Tweaking the Big Bang

I'm sorry, was this in reply to my post?

They are a part of our universe. They did not "come" from anywhere. You do not want to ask "where did the universe come from?" because this makes no sense. You may ask instead "Why does the universe exist?". My personal answer is that God made it exist. You probably have some other answer... Not at all. Nothing cannot beget nothing.This message has been edited by cavediver, 10-27-2005 10:38 AM

The real irony cavediver, is that you're in the UK. Yet somehow our sensative friend here has somehow missinterpreted your rather begnin remark as the calling card of a partisand in american polatics.What this has to do with big-bang cosmology, I will never know.

Thanks Yaro, it helps to have an interpreter on hand [abe love the avatar!]This message has been edited by cavediver, 10-27-2005 10:37 AM

It is all very well having ideas of what existence may be about, but they are just guesses. Admittedly, sometimes they are good guesses, but guesses nontheless.The scenario I am describing is not a guess. It is what the mathematics of GR tells us. We have no to little choice in the options that GR presents. We accept them because at this moment GR is one of, if not the, most well tested theory ever developed.

Wow, I missed this post at first. I was wondering what the other's where talking about.I do not appreciate my thread becoming a partisan tyraid for some right-winged zealot.I will respond.George Bush is stupid, and neocons are squandering the post-Cold War opportunitiy to create greater international cooperation and trust.Double standards such as this are partisan bickering and nothing more or less, what does this have to do with science?Please take the politics to another thread?

Hi, bigsplit.Here is a game that I find fun to play. Completely ignore the off-topic portions of the post, except to politely point out that they are off-topic, and gently repeat the relevant points and request a reply.Keep repeating as necessary -- if you are lucky, you will be "debating" someone who has, er, problems with staying focused. If you are not so lucky, the other person will be able to focus on the topic and attempt to put forth a cogent reply. But this can also be enjoyable, if slightly less interesting.Edited to add:
Oops. I almost forgot. Welcome to EvC.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 27-Oct-2005 03:24 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Welcome to the fray bigsplitMirabile_Auditu, aka SpiderMBA, aka John Jaeger is just, imao (knowing him for several years now), being his normal self.Enjoy the forum and all there is to it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You forget the third possiblity: that the other person will completely ignore your post and continue to post the same irrelevant and wrong things as if you never said anything about them.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I've said it before, if you want to correct people's spelling, be sure to use correct spelling yourself. 'Naveté' is a French word and should be spelled complete with the accents. The first time you correct someone's spelling and make a spelling error yourself, you look just a bit foolish, but people can look past it. However, if you repeat it, you start looking more and more like an ass.Besides, if the main part of your rebuttal of someone's argument consists of pointing out their spelling errors, then it seems you're trying to hide the fact that you don't have any real arguments. And personally, I'd rather look like an ass than be perceived as someone doing just that.I myself have given up correcting people's spelling errors, first because I make them myself often enough, and second because it doesn't further the argument. I do make an exception for pedants who can't spell correctly themselves, though.And what's with the "anti-intellectual" and "anti-science"? I told you about the difference between "anti-" and "non-", why haven't you given it any thought? Am I talking to a wall? Where did God come from? How does that make it any simpler?

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Hmmm, should be: "Nothing cannot beget anything"

If nothing cannot beget anything and yet we have something, the only logical rational is that we have always had something.If the universe was ever at a t=0, what is the only something that could exist and uphold the principles of space without time....or something without GR.

quote:

---

If nothing cannot beget anything....

---

That's a pretty big "if".

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Is it? I would have thought that anything that could "do" "something" would automatically be excluded from what we would call "nothing". But it's moot really, as we have no clue as to what "nothing" is! It's hard to think of absence of existence...Note that I'm not talking about any weak idea of nothing... i.e empty space, zero modes of quantum fields, etc. Whoever originally claimed such scenarios as "nothing" deserves to be shot, as they introduced more confusion than they could ever imagine...This message has been edited by cavediver, 10-31-2005 01:08 PM

I agree, but this does not necessarily imply an eternal universe in the usual sense. Take a closed big bang (no-boundary) type universe. It exists. It has a t=0 and t=T_final, but there is no "time" when it doesn't exist. tT_final don't exist. There is not some infinte embedding space of "nothing" in which this finite universe sits. It is all there is, all there was, and all there will be. It always exists as a 4d object. It didn't necessarily come from anywhere, it just is. Having a finite time dimension within this universe does not change this.This message has been edited by cavediver, 10-31-2005 01:15 PM