07 Jul 09
Originally posted by KellyJayAs far as I know it would have not been 'intact' for any length of time other than that allowed by quantum fluctuations.
What kept the singularity intact while it was, when it turned into the
Big Bang is another topic?
Kelly
We must keep in mind though that Big Bang theory is only speculation when dealing with the very early stages as:
1. We have no hard evidence for the very early stages.
2. We do not know enough about the physics.
For the later stages we have background radiation and the ratio of the various particles and the 'clumpiness' of the universe to guide us in understanding what happened, but even here there is still room for quite a large amount of speculation.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAll coversations are a give and take, I'm not attempting to mess with
First you say:
[b]…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 hav ...[text shortened]... in what I have said if you have not read any of it yet!? -You are messing with my mind! Lol 😀[/b]
you mind, I'm actually pleased this has been a very nice discussion
I think you have stuck to the subject and been as forthright as you
can be.
Kelly
07 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySo; now what?
All coversations are a give and take, I'm not attempting to mess with
you mind, I'm actually pleased this has been a very nice discussion
I think you have stuck to the subject and been as forthright as you
can be.
Kelly
What about this singularity? Have you got any problems with it now?
I notice that you have made the title of this thread: “In the beginning God or nothing?” as if that are the only two possibilities of what could have been in the beginning!
What about the scientific one? -i.e. at no point in time along the time line was there “nothing” in existence (including the beginning of it) nor is there any scientific reason to support the hypotheses there was a ‘god’ in the beginning?
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf you read the full thread you'd see that was covered in other posts,
So; now what?
What about this singularity? Have you got any problems with it now?
I notice that you have made the title of this thread: “In the beginning God or nothing?” as if that are the only two possibilities of what could have been in the beginning!
What about the scientific one? -i.e. at no point in time along the time line was there “no ...[text shortened]... nor is there any scientific reason to support the hypotheses there was a ‘god’ in the beginning?
that is time being limited to just this universe. Science cannot touch
God, only God can reveal Himself to us, I cannot force you to see Him,
or make God reveal Himself to anyone. If you want that to be part of
the 'science' part of this discussion you'll have to have that discussion
with someone other than me.
Kelly
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe singularity was sitting in something that was not nothing, what was
So; now what?
What about this singularity? Have you got any problems with it now?
I notice that you have made the title of this thread: “In the beginning God or nothing?” as if that are the only two possibilities of what could have been in the beginning!
What about the scientific one? -i.e. at no point in time along the time line was there “no ...[text shortened]... nor is there any scientific reason to support the hypotheses there was a ‘god’ in the beginning?
this something that wasn’t apart of the singularity? The singularity was
either all there was, or it wasn’t, and if it wasn’t all there was, what
else wasn’t part of the singularity? We cannot say that it was a single
point that had no volume either since we have admitted that it was
comprised of parts that had space between them, which in my
estimation also gives it volume however miniature to our way of
thinking that would be relative, so it would have to have a measure of
thickness therefore a shape. I believe we have also established if it
were real it had time passing while it existed so I believe we are in
agreement there was time before the Big Bang. You agree with me on
these points?
Kelly
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy do you assume not for any lenght of time? What pressures were
As far as I know it would have not been 'intact' for any length of time other than that allowed by quantum fluctuations.
We must keep in mind though that Big Bang theory is only speculation when dealing with the very early stages as:
1. We have no hard evidence for the very early stages.
2. We do not know enough about the physics.
For the later st ...[text shortened]... ng what happened, but even here there is still room for quite a large amount of speculation.
in play during this time, again, if there is no real evidence who is to
say a singularity was even part of reality? I mean we may as well be
debating the tooth fairy did it with respect to all that science has to
offer under these conditions don't you think? I agree we may not know
enough about physics, but we may not know enough about so many
other things too, if we don't really know how it happened according to
evidence how do we know what we are looking at can really give us
insight into the beginning?
Kelly
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySimply because I can see no reason why it should have been stable. But as I said, it is purely speculation.
Why do you assume not for any lenght of time?
What pressures were in play during this time, again, if there is no real evidence who is to
say a singularity was even part of reality?
Well thats why I asked you to define 'the universe' earlier in the thread. I would include a singularity in the universe - and therefore reality.
I mean we may as well be debating the tooth fairy did it with respect to all that science has to
offer under these conditions don't you think?
No I don't think so. I think the tooth fairy would be wild speculation whereas what we currently do is educated speculation.
I agree we may not know enough about physics, but we may not know enough about so many
other things too, if we don't really know how it happened according to
evidence how do we know what we are looking at can really give us
insight into the beginning?
Kelly
I am not very sure what you are saying here.
We do know a lot about a lot of things and for those things that there is sufficient evidence, we can make a lot of very accurate conclusions. We have very solid evidence for an outline of the earths history, and even of most of the universe's history.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy would you'd include it? What about what we see now would lead
Simply because I can see no reason why it should have been stable. But as I said, it is purely speculation.
[b]What pressures were in play during this time, again, if there is no real evidence who is to
say a singularity was even part of reality?
Well thats why I asked you to define 'the universe' earlier in the thread. I would include a singular ...[text shortened]... evidence for an outline of the earths history, and even of most of the universe's history.[/b]
you to believe that is the beginning of our universe, what is it you
see now?
Kelly
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI would include it because it is the universe at that point in time. Why would I leave it out? It would make no sense to leave it out and pretend it didn't exist, or was some separate entity.
Why would you'd include it? What about what we see now would lead
you to believe that is the beginning of our universe, what is it you
see now?
Kelly
We know the universe is expanding, we know it has been expanding for all its observable history which goes back to a time when it was very small. We can guess that it therefore expanded from a point. I personally do not think anything 'leads me to believe' that that was the beginning. I think that is only one possible scenario. However, as long as such a scenario is reasonably possible ie we have no evidence to the contrary, then the argument you started the thread with is invalid as it relies on the as yet unsupported claim that such a scenario is not an option.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by KellyJay…The singularity was sitting in something that was not nothing,
The singularity was sitting in something that was not nothing, what was
this something that wasn’t apart of the singularity? The singularity was
either all there was, or it wasn’t, and if it wasn’t all there was, what
else wasn’t part of the singularity? We cannot say that it was a single
point that had no volume either since we have admitted that it wa ...[text shortened]... are in
agreement there was time before the Big Bang. You agree with me on
these points?
Kelly
….
Are to referring to the space there -if so, I have already covered that.
…what was
this something that wasn’t apart of the singularity?
...
I assume you are talking about space?
…The singularity was
either all there was, or it wasn’t,
….
How come? Why can’t there be BOTH the singularity AND the space it is in?
-explain your reasoning here; how did you arrive at the conclusion that you can NOT have BOTH the singularity AND the space it is in!!!!?
…We cannot say that it was a single
point that had no volume either since we have admitted that it was
comprised of parts that had space between them,
…..
I didn’t say/imply that “it was comprised of parts that had space between them” and what on earth is the relevance of this? What difference does it make if it had volume or not?
…so it would have to have a measure of
thickness therefore a shape.
...
IF it had volume then it would have shape in four dimensions ; so your point is…?
…I believe we have also established if it
were real it had time passing while it existed
...
Of course time existed then; -this was never in dispute.
…so I believe we are in
agreement there was time before the Big Bang.
...
When people say “time began at the big bang” they generally mean it began at the beginning of the singularity. I suppose it could be argued that that is not strictly correct (because, strictly speaking, the singularity is not part of the big bang) and those people should say “time began less than a trillionth of a second before the big bang because time began at the start of the singularity that gave rise to the big bang” but that would be just being pandemic because, as you can see, it requires a cumbersome number of words to say it that precisely. So this is just an argument over semantics.
So, to avoid being pedantic, I will stick to saying “time began at the big bang” but note what I actually mean by that is “time began less than a trillionth of a second before the big bang because time began at the start of the singularity that gave rise to the big bang” -we are only talking about less than a trillionth of a second in the inaccuracy here in the meaning of our statement here (if you take “time began at the big bang” too literally) -does this matter?
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou just told me the evidence for that statement was...
I would include it because it is the universe at that point in time. Why would I leave it out? It would make no sense to leave it out and pretend it didn't exist, or was some separate entity.
We know the universe is expanding, we know it has been expanding for all its observable history which goes back to a time when it was very small. We can guess tha ...[text shortened]... s invalid as it relies on the as yet unsupported claim that such a scenario is not an option.
So you are still 'believing' that is true nonetheless?
Kelly
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…how did you arrive at the conclusion that you can NOT have BOTH the singularity AND the space it is in!!!!?
[b]…The singularity was sitting in something that was not nothing,
….
Are to referring to the space there -if so, I have already covered that.
…what was
this something that wasn’t apart of the singularity?
...
I assume you are talking about space?
…The singularity was
either all there was, or it wasn’t,
….
Ho ...[text shortened]... our statement here (if you take “time began at the big bang” too literally) -does this matter?[/b]
...
Kelly?
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI am sorry, I don't understand the question. The evidence for which statement was what, and what am I 'still believing' none-the-less?
You just told me the evidence for that statement was...
So you are still 'believing' that is true nonetheless?
Kelly
Unless I have not been clear, I personally do not know whether the universe started at the big bang or had a beginning at all. I have no evidence either way and so make no conclusions nor have any beliefs on the matter. I do however believe that there is a possibility that it started at the big bang and that there is no evidence against it, so ruling it out as a possibility is not warranted.