In the beginning God or nothing?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…and you
start talking about black holes as if that were the same topic
….

No, I am trying to establish whether or not you think a singularity (ANY singularity) can exist -please clarify, do you think that a singularity (ANY singularity) cannot exist? -I want to know this because I want to know if it is THIS that makes you not believe there was no singularity at the beginning?[/b]

If you want to call a black hole a singularity, fine they exist, you think
that "THE SINGULARITY" was 'the' black hole of all black holes or
something?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
KellyJay

Where is this discussion going?
Are you working towards saying some specific point or argument? -if so, I would like to hear it now 🙂

I'm looking at what I think are contradictions in what you have said, or
if they are not, they don't seem to be something I can accept as possible.
What I'm really trying to do is see your point of view, since I do think
you are a very bright person I assume you will be able to give me some
possible answers to some of the questions I have. I do not think the
universe is a contradiction; I believe our understanding or our abilities
to accept certain things cause us to view it or believe it has
contradictions when we think about its beginning.

From the beginning the singularity has and doesn't have a few things.

1. Mass, it has
2. Volume, it does not have
3. A space to sit in, it did not have
4. It has space within it
5. It was not inert
6. Gravity managed to hold it together even though there wasn't any
volume

If I'm wrong about any of these let me know.

All the universal constants like gravity, speed of light, and so on did
these exist within the singularity? If not did they just happen after the
Big Bang, did they fluctuate until they settled into being constant
after the Big Bang?
Kelly

Originally posted by karoly aczel
am I? Just about everything i've read about quantum suggests the dual nature of matter .

The dual nature of matter means that sometimes a bit of matter sometimes behaves as if it is a wave and sometimes it behaves as if it is a particle.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to call a black hole a singularity, fine they exist, you think
that "THE SINGULARITY" was 'the' black hole of all black holes or
something?
Kelly

…If you want to call a black hole a singularity
….

no

…fine they exist
...

The black holes or the singularity within each black hole?
I just ask you a straightforward question -do you believe that a singularity can exist?

…that "THE SINGULARITY" was 'the' black hole of all black holes or
something? ….

It wasn’t a black hole -there was no space outside it thus no event horizon.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm looking at what I think are contradictions in what you have said, or
if they are not, they don't seem to be something I can accept as possible.
What I'm really trying to do is see your point of view, since I do think
you are a very bright person I assume you will be able to give me some
possible answers to some of the questions I have. I do not thin ang, did they fluctuate until they settled into being constant
after the Big Bang?
Kelly

…1. Mass, it has
….

Yes (unless twhitehead is correct)

…2. Volume, it does not have
...

Not necessarily; quantum fluctuations might give it a ‘volume’ in space but, as I said many times, you have to ask an expert on this because I am not sure and I am no expert.

…3. A space to sit in, it did not have
….

Not true! There was space there even if it existed only as a point and with no volume.

…I
4. It has space within it
…..

Are you talking now about (judging from your rocks in a jar analogy) EMPTY space?
There was NO empty space there -all the space there contained mass (but NOT matter).

…5. It was not inert
...

Correct -there would have been unimaginably fast quantum fluctuations there.

…6. Gravity managed to hold it together EVEN THOUGH there wasn't any
volume ...(my emphasis)

IF there was no true volume -yes.
But what do you imply by the “EVEN THOUGH” above? -I mean, do you think there would be some kind of conflict between those two things and if so, what would that conflict be?

Oh, hang on, do you have the misconception that there was ‘pressure’ there! -if so, there was no ‘pressure’ there! Pressure generally requires particles of matter pushing at each other but, remember, there was no matter in the singularity (thus no particles pushing against each other) -just mass.

…All the universal constants like gravity, speed of light, and so on did
these exist within the singularity?
...

Yes -at least that is the way I take it.
But I have heard of some circumstantial evidence that some of the constants may have varied over time albeit by a miniscule amount (and not enough to effect the theories much) -in particular, the speed of light may have changed by a miniscule amount.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Now I’m confused;
I could be wrong but I thought singularities have mass?
What is there if not mass?

Other singularities such as black holes have mass. It seems I could have made a mistake about the big bang singularity not having mass. It is not required however that it had the same mass as the current universe - in fact it is highly unlikely.
All energy can be converted between radiation (massless particles?), and mass (which is what nuclear power is all about).
Also, the singularity of the big bang is in a different class from those of black holes. Black holes always have volume and mass, an inside and an outside etc. In both cases the physics go to extremes, but the big bang is quite different in nature.

Originally posted by KellyJay
3. A space to sit in, it did not have

I must point out that that is apparently true of the current universe as well, in other words it is an unchanging property of the universe and is not special for the big bang. In fact it is in my opinion true by definition as I include the whole extent of the spacial and time dimensions in my definition of the universe.

Originally posted by KellyJay
6. Gravity managed to hold it together even though there wasn't any
volume

No. Gravity did not hold it together - hence the big bang.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Other singularities such as black holes have mass. It seems I could have made a mistake about the big bang singularity not having mass. It is not required however that it had the same mass as the current universe - in fact it is highly unlikely.
All energy can be converted between radiation (massless particles?), and mass (which is what nuclear power is ...[text shortened]... de etc. In both cases the physics go to extremes, but the big bang is quite different in nature.

…It is not required however that it had the same mass as the current universe - in fact it is highly unlikely.
….

I didn’t know that.

…All energy can be converted between radiation (massless particles?), and mass (which is what nuclear power is all about).
...

Yes, I knew that. But it is my understanding that the singularity at the beginning had NO particles of radiation or particles of anything!? -please correct me if I am wrong.

…Also, the singularity of the big bang is in a different class from those of black holes. Black holes always have volume and mass, an inside and an outside etc. In both cases the physics go to extremes, but the big bang is quite different in nature.
….

Yes, I had guessed that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. Gravity did not hold it together - hence the big bang.

I assume you mean that the gravity was insufficient to hold it together for very long (something like less than a trillionth of a second) - hence the big bang?
-I have been telling him that there WAS sufficient gravity to hold it together for something like less than a trillionth of a second and I don’t want to confuse him here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. Gravity did not hold it together - hence the big bang.

What kept the singularity intact while it was, when it turned into the
Big Bang is another topic?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm looking at what I think are contradictions in what you have said, or
if they are not, they don't seem to be something I can accept as possible.
What I'm really trying to do is see your point of view, since I do think
you are a very bright person I assume you will be able to give me some
possible answers to some of the questions I have. I do not thin ...[text shortened]... ang, did they fluctuate until they settled into being constant
after the Big Bang?
Kelly

…I'm looking at what I think are contradictions in what you have said
...

I have just pointed out that some of what you said I said I didn’t say at all -so do you see any contradictions in what I said now? I challenge you to show me a contradiction in what I said!
There are no such contradictions.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I'm looking at what I think are contradictions in what you have said
...

I have just pointed out that some of what you said I said I didn’t say at all -so do you see any contradictions in what I said now? I challenge you to show me a contradiction in what I said!
There are no such contradictions.[/b]

I have not read your responses yet, I'm going to go over it again I
want to understand your position, and I'm not getting somethings you
have said so we are covering the ground till I do. I'm not trying to
trip you up, I'm trying to grasp your point of view. If I think that
has contradicitons within it, believe me you will not need to challenge
me to inform you of them. In the mean time, thank you for your time
in this!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have not read your responses yet, I'm going to go over it again I
want to understand your position, and I'm not getting somethings you
have said so we are covering the ground till I do. I'm not trying to
trip you up, I'm trying to grasp your point of view. If I think that
has contradicitons within it, believe me you will not need to challenge
me to inform you of them. In the mean time, thank you for your time
in this!
Kelly

First you say:

…I'm looking at what I think are contradictions in what you have said…
….

And then I asked you to point out the contradictions in what I have said because I don’t see any.
But now you say:

…I have not read your responses yet….
...

-but ALL of what I have said ARE my responses! So how on earth could you have seen contradictions in what I have said if you have not read any of it yet!? -You are messing with my mind! Lol 😀

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I didn’t know that.

There is no law of 'conservation of mass' only a law of 'conservation of energy'. Unless I am mistaken, the mass of the universe is constantly changing - I believe it is currently getting lighter as all stars are producing energy by converting mass to energy, but I am not sure whether the energy is turned back into mass somewhere. Does anyone know?

Yes, I knew that. But it is my understanding that the singularity at the beginning had NO particles of radiation or particles of anything!? -please correct me if I am wrong.
I am not aware of energy being able to exist in any form other than particles of either the massful or massless kind or potential or kinetic energy based on particles with mass.
I am however convinced that the expansion of the universe either imparts or removes energy from the whole, but I am not sure what the mechanics are.