1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou believe that in physics is where the answers are, why is that?
I think we need to learn a lot more about physics before we can make any accurate guesses about events prior to a few seconds after the big bang.
There something about that event that makes you think it can be
understood with physics? That is a start, what is it you think physics can
reveal?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYour so called answer leaves us with more questions than answers.
[b]…We are looking for or speaking about the beginning, you are going
to get that question until …..
…
I have just answered your question (second paragraph of my last post).
…until you tell me this thing or this whatever was
always here.
..…
Does “always here” mean “at all points in time” regardless of whether or not time ...[text shortened]... talking about regarding the dating of matter (not to be confused with mass which isn't dated)?[/b]
Each more than likely should have its own question, I'll start with these
I'll come back to the others.
"-the singularity wasn’t sitting in any volume of space as such else it wouldn’t be a singularity. It was in a point of space (if you can call that “space” as such)."
No volumn of space.
So what was it sitting it?
It was a point of space so there was a space, right?
This space was what again?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo if I understand your answer, here are your points, please correct
What does that have to do with anything? A singularity has mass but, according to the definition of “mater”, no matter. So all matter had a beginning a finite period of time ago and thus is not ‘eternal’.
So where did the singularity's mass came from? -not that this is relevant here but if the standard theory is correct then the question wouldn’t ...[text shortened]... alking about regarding the dating of matter (not to be confused with mass which isn't dated)?
me where I do not understand you.
1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time.
2. The singularity mass did not come from any where.
3. Where the singularity was, when it was, was in space, that was not space.
4. The singularity's mass not to be confused with matter existed in
time, all time, but is not eternal.
5. So mass when it becomes matter is the starting point of time we
look at when we date the matter it turned into.
6. All matter was brought about by energy at some point.
7. When all the energy was before the Big Bang, it was in a state we
call the singularity.
I have more questions, but I'll let you hit these first, my other questions
sort of depend on if I understand you so far.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay…
So if I understand your answer, here are your points, please correct
me where I do not understand you.
1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time.
2. The singularity mass did not come from any where.
3. Where the singularity was, when it was, was in space, that was not space.
4. The singularity's mass not to be confused with matter exi ...[text shortened]... you hit these first, my other questions
sort of depend on if I understand you so far.
Kelly
1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time.
2. The singularity mass did not come from any where.
….
If the standard main-stream theory is correct -yes.
But I certainly don’t rule out the possibility that standard main-stream theory is incorrect.
…3. Where the singularity was, when it was, was in space, that was not space.
...
That’s not quite what I said. It wasn’t “space” as you are familiar with it because it just existed as a point.
…4. The singularity's mass not to be confused with matter existed in
time, all time, but is not eternal….
Neither any given piece of matter nor any given piece of mass is eternal regardless of whether time itself had a beginning.
…5. So mass when it becomes matter is the starting point of time we
look at when we date the matter it turned into…..
Not sure if I understand you here so I clarify just in case;
IF there was a starting point of time (with the standard model being correct) then there was mass then but no matter at that start of time and no matter for a finite period of time after that until some of the energy (which came from the mass of the singularity) from the big bang was converted into matter.
When we date matter, we are not dating the mass in that matter but rather when that matter first formed from energy and not necessarily from the big bang because other processes also produce matter from energy or even other matter well after the big bang such as nuclear reactions in stars and supernovae etc.
…6. All matter was brought about by energy at some point.
...
And sometimes from other matter -yes.
…7. When all the energy was before the Big Bang, it was in a state we
call the singularity.
…
That is strictly correct -although I have personally been using the term “big bang” to mean to also include the singularity stage even although that isn’t strictly correct to do so because, strictly speaking, the singularity stage isn’t part of the ‘big bang’ if I have understood the terminology correctly.
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"If the standard main-stream theory is correct -yes.
[b]…
1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time.
2. The singularity mass did not come from any where.
….
If the standard main-stream theory is correct -yes.
But I certainly don’t rule out the possibility that standard main-stream theory is incorrect.
…3. Where the singularity was, when it was, was in space, that was singularity stage isn’t part of the ‘big bang’ if I have understood the terminology correctly.
But I certainly don’t rule out the possibility that standard main-stream theory is incorrect."
[/b]So there is no time at one point, this means at that point, nothing
was active in any possible way during that period? I imagine there
was no anything at point?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"That’s not quite what I said. It wasn’t “space” as you are familiar with it because it just existed as a point. "
[b]…
1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time.
2. The singularity mass did not come from any where.
….
If the standard main-stream theory is correct -yes.
But I certainly don’t rule out the possibility that standard main-stream theory is incorrect.
…3. Where the singularity was, when it was, was in space, that was singularity stage isn’t part of the ‘big bang’ if I have understood the terminology correctly.
[/b]Okay, I'm a little slow here, explain this no space, space so I can
understand it.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Neither any given piece of matter nor any given piece of mass is eternal regardless of whether time itself had a beginning. "
[b]…
1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time.
2. The singularity mass did not come from any where.
….
If the standard main-stream theory is correct -yes.
But I certainly don’t rule out the possibility that standard main-stream theory is incorrect.
…3. Where the singularity was, when it was, was in space, that was singularity stage isn’t part of the ‘big bang’ if I have understood the terminology correctly.
[/b]This sounds like a statement of faith, I may as well say God is and
we are done with it. So how do you know that according to science?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"That is strictly correct -although I have personally been using the term “big bang” to mean to also include the singularity stage even although that isn’t strictly correct to do so because, strictly speaking, the singularity stage isn’t part of the ‘big bang’ if I have understood the terminology correctly."
[b]…
1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time.
2. The singularity mass did not come from any where.
….
If the standard main-stream theory is correct -yes.
But I certainly don’t rule out the possibility that standard main-stream theory is incorrect.
…3. Where the singularity was, when it was, was in space, that was ...[text shortened]... singularity stage isn’t part of the ‘big bang’ if I have understood the terminology correctly.
[/b]Okay, we are getting some where, you mind if we talk only about
the stage of the singularity for a little while?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay…
"If the standard main-stream theory is correct -yes.
But I certainly don’t rule out the possibility that standard main-stream theory is incorrect."
So there is no time at one point, this means at that point, nothing
was active in any possible way during that period? I imagine there
was no anything at point?
Kelly[/b]
So there is no time at one point,
….
Oh hang on; I made an edit error to include your “…1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time…” comment there above my comment. My apologies -didn’t notice my mistake -actually I do not agree with your statement “…1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time…” and cannot imagine where you got that from.
How did you get that conclusion?
-at ALL points in time there is a point in time! -this is a tautology and to say “there is no time at one point” is a logical self-contradiction!
…I imagine there was no anything at point?
...
At all points in time something existed.
Originally posted by KellyJayI didn't say it was no space. I said it just isn't space quite as you know it because it is just a point.
"That’s not quite what I said. It wasn’t “space” as you are familiar with it because it just existed as a point. "
Okay, I'm a little slow here, explain this no space, space so I can
understand it.
Kelly[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJay…
"Neither any given piece of matter nor any given piece of mass is eternal regardless of whether time itself had a beginning. "
This sounds like a statement of faith, I may as well say God is and
we are done with it. So how do you know that according to science?
Kelly[/b]
This sounds like a statement of faith
….
It clearly is not a “statement of faith” but rather science.
It is based on the evidence which basically proves it.
It is based on relativity which has been proven to be correct many times over.
…So how do you know that according to science?
...
Haven’t you heard of relativity?
Originally posted by KellyJaywhat about it?
"That is strictly correct -although I have personally been using the term “big bang” to mean to also include the singularity stage even although that isn’t strictly correct to do so because, strictly speaking, the singularity stage isn’t part of the ‘big bang’ if I have understood the terminology correctly."
Okay, we are getting some where, you mind if we talk only about
the stage of the singularity for a little while?
Kelly[/b]
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo time was ticky away so to speak before the Big Bang? Not trying
[b]…
So there is no time at one point,
….
Oh hang on; I made an edit error to include your “…1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time…” comment there above my comment. My apologies -didn’t notice my mistake -actually I do not agree with your statement “…1. As some point in what ever, there was no point in time…” and cannot i ...[text shortened]... …I imagine there was no anything at point?
...[/b]
At all points in time something existed.[/b]
to trick you, trying to get a clear picture of how you view this.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm asking you to define it for me, right now I sounds like your saying
I didn't say it was no space. I said it just isn't space quite as you know it because it is just a point.
there was this singularity, in it was everything, it was sitting in this
sort of something that wasn't the singularity, then the Big Bang.
Kelly