beginning of time.... (a proof for eternity?)

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you have your singularity that is causeless sitting in a grand area
of void, it either had something act upon it, or it was ever changing,
and you are claiming that it was timeless? That is your before time
item, something in a state of change?
Kelly

…So you have your singularity that is causeless sitting in a grand area
of void..…

“sitting in a grand area of void” ? -do you mean you think it was "within" 3-dimensional space so that there was some 3-dimensional space that was just "outside" it? -if so, you haven’t comprehended the basic concepts involved here even at the most rudimentary level.

…it either had something act upon it....…

Where did you get that from?

…or it was ever changing...…

There was constant changes within the universe after t=0. But there was no “change” that “caused” t=0 I.e. there was no “change” that “caused” the beginning of time and the beginning of time (t=0) was no more an “event” than, say, t=5.214 .

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes , we know that time as we know did not exist "before" the big bang because the big bang represents the start of time as we know it.

But this of course does not exclude the possibility of anything existing outside of the boundaries of the known universe or without a reliance on space/time. You might say that nothing can exist unless it exists "i ...[text shortened]... to make do with the language we have at our disposal. It seems just pragmatic to do so.

…because I showed logically that the point t=0 cannot exist within time...…

You didn’t “logically” show anything. I remember you saying things like: “universe=0” etc and other gobbledygook that apparently only you think has some real meaning.

…It seems to me that we cannot say with any certainty that this Universe is all that there is. To claim so is just a statement of faith.....…

When and where did I claim or imply that our universe is all there is?
I do not exclude the possibility of the existence of other universes -so no “faith” there.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…because I showed logically that the point t=0 cannot exist within time...…

You didn’t “logically” show anything. I remember you saying things like: “universe=0” etc and other gobbledygook that apparently only you think has some real meaning.

…It seems to me that we cannot say with any certainty that this Universe is all that there i ...[text shortened]... is?
I do not exclude the possibility of the existence of other universes -so no “faith” there.

So if we cannot ask "what came before the big bang?" then what CAN we ask?

Since you accept that we cannot and do not know whether the Universe is all that there is , then it's reasonable to speculate and ask questions on this. What language is acceptable to you?

Do you think that when we ask "what came before" we actually don't realise that we are using this language at the very edge of it's meaning?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So if we cannot ask "what came before the big bang?" then what CAN we ask?

Since you accept that we cannot and do not know whether the Universe is all that there is , then it's reasonable to speculate and ask questions on this. What language is acceptable to you?

Do you think that when we ask "what came before" we actually don't realise that we are using this language at the very edge of it's meaning?

…Since you accept that we cannot and do not know whether the Universe is all that there is .....…

Yes -I do accept that.

…then it's reasonable to speculate and ask questions on this. ...…

When did I say that you couldn’t ask the question of whether our universe is all there is?

All I have been saying is that, according to the main-stream big bang theory, there was no “before” the big bang. Do you think that implies that there could be no other universe? -if so, how come?

…Do you think that when we ask "what came before" we actually don't realise that we are using this language at the very edge of it's meaning?
...…

Firstly, why do you ask this straight after talking about the question of whether our universe is all there is? -do you think that the two questions are somehow connected? -if so, how so?

Secondly, what do you mean by “at the very edge of it's meaning” ? either an unambiguous question makes logical sense in a particular context or it doesn’t. If a question presumes the existence of something when there is reason to believe that, in the particular context, no such thing exists, then of course you can still verbally ask the question but in that context the question is STILL erroneous. Now, when asking "what came before" in the context of the big bang, GIVEN the fact that main-stream big bang theory implies that there was no “before”, the question doesn’t make much sense in that context.
-I give you an analogy -it is like you verbally asking me:

“why did you give up smoking? -I mean there must be a reason WHY you did gave it up?”

-and I keep answering again and again by pointing out the fact that:

“I have never “smoked” so your question doesn’t make any sense when asking it in the context of MY past”

-but then you keep on insisting that:

“but I can still ask the question “why did you give up smoking?” -yes? -so if I cannot ask “why did you give up smoking?” then what language SHOULD I use!?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So you have your singularity that is causeless sitting in a grand area
of void..…

“sitting in a grand area of void” ? -do you mean you think it was "within" 3-dimensional space so that there was some 3-dimensional space that was just "outside" it? -if so, you haven’t comprehended the basic concepts involved here even at the most rudimen ...[text shortened]... eginning of time and the beginning of time (t=0) was no more an “event” than, say, t=5.214 .[/b]

You cannot have this both ways, either something acted upon it to
cause it move from one state to another, or it was changing without
an outside force acting upon it. Both of those require time before
the Big Bang, since one has another force, outside the singularity
itself, so time also was in play before the Big Bang, or changes
were taking place inside the singularity before the Big Bang that
too brings time into play before the Big Bang. To suggest anything
else you are back to drawing circular straight lines again.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So you have your singularity that is causeless sitting in a grand area
of void..…

“sitting in a grand area of void” ? -do you mean you think it was "within" 3-dimensional space so that there was some 3-dimensional space that was just "outside" it? -if so, you haven’t comprehended the basic concepts involved here even at the most rudimen ...[text shortened]... eginning of time and the beginning of time (t=0) was no more an “event” than, say, t=5.214 .[/b]

“sitting in a grand area of void” ? -do you mean you think it was "within" 3-dimensional space so that there was some 3-dimensional space that was just "outside" it? -if so, you haven’t comprehended the basic concepts involved here even at the most rudimentary level.

Okay, explain this basic concept to me without drawing a circular straight line
with your language if possible. All that is, is within the singularity, we have
the Big Bang, the singularity starts off the Big Bang and expands? If it expands
in moves into what, everything was in the singularity, correct? If there was
nothing to move into since everything was in the singularity its expanding into?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
All that is, is within the singularity, we have
the Big Bang, the singularity starts off the Big Bang and expands? If it expands
in moves into what, everything was in the singularity, correct? If there was
nothing to move into since everything was in the singularity its expanding into?
Kelly

If I understand you correctly, you are picturing the universe as expanding into a larger 'space'.
That is an incorrect way to understand it, and it applies even to todays visible expansion of the universe. The universe today is finite in extent and is expanding. But it is not expanding into a larger entity.
If the universe started as a singularity (which I hold only as a hypothesis) then we are still inside the original singularity. Space itself is stretching. But it is not stretching'into' anything else.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You cannot have this both ways, either something acted upon it to
cause it move from one state to another, or it was changing without
an outside force acting upon it. Both of those require time before
the Big Bang, since one has another force, outside the singularity
itself, so time also was in play before the Big Bang, or changes
were taking place ins ...[text shortened]... ig Bang. To suggest anything
else you are back to drawing circular straight lines again.
Kelly

…You cannot have this both ways, either something acted upon it to
cause it move from one state to another, or it was CHANGING without
an outside force acting upon it.. ..… (my emphasis)

But nothing was “CHANGING” in this context you speak of here -get it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If I understand you correctly, you are picturing the universe as expanding into a larger 'space'.
That is an incorrect way to understand it, and it applies even to todays visible expansion of the universe. The universe today is finite in extent and is expanding. But it is not expanding into a larger entity.
If the universe started as a singularity (whic ...[text shortened]... ginal singularity. Space itself is stretching. But it is not stretching'into' anything else.

So it is getting larger without growing in size?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…You cannot have this both ways, either something acted upon it to
cause it move from one state to another, or it was CHANGING without
an outside force acting upon it.. ..… (my emphasis)

But nothing was “CHANGING” in this context you speak of here -get it?[/b]

No, you don't get it, you have something that was in one state, THEN
it is in another. That is change, those types of things do not just
happen, there is always a reason for the change. Off the top of my
head there are two reasons for this, something caused it to change
which is an out side cause, or it was in a state of change. You do not
get that result without cause, and both of those carry issues with time
as well.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So it is getting larger without growing in size?
Kelly

No. It is getting larger by means of its dimensions stretching, not by means of gaining ground on some super dimension.
I suggest that both you and knightmeister consider doing a bit of reading up on what a dimension is, as the concepts under discussion are strongly tied to dimensions.
In abstract form, when you blow up a balloon, the surface of the balloon gets larger without expanding into an area within the 'surface' dimension. If you draw a picture on a balloon, as the balloon is inflated the picture expands yet there was no 'empty' surface that the picture is expanding 'into'. There is no area of balloon surface that we can say is filled with 'nothing'.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, you don't get it, you have something that was in one state, THEN
it is in another. That is change, those types of things do not just
happen, there is always a reason for the change. Off the top of my
head there are two reasons for this, something caused it to change
which is an out side cause, or it was in a state of change. You do not
get that result without cause, and both of those carry issues with time
as well.
Kelly

…No, you don't get it, you have something that was in one state, THEN
it is in another.
....…

What was the first state of the two states and when did it exist?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Since you accept that we cannot and do not know whether the Universe is all that there is .....…

Yes -I do accept that.

…then it's reasonable to speculate and ask questions on this. ...…

When did I say that you couldn’t ask the question of whether our universe is all there is?

All I have been saying is that, according t ...[text shortened]... es? -so if I cannot ask “why did you give up smoking?” then what language SHOULD I use!?[/b]

Your smoking analogy doesn't work because there are other more meaningful questions we can ask. With the origins of the universe we ARE on the very edge of understanding , there are no adequate words to describe it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Your smoking analogy doesn't work because there are other more meaningful questions we can ask. With the origins of the universe we ARE on the very edge of understanding , there are no adequate words to describe it.

…Your smoking analogy doesn't work because there are other more meaningful questions we can ask...…

-You haven’t shown in what way the first question is “meaningful” for presuming that there was a “before” when according to the theory there was no “before”. The fact that there are many “other” questions that can be asked is irrelevant to my analogy because this does not show in any way why my analogy does not “work”.

-and there are many other presumptuous questions we can ask.

…With the origins of the universe we ARE on the very edge of understanding , there are no adequate words to describe it.….

-I was talking about the question that presumes there was a “before” the big bang -are you are now talking about a subtly different kind of question?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Your smoking analogy doesn't work because there are other more meaningful questions we can ask...…

-You haven’t shown in what way the first question is “meaningful” for presuming that there was a “before” when according to the theory there was no “before”. The fact that there are many “other” questions that can be asked is irrelevant to m ...[text shortened]... was a “before” the big bang -are you are now talking about a subtly different kind of question?[/b]

What kind of questions ARE meaningful then?