Originally posted by KellyJay
You really have to twist you brain to come up with that and say there
was nothing before the Big Bang and call the Singularity part of the
Big Bang, Is a lite fire cracker part of the exposion that is soon to
follow?
Kelly

…and say there was nothing before the Big Bang …

No -that is not what I said: obviously there was no “nothing” before the Big Bang because there was no “before” the Big Bang.

…and call the Singularity part of the Big Bang
...…

Why not? -so what is your argument now?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…and say there was nothing before the Big Bang …

No -that is not what I said: obviously there was no “nothing” before the Big Bang because there was no “before” the Big Bang.

…and call the Singularity part of the Big Bang
...…

Why not? -so what is your argument now?[/b]

We are currently in the singularity now, it was always in the current
state it is in now?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are currently in the singularity now, it was always in the current
state it is in now?
Kelly

no.

so your point is?....

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
no.

so your point is?....

I'm trying to understand your point, nothing more. Either the
singularity was where the Big Bang came from or it wasn't. If I under
stand you, and I'm not sure I do, you are saying the singularity had
nothing to do with the Big Bang, it is the Big Bang. What you seem to
saying is confusing, it is starting to sound like the circular straight line
logic to me again, where you say there was a singularity, the Big Bang
occurred, but there was no time, during the time, there was the
singularity before the Big Bang.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm trying to understand your point, nothing more. Either the
singularity was where the Big Bang came from or it wasn't. If I under
stand you, and I'm not sure I do, you are saying the singularity had
nothing to do with the Big Bang, it is the Big Bang. What you seem to
saying is confusing, it is starting to sound like the circular straight line
logic ...[text shortened]... ut there was no time, during the time, there was the
singularity before the Big Bang.
Kelly

…If I understand you, and I'm not sure I do, you are saying the singularity had
nothing to do with the Big Bang, it is the Big Bang.
.…

What?

I was saying that, just for the sake of argument, you can define the singularity as being the very first part of the Big Bang. I have no idea where you got the “it is the Big Bang” from; obviously I never said nor implied that the Big Bang always stayed as a singularity but rather it started off as a singularity and then expanded so that in no longer was a singularity. Thus the singularity was not the whole of the Big Bang but rather just the first part of the Big Bang -what is so confusing about that?

…where you say there was a singularity, the Big Bang
occurred, but there was no time, during the time, there was the
singularity before the Big Bang.
..…

What does that mean? :

1, I never said nor implied that there was a time when “there was no time”.

2, I was saying that, just for the sake of argument, you can define the singularity as being the very first part of the Big Bang. IF you except this then it makes no sense to say “there was the singularity before the Big Bang” because (a) the singularity was the first part of the Big Bang, and (b) there was no “before” the Big Bang because there was no “before” the singularity.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are currently in the singularity now, it was always in the current
state it is in now?
Kelly

…We are currently in the singularity now,
.…

?

Where did you get that from?

…it was always in the current state it is in now? ..…

err -no.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…If I understand you, and I'm not sure I do, you are saying the singularity had
nothing to do with the Big Bang, it is the Big Bang.
.…

What?

I was saying that, just for the sake of argument, you can define the singularity as being the very first part of the Big Bang. I have no idea where you got the “it is the Big Bang” from; obvious ...[text shortened]... Bang, and (b) there was no “before” the Big Bang because there was no “before” the singularity.[/b]

Okay, the Big bang started off as the singularity.
I am saying you cannot have that as true and deny time before the
Big Bang.

The singularity if it was the start of the Big Bang and is not the Big
Bang, means at some point it moved from one state to another
which was singularity to Big Bang. That point, there is time, that point
lasted how long? There had to have been change taking place within
the singularity for the Big Bang to occur, or something was acting upon
it, something not part of the singularity.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…We are currently in the singularity now,
.…

?

Where did you get that from?

…it was always in the current state it is in now? ..…

err -no.[/b]

I am just trying to understand you, it seems you keep changing
your mind on things, which may not be true.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, the Big bang started off as the singularity.
I am saying you cannot have that as true and deny time before the
Big Bang.

The singularity if it was the start of the Big Bang and is not the Big
Bang, means at some point it moved from one state to another
which was singularity to Big Bang. That point, there is time, that point
lasted how long? Th ...[text shortened]... g Bang to occur, or something was acting upon
it, something not part of the singularity.
Kelly

…The singularity if it was the start of the Big Bang and is not the Big
Bang, means at some point it moved from one state to another .…

Ok, that is a suspiciously odd way of wording it but I think you have understood so far…

…which was singularity to Big Bang..…

For the sake of argument here, I hope we are agreeing here that the singularity is defined as the first part of the Big Bang. If so, then it would be more accurate to change the above comment in this agreed context to;
“…which was singularity to the rest of the Big Bang..”

…That point, there is time, ….

If I am reading you sentences correctly, the “point” you are referring to is the point in time when the singularity expanded so that it ceased to exist? -or do you mean during the period of time the singularity lasted? -either way, the answer is, very obviously, yes -there was time then.

…that point lasted how long? ..…

If you are referring to is the point in time when the singularity expanded so that it ceased to exist, then, from my understanding of physics, I assume that transition period only lasted a few Planck time units and that would have been an unimaginably brief transition period of time moving from one state to the other.
But if you are referring to is simply the period of time when the singularity existed, then that would have been longer but still less than a billionth of a second.

….There had to have been change taking place within
the singularity for the Big Bang to occur,.…

You mean there had to be changes within the singularity for the singularity to expand?
-if so, then, yes, of course there had to be changes; space itself would have had to stretch within the singularity for it to expand (remember, the “singularity” we speak of here is not infinitely small because it has some space within it).

This is, after all, what the big bang theory basically says; so your point is?

….or something was acting upon it, something not part of the singularity. …

Err … no: there is currently absolutely no know rational premise for believing that although I personally wouldn’t totally dismiss all alternative scientific hypotheses just yet.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The singularity if it was the start of the Big Bang and is not the Big
Bang, means at some point it moved from one state to another .…

Ok, that is a suspiciously odd way of wording it but I think you have understood so far…

…which was singularity to Big Bang..…

For the sake of argument here, I hope we are agreeing h ...[text shortened]... ugh I personally wouldn’t totally dismiss all alternative scientific hypotheses just yet.[/b]

" -either way, the answer is, very obviously, yes -there was time then. "

Well okay, we can now move past that there was no time before the
Big Bang.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The singularity if it was the start of the Big Bang and is not the Big
Bang, means at some point it moved from one state to another .…

Ok, that is a suspiciously odd way of wording it but I think you have understood so far…

…which was singularity to Big Bang..…

For the sake of argument here, I hope we are agreeing h ...[text shortened]... ugh I personally wouldn’t totally dismiss all alternative scientific hypotheses just yet.[/b]

[b/…that point lasted how long? ..… [/b]

"If you are referring to is the point in time when the singularity expanded so that it ceased to exist, then, from my understanding of physics, I assume that transition period only lasted a few Planck time units and that would have been an unimaginably brief transition period of time moving from one state to the other.
But if you are referring to is simply the period of time when the singularity existed, then that would have been longer but still less than a billionth of a second. "

Why do you believe the time before the Big Bang lasted only a
billionth of a second, why does it have to long or short and how do
you come up with any number what so ever on the lenght of time.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b/…that point lasted how long? ..…

"If you are referring to is the point in time when the singularity expanded so that it ceased to exist, then, from my understanding of physics, I assume that transition period only lasted a few Planck time units and that would have been an unimaginably brief transition period of time moving from one state to the o ng or short and how do
you come up with any number what so ever on the lenght of time.
Kelly[/b]

…Why do you believe the time BEFORE the Big Bang lasted only a
billionth of a second, why does it have to long or short and how do
you come up with any number what so ever on the length of time.
. .…(my emphasis)

If we agree to define the singularity as the first part of the big bang, then there is no “BEFORE” the big bang -but I think what you mean is how do I know long the singularity lasted -and the answer to that is that certain complex physics equations predict that that is how long the singularity lasted (which happens to be less than a billionth of a second).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Why do you believe the time BEFORE the Big Bang lasted only a
billionth of a second, why does it have to long or short and how do
you come up with any number what so ever on the length of time.
. .…(my emphasis)

If we agree to define the singularity as the first part of the big bang, then there is no “BEFORE” the big bang -but I thin ...[text shortened]... that is how long the singularity lasted (which happens to be less than a billionth of a second).[/b]

A billionth of a second is time, if the Bang had not happened yet,
then we have moved past there was no time before the Big Bang?

You seem to be going back and forth on the singularity again, shall
I just repeat our exchange or can you see that we already covered the
singularity as part of the Big Bang?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A billionth of a second is time, if the Bang had not happened yet,
then we have moved past there was no time before the Big Bang?

You seem to be going back and forth on the singularity again, shall
I just repeat our exchange or can you see that we already covered the
singularity as part of the Big Bang?
Kelly

…A billionth of a second is time, if the Bang had not happened YET, . .…

If we agree to define the singularity as the first part of the big bang, then
the big bang HAD already started then. The start of the singularity would be defined as the start of the big bang.

…You seem to be going back and forth on the singularity again,
..…

Nope; when did I say or imply that the singularity was not part of the big bang?
-which post or comment of mine are you referring to?

…shall I just repeat our exchange or can you see that we already covered the
singularity as part of the Big Bang?
….

again, when did I say or imply that the singularity was not part of the big bang?
-which post or comment of mine are you referring to?

Of course I “see” that we already covered the singularity is defined as part of the Big Bang -that was precisely my point in the first place and what I have been saying all along -so what is your point?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…A billionth of a second is time, if the Bang had not happened YET, . .…

If we agree to define the singularity as the first part of the big bang, then
the big bang HAD already started then. The start of the singularity would be defined as the start of the big bang.

…You seem to be going back and forth on the singularity again,
..… ...[text shortened]... cisely my point in the first place and what I have been saying all along -so what is your point?

[/b]I asked you once already if we were in the singularity right now, you
said, "No" and now it seems you want to take that back, and claim
we are back in singularity again by saying that the singularity and
the Big Bang are once again one and the same thing. It either is or
it is not, it is like you are saying a stick of dynamite is part of an
explosion and not something else in its own right.
Kelly