Before the Big Bang

You know, I rather think that scientists do do science. Guys like Einstein, you know, Nobel Prize winning physicists, people like that. They can't see the difficulties which you evidently can.So which is more likely:(1) You, a "simple farm boy", who was "not educated in the sciences", and in particular having never studied General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics, have a better grasp of their implications than Nobel Prize winning physicists.(2) They know more physics than you do.

That is not true. I didn't say that you were too stupid to understand the relevant physics, I pointed out that you'd never tried to understand it. You haven't studied the subject. And the reason I said that you hadn't studied physics is that you yourself said that you hadn't had a scientific eductation.The people who have studied physics, and are very very good at it, don't see the same problems that you do with the Big Bang. This suggests that the problems you have with the Big Bang is not that physics contradicts the Big Bang, but rather that you don't know physics as well as they do.I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm just saying that you're not a preternaturally gifted genius. Let me ask you again to decide which is more likely:(1) Without even having studied physics, you know more about it than Nobel Prize winning physicists such as, for example, Einstein. Hence, you are the most remarkable prodigy in physics that has ever lived.(2) The experts disagree with you 'cos they know more about their field of expertise than you do.Really --- which is more likely?

If, as you say, there was "no time" before the Big Bang, then the phrase "before the Big Bang" is meaningless, like "North of the North Pole", and your question makes no sense.

No, what I'm actually saying is that if, as you say, there was "no time" before the Big Bang, then the phrase "before the Big Bang" is meaningless, like "North of the North Pole", and your question makes no sense.That's why I wrote:

I suspect that you've misunderstood them.But that's by-the-by. My point is that these people, being physicists, would know if their ideas were breaking any of the basic laws of physics, because anything you and I can remember about physics from school is certainly known to them. And yet you yourself summarise their opinions as saying that there was no time before the Big Bang. In which case, there was no "time when there was nothing".

Let's try this again.You believe that the Big Bang is "something coming from nothing".You also believe that there is a law of nature that "something cannot come from nothing".If both of these claims were true, don't you think physicists (who, unlike you, have studied physics) would have noticed this and rejected the Big Bang?Every time I study some area of science on my own, I come across something I don't understand, and you know what, instead of thinking that I've found an error in the fundamentals of science which no scientist has ever spotted in my first read through the textbook, I think I need to study more until I do understand it.Unless you are, in fact, the most gifted physicist who has ever lived, I recommend the same course to you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.