Summations Only

That sounds like a profession of pure religious faith:"I have absolutely no idea whether the Plank size entity which I believe contained all matter in existence in a compressed form had retained its Planck size for trillions of years, or had just popped out of pure nothing and not existed a Planck time before"
"But I am absolutely sure that its existence is a well-evidenced fact. It is absolutely true that all existing matter can possibly be compressed into a Planck volume and I am sure I am not raving because my priest told me I was not and he is a highly learned and highly respected by other priests fellow."
"Therefore I will loudly protest when the cat comes and rubs my mousy nose into my crypto-creo vomit and I will resent such treatment till the end of my crypto-creo mousy days." Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Could you please use pronouns like "I" or "you" instead of "the cat".Dr. Adequate's post is just expressing the basic statement that nobody currently knows how the universe arrived in the early electroweak and guark-gluon plasma state from which it expanded.However we know it was in that state, as all predictions of the model have been confirmed by observation.

Hi Son,Long time no argue. Stephen Hawking said in his lecture, "The Beginning of Time".

quote:

---

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.

---

The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)This statement says the universe has not existed forever.The universe does exist today.That requires a beginning to exist.But if there is non-existence there could be no beginning to exist.Can we agree that for the universe to exist at T=0 it either had to exist in some form prior to T=0, or either it had to have a beginning to exist from non-existence?Or do you have another explanation?God Bless,

Hi Panda, Where in Message 219 did I mention the BBT?I did ask some questions you did not address, they are:Where did that pretty small thing come from?Scientific answer is, "We don't know".Had it always existed?BBT requieres the universe to begin to exist, according to Stephen Hawking in "The Beginning of Time"If so, where did it exist?There is no place for it to exist as there is non-existence.If it had not always existed how did it begin to exist?It is impossible for the universe to begin to exist from non-existence.Conclusion:The universe has always existed in some form.Stephen Hawking came up with an instanton as the mechanism for the universe to begin to exist. The problem with that is that there was non-existence for the instanton to appear in.Two strings banging together require prior existence.Two branes banging together require prior existence.The BBT is the only theory that requires a beginning to exist and that is the reason it was accepted by religion.God Bless,

Son, you jump ahead of the game. The temperature of the putative quark-gluon plasma after the alleged inflation of the original Plank volume had already occurred was not the issue.
The issue was the temperature and its derivation of the volume itself prior to the alleged inflationary occurrence. The original state is described as extremely hot by the true blue bigbangist sources. Hot is temperature above zero Kelvin. The question is why above and not otherwise. The physics and mechanics behind the allegation made by the defence. The judge is highly skeptical, the jury have no clue. You are the defence counsel. It is up to you to defend the proposition.Otherwise, the statistical mechanical definition you brought is a vague version of what I said. Therefore I stick to mine. Distance travelled by unit of stuff per unit of confined volume per unit time. Energy is a measure of motion, all the more so its kinetic variety. Reducible to distance with no further possible reduction coming to mind.

No, sorry, every single prediction of the big bunk hypothesis has been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted by every single observation. Van Flandern list still holds if you are not aware of that.
Its persistence in spite of all the conflicting observations is a hallmark of pure religious faith.
So you do not know it could possibly be in that highly compressed state. You just believe it could against all logic, experience and astronomical observation.

I appear to have made the mistake of thinking that your previous reply was connected to the discussion that you jumped into. And there are many other questions unrelated to the discussion that you could ask.
I will probably not address them either. Oh - wait - are you now talking about the BBT?Perhaps when you make up your mind what you are actually discussing I will consider addressing your questions.

Are you still unable to supply any reference to the BBT saying that something is multiplied by nothing?
I must assume then that you are unable to.Perhaps you could ask someone that actually knows what the BBT says to help you?
If you were to learn about the BBT then you would be in a much better position to argue against it.
Otherwise you are just petulantly shouting "NO! NO! NO! I don't like it!!" - with absolutely nothing to support your claims except your own personal ignorance.

Do you really want to work with us to try understand another explanation, or will you incessantly insist that your's really are the only two?

Hi Dr, Great answer. You are certain "WHAT" happened?Did the universe always exist in some form?ORDid the universe begin to exist when there was non-existence?What would be the mechanism for the universe to begin to exist in non-existence? Be specific about what two things Creationists mix up. If you have never had a pair of glasses how could you lose them? How can you be absolutely sure you lost your glasses if the glasses never existed?It can safely be assumed that the universe existed in the past as it exists today.What can not be determined by the fact the universe exists today is, whether the universe has always existed or had a beginning to exist. If John Smith has a bullet hole in him in which the bullet hit vital organs and damaged that organ to the point that death would occur, the scientists could tell us he died of gunshot wounds. But if the bullet did not hit a vital organ and yet John Smith died with a bullet hole in him he could very well have died of a heart attack from fear.But if John Smith died from a bullet that was fired from a gun and the only prints on the gun belonged to Dr Adequate why should there be a jury trial to prove Dr Adequate's guilt or innocence? The guys examining a bullet hole in a human body has something tangable they can study, look at, examine and come to thier conclusions.With the Big Bang all you have is a hypothesis based upon the assumptions of mankind.You might ought to demand a refund of your tuition fees. So you have faith it definitely happened the way you think it happened.God Bless,

Hi Panda, You brought up the subject instead of answering my questions, so I specifically mention the BBT.Do you disagree that the BBT requires a beginning to exist of the universe?If you do please explain your reasoning.God Bless,

That question doesn't make sense - I think your mind was working faster than your fingers were.

Hi CS, The universe exists today.It either has either existed eternally in some form.ORIt had a beginning to exist in non-existence.I see no alternative and none has been presented to date.If you have something I would be intersted in your hypothesis.God Bless,

Hi Panda, My mind and fingers were working perfectly. But if necessary I will word it as a multiple choice so you can guess.Does the BBT require a beginning to exist? Yes/NoYou either agree or disagree, that the BBT requires a beginning to exist.God Bless,

No: it doesn't require a beginning; it requires an "extremely hot and dense state". Well, it doesn't currently exist in its original form.
And I don't know how long it existed previous to the BB. It existed in exactly the same place that our universe currently exists.
Where do you think the universe exists?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.