled in knots by trying to understand a complex issue by starting at the end of the laymen's end of learning, and trying to somehow bring disparate lay explanations together into a coherent whole. This won't work, because the lay explanations are incomplete, incongruous and sometimes (oftentimes?) misleading. It would be best if you just understand one of them, and that might help you in understanding other perspectives.
Oh I almost forgot the problem. I believe God created the heaven and the earth. Gen. 1:1. I'm sure some might argue that believing Genesis 1:1 might preclude you from understanding cosmology. I'm not one of them, if you really want to you can both understand the idea - and choose to disbelieve it in favour of whatever religious scripture your heart desires. If you think that believing Genesis 1:1 is causing you problems with understanding cosmology, then I can't help you. You either need to find a way to do it, stop believing Genesis 1:1 or stop trying to understand (and criticize) cosmology. I can't recommend the latter, but the choice is yours. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
so, at T=0, a self contained system of perfectly ordered energy, I'm not sure 'perfectly' is mentioned anywhere...
is it easier to say at T=0 there was something that was,that existed singularly as one, that all came from it, and that it was ordered? or easier to say energy? The easiest way to understand it is simply to say that in the early universe was hotter and denser than it is today.
if a self contained system that always was , without any time, with a complexity that is beyond understanding of man, yet spawned from it, an entire universe, including at some point in time, man, who has intelligence, can we say that such an ordered complex energy that existed singularly at T=0 with nothing before it, and evolved from its ordered form a sign of a greater intelligence? Whoever talked about complexity? If anything, it was much less complex. Ordered energy isn't 'complex'. If you could try rewording that question so that it isn't several lines long and correct as stated, then I'll try and decode it.
is a rock gonna make a computer? An earthlike rock under earthlike conditions might result in the creation of a computer.
how then could a super complex timeless something begat an entire universe with no intelligence at all? Replace 'complex' with 'hot'. All that needs to happen is for the laws of physics to operate and at a certain point time is less spacelike and more timelike, and inflation occurs, but quantum fluctuations ensure that inflation is clumpy so that galaxies form etc etc etc. No intelligence required in gravity functioning as it does, for example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes: If you think that believing Genesis 1:1 is causing you problems with understanding cosmology, then I can't help you. You either need to find a way to do it, stop believing Genesis 1:1 or stop trying to understand (and criticize) cosmology. I believe Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.That causes just about everyone here a problem. Not me. I don't care how He did it. OK If he chose to use a singularity to bring the universe into existence as we know it I got no problem with that. That would mean If I would change my God's name to singularity you would believe everything I am saying. I am not questioning the existence of a singularity.I just want to know how it got to where it was when the universe began. I do say with the answers cavediver gave to my questions it could not exist.I also say the statements of Hawking says it cannot exist. I think I have proved my point. That if what Hawking says is true and the answers cavediver gave me is true I have no option but to conclude the singularity did not exist. Now if it did not exist there could be no universe. And we could not be here having this debate. We are here, the universe is here whatever it came from was there.Singularity, imploded universe, or God. Message 34I said:"NOTICE" I say if Dr. Hawking is correct in what "HE" says in these lectures there could have been no singularity the universe expanded from. There is no way one could form under the circumstances he described that they were created in. "NOTICE" I am not saying that there is no way possible for a singularity to exist. But I am saying that under the understood Big Bang Theory it could not have. Under an amended Big Bang Theory it could exist. I provided quotes from Hawking's lecturers, and source his site. Nobody refuted what Hawking said, as being false cavediver even agreed in his answers to me that you can find in:
Message 91Where I said:: Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. Falasified Now if what Hawking said and the answers cavediver gave in response to my questions are correct then my premise 1 is true. Does that make it true? Only if they are correct. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You are making cavediver's point with your obvious ignorance of basic physics. High school level physics. Dearest MBG, The more time I spend in here, the more I am aware that you are a very mean-spirited person who enjoys causing problems. You don't seem to want any actual solutions, you just seem like you want to joust for the sake of jousting. You annoy more than anyone else, hands down, which is really saying a lot. I'm sure this probably likewise for you as well. I am choosing to ignore you from here on out. It would be greatly appreciated if you kept your snide comments to yourself from now on. Thank you. “There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I believe Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. I know.
That causes just about everyone here a problem. Not me. It's not causing me a problem. You could believe that the universe was the alien sneeze for all I care.
If he chose to use a singularity to bring the universe into existence as we know it I got no problem with that. That's great. My problem is that you seem to think this is what I'm saying. I'm trying to explain that it isn't what I'm saying.
I just want to know how it got to where it was when the universe began. And I've answered. It got to where it was in the same fashion that spot 5 inches from your nose 5 seconds ago did. It's part of the universe. If you'd ask 'does the universe self exist (along with the singularity at T=0 in real time) or is there something more than the universe in which some event caused the universe to exist?' you'd be asking the right kind of question.
Nobody refuted what Hawking said, as being false cavediver even agreed in his answers to me that you can find in: Re-Summation (Message 91)Where I said:: Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. Falasified His reply to message 91 seems to be disagreeing with you.
Now if what Hawking said and the answers cavediver gave in response to my questions are correct then my premise 1 is true. Please don't simply repeat yourself to me. Refer to my previous answer when you discussed your premises with me earlier and address that. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
i see a lot of Hawkins stuff here, but the topic is really to try to discover the truth of T=0 isn't it?
I'm sure that T=0 can be looked at in an easier method by scientific laws first, instead of trying to build on previous theory. let me try to establish a beginning point of discussion to that end? the point: all that is did not exist from literally "nothing" so before what is, was something. the universe eventually has its start from T=0. at T=0 all the energy of the universe existed singularly, or in a singular state, which is timeless. do you agree modulous? the right question: if when the universe as we know it came into existence, was the original T=0 destroyed? i think you touched that in the post. and i would say no. because at T=0 is everything built on top of, if it was destroyed, anything built on top would be destroyed. but i think we should examine T=0 in its initial form before we ask that question. Edited by tesla, : added a point on your "right kind" of question. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Who says it has no relevance? I'm assuming you since you keep excoriating me over it.
Yes, 'common sense' would - but until you can actually define what you mean by 'something', 'from' and 'nothing' in the context of a solution to the Einstein Field Equations, the phrase has absolutely no meaning. I can assure you that this is not trivial. Stop trying to assure me and just show me. You seem to be relying on telling us all about your brilliance in the field of cosmology and astrophysics as they pertain to the Big Bang. Unleash your fury. We're all dying to know what you know. I have asked you a couple of times now to explain what you mean. Thus far, you just keep repeating words, like, "nonsense" over and over. As much as I'd love to take you at your word, I am trying to have you teach me. I'm a sponge, cave, but I need something of substance to sop up.
quote: Complete nonsense My opinion is nonsense? Offer me a model that makes sense.
quote: Unbelievable nonsense Is it? "Asked in October 2005 on the British daytime chat show Richard & Judy, to explain his assertion that the question "What came before the Big Bang?" was meaningless, he compared it to asking "What lies north of the North Pole?" -url=Steven HawkingsWiki - Wikipedia[/url] Other people seem to understand that he meant exactly what I interpreted it to mean. Does that seem unusual given your charge of it being unbelievable nonsense?
Hawking's solution to the singularity is not the 'north pole' analogy... the analogy is a way of explaining his solution to the layman. At the end of the day, he's still saying that the universe came from nothing. “There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
i see a lot of Hawkins stuff here, but the topic is really to try to discover the truth of T=0 isn't it? Hawking. And, I see no reason to leave it unexplored.
the point: all that is did not exist from literally "nothing" Agreed.
so before what is, was something. Not necessarily. It could simply exist. Whatever is true about reality, I'm sure that there is some entity which simply exists. That we both probably agree upon.
the universe eventually has its start from T=0. Eventually? If there was no time before it (which is what T=0 implies) then there was no time passing before that moment. There would be no 'eventually'.
at T=0 all the energy of the universe existed singularly, or in a singular state, which is timeless. do you agree modulous? I'm not sure that saying the energy was in a singular state - or even what you mean by state for that matter- is necessarily true.
the right question: if when the universe as we know it came into existence, was the original T=0 destroyed? i think you touched that in the post. and i would say no. because at T=0 is everything built on top of, if it was destroyed, anything built on top would be destroyed. but i think we should examine T=0 in its initial form before we ask that question. T=0 is part of the universe, just like any other point. Nothing was built on top of T=0 any more than it is built on T=3,156,728 Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Not necessarily. It could simply exist. Whatever is true about reality, I'm sure that it
can you further explain? what is "it" the "before" is relative, because we see the evolution unfolding now, and were asking about before that. as : something cant come from nothing is agreed, this means it is agreed that T=0 is "something" but with no measurable time, which can only mean singular and always was. do you agree? or can you further explain how you see T=0? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes: And I've answered. It got to where it was in the same fashion that spot 5 inches from your nose 5 seconds ago did. It's part of the universe. If you'd ask 'does the universe self exist (along with the singularity at T=0 in real time) or is there something more than the universe in which some event caused the universe to exist?' you'd be asking the right kind of question. Mod be realistic. The spot 5 inches from my nose was in the exact same spot it arrived when the universe expanded to the point that the spot 5 inches in front of my nose existed, prior to that momentit did not exist and if the singularity had not expanded it would not have been there. Where did it come from? The singularity created that spot. My nose just got there a lot latter. But it was there all the time from its creation. So If I say I believe the universe has always been here in some form or another. That should give the idea that I think it self-exists. I just believe God is what is the self that makes it exist. Does the universe self-exist (all inclusive)? Is there something more than the universe which caused the universe to exist? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024