|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Before Big Bang God or Singularity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
tesla writes:
Nobody knows, because there is no working theory of that period.
my question again, what energy was present at the coordinates T=0?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Whatever gave you that Idea? God is an entity that is meant to have created the universe. That means it refers to an extra entity.
Either could be the same if you did not have an adversion to the word God. I have no aversion to the word God. I just think we should use it how it is meant. If you want to suggest you are a pantheist you can just say so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
We know time exists. We know space exists. How do we know spacetime exists? If spacetime existed then time dilation effects would occur when gravity distorted space. That is the case. Indeed, many predictions of what would happen if spacetime were a valid concept have been tested and verified to a significantly high degree of accuracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
what did the universe look like at T=0? As I previously said, we don't know - there are some ideas but nothing is certain.
thats where laws can come into play. if you say all science laws are quicksand, and prove nothing, thats the same as saying science is completely useless...so go buy a bible because we don't know anything. Not what I am saying. I am saying that laws only formalise knowledge we already have about the world. Theories give us predictions about things we don't know and hopefully can test to see if they are true. Theories kick ass over laws every day of the week, and beyond. If you build all of your scientific knowledge on Newton's laws of motion, you will not be able to create GPS satellites (though you will get to the moon). They have to be built on the back of theory. Do it based on law, quicksand. On highly confirmed theory: reinforced concrete.
my question again, what energy was present at the coordinates T=0? Depends who you ask. Some would say energy=0, just like it is today. Others would say different. Others might say that T=0 doesn't really exist in the sense most people think of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Depends who you ask. Some would say energy=0, just like it is today. Others would say different. Others might say that T=0 doesn't really exist in the sense most people think of it. now i know why icant keeps pointing out your circular attitude. t=0 is the coordinates. whats at the coordinates. nothing is "north" of the "north" pole. but what is AT the north pole. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
well man has studied science long enough to start askin.
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: |
now i know why icant keeps pointing out your circular attitude. Yes, when we reach areas which are beyond the knowledge of man, I should just make absolute claims up about what is happening.
t=0 is the coordinates. whats at the coordinates. There are some ideas. But essentially nobody knows. We'll need a good robust theory to help explain it to the physicists who can then ring up Hawking and Greene and Cox and cavediver etc and get them to try and explain it to us. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
tesla writes:
People are asking. Nobody currently knows, it's a difficult area. I don't get your point.
well man has studied science long enough to start askin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
mankind doesn't need a bunch of recordings from the previous era. mankind need scientists how can freely think on their own.
the world is flat : echo: the world i flat the world is flat the world is flat why? um. cause that what we know and we'll never know any more than that. 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 Son Goku,
Son Goku writes: 1)You have to be brief and simple when making public press releases. The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) Hawking on the beginning.Public Lectures - The Beginning of Time In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. This was not a press release but a public lecture. I give 2 45 minute lectures every Sunday so I know you have to be brief. But what does that have to do with saying what you mean and meaning what you say?
Son Goku writes: (2)He is correct in a certain technical sense, but I would rather not go into explaining it. He is either correct or incorrect. Why not explain it? We got plenty of time.
Son Goku writes: However, I am beginning to think you are being purposefully difficult. I have questions that have not been answered. The only way I know to get them answered is to keep asking until somebody answers them. Below is statements from Dr. Hawking concerning the singularity and the Big Bang.
quote:Hawking's comments on spacetime. quote:Hawking's comments on production of singularities. quote: Lectures the nature of space and time at: The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) Does Hawking say a spacetime is singular? Does he say gravity curls up spacetime so that it has a begining and an end. Does he say that there is a deep connection between gravity and thermodynamics that arises because gravity itself determines the topology of the manifold on which it acts. Does he say The positive curvature of spacetime produced singularities at which classical general relativity broke down. Would you answer these questions and explain to me how a singularity could be produced taking into consideration what Hawking said. Edited by ICANT, : spelling "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Tesla writes:
my question again, what energy was present at the coordinates T=0?SonGoku writes: Nobody knows, because there is no working theory of that period. Keep in mind that in a Cosmology Forum, the scientists should never be on the defensive. Theologians accept what they read on faith. That is all any of us have in that area of speculation. While these questions are good and will hopefully help there to be greater understanding between science and faith, we do have to defer to the discipline of science as being cautious and tentative when considering any answers to otherwise philosophical questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
the "tesla" logic
lets explore the realm of scientific enquiry. i view it as a problem such as : 2+2=4 2+2 is the path and 4 is the definition of the path. now there are multiple ways to go about solving a problem with missing variables. the definition of 4 is as such: lets say, the argument is a "cup" path + path=cup. 2+2=4 and 4 is the cup. in the argument, the argument against it by another individual is that it is ceramic. but ceramic is a different value than the initial object of scrutiny "cup" if the item under scrutiny was then "cup" value 4, and all arguments led to 2+2=4, and then an arguer redefines the value "cup (4)" to ceramic (3) then the argument that led up to cup falls apart.2+2=3 (false) to determine the truth, ceramic needs to then be scrutinized, which if its the object of scrutiny becomes the value of 4, and the path of 2+2 would have to be hashed out again to find the 2+2. (path) lets look at evolution, which is starting with 4 in theory, but following the path to conclusion. so in evolution. 2+2 is being analyzed to find the value 4. missing variables in the 2+2 have left the value "4" inconclusive. now, exploring universe origin, universe origin is (4) and T=0 is a part of the variables in the path 2+2. the rest of what is or is not in that path by law should be observed in the path of what can be said or not said of the value (4). like so: 2+2=4 (4=origin) 2+2 currently understood: 1+0=4 (or something like that) the first element of T=0 being 1. if we discover the other half of that 1, well find the 2, and applying that 2 of the first part of the path, we can potentially discover the other 2 of the equation to get an understanding of the value (4) [origin] in its simplest form. then when analyzing the complexity of the value 4, we can determine each complexity by attributing it with the value 4, and exploring its path individually. this is basic logic, the path to understanding complexity by first observing it in simplicity. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
tesla writes: I'll play along! How do we know that this first element is 1?
the first element of T=0 being 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
ICANT writes:
Being brief in this subject can mean throwing out the necessary details.
But what does that have to do with saying what you mean and meaning what you say? ICANT writes:
As I said in my previous post:
Would you answer these questions and explain to me how a singularity could be produced taking into consideration what Hawking said.Me writes: I've explained to you several times that the singularity is not the beginning of the universe, but an artefact of General Relativity. However you still keep asking "where did the singularity come from?" ICANT writes:
He is correct. However due to the many ways this subject can be viewed what he says may appear to contradict what cavediver and others have said.
He is either correct or incorrect. Why not explain it? We got plenty of time. ICANT writes:
Yes to every question. Does Hawking say a spacetime is singular?...........spacetime produced singularities at which classical general relativity broke down. I am still failing to understand your point. What Hawking is saying, is that, given all these properties of spacetime and general relativity, we can figure out that general relativity has a singularity early on in cosmological time. Your thinking, if I am correct, is this:1. Scientists say the singularity created the universe. 2. However they figure out the singularity was there by using gravity, which only came into existence after the universe was created. You think this doesn't make sense because it sounds like "singularity created gravity which created singularity". Now for the umpteenth time, the singularity is not a physical object. This is the main reason you are having trouble understanding people's posts. You keep saying "Where did the singularity come from?". This is a nonsense question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes: God is an entity that is meant to have created the universe. That means it refers to an extra entity. Whose definition of God is this? Yours or some YEC'ER or Some ID'ER It ain't mine. You going to have to quit classifying me with those folks cause we don't speak the same language. Here is my definition of God:
Gen. 1:1 Before all things was I Am created the universe and streached it out, with all its majesty, and in Him we live, and move, and have our being the universe and everything in it resides in God and by Him all things can exist and without Him nothing exists. Does that sound like a different entity or the entire universe wraped up into one entity which I call God? Why did you ignore the above statement and give your definition of God in an answer to my post? 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