Before the Big Bang

This happens to be Dr. Hawking's summation of the entire lecture.If leaving off the opening sentence: amounts to reprehensible quote mining I guess I am guilty as charged.The last three paragraphs of the lecture in their entirety is: I have not quoted or alluded to anything Dr. Penrose said in any of his three lectures as I have not read them. The three lectures given by Dr. Hawking is all I referenced. Dr. Hawking said spacetime had a beginning and an end:

quote:

---

I have learnt in my research on space and time: first, that gravity curls up spacetime so that it has a begining and an end.

---

I looked up information and you said:Message 256I take your advice and go to Dr. Hawking's website and get information. Now you want me to explain what Dr. Hawking says.What kind of a game are you playing.I could care less about what Dr. Hawking believes. Dr. Hawking believing something does not make it a fact.If you want to know what I believe about the universe read Message 262Dr. Hawking's view and mine are a long way apart.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ABE But if my theory is correct you will know all the facts one day.Edited by ICANT, : To put the proper quote in so Chiroptera could stop scratching head trying to figure out what I was talking about.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Um, okay. Thanks.Edited by Chiroptera, : No changes made: ICANT's correction doesn't change my response.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Those same observations would support the idea that God could have created the universe as well.We can be just as sure God was the cause as we can be that singularity was the cause.But most on EvC says God can not be explained and who or what created Him.I say singularity can not be explained and who or what created it.Both are accepted by faith.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Why are you quoting me and replying to Chi?Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Really?The first sentence of the paper: And you haven't answered my question. Where do Drs. Hawking and Penrose suggest that ALL of spacetime has a beginning and an end? ALL. A-L-L. Provide quote or link.ABEHint The answer you're looking for has to do with geodesic incompleteness.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

No one is saying that the singularity was the case. What we are saying, yet again, is that the theory that explains the big bang and it's behavior does NOT explain the point of origin of the big bang. The singularity means exactly that. It means that GR breaks down and gives no answers at that point. That is, it means that it does not explain the origin.The big bang itself deals with after that. It is most definitely not taken on faith. As I mentioned before it is currently accepted because of the large number of observations and the agreement with the math. That is definitely NOT faith.The current answer to where all that came from is : "We don't know."You are happy to follow the historic course of putting God into the "we don't know". Others are not. We all await the outcome.I asked you before what happens to your faith if we do start to "know". Do you wish to follow the followers of Vulcan at his forge under the volcano?If your God (or some other) did start the universe at point of the GR singularity or started it with n-dimensional branes bumping around in an infinite n-spacetime all we do is learn how your God did it all. (well, "how"to a point only. The details of how to create an n-spacetime might elude us for a bit ).Right now it appears pretty darn certain that some god (if any)definitely chose (for whatever reasons) to set the universe in motion at a point of extremely high density and let it expand from there. It seems we are all in agreement on that and we do not have to take that on faith. We see good solid evidence for it.What has to be taken on faith right now is that either a god had something to do with it or that we will learn enough to explain it all without one being needed. Neither of us is in any position to be terribly sure of which answer is right or even that we will ever get to an answer.All I think I have on my side is history: over and over the god of the gaps argument has been used. To date it has always proved to be a mistake. No Vulcan at his forge, no Jupiter with his thunder bolts, no Apollo and his chariot, no disease causing demons, no geological layers from a single flood etc.That sure doesn't guarantee that the trend will extrapolate onward. But...

I corrected Message 272 so you could stop scratching your head trying to figure out what I was talking about.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Yes!Oh thank you, Ned.What we are saying, yet again, is that the theory that explains the big bang and it's behavior does NOT explain the point of origin of the big bang. The singularity means exactly that.
(emphasis added)Yes yes yes.

We were not talking about the big bang.The big bang is the result of what happened at T=0.If you can explain that moment please do, if not you take in on faith. I answered your question.Message 262
So if:

quote:

---

So I have no problem with any age that science could ever come up with for anything, I will just think it was a lot longer.

---

does not answer your question you will need to be more specific, than talking about mythology. I got no problem with that. I agree. In Message 262to you I put forth my views about the universe.I know the gap you are refering to between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 but those 2 verses don't belong in the same time zone must less the same chapter. A gap would be a time in which nothing happened. That never happened.Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Talk about quote mining.Do you ever read anything?Here is the first paragraph: We shall speak alternately.And shall give three lectures each.Followed by a discussion on our different approaches.I referenced only the three lectures by Dr. Hawking. Dr. Penrose has nothing to do with the summation given by Dr. Hawking in his lecture.Dr. Hawking said in summation of his lecture: Page 60 Its time to stop these childish games you want to play.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The theory you are quote-mining is called the Penrose-Hawking theory.And you can repeat that quote about gravity curling up all you want, buster. It doesn't mean spacetime has a beginning and an end. You have taken Drs. Hawking and Penrose's words out of context. Bull! You referenced one sentence on page 10 and one paragraph on page 60.It's a 61 page document! You are saying it can be summed up by that one sentence and/or that one paragraph!I seriously doubt you read anything else in those papers. But I shouldn't assume that, now should I?Let's see.
What do you make of this bit from page 6, dear boy? Earlier I gave you a hint. The reason your idea that spacetime has a beginning and an end is wrong has to do with geodesic incompleteness.I'm not gonna do the work. You read the paper. You find your mistake.

Of course, some of us were at the actual lectures

How much came from Dr. Penrose's lectures? I did not sum up Dr. Dawking's lecture he did. I did not ask you to do the work.I did read the 61 pages They are the three lectures Dr. Dawking delivered.Dr. Dawking summed up the lectures on page 60 I can't help it if you get bent out of shape because of what he said.Understand one thing I did not write the paragraph on page 60 which says: This is word for word what Dr. Hawking said. I have added nothing but bolding and underlining of part of the statement.If you have an argument with what Dr. Dawking said I suggest you take it up with him.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

cavediver:Awwww. Cave. You lucky critter you. As you know, I [heart] physics, but I doubt I could have followed that lecture anyway. That s*** is d-e-e-p. However, I can decode enough of it to know that little mister ICANT hasn't got his ducks in a row.ICANT. Listen carefully. Duck No. 1. Dr. Hawking: It's a quote from your favorite paragraph!Duck No. 2.Wiki: Wiki again: Now do you get it?