Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,217 Year: 5,474/9,624 Month: 499/323 Week: 139/204 Day: 9/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 410 (457902)
02-26-2008 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT
02-25-2008 6:09 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
OK we have established that there definitely was something at T=O.
Did this something exist in time and space?
If not where did it exist?
I can't really add anything beyond the answers of Chiroptera and Rahvin. As Chiroptera said there could be anything preceding the point where we can't model. The universe may have existed for billions of years before that and time itself might break down as a concept. I don't know anything about the period before GR breaks down. So I don't know:
(a)The answers to your questions.
(b)If your questions make sense, as the future theory might render such questions inapplicable.
We can't establish anything about T=0. The Big Bang is not a theory of origins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 02-25-2008 6:09 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2008 4:17 PM Son Goku has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 182 of 410 (457974)
02-26-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Son Goku
02-26-2008 8:51 AM


Re: The singularity is not real.
Hi Son,
Son Goku writes:
I can't really add anything beyond the answers of Chiroptera and Rahvin. As Chiroptera said there could be anything preceding the point where we can't model. The universe may have existed for billions of years before that and time itself might break down as a concept. I don't know anything about the period before GR breaks down. So I don't know:
If it was there prior to T=O which is as far as GR can go, then it had to exist in a state of timelessness.
So if it had been there in a timeless state why all of a sudden did it start to expand? There has to be a cause, as there was a timeless nothingness except the minature universe.
Same thing if it was sitting there in Hawking's imaginary time why did it all of a sudden start to expand?
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 181 by Son Goku, posted 02-26-2008 8:51 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2008 4:25 PM ICANT has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 410 (457978)
02-26-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ICANT
02-26-2008 4:17 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
If it was there prior to T=O which is as far as GR can go, then it had to exist in a state of timelessness.
It didn't have too. There could be time that is less than zero... negative time, if you will.
So if it had been there in a timeless state why all of a sudden did it start to expand?
You seem to be thinking of the singularity as hanging out for a while within some "place" and then one day it just starts expanding. This is not within the Big Bang model.
There has to be a cause, as there was a timeless nothingness except the minature universe.
Perhaps the sigularity didn't exist for any amount of time and the universe has been exanding for all of time.
Same thing if it was sitting there in Hawking's imaginary time why did it all of a sudden start to expand?
Perhaps a 'different' universe existed before T=0, which was collapsing into a singularity, and then immediatly after reaching a singularity began to exand again into the universe we are experience this time around.
The point is, there did not have to be a cause.
Besides, even if there did have to be a cuase, that cause doesn't have to be god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2008 4:17 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2008 4:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 186 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2008 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 184 of 410 (457982)
02-26-2008 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2008 4:25 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
Hi CS
Catholic Scientist writes:
Perhaps a 'different' universe existed before T=0, which was collapsing into a singularity, and then immediatly after reaching a singularity began to exand again into the universe we are experience this time around.
The point is, there did not have to be a cause.
You inject the bounce theory as a cause of the expansion and then turn around and say there did not have to be a cause.
What kind of double talk is that?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Besides, even if there did have to be a cuase, that cause doesn't have to be god.
Everybody keeps telling me this.
That is why I keep asking for a scientific answer and I am getting none.
If I say: "In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Everybody says where is your proof? I say it says so in the book of Genesis chapter 1 verse 1. Everybody says the Bible is a lie, it can't be trusted, it is just a myth, it is not a book of science.
Then everybody says where is your proof Goddidit?
I am asking the same questions I would be asked.
What caused the minature universe to start to expand?
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 183 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2008 4:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2008 5:04 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 188 by Calypso, posted 02-26-2008 5:47 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 189 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2008 5:54 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 190 by Granny Magda, posted 02-26-2008 7:45 PM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 410 (457983)
02-26-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
02-26-2008 4:55 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
What caused the minature universe to start to expand?
I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2008 4:55 PM ICANT has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 410 (457987)
02-26-2008 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2008 4:25 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
You seem to be thinking of the singularity as hanging out for a while within some "place" and then one day it just starts expanding.
Heh.
Anyway, even if there is a t=0 point in time, there probably wasn't anything before t=0. Not even nothing.

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2008 4:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2008 5:23 PM Chiroptera has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 410 (457988)
02-26-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Chiroptera
02-26-2008 5:16 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
Anyway, even if there is a t=0 point in time, there probably wasn't anything before t=0. Not even nothing.
Wha-wha-what! Es imposible!
If there was not nothing, then it must have been God.
[/sarcasm]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2008 5:16 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Calypso
Junior Member (Idle past 5269 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-05-2006


Message 188 of 410 (457990)
02-26-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
02-26-2008 4:55 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
If I say: "In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Everybody says where is your proof? I say it says so in the book of Genesis chapter 1 verse 1. Everybody says the Bible is a lie, it can't be trusted, it is just a myth, it is not a book of science.
Then everybody says where is your proof Goddidit?
A physics textbook is no more proof than a bible. We don't believe in science because it's written in a textbook. We believe it because it can be verified and/or duplicated. We're also not going to tell you that you can't believe in god, but we are going to insist you don't call the existance of god a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2008 4:55 PM ICANT has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 410 (457991)
02-26-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
02-26-2008 4:55 PM


Let's all make up what we really want to believe!
That is why I keep asking for a scientific answer and I am getting none.
Well, be a little more accurate. People are telling you that there is no scientific answer, at least not yet.
And some, like me, have been saying that there may not even be a scientific answer in principle.
But because there isn't an answer doesn't mean that one can just believe whatever one wants. When there isn't an answer, then one simply accepts that there isn't an answer.
Well, okay, one can always believe what one wants; one can even believe what one wants even when there is a scientific answer. We see this all the time here, where people believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old even though it is very clearly billions. Of course that is foolish, believing what one wants despite the actual answer being very clear. But I don't think it's much less foolish to believe what one wants even when there is no clear answer whatsoever.

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2008 4:55 PM ICANT has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 190 of 410 (458003)
02-26-2008 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
02-26-2008 4:55 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
Umm...ICANT,
I keep asking for a scientific answer and I am getting none.
What caused the minature universe to start to expand?
"We don't know." is a scientific answer.
If we didn't know, but nonetheless asserted that the answer was {insert fantasy here}, then that would be unscientific.
What part of this is troubling you?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2008 4:55 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2008 7:52 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 410 (458004)
02-26-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Granny Magda
02-26-2008 7:45 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
What part of this is troubling you?
The part where we're not saying, "Omigosh! Materialist atheism is completely wrong! There must be a God!"

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Granny Magda, posted 02-26-2008 7:45 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Rahvin, posted 02-26-2008 10:03 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 192 of 410 (458040)
02-26-2008 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Chiroptera
02-26-2008 7:52 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
The part where we're not saying, "Omigosh! Materialist atheism is completely wrong! There must be a God!"
Not specific enough. He wants us to agree that Genesis 1:1 is accurate - meaning the Christian god exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2008 7:52 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Granny Magda, posted 02-26-2008 10:11 PM Rahvin has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 193 of 410 (458041)
02-26-2008 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Rahvin
02-26-2008 10:03 PM


Re: The singularity is not real.
He wants us to agree that Genesis 1:1 is accurate - meaning the Christian god exists
Even more specifically, he would like you to agree his version of the Christian god exists.
Good luck with that ICANT.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Rahvin, posted 02-26-2008 10:03 PM Rahvin has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 194 of 410 (458051)
02-26-2008 11:12 PM


Re-I Don't Know
What caused the minature universe to start to expand?
CS says:
quote:
I Don't Know
correct answer.
Calypso says:
quote:
We don't believe in science because it's written in a textbook. We believe it because it can be verified and/or duplicated.
Then verify.
Chiroptera says:
quote:
Well, be a little more accurate. People are telling you that there is no scientific answer, at least not yet.
Yes, some, but I did get other answers. Like it just is.
Granny Magda says:
quote:
"We don't know." is a scientific answer.
I call it the only answer.
Son Goku says:
quote:
We can't establish anything about T=0.
Hawking says on page 40: Here
quote:
There is, however, a second and more serious objection. Cosmology can not predict
anything about the universe unless it makes some assumption about the initial conditions.
So to trust the Big Bang Theory I have to make some assumptions concerning how it happened.
That sounds like I got to believe it happened the way Science says it was just because Science says it was.
That is faith.
Not when I have a problem with a statement cavediver made Here
And the expansion occurs immeasurably faster than the speed of light.
Nothing is moving so there is no speed to get up to... space is simply expanding. The almsot perfectly uniform distribution of energy across the Universe simply becomes less and less dense as space expands.
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light as it would be going back in time.
Unless you invoke a special exception and call it inflation.
Thats a neat fudge factor.
If space is expanding between every quarks & leptons at light speed, how did anything get together to form anything?
That would also mean the the universe is round, wouldn't it?
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."

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Son Goku, posted 02-27-2008 6:32 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 196 by fallacycop, posted 02-27-2008 7:43 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 202 by Chiroptera, posted 02-27-2008 1:03 PM ICANT has replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 410 (458083)
02-27-2008 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by ICANT
02-26-2008 11:12 PM


For the Aleph-Zeroth time.....
So to trust the Big Bang Theory I have to make some assumptions concerning how it happened.
Hawking does not mean initial conditions in the sense of "how the universe began". He is making the fairly simple statement that dynamical laws evolve an initial state. However that initial state doesn't have to be the beginning of everything.
However at this point your questions have become overtly ridiculous. You have been repeatedly told that science says nothing about what was going on at T=0 and yet in your previous post you ask:
So to trust the Big Bang Theory I have to make some assumptions concerning how it happened.
That sounds like I got to believe it happened the way Science says it was just because Science says it was.
Even though science says nothing about the "way it was", you somehow feel you must accept the "way science says it was". You (somehow) reject an explanation that nobody has offered.
In my opinion the statement "Science doesn't know, because we have no evidence" is simply too scientific for you. Instead, you want there to be some materialist/atheist origin story, which you can then ridicule. I can tell you now; there is no point, because such a thing does not exist. There is only the experimentally verified Big Bang theory of the evolution of the universe from 13.7 billion years ago to today and that theory is not a theory of origins.
Either you come to an understanding of this or this thread will simply be a collection of synonyms of "We don't know what went on at T=0".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2008 11:12 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 02-27-2008 9:01 AM Son Goku has replied
 Message 230 by Chiroptera, posted 02-28-2008 8:12 PM Son Goku has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024