Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is not part of the main-stream big bang theory that the singularity came from “nothing” -it didn’t “come from”.
[b]…The focus has always been
the singularity, where did it come from,
. ..…
The main-stream big bang theory implies that it didn’t “come from”.
…why was it changing,. .….
Why not? -what would be stopping physical change? -it was changing for the same reasons why the universe is still changing today -the various effects of the ...[text shortened]... y” dense and “infinitely” small although, no doubt, it must have been extremely dense and small.[/b]
----ham--------------
So what did it "do" then? Hang around for ten trillion eons and then expand? Or did it just "singularise" somehow? Was it always there eternally? If not then why was it there instead of not there?
Why singularity?
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo more or less weird than the only other possibilities - that is was contracting or static.
It's an interesting idea though isn't. Putting partisan arguments aside for a second , what you are saying is that existence itself is actually expanding. If the Universe is all that there is (ie existence) then it's kinda wierd for existence to be increasing in size.
My first thought would be this.
Is there any theoretical limit to how big the Universe could get? (assuming the big crunch does not happen)
I doubt it.
Also , if there is no theoretical limit wouldn't that show that existence is not finite afterall?
No, it would show that the future is not finite. The future might not exist - depending on how you look at it. The current universe is probably finite in size and the past might be finite.
Conversely , if there is a theoretical limit to the expansion then what is it that prevents the Universe from expanding and why?
I suspect that the universe might stop expanding, there are various possible reasons including gravity. But that is different from there being a limit. I doubt that there is a limit, but it would be an interesting question if there was.
Originally posted by KellyJayListen very carefully this time.
I disgree it does grow into areas, you can measure a ballons surface
as it is being blown up, it is getting larger, it is taking up more space,
you put that ballon into an area where it cannot expand do to lack of
space it will not expand, stand on a ballon and try to force air into it,
you will move, or you will not get the ballon to expand.
Kelly
If the balloon is expanding into new areas of balloon surface, then where were those areas of balloon surface before the balloon was inflated, and what was in them? Have we proved the existence of 'nothing'?
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt is quite clear that neither you nor kelly is capable of visualizing a universe in which time has a beginning. (or unwilling to).
ISo what did it "do" then? Hang around for ten trillion eons and then expand? Or did it just "singularise" somehow? Was it always there eternally? If not then why was it there instead of not there?
Why singularity?
We keep saying that time starts at t=0 yet you keep going back to the assumption that time is infinite, and t=0 is just a point on the infinite time line.
Originally posted by knightmeister…So what did it "do" then? Hang around for ten trillion eons and then expand?
It is not part of the main-stream big bang theory that the singularity came from “nothing” -it didn’t “come from”.
----ham--------------
So what did it "do" then? Hang around for ten trillion eons and then expand? Or did it just "singularise" somehow? Was it always there eternally? If not then why was it there instead of not there?
Why singularity?
..…
Now what are you talking about? Physics tells us that it started expanding almost immediately after less than a billionth of a second.
…Or did it just "singularise" somehow?.….
What does that mean?
……Was it always there eternally?..…
We have already very clearly and repeatedly answered that: the answer is no.
…If not then “WHY” was it there instead of not there?…
What kind of “WHY” are you looking for? -is it some kind of “mystical why”?
What is the premise for you belief that there was a “WHY”?
….Why singularity?…
Because if you extrapolate backwards in time from knowing that the universe is currently expanding and knowing the known laws of physics then, if you go back far enough, logically, the universe must have once been very dense and very small.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSorry, I have to ask:
Because if you extrapolate backwards in time from knowing that the universe is currently expanding and knowing the known laws of physics then, if you go back far enough, logically, the universe must have once been very dense and very small.
(1) What do we mean by "singularity"?
A point with no volume? Or a very small thing, but with a diameter > 0?
(2) "knowing the known laws of physics" - What do you mean by this? Do you imply that there are unknown laws, not known? Meaning that the singularity (in its true sense) is not perhaps a singularity at all if you also take the unknown laws into consideration? Do we really know anything about the physical laws in a singularity point with all mass and energy of the whole universe?
My mother uses the word "infinitely large" from time to time. I ask her "Do you really mean infinitely?", Well no, perhaps I mean "almost infinitly". She doesn't understand the full meaning of the word "infinitely".
A singularity with a diameter = 0, yet having all the mass and energy there is today means a density being infinitely large and/or an temperature infinitely high in this point - doesn't make sense to me. Or do we mean a very small point, having a finite density and temperature?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYea, well how did the 'main-stream' come up with that statement of
[b]…The focus has always been
the singularity, where did it come from,
. ..…
The main-stream big bang theory implies that it didn’t “come from”.
…why was it changing,. .….
Why not? -what would be stopping physical change? -it was changing for the same reasons why the universe is still changing today -the various effects of the ...[text shortened]... y” dense and “infinitely” small although, no doubt, it must have been extremely dense and small.[/b]
faith?
With respect to it changing implies time passing, so before the Big
Bang there was time passing? You have what inside the singularity, all
matter, energy, and so on in a constant state of flux and with that
constant state of flux questions arise like when and how did it start?
The only thing you have done with the universe and the beginning is
simply move it from one scientific unanswerable question where did
this universe come from to another, where did the singularity come
from?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"...it must have been extremely dense and small."
[b]…The focus has always been
the singularity, where did it come from,
. ..…
The main-stream big bang theory implies that it didn’t “come from”.
…why was it changing,. .….
Why not? -what would be stopping physical change? -it was changing for the same reasons why the universe is still changing today -the various effects of the ...[text shortened]... y” dense and “infinitely” small although, no doubt, it must have been extremely dense and small.[/b]
Compared to what and how do you know, or why would you suspect
its size at all to be anything, especially when it is sitting in the grand
void?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhere did your god come from?
The only thing you have done with the universe and the beginning is simply move it from one scientific unanswerable question where did
this universe come from to another, where did the singularity come from?
Same kind of question, same kind of answer.
Originally posted by twhiteheadReally you have proved the existence of nothing? Uh, okay.
Listen very carefully this time.
If the balloon is expanding into new areas of balloon surface, then where were those areas of balloon surface before the balloon was inflated, and what was in them? Have we proved the existence of 'nothing'?
Getting back to the subject of the balloon, again I pointed out to you
you have nothing to hang your hat on here. You blow up a balloon it
takes up more space, you restrict that space you cannot blow up the
balloon, as I pointed out to you with my example of someone stepping
on a balloon.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't like the word 'singularity', mostly because I don't believe it was a true mathematical 'singularity'. I have a question about this to Andrew Hamilton about this, the answer is pending.
The singularity was where, or in what, before the Big Bang according
to you?
Kelly
Our universe, at that time, was all there was, nothing more. It didn't have anything which in it could recide. So no void there. Nothing outside the unvierse.
Often I see pictures about BigBang shoing a orange or white explosion. I always have to ask: Where were the painter, the observer?
Outside the universe? In that case, where? If universe is all there is, then there is no place for an observre outside the universe.
Inside the universe? Then how could he paint the universe in full?
The picture is wrong. You cant paint the universe how it looks like from outside, from the void as you call it. Universe is all there is, there is no outside universe.
...according to me.
Originally posted by KellyJaySee, the same answer for the universe. Universe always was, and will always be, it is not caused.
Nope not at all, I submit God always was, is, and always will be, He is not caused.
Kelly
Every notion of time is of course the time there is within the universe itself. Or we have to redefine the 'time' itself.