Summations Only

Whoah, whoah, whoah Serge - you were the one who said that temperature is density. You gave us that definition. You said it, it's on record, we all saw it.You don't now get to say "temperature is one of those vague concepts nobody got much of a clue what they are talking about" - you sodding defined it ! As density !I called you on that, and having twigged your mistake, you run away from it, claiming that temperature is a vague concept. How the hell can you believe that, having just defined it ?If you are going to pretend to maintain a position, have the integrity to fight your corner, and not run away from your own definition.

Temperature is the term used and left undefined by bigbangers not me. I was doing their job for them. You are a bigbanger? Don't like my definitions? Give it a try yourself. The feline is all ears.

That is not any example of such. It's a weak inference you still need to demonstrate to be anything more. Stop begging the question. Such a fervent gall in defence of bigbangism!!

Your reply doesn't even contain the word 'zero'.
Since you know so much about the BBT, it is bizarre that you can't provide any material supporting your claim.
Is the request too difficult?I'll ask again:
Can you show where the Big Bang Theory says that something is multiplied by zero?

Don't worry Pandita. We'll bring you nose into all the zeros you clamour for. We'll rub your left pinnochio well and good into every bigbangist zilch. Just be patient. The feline has been busy elsewhere but he keeps in mind your urgent request.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

How insincere, CrazyJew. I've not implied its a secret, only that you don't understand it, which is evident from your postings. You say the BBT says there was nothing, and it does not. You call the singularity an entity, which it is not.You've avoided addressing these gross error of yours. Sure, but the limitations of the word "expand", which is used to analogize the mathematics, are not necessarily limitation on the math, itself. This is the point you haven't addressed. Well geez, who'd of thunk that the Universe as a whole might behave unlike all other things that are constrained within it Your lack of imagination and understaning are, thankfully, no hindrance to the scientists who are unfolding knowledge in this arena. Oh look! You're lying again. Cosmological redshift and the CMBR are, in fact (and contrary to your unevidenced assertions), phyisical justifacations of the theory. Again, this is something you are unwilling to even address. The only thing you have to offer is: "well, it might be different" Again, you're just lying. I've already pointed out this lie of yors and you haven't addressed it: The BBT does not have a zero to one side of the equation. Please stop spreading this lie. But I know you won't becase you're a dishonest asshole.

Ho... Ly... Shit.I always knew that Alf was an insincere lying asshole, but this just confirms it. He employs his obscure verbiage to obfuscate his ignorance and misunderstandings. Since he cannot honestly and intellecutally debate the subject, he has to resort to hiding his faults behing colorful and deceiving language. It was as plain as day, but this glimpse into his verbal capability proves his dishonesty. Thanks, V.

Fair enough.
I didn't realise that it was such a difficult thing for you to do.

Hi ringo, Where did that pretty small thing come from?Had it always existed?If so, where did it exist?If it had not always existed how did it begin to exist?God Bless,

Temperature is a perfectly well defined concept. Do you seriously think people don't know what temperature is?The statistical mechanical definition is the most general one, why don't you look it up?

Nobody knows as of November 2012. We will probably need a Quantum theory of Gravity to figure it out fully.

And does the BBT say anything about those things?

We have absolutely no idea.But we are certain that it happened.Creationists try to mix up these two things, but they are obviously distinct. For example, I can know for certain that I've lost my glasses, and have no idea why I lost my glasses. We can be absolutely certain that something has happened and yet be completely ignorant of the cause.If forensic scientists tell us that John Smith died of gunshot wounds, then we should believe them. We don't cast doubt on their conclusions because they can't tell us who shot him and why. That's not even their job, their job is to tell us how he died.Well, the same thing applies to the Big Bang. I have absolutely no idea why it happened, and furthermore if physicists ever find out why it happened I probably won't understand their explanation. And I have a Ph.D. in math, but it's the wrong kind of math. Even if someone explains the "why" of the Big Bang, I probably won't understand it. But I do know enough to think that it definitely happened.

Translate that statistical mechanical definition in terms of that pretty small thing of Planck size for the benefit of the stupid moggy, Son.
What are the mechanics and stats of it and how do you derive the temperature value?

Okay. The statistical mechanical definition of temperature, I'll stick to the less general one, is basically the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gas.The earliest point of the universe's history described by the Big Bang theory has the universe as a quark-gluon plasma filled with an electroweak plasma (W-bosons, electrons, e.t.c)
This "thing" was not Planck sized, it was a good few orders of magnitude larger.Its temperature was then just the average kinetic energy of the particles in the plasma. The motion of the particles. The notion of taking averages is statistical. The average kinetic energy.