|
Author
|
Topic: Before Big Bang God or Singularity
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Peanuts and The Big Bang
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes: I would avoid saying gravity, as that gives the wrong impression. Space-time curavture grows without bound as you approach T=0. So space-time was present before T=O. I got no problem with that. But where did the space-time come from?
cavediver writes: The North Pole is zero dimensional, but that doesn't mean anything strange happens there. No it just happens to be a point on the planet earth. It is not a coordinate in an absence of anything. God Bless,
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 326 by cavediver, posted 02-08-2008 3:00 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
Message 330 of 405 (454793)
02-08-2008 6:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 321 by Percy
02-08-2008 11:35 AM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Percy,
Percy writes: I know that people are not always being consistent in their terminology and that this makes things difficult, but that can't be helped, that happens in all discussions, Percy it is very hard to misunderstand yes and no, and yes to all. Percy I know there is a lot of unknowns about anything prior to T=O. Since everything was a molten mass at that time there will be no record to trace. Anything that is put forth before that time is pure speculation, or imagination. It is just as hard for science to prove what happened prior to T=O as it is for me to prove God exists. I think everybody has come close to proving that there are no answers as yet and may never be for science. Let me see how I can do with this one: We suspect there was something prior to T=O. We do not know what it was. We have a lot of ideas as to what that something could be. The Big Bang Theory tries to explain what happened after T=O+. The Big Bang Theory is the most accepted Theory at the present. There are other approaches being studied. Some people do not agree with the Big Bang Theory. 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 321 by Percy, posted 02-08-2008 11:35 AM | | Percy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 331 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 6:33 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 332 of 405 (454807)
02-08-2008 7:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 331 by Rahvin
02-08-2008 6:33 PM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Rahvin
rahvin writes: We do not suspect anything about T<0, for the same reason we don't wonder at what is North of the North Pole. You berate me for saying we suspect something before T=O.
Rahvin writes: This has nothing to do with T<0. Nothing at all. You, in fact, are the only one talking about nonsense like T<0. Then you post:
Rahvin writes: T=0 is a point in spacetime where our current math reaches a singularity - This statement says there was a point in space-time at T=O. It also says there is a singularity at T=O. Then you say:
Rahvin writes: Our understanding of T=0 is like an asymptote - as we approach the actual moment where T=0, our understanding breaks down. cavediver says in Message 305 There was something at T=O.
Yes
From that something the universe has come into being as we see it today. Yes
Science has tried to explain this by many theories. No... from T=10^-43 seconds to present, there is essentially one theory. For T<10^-43 there are several lines of current research.
The most accepted of those is the Big Bang Theory. Essentially the Big Bang theory is the only viable theory.
If there was something at T=O as cavediver says. Then it was there a few moments prior. Or it appeared at T=O out of an absence of anything. 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 331 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 6:33 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 337 of 405 (454821)
02-08-2008 7:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 335 by Rahvin
02-08-2008 7:35 PM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Rahvin writes: Space-time exists, When did space-time appear? You said it exists. God Bless, 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 335 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 7:35 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 340 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 7:58 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes: ICANT writes: Or it appeared at T=O out of an absence of anything. Complete nonsense Where did it appear from then? 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 334 by cavediver, posted 02-08-2008 7:33 PM | | cavediver has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 343 of 405 (454845)
02-08-2008 8:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 340 by Rahvin
02-08-2008 7:58 PM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: At no point in the dimension we call time did the Universe not exist. "Before" loses all meaning when speaking of T=0. You are the one presupposing that something came from nothing, nobody else. Something before T=O = universe expanding out of something. Absence of anything before T=O = universe expanding out of the absence of anything. So was space-time there by brute force? If the singularity marks the earliest point in space-time and is uncaused then the space-time is uncaused. If the singularity caused the space-time, was the singularity caused? If it had a cause, what was the cause? If the space-time caused the singularity, Was the space-time uncaused? or caused? If it had a cause what was the cause? If the singularity is timeless then it becomes God. If the space-time is timeless then it becomes God. 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 340 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 7:58 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 347 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 10:58 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes: It didn't 'appear' from anywhere. It just is. Does "It just is" mean that it has always been there?
cavediver writes: If there was an act of creation, then it applies to every point in space-time.. How many points are there in space-time? 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 341 by cavediver, posted 02-08-2008 7:59 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 349 of 405 (454886)
02-09-2008 12:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 347 by Rahvin
02-08-2008 10:58 PM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: Spacetime simply exists - it requires no cause. I assume no explanation either as I am getting none. God simply exists he requires no cause or explanation.
Rahvin writes: You're asking if North caused the North Pole. Well the scientific answer according to what I have read in this thread and others the Big Bang created the North Pole when it created the earth.
Rahvin writes: The singularity is what we call a breakdown in the math - it's not an object. Message 335Rahvin writes: The Universe exists at T=0 in a state current mathematics cannot describe, which we call a "singularity You say the Universe exists at T=O but its not an object.
Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950. Hoyle, who championed a rival cosmological theory, meant the "Big Bang" to be a term of derision, but the name was so catchy that it stuck.). Though the Big Bang suggests a colossal explosion, it wasn't really an "explosion" in the sense that we understand it. Space itself exploded. At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant. Since "before" is a temporal concept, one cannot ask what came before the Big Bang and therefore "caused" it, at least not within the context of any known physics. If space and time were created at the instant of the Big Bang How could your space-time exist at T=O? 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 347 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 10:58 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 351 of 405 (454888)
02-09-2008 2:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 350 by Rahvin
02-09-2008 12:59 AM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: Youre still confusing the Big bang with your silly 6-day ex nihilo Creation idea - stop it. They aren't related in the slightest. Duh, who you confusing me with now? I don't have any silly 6-day creation idea.
Rahvin writes: Except we know the Universe exists - we're in it, and it is objectively observable. Rahvin writes: Take this ray: What you want me to do with it. It is your ray. You created the ray. It did not get there by itself. And you are saying it would not be here if God created it.
Rahvin writes: Stop taking the dumbed-down journalist versions as scientific fact. They're written for the lowest denominator, without any math involved. Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950. Hoyle, who championed a rival cosmological theory, meant the "Big Bang" to be a term of derision, but the name was so catchy that it stuck.). Though the Big Bang suggests a colossal explosion, it wasn't really an "explosion" in the sense that we understand it. Space itself exploded. At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant. Since "before" is a temporal concept, one cannot ask what came before the Big Bang and therefore "caused" it, at least not within the context of any known physics. The article is the property of the University of Illinois. You saying the college did not know what they were doing.
Rahvin writes: The Big Bang didnt create anything, ICANT. Weve been over this. The Bang is the name given to the earliest expansion of the Universe, nothing more. Then what created everything then?
Rahvin writes: ICANT writes: You say the Universe exists at T=O but its not an object. I said the singularity is not an object. It's what we call the mathematical breakdown at T=0. Let's not debate the nature of "existence," either, as that will get tesla started all over again. Did the singularity contain the universe? Is it not an object? 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 350 by Rahvin, posted 02-09-2008 12:59 AM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 355 by Rahvin, posted 02-09-2008 3:08 AM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Scientist,
Catholic Scientist writes: ICANT, this is the key to your understanding: from Message 328, to which you did not reply:
ICANT writes: But where did the space-time come from? But whats north of the north pole?
ICANT writes: No it just happens to be a point on the planet earth. It is not a coordinate in an absence of anything.
And the singularity just happens to be a point in space-time. It is not a coordinate in an absence of anything.
What, exactly, do you not understand about this analogy/explanation? Be specific, not criptic.... pretty please with Jesus' blessing on top  I will try. I ask "Where did the space and time come from"? Everybody here tells me it just is, and I must believe it just is. That is science. If I believe this I must take everybody at their word as there is no proof that the space-time was there. If I believe it I must believe it by faith. I say God just is. Just about everybody here says "Nonsence" or "Rubbish". That is religion or a myth. If I believe God is I must believe it by faith. What is the difference? You use the North Pole analogy/explanation. I state that the North Pole is in a physical place. I then say the space-time is in a place that does not exist yet. You inform me that the singularity just happens to be a point in Space-time. But this space and time does not exist. Unless I believe by faith it does. You then tell me, "It is not a coordinate in an absence of anything." But if there is nowhere for it to be it has to be in the absence of anything since no thing exists. Do I understand what is being said. Yes Singularity existed at a point in the curvature of space-time. GR says it must exist. Because it breaks down and cannot explain what is happening. Just take our word for it. At a very short time after T=O the universe began to expand and has been expanding every since. For this we have scientific evidence. Do I believe this scientific evidence. I believe the universe exists, and that we are here. Other than that evidence I have seen none presented. 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."
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 357 of 405 (454907)
02-09-2008 9:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 355 by Rahvin
02-09-2008 3:08 AM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: The singularity is neither a container nor an object. It's what we call the mathematical breakdown. At T=O GR breaks down and at this point a singularity is there. You then say the universe is there. A very short time after T=O the universe begin's to expand.
Rahvin writes: Youre the only one claiming a creator is necessary. No I just say things need to be created unless. Everything we see today exists at T=1. Is that the case or is things created over many billions of years? Inquiring minds would like to know,
"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 355 by Rahvin, posted 02-09-2008 3:08 AM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 359 of 405 (454926)
02-09-2008 11:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 358 by Modulous
02-09-2008 9:42 AM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes: GR doesn't say it must exist. GR doesn't work when describing that part of spacetime geometry. The reason we say it doesn't work is because it reaches what is known as a singularity. At T=O a singularity exists because GR breaks down and can not tell us what is there. Therefore it is a singularity. Somebody or something declares a singularity to be there. I thought that something was GR because it could not tell us what was there. Is it the "we" (whoever you include) declaring the singularity to be there? Let me ask you a question. Prior to T=O was there an absence of anything? In other words, Did no thing 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 358 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 9:42 AM | | Modulous has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 362 of 405 (454939)
02-09-2008 12:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 360 by Modulous
02-09-2008 12:05 PM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes: According to the model we are describing when we talk about T=0, there was no 'prior' to it. Prior doesn't exist at T=0, by definition. If there were a time prior to T=0, it would not be T=0, it would be T>0. T=0 is defined as a point in time for which there is no time period prior to it. OK, the Big Bang model has no prior to T=O. Does that mean it did not exist? In Message 113You state:
modulous writes: Spacetime is a four dimensional entity. At some coordinates in that entity there exists postitive curvature of spacetime. One such coordinate is at T=0. In Message 123You state:
Modulous writes: The question makes no sense. There is no 'when' it came into existence - there is no time outside of the universe by which to judge 'when' it happened. It exists and we exist within it at a certain coordinate within that which is billions of years from time=0. In Message 157You state:
Modulous writes: No, the universe simply exists. The whole thing - all four dimensions in their entirety. The whole of time, the whole of space, is described as a single entity. This 'spacetime' has some areas which contain a singularity. You are just stating that these thing "just exist", as there can be no before. Does the universe need time to exist? Does the singularity need time to exist. Does this entity you are talking about need time 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 360 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 12:05 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 368 of 405 (454954)
02-09-2008 2:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 365 by Modulous
02-09-2008 1:45 PM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes: No, it doesn't mean that. It means that there is no such thing as prior to T=0 Are you saying there is no possibility of anything existing before T=O?
Modulous writes: A four dimensional spacetime entity obviously needs time to be a spacetime entity. If there was no time it would be just be a space entity. It does not need to exist within a larger time dimension though. Then where would this time 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 365 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 1:45 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 374 of 405 (454976)
02-09-2008 3:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 370 by Modulous
02-09-2008 2:35 PM
|
|
Re: Big Bang.
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes: No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that in the standard model there is nothing prior to T=0. I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. You say there is the possibility that there was something prior to T=O. But the standard model says there was nothing prior to T=O. Is this correct?
Modulous writes: there's no hope of getting to grips with the less standard models. Why would I have a problem getting to grips with something that has the universe existing within a greater dimensional reality? When that is what I believe.
Modulous writes: Time is a dimension. It doesn't have a 'location', it is used to define 'locations'. Time as a location is hard to grasp. To me time is a measurement of duration. But when you are referring to this dimension which is time. Are you referring to Hawking's imaginary time? 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 370 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 2:35 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2