Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Before Big Bang God or Singularity
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 331 of 405 (454797)
02-08-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by ICANT
02-08-2008 6:09 PM


Re: Big Bang.
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.
You're still repeating the exact same things you have said for 300+ posts. You haven't learned a damned thing.
We do not suspect anything about T<0, for the same reason we don't wonder at what is North of the North Pole.
We do know that there was something in the fractions of a second after T=0, but the conditions at that moment were such that it causes a singularity with current mathematics, so we have no way currently to describe those conditions in a meaningful way. From the barest fraction of a second after T=0 and onward, we have a pretty good understanding - it's only that teensy fraction of a second that we don't have a working model.
The Big Bang model is so accurate in its predictive qualities that there is nearly zero argument - disputes and additional research occur over the details, but the idea that the Universe expanded and is still expanding is almost universally accepted with the same degree of certainty that, say, gravity will still work tomorrow the same way that it works today.
There are multiple approaches being studied for that teensy moment after T=0, because our math simply doesn't work for the conditions prior to that.
This has nothing to do with T<0. Nothing at all. You, in fact, are the only one talking about nonsense like T<0. We have told you, in more than half of the responses in a 300+ post thread, that Tstill insist on saying "we suspect there was something prior to T=0." Do you have any idea how ridiculously silly that statement is? It's silly enough to generate half of the replies in this thread to tell you that your most basic assumption is false and meaningless. You, of course, simply refuse to comprehend it.
Let's try one more time: What weighs less than nothing, ICANT? What has less mass than empty space? The question is meaningless unless you propose negative mass - as observed in our Universe, mass is always >= 0. Just like length, or width, or height, or time.
T=0 is a point in spacetime where our current math reaches a singularity - this means that equations like speed = distance / time make no sense whatsoever when applied at a point where space essentially would have existed as a single point. For any equation that would look like "Speed = 0/0", or gravity equations where mass and energy density approach the infinite, we simply don't have an answer yet.
Do you know what an asymptote is? It's a curve that approaches a value infinitely, but never actually reaches it. There's an asymptote at the speed of light when talking about accelerating any object with mass - the energy required to accelerate further increases exponentially, and it would require infinite energy to actually accelerate any mass to the speed of light.
Our understanding of T=0 is like an asymptote - as we approach the actual moment where T=0, our understanding breaks down. Current math can get almost imperceptibly close, but cannot actually describe the Universe in the tiny fraction of a second immediately after T=0.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 6:09 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 7:13 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 333 by johnfolton, posted 02-08-2008 7:20 PM Rahvin has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by cavediver, posted 02-08-2008 7:33 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 335 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 7:35 PM ICANT has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 333 of 405 (454809)
02-08-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Rahvin
02-08-2008 6:33 PM


Re: Big Bang.
the energy required to accelerate further increases exponentially, and it would require infinite energy to actually accelerate any mass to the speed of light.
It does not appear to me either that the expansion of the universe is related to the acceleration of mass. I look at it more the creation of space so the energy could become mass, etc.... even today the expansion of the universe is said to be related to the space between galaxies spreading apart faster than the speedlimit of light yet no mass is said to be moving faster than light because that would of violated them theories of relativity.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 6:33 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 7:42 PM johnfolton has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 334 of 405 (454811)
02-08-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by ICANT
02-08-2008 7:13 PM


Re: Big Bang.
If there was something at T=O as cavediver says.
Then it was there a few moments prior.
That does not follow at all... you can fool yourself that you understand this, but you will not fool me.
Or it appeared at T=O out of an absence of anything.
Complete nonsense
We are talking about the physics and mathematics of General Relativity and space-time, where time and space swap identities, time can loop back upon itself, and everything you think you know about 'common sense' and 'the way things must be' is utterly invalid. Welcome to being totally out of your depth.
As I said long ago, you need to stop making proclamations, empty your mind of all preconceptions, and ask questions. If you find yourself about to make a proclamation, make a quick check... if you have not yet made it past masters level cosmology, hold the proclamation and keep asking questions...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 7:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 7:53 PM cavediver has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 335 of 405 (454812)
02-08-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by ICANT
02-08-2008 7:13 PM


Re: Big Bang.
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.
"Before" T=0 is a nonsense statement. You are asking "what weighs less than nothing," "what is North of the North Pole," and "what is farther than left."
Nothing "appeared out of an absence of anything." The Universe exists at T=0 in a state current mathematics cannot describe, which we call a "singularity." Saying that something came "before" T=0 requires negative time, which is complete and total nonsense. Time is always >= 0. It is never < 0. Exactly as mass is always > = 0, and never is mass < 0.
Your incomprehension is based upon the silly notion that you can go below 0 in a non-negative number set. You lack comprehension of basic math, and cannot wrap your head around this no matter how many times it is explained. You repeat the same nonsense, every time.
Let's go over this, shall we?
You berate me for saying we suspect something before T=O.
Because it's nonsensical.
This statement says there was a point in space-time at T=O.
It also says there is a singularity at T=O.
"Points" are human assigned coordinates. Space-time exists, and at one coordinate in space-time (when T=0), current mathematics reaches a singularity. A singularity is not an object, it is a point where we say "wow, all of our physics equations stop working in those conditions." At the point T=0, there is a mathematical singularity that prevents us from describing the barest moment immediately after T=0.
This has nothing to do with T<0. Nothing at all, because that would be a nonsense statement.
Given a graph that contains only positive values for x and y, there is a point at x=0. Asking what is farther to the left on that graph than x=0 is nonsense, because the graph has no coordinate less than zero! We say that we cannot say exactly what y is at x=0 because the graph reaches an asymptote, and you go off insisting that there must be something to the left of x=0! You don't even make the beginning of sense, ICANT, and you repeat gibberish in every post.
If there was something at T=O as cavediver says.
Then it was there a few moments prior.
There is no such thing as T<0. Time is always > = 0, and never negative.
You can no more have "a few moments prior to T=0" than you can have "a few grams less than nothing at all!"

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 7:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 7:48 PM Rahvin has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 336 of 405 (454816)
02-08-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by johnfolton
02-08-2008 7:20 PM


Re: Big Bang.
It does not appear to me either that the expansion of the universe is related to the acceleration of mass. I look at it more the creation of space so the energy could become mass, etc.... even today the expansion of the universe is said to be related to the space between galaxies spreading apart faster than the speedlimit of light yet no mass is said to be moving faster than light because that would of violated them theories of relativity.
Oh for the love of...
That was a metaphor, used to describe what an asymptote looks like!
The rest of your post is in the "so off the mark it's not even wrong" category.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by johnfolton, posted 02-08-2008 7:20 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by johnfolton, posted 02-08-2008 7:49 PM Rahvin has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 338 of 405 (454823)
02-08-2008 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Rahvin
02-08-2008 7:42 PM


Re: Big Bang.
The rest of your post is in the "so off the mark it's not even wrong" category.
So do you believe mass moved faster than light in the big bang or that energy before it became mass could go faster than light. Not sure we disagree ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 7:42 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 8:09 PM johnfolton has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 339 of 405 (454831)
02-08-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by cavediver
02-08-2008 7:33 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by cavediver, posted 02-08-2008 7:59 PM ICANT has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 340 of 405 (454835)
02-08-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by ICANT
02-08-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Big Bang.
When did space-time appear?
You said it exists.
God Bless,
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.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 7:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 8:31 PM Rahvin has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 341 of 405 (454836)
02-08-2008 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by ICANT
02-08-2008 7:53 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Where did it appear from then?
It didn't 'appear' from anywhere. It just is. If God (or a god) created the Universe, he didn't bring it into being at some point. He brought the whole of it into existence - past, present, and future. Stop looking towards the T=0 point for the act of creation. If there was an act of creation, then it applies to every point in space-time..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 7:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 8:37 PM cavediver has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 342 of 405 (454837)
02-08-2008 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by johnfolton
02-08-2008 7:49 PM


Re: Big Bang.
So do you believe mass moved faster than light in the big bang or that energy before it became mass could go faster than light. Not sure we disagree ?
I can neither agree nor disagree. Again, your comments are so far departed from reality that you aren't even wrong.
As we understand physics, nothing can move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Energy can be transmitted at the speed of light, but not faster. However, we simply cannot describe the conditions that existed immediately after T=0 with current mathematics - we don't know much at all about that fraction of a second, and are at present unable to.
While energy can become mass (photons in the form of gamma rays generating electron/positron pairs for example), we cannot say that the Universe consisted solely of "energy" in that fraction of a second. Baryonic matter (that is, matter made up of the particles we are used to like protons, neutrons, etc) may or may not have existed in that brief time and for a period of time after that, but that doesn't mean the Universe was "pure energy" or anything along the nonsense tesla likes to suggest.
Cavediver can feel free to correct me on any of that, of course.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by johnfolton, posted 02-08-2008 7:49 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by johnfolton, posted 02-08-2008 8:32 PM Rahvin has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 344 of 405 (454846)
02-08-2008 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Rahvin
02-08-2008 8:09 PM


Re: Big Bang.
As we understand physics, nothing can move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
If the space between galaxies is increasing faster than the speed of light then nothing can increase faster than the speed limit of light in a vacuum. Do you believe time is responsible for the increase of the entire universe spatial dimensions.
It just appears too me it was not a big bang because the universe is expanding it appears thru time not from an explosion of matter but more an explosion of space expanding thru time?
P.S. So do you believe all points before the singularity simply has been stretched. Is this what makes our universe able to have mass? E=mc2
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2008 8:09 PM Rahvin has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 345 of 405 (454847)
02-08-2008 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by cavediver
02-08-2008 7:59 PM


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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024