Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm asking you to prove your point, nothing more.
[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?[/b]
Kelly
I hope Andrew will correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think the problem here may be with that notion of the singularity “sitting in” anything. There was no space surrounding the singularity. The singularity was a singular point, the singular point: it was (to use scottishinnz’s felicitous phrase) “the totality that has no edge”.
That is always a problem with talking about the totality itself: the totality has no proper analogy (since what could it be analogous to?). All analogies must be drawn from within the totality, such as “a point in space”. But there isn’t anything other than the totality for it to be “in”. Not only isn’t there anything “outside” the totality, there isn’t even an “outside”—or else it wouldn’t be the totality.
___________________________________________________
NOTE: Again, I could be wrong, but I think the notion of multiple universes is irrelevant. If there is any connection (e.g., some energy/information flow) between them, then—once again—they would together form the (manifold) totality. If there is no connection, then we can know nothing of them, even their possible existence.
Originally posted by KellyJay…
So time was ticky away so to speak before the Big Bang? Not trying
to trick you, trying to get a clear picture of how you view this.
Kelly
So time was ticky away so to speak before the Big Bang?
….
You mean when there was just a singularity -yes; time existed then.
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not know what you are getting at but I hope that vistesd’s post would clarify this for you so please read his post.
I'm asking you to define it for me, right now I sounds like your saying
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
Originally posted by vistesdI think you are correct on all counts 🙂
I hope Andrew will correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think the problem here may be with that notion of the singularity “sitting in” anything. There was no space surrounding the singularity. The singularity was a singular point, the singular point: it was (to use scottishinnz’s felicitous phrase) “the totality that has no edge”.
That is always ...[text shortened]... ty. If there is no connection, then we can know nothing of them, even their possible existence.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou mean the “point” of "Neither any given piece of matter nor any given piece of mass is eternal regardless of whether time itself had a beginning. " ?
I'm asking you to prove your point, nothing more.
Kelly
Why should I have to “prove” this when this has already been proven by science? (mainly by the application of relativity which is itself proven).
-it is already a scientific fact -do you have a problem with that?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe thing about science it is self correcting, have a point as you say
You mean the “point” of "Neither any given piece of matter nor any given piece of mass is eternal regardless of whether time itself had a beginning. " ?
Why should I have to “prove” this when this has already been proven by science? (mainly by the application of relativity which is itself proven).
-it is already a scientific fact -do you have a problem with that?
proven is only good until new data comes in and causes us to adjust
our points of views. If you are unable or unwilling I'll let it go and not
bother with asking you to show why you believe what you do.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI read his post, actually that line of thought is what I have that
I do not know what you are getting at but I hope that vistesd’s post would clarify this for you so please read his post.
is drving me to these questions. Describe the singularity for me if
you will, what was it in your opinion, what was its make up, and how
long was it there, did it do anything?
Kelly
Originally posted by vistesdIf we break it down into a question of dimensions then there are analogies that can help (though I haven't had much luck with people who do not want there to be an explanation).
That is always a problem with talking about the totality itself: the totality has no proper analogy (since what could it be analogous to?). All analogies must be drawn from within the totality, such as “a point in space”. But there isn’t anything other than the totality for it to be “in”. Not only isn’t there anything “outside” the totality, there isn’t even an “outside”—or else it wouldn’t be the totality.
The spacial dimensions of the universe are believed to be finite (in all directions). The time dimension may be finite in the past direction (the future is unknown).
There are other plenty of examples of finite dimensions for which there is no 'outside' within the context of the dimension.
1. Mass, or any measure of existence such as energy, temperature etc. All these dimensions have no negatives. To ask what comes 'before' absolute Zero temperature wise, is meaningless. To ask what happens when you take away 2kg from empty space is meaningless.
2. Closed surfaces. The surface of the world can be mapped out via various coordinate systems, the minimum number of dimensions required is two, and any such system will have two finite dimensions. There is no such thing as further South than the south pole.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…
The thing about science it is self correcting, have a point as you say
proven is only good until new data comes in and causes us to adjust
our points of views. If you are unable or unwilling I'll let it go and not
bother with asking you to show why you believe what you do.
Kelly
The thing about science it is self correcting, ….
For hypotheses that are yet to be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt -yes.
…have a point as you say PROVEN is only good until new data
comes in and causes us to adjust our points of views.
...(my emphasis)
If a hypothesis is PROVEN then how can there be any possibility of new data disproving it?
Relativity is PROVEN (along with all its implications for the cosmos) -meaning here is absolutely NO creditable change of “new data comes in and causes us to adjust our points of views” on relativity to the point that we would have to conclude that it is simply completely wrong. Some new data may force us to modify the proven hypothesis in some way but never dismiss it as simply being completely wrong!
Do you think there is ANY creditable chance that the scientific hypothesis that the Earth is round and not flat, despite being PROVEN, would eventually be disproved by new data? -if not, then why should we treat the proven facts about physics any differently?
…If you are unable or unwilling I'll let it go and not
bother with asking you to show why you believe what you do.
….
I believe scientific facts because they are FACTS so I have no idea what you expect me/want me to do -do you want me to point out the evidence that proves these facts such as the evidence that proves relativity? -you could find out the proof for your self just by looking it up on the websites -do you want me to point out a website that merely points out the proof? If yes:
http://library.thinkquest.org/27608/scripts/aview.php3?id=40
-and I can show many other sites that point out such proofs.
If not, then exactly what do you want me to do if not point out the evidence?
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…
I read his post, actually that line of thought is what I have that
is drving me to these questions. Describe the singularity for me if
you will, what was it in your opinion, what was its make up, and how
long was it there, did it do anything?
Kelly
Describe the singularity for me if
you will….
Why? You already must know what it is. Do you deny the existence of singularities such as those in blackholes ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
-verious sites define what a singularity is better than I can.
…what was it in your opinion...
My opinion is that it is very much like the physicists that know a very great deal more about it than I do think it is and the reason this is my opinion is because those physicists know a very great deal more about it than I do 😛
…what was its make up,
….
An extremely large mass squashed to a point -not much more that can be said about that! How would you like me to elaborate? -I don’t see how I can.
…and how
long was it there
…..
Something like a trillionth of a second -I don’t remember the exact figure.
…did it do anything?...
Like what?
There was quantum fluctuations in it and then it expanded.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Why? You already must know what it is. Do you deny the existence of singularities such as those in blackholes ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
[b]…
Describe the singularity for me if
you will….
Why? You already must know what it is. Do you deny the existence of singularities such as those in blackholes ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
-verious sites define what a singularity is better than I can.
…what was it in your opinion...
My opin ...[text shortened]... it do anything?...[/b]
Like what?
There was quantum fluctuations in it and then it expanded.[/b]
-verious sites define what a singularity is better than I can. "
I thought we were speaking about the singular "singularity" that had
to do with the beginning of all things in our universe according to your
point of view, and those that agree with you. Are you suggesting that
there always were other singularities that had to do with the
beginning? If so this is news to me and i'll await your answer.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…what was its make up,
[b]…
Describe the singularity for me if
you will….
Why? You already must know what it is. Do you deny the existence of singularities such as those in blackholes ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
-verious sites define what a singularity is better than I can.
…what was it in your opinion...
My opin ...[text shortened]... it do anything?...[/b]
Like what?
There was quantum fluctuations in it and then it expanded.[/b]
….
"An extremely large mass squashed to a point -not much more that can be said about that! How would you like me to elaborate? -I don’t see how I can. "
Believe it or not I want a great deal more from you, I want to know
how much mass was in it, was there any outside of the singularity? I
want to know how "squashed" it was, was there an infinite amount of
space between all the squashed mass making up the singularity or
was there none, or some happy in between? What reactions were
taking place in the singularity to hold it together before the Big Bang,
and what changed to cause the Big Bang, how long did each of those
processes take?
I would also like to know when you give me your answer are you relying
on a belief or science for your responses too.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay…Are you suggesting that
"Why? You already must know what it is. Do you deny the existence of singularities such as those in blackholes ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
-verious sites define what a singularity is better than I can. "
I thought we were speaking about the singular "singularity" that had
to do with the beginning of all things in our unive ...[text shortened]... had to do with the
beginning? If so this is news to me and i'll await your answer.
Kelly
there always were other singularities that had to do with the
beginning?
….
no.
I am suggesting that singularities can exist.