29 Jun 09
6 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…You than believe all matter in the universe is eternal
You than believe all matter in the universe is eternal, and you are
dating the eternal and coming up with something else. I would then
wonder about what else could cause the dates to be wrong.
Kelly
…
no.
where did you get that from?
In accordance with E=MC^2, matter is destroyed by being converted to energy and energy can be converted into matter and any given piece of matter has a beginning.
If the standard big bang theory is correct, the universe stated as a singularity and therefore there was no matter at that moment of time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter “…matter is anything that has both mass and volume…” . But a singularity has mass but no volume as such thus it isn’t considered to be “made of matter“ )
Thus even if there was a 'before' the big bang, that still would not imply that matter is eternal.
So what is the answer to my original question? -what would the issues be in that situation ?
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayThe Big bang does not 'avoid' anything, nor is it 'supposed' to answer anything. The big bang was an event that we believed happened. Or are you referring to 'the Big Bang Theory' which again is an attempt to answer questions about the evidence and at no point does it attempt to go beyond that and answer questions that you think it was 'supposed' to answer.
I have picked a side, because the Big Bang avoids the one point it is
supposed to answer in my opinion which is where did everything come
from!
But whatever the Big bang theory does or does not do should not cause you to 'pick a side' so your explanation just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't understand that bit. Rejection of what?
If people again want to
leave God out of the discussion because they believe people made
Him up to cover the unknown in our knowledge, the same is true of
the singurity if that is the only basis for rejection.
You think you will see in your life time evidence about the beginning of
all things, really!?
I think it is highly unlikely.
30 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYour singularity's mass came from where?
[b]…You than believe all matter in the universe is eternal
…
no.
where did you get that from?
In accordance with E=MC^2, matter is destroyed by being converted to energy and energy can be converted into matter and any given piece of matter has a beginning.
If the standard big bang theory is correct, the universe stated as a singularit ...[text shortened]...
So what is the answer to my original question? -what would the issues be in that situation ?[/b]
Kelly
30 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you know what it is your looking for with respect to what you would
I don't understand that bit. Rejection of what?
[b]You think you will see in your life time evidence about the beginning of
all things, really!?
I think it is highly unlikely.[/b]
find as evidence one way or another?
Kelly
30 Jun 09
'Scientifically, we put all causes far back in time.
We find ourselves in the world passing in time from moment to moment-a world of contradictions, of opposites, and , as it were ,half-truths. We know , in short, only a limited reality, which is characterized as passage in time. But the ultimate cause and origon of all things is not a million million years ago, it is outside time-Now'
Maurice Nicoll, Living Time.
30 Jun 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelMaurice Nicoll was born 1884 and died 1953, well before the acceptance of the Big Bang theory. He was a British psychiatrist during his life.
'Scientifically, we put all causes far back in time.
We find ourselves in the world passing in time from moment to moment-a world of contradictions, of opposites, and , as it were ,half-truths. We know , in short, only a limited reality, which is characterized as passage in time. But the ultimate cause and origon of all things is not a million million years ago, it is outside time-Now'
Maurice Nicoll, Living Time.
30 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasthank you very much Fabian.
Maurice Nicoll was born 1884 and died 1953, well before the acceptance of the Big Bang theory. He was a British psychiatrist during his life.
I scourced it from a Whitley Streiber book
(The Secret School: Preparation for Contact)
30 Jun 09
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat does that have to do with anything? A singularity has mass but, according to the definition of “mater”, no matter. So all matter had a beginning a finite period of time ago and thus is not ‘eternal’.
Your singularity's mass came from where?
Kelly
So where did the singularity's mass came from? -not that this is relevant here but if the standard theory is correct then the question wouldn’t make sense because time and space began then thus there was no “where” for that singularity's mass to came from!
-in other words, mass (not to be confuses with matter) existed at all points in time BUT is NOT eternal because the mass was there at the beginning of time which was a finite time ago.
But if that standard theory is wrong and there was a ‘before’ the big bang then it could be the case that mass (NOT matter) is eternal.
But when matter is being dated, it isn’t the mass of the matter that is being dated but rather when that matter first formed as matter (and ceased to be merely just mass or energy which is not matter).
All matter in our universe, on the other hand, was created some time after the big bang thus all the matter in our universe is definitely NOT eternal regardless of where or not there is a “before” the big bang.
So exactly what are these “issues” you where talking about regarding the dating of matter (not to be confused with mass which isn't dated)?
30 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWe are looking for or speaking about the beginning, you are going
What does that have to do with anything? A singularity has mass but, according to the definition of “mater”, no matter. So all matter had a beginning a finite period of time ago and thus is not ‘eternal’.
So where did the singularity's mass came from? -not that this is relevant here but if the standard theory is correct then the question wouldn’t ...[text shortened]... alking about regarding the dating of matter (not to be confused with mass which isn't dated)?
to get that question until you tell me this thing or this whatever was
always here. I'd also like to know what was your mass was sitting in
as well so we can discuss the conditions at the time of the Big Bang
and before it?
Kelly
30 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDoes KJ know the distinction between 'mass' and 'matter'? I don't think so.
What does that have to do with anything? A singularity has mass but, according to the definition of “mater”, no matter. So all matter had a beginning a finite period of time ago and thus is not ‘eternal’.
So where did the singularity's mass came from? -not that this is relevant here but if the standard theory is correct then the question wouldn’t alking about regarding the dating of matter (not to be confused with mass which isn't dated)?
30 Jun 09
Originally posted by KellyJay…We are looking for or speaking about the beginning, you are going
We are looking for or speaking about the beginning, you are going
to get that question until you tell me this thing or this whatever was
always here. I'd also like to know what was your mass was sitting in
as well so we can discuss the conditions at the time of the Big Bang
and before it?
Kelly
to get that question until …..
…
I have just answered your question (second paragraph of my last post).
…until you tell me this thing or this whatever was
always here.
..…
Does “always here” mean “at all points in time” regardless of whether or not time has a beginning or does “always here” mean “eternal” and presupposes that time had no beginning?
…. I'd also like to know what was your mass was sitting in
…
-the singularity wasn’t sitting in any volume of space as such else it wouldn’t be a singularity. It was in a point of space (if you can call that “space” as such).
…as well so we can discuss the conditions at the time of the Big Bang
and before it?
…
I didn’t say there was a “before” it. I basically said IF there was a “before” it then that would make no difference to the argument because matter STILL wouldn’t be eternal.
Now I have answered your questions will you answer my one question? -exactly what are these “issues” you where talking about regarding the dating of matter (not to be confused with mass which isn't dated)?