Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

hmm

Okay, so let's say the big bang theory is correct. That there was just one huge explosion that created everything and life as we know it....

Well, first of all... Where did the explosion come from?

And wouldn't it have to end at some point in time>?

It couldn't go on forever could it?

So wouldn't that make out universe either never ending in size? Or if it did stop, what is beyond the universe? Something has to be there.

..... I'm just wondering what people think.

vincent

The big bang is not so much an explosion, but a giant rapid expansion of spacetime itself.

The bing bang is also seperate from biogenesis.

In the big bang theory the universe is still expanding, it is not infinite in size.

Actually there is three possibilities, the universe could be expanding and the expansion rate is increasing, or it is expanding and the expansion rate is decreasing meaning that one time it will reach a maximun size and start to decrease until it become a point again , or it is estactic(like Einstein thought in the beginning).

By observations with the Hubble telescope scientists concluded that the universe appears to be expanding and that expansion rate is increasing. What they obversed is that the stars are moving away from each other and from us like if the universe is expanding.

Science don´t know from where the explosion came from, and if in fact the universe is expanding then it will increase in size forever by what is know. But there is a lot of things we don´t know yet so I think it is too early to draw any conclusions.

Originally posted by Alliance
The bing bang is also seperate from biogenesis.

Serious question here from someone who doesn't follow astronomy. Was that a typo or a new term? If the latter, I like the name!

the explosion came from a singularity. A single tiny point infinitely small containing all the matter and energy in the universe.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine


hmm

Okay, so let's say the big bang theory is correct. That there was just one huge explosion that created everything and life as we know it....

Well, first of all... Where did the explosion come from?

And wouldn't it have to end at some point in time>?

It couldn't go on forever could it?

So wouldn't that make out universe either never ending in size? Or if it did stop, what is beyond the universe? Something has to be there.

..... I'm just wondering what people think.

vincent



I always maintained the idea that space was infinite, because time is.

If the universe began at a definitive point in time, there was obviously something before.

-AC

Relative to the stuff in the universe, the universe is the same size always, because we expand as it does.

The Big Bang is the theory of how the universe came to be. It is a "rip" in spacetime that expanded rapidly. I'm not sure whether it will expand forever or won't, in theory, it shouldn't because energy cannot be destroyed, so where would it go? If it did stop expanding, then it would just contract into itself.

These are all just my opinions though.

Quantum mechanics states that the vacuum of space (ie, our familiar spacetime) is seething and roiling with energy: random vacuum fluctuations. It has been theorized that the Big Bang was nothing more than a "giant" random vacuum fluctuation in a much, much larger space: a "false vacuum" seeking a lower, more stable energy state.

Currently it is postulated that our universe will expand forever at an ever-accelerating rate until it is trillions upon trillions of times its present age. At this point, all entities (eg, protons, black holes) will have "dissolved" back into the false vacuum.

It has also been theorized that, just as our universe is filled with countless and unceasing vacuum fluctuations, so is this immense false vacuum filled with countless, supersized vacuum fluctuations, some of which produce more universes (just as the vacuum fluctuations in our spacetime produce virtual particles).

Originally posted by botankus
Serious question here from someone who doesn't follow astronomy. Was that a typo or a new term? If the latter, I like the name!

Sorry, that was a typo. It does have a ring to it.

LOL I agree , bing bang!!!

I always thought the Big Bang came around originally due to the four forces. Inevitably happening after they grew to powerful (pent up) within the singularity.

Bing Bang came first, and as the initial "superforce" cooled, phase transitions differentiated the four forces, much like cracks appearing as water phase-transitions (freezes) into ice.

You can't say the big bang came first.

There was something before it.

-AC

The false vacuum.

Originally posted by Mindship
The false vacuum.

Before that? There was always something.

The idea that time could ever definitively begin is flawed.

-AC

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine


hmm

Okay, so let's say the big bang theory is correct. That there was just one huge explosion that created everything and life as we know it....

Well, first of all... Where did the explosion come from?

And wouldn't it have to end at some point in time>?

It couldn't go on forever could it?

So wouldn't that make out universe either never ending in size? Or if it did stop, what is beyond the universe? Something has to be there.

..... I'm just wondering what people think.

vincent


ok,
it is said that the big bang is the result of a hyper-concentrated "egg"(for lack of a better term) containing all the energy and matter in the present universe, it is also said that time started together with the big bang because, there was nothing to measure with it, which doesn't mean it all suddenly came into existance.

your second question is a bit tougher: it would depend on the form matter adopted after the explosion, and the amount of matter and energy in space, if there's too much matter, the universe will shrink again to an enormously dense "egg", if there's not enough matter, the universe will grow forever, and if there's a certain exact amount of matter, the "growth of the universe will eventually stop and will remain the same size.

and the last question really depends on your definition of "universe" if by universe, you mean the total space used by matter, or if you mean everything there is, but i honestly don't know n_n

The false vacuum theory is what you get if you rely WHOLLY on quantum mechanics... No reletivity or modern advancements at all.

It's often speculated that the big bang was not really an explosion, but the expansion and cooling of a quantum singularity (a point of infinite mass and density), like those supposedly thought to be at the centers of black holes.

There are many theories stating whether the univerese will expand forever, or whether it is either expanding or contracting back into itself, once again returning to its original infinite state, until it begins its expansion and cooling once more. My guess is we'll probably never really know unless we could travel at faster-than-light speeds, such as traveling through the fabric of space or whatnot, which is also being experimented with at the moment. The most we can do until then is develop more powerful telescopes, and keep looking deeper into the universe, but from a distance, like a celestial stalker.

Bring on the Big Crunch!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Before that? There was always something.

The idea that time could ever definitively begin is flawed.
Yarr, I see what you're saying. I agree: there had to be Always Something.

Yup. And it certainly doesn't touch on any religious, mystical or metaphysical dimensions, either.

It's a lot easier to just say god did it. ha.

Originally posted by Blaxican
It's a lot easier to just say god did it. ha.

That's true, but even that leaves plenty of holes to fill in. Human biengs are a curious race. We follow a endless chain of cause and effect. I doubt saying God did it will stop people from learning how he did it. If he did it that is.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine


hmm

Okay, so let's say the big bang theory is correct. That there was just one huge explosion that created everything and life as we know it....

Well, first of all... Where did the explosion come from?

And wouldn't it have to end at some point in time>?

It couldn't go on forever could it?

So wouldn't that make out universe either never ending in size? Or if it did stop, what is beyond the universe? Something has to be there.

..... I'm just wondering what people think.

vincent




1.) From what I can remember The Big Bang was a supersymmetical microsingularity unified under all of the field forces we find in the present day universe. The explosion disrupted the bond between these forces and caused the expansion of elementry particles. Bonding, these particles created Stars, other anomalies and celestial objects.

2.) I suppose you are reffering to the expansion of our universe correct? There are two answers to this question actually. The ending would be the Big Crunch where the universe contracts and collapses into a fiery catyclysm. The universe could also go on expanding forever and ever. Of course niether of the two are better than the other. We either die being incinerated or frozen to death. If the human race lives long enough to witness this that is.

3.) What is beyond our universe? To tell you the truth many people don't know. We can speculate on things like the multiverse and parallel universes/realities, but one of the most interesting hypotheses is the concept of "universe budding." We could have been a bubble of false vaccum that split from a much larger universe or universes. In essence we grew from the seed of another plant.

The Big Shrink! It's the day the universe will stop expanding and will shrink back down to the size of a pen top, the very opposite of the Big Bang. Is this what will most likely end our universe? Or is it something else.

Another question, some where out there, are the conditions right for another Big Bang and if there is, what will happen to us?

Technically, the thread title should be "Big Bang Theory Questions."

Perhaps time never begun exactly.

If time had a beginning then there was a t=0 in the universe like a first instant of time. But when we are talking about that first instant we are ignoring quantum mechanics.

I mean, when we put quantum mechanics in, then we have to agree that we cannot define a precise begining for time. There is no t=0 since the uncertainty principle will not allow us to define a precise instant at which time begun.

So I think we would fall in the false vacuum thing and the string theory.

How reading some of your posts is quite interesting. I've always been amazed by the question of: 1.) What caused the Big Bang? 2.) What actually existed prior to the Big Bang? The question of what will eventually happen to the universe is not as intiuguing to me because humankind will have LOOOOOONG since been extint so the question itself is moot.

I agree that SOMETHING needed to exist before the Big Bang. Time itself could not have come into existence from nothingness??!!

One the most intersting theories i've heard recently coming out from the scientific community is that physicists are now therizing that our universe may in fact just be one universe floating like a bubble among an ocean of universes!!! WOW That, to me, is Mind-Blowing!!!!

Originally posted by King Nothing
The Big Shrink! It's the day the universe will stop expanding and will shrink back down to the size of a pen top, the very opposite of the Big Bang. Is this what will most likely end our universe? Or is it something else.

Another question, some where out there, are the conditions right for another Big Bang and if there is, what will happen to us?

Some believe there are Big Bangs occuring every other day in some far distant universe. Nothing will happen to us. I believe by the time the universe freezes or contracts the human race would already be nonexistant.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Perhaps time never begun exactly.

If time had a beginning then there was a t=0 in the universe like a first instant of time. But when we are talking about that first instant we are ignoring quantum mechanics.

I mean, when we put quantum mechanics in, then we have to agree that we cannot define a precise begining for time. There is no t=0 since the uncertainty principle will not allow us to define a precise instant at which time begun.

So I think we would fall in the false vacuum thing and the string theory.

Agreed and this ties into what I stated with a "budding universe."

scientists in jersey actually recreated the big bang, to a degree, by colliding gold particles at 99%C. the effect is temperatures so hot that matter reverts to "gluons", which apparently haven't existed since the first hundreth of a second in our universe. i guess a side effect is four-dimensional micro black holes (???)

i think the only thing we learned from that experiment is that the universe was initially in a liquid state, not solid or gas as previously assumed.

Well thats just wrong. Gluons actively hold quarks together. Last time I checked, protons and neutrons were still around, meaning gluons are as well.

I also think the initial state of the universe was plasma, not liquid.

that's what the article said. if gluons hold quarks together, they're the smallest known form of matter, right? the heat forced everything to come undone to it's basic state, which was gluons and one other "on" i don't recall.

and apparently it was liquid. it was in scientific american or something similar about a month ago. i'm sure if you googled "new jersey big bang experiment" something would come up.

Originally posted by Alliance
Well thats just wrong. Gluons actively hold quarks together. Last time I checked, protons and neutrons were still around, meaning gluons are as well.

I also think the initial state of the universe was plasma, not liquid.


Agreed. The Initial state of the universe was way to hot for any of the particles to combine. They were immediately annihilated, heck even light was torn apart. I don't think it could have existed in a liquid state. Plasma makes more sense.

Originally posted by manorastroman
that's what the article said. if gluons hold quarks together, they're the smallest known form of matter, right? the heat forced everything to come undone to it's basic state, which was gluons and one other "on" i don't recall.

Yeah, the smallest "known" form of matter. I'm sure if we ever get around to building a supercollider we can find particles much smaller.

apparently we are getting around to building a supercollider. it's underneath the franco-swiss border and cost three billion euros.

Originally posted by manorastroman
apparently we are getting around to building a supercollider. it's underneath the franco-swiss border and cost three billion euros.

Cool.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Before that? There was always something.

The idea that time could ever definitively begin is flawed.

-AC

but that something is undefineable -- in every conceiveable way. and i don't think that a 'beginning to time' is flawed. neither does stephen hawking. for time to 'pass' space needs to exist, relations need to exist. if we were somehow able to look beyond the big bang to . . . whatever nothingness existed, THEN time would exist because there would be an observer to measure it -- something in relation to the 'nothingness'.

Time is something that is only measured from a reference point. The Universe as we know it was born so-and-so billion years ago, for example. Approaching “time zero”, the exact instant in which the Big Bang occurred, mathematics breaks down completely.

When the universe was created, it didn’t have three dimensions, it had four. You need dimensions to describe anything within a certain space; time is one of them. It dictates that things fall into a certain sequence of order and not all at the same time, which is what Einstein pretty much said.

Originally posted by leonidas
but that something is undefineable -- in every conceiveable way. and i don't think that a 'beginning to time' is flawed. neither does stephen hawking. for time to 'pass' space needs to exist, relations need to exist. if we were somehow able to look beyond the big bang to . . . whatever nothingness existed, THEN time would exist because there would be an observer to measure it -- something in relation to the 'nothingness'.

There couldn't be a beginning to time. Because if time had to begin and time didn't exist before it, how did the time pass in order to get to that point?

It's a flawed concept.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There couldn't be a beginning to time. Because if time had to begin and time didn't exist before it, how did the time pass in order to get to that point?

It's a flawed concept.

-AC
It's not a quantity, as I said above; it's a relative dimension.

Time isn't definite, it's sequential and it has to do with our universe in question when it was created, it had four unique dimensions. Such a concept demands a reference point in spacial time. We can describe reference frames in three dimensions and time as the fourth. You cannot describe nothingness; time didn't exist until after the Big Bang.

Originally posted by DarkC
You cannot describe nothingness; time didn't exist until after the Big Bang.

That's entirely false. If nothingness existed before the big bang, and time didn't exist, time couldn't pass. If time couldn't pass, nothingness couldn't have and the big bang wouldn't have happened at all.

Just because the concept of measuring time didn't exist, doesn't mean time didn't.

The concept of measured time is the most flawed idea ever, because a human mind simply decided how we perceive time, we have no basis on how accurate it is.

-AC

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar

3.) What is beyond our universe? To tell you the truth many people don't know. We can speculate on things like the multiverse and parallel universes/realities, but one of the most interesting hypotheses is the concept of "universe budding." We could have been a bubble of false vaccum that split from a much larger universe or universes. In essence we grew from the seed of another plant. That's slightly what I think, but I see it more along the lines of our 3D universe is a rip from a 2D universe. And a rip from our universe would make a 4D universe. etc.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's entirely false. If nothingness existed before the big bang, and time didn't exist, time couldn't pass. If time couldn't pass, nothingness couldn't have and the big bang wouldn't have happened at all.

Just because the concept of measuring time didn't exist, doesn't mean time didn't.

The concept of measured time is the most flawed idea ever, because a human mind simply decided how we perceive time, we have no basis on how accurate it is.

-AC
The universe has three dimensions that we know of and acknowledge as existing, three special dimensions and a temporal one. That temporal one is time, and correct, it didn’t pass before Genesis because it didn’t exist at the time. However, time is only used to describe an object’s existence in a certain frame of reference. Perception is false here. The Big Bang happened from a point that occupied no space at all, how could time as a concept exist if it were to define existence of nothing?

In our temporal time dimension, everything happens in order but each individual event is dependent on another in order to happen. In the case of the Big Bang, it spawned existence as we know it, including time. We could have had a temporal

Yes, time is entirely a referential concept, it’s only to an observer’s point of view to view it as they see fit. Why do you assume then that “before” existed?

Originally posted by DarkC
The universe has three dimensions that we know of and acknowledge as existing, three special dimensions and a temporal one. That temporal one is time, and correct, it didn’t pass before Genesis because it didn’t exist at the time. However, time is only used to describe an object’s existence in a certain frame of reference. Perception is false here. The Big Bang happened from a point that occupied no space at all, how could time as a concept exist if it were to define existence of nothing?

In our temporal time dimension, everything happens in order but each individual event is dependent on another in order to happen. In the case of the Big Bang, it spawned existence as we know it, including time. We could have had a temporal

Yes, time is entirely a referential concept, it’s only to an observer’s point of view to view it as they see fit. Why do you assume then that “before” existed?

Your whole argument is based from what "we know" and what observers have accepted as existing. So the question shouldn't be why do I assume that "before" existed, it should be why do you believe you have the right and proof to say it didn't?

There had to be something before, there could not have been nothing, considering the nature of infinity. It simply doesn't make sense. If infinity is forever, there is no finite amount of space to fill, it's endless. So to assume infinity just began with the big bang is, if anything, rather small minded. The difference between us is that you feel nothing existed before the big bang, I do. So therefore it's my belief that time had to pass, and couldn't "begin".

If something existed before the big bang, then time had to whittle enough of itself away to get to a point where all the stars aligned, pardon the pun, and the big bang happened. You assume that there was nothing before because it's what scientists say. Even the greatest scientists in the field don't really have a grasp on the concepts of space, time and eternity. They can't prove nothing existed, and as a result, I don't believe it's true.

-AC

When you boil it all down, it makes sense to think something existed before for the "Big Bang" because we can't imagine absolute nothingness, even the vacuum of space is something. The question is where,when, what and how did this whatever it was begin?

And even then, what was before THAT?

It's just a dumb theory to say there was nothing.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And even then, what was before THAT?

It's just a dumb theory to say there was nothing.

-AC

I tend to agree, but the question is how did this first "thing" (for lack of a better word) begin itsef or was there ever a beginning?

We can't imagine absolute nothingness and be can't imagine something not having a beginning.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If infinity is forever, there is no finite amount of space to fill, it's endless. So to assume infinity just began with the big bang is, if anything, rather small minded.
-AC

Infinity isn't forever thought, infitity is in a fact a finite number. It is part of the Rational numbers, its finite. In philosophy we attribute it to space and time. So are you saying that everything existed, before anything was created?

Originally posted by Ravencrest
Infinity isn't forever thought, infitity is in a fact a finite number. It is part of the Rational numbers, its finite. In philosophy we attribute it to space and time. So are you saying that everything existed, before anything was created?

Infinity is finite? Is that seriously the route you...wish to take in this debate? Because it begins and ends there, as it's one of the most stupid things I've ever read. What...you know, I'm not even going to ask how you arrived at that conclusion, or how it even left the house.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there was always something before. Saying there was just nothing before the big bang is dumb.

It's as dumb as saying "There's no God.". I'm agnostic, I don't know if there is or not, but in everything that exists, everything that we don't know or will ever know, it's more realistic to say "There might be a higher presence." than to say there's definitely nothing.

The same applies here. To say "Nah, was nothing before.", is just stupid. How do you know that? It's a theory, nothing more. Nothing supporting it.

-AC

I'm mathematically correct, so you don't have to get angry. Plus, I never said said "nothing existed" it appears I didn't take a steadfast I rather was trying to figure out your argument. So calm down, and don't call people simple-minded and such, because being in this thread and asking questions is in essence the peak of human evolution.

Don’t avoid the question. It is exactly what you said, how “before” the Big Bang exists. To answer yours, however, I believe I do have justification for my argument because evidence points to events and existence occurring after the Big Bang occurred when time begins. Human technology is at the point where we can gather what predictably happened in Planck-seconds(a mere 10^-35 normal seconds) after the Big Bang occurred. Yet everything “before” that is a complete void. Unknown. The presence of nothing doesn’t necessarily mean that something happened before.

I agree, according to our world of physics and the laws we have established for it, there had to be something to happen to create the Big Bang out of nothing. Remember though, something that just “happens”, especially at atomic levels, does not need to follow Newtonian laws of Physics. Everything is simply a probability of happening, and nothing is absolute certainty.

It might be true that time indeed might be infinite, but it is really impossible to tell even with the best of technology, is it? It isn’t absolutely necessary for everything to follow the natural laws of physics, especially if we can do and observe it right here on Earth. How could our sense of time exist in a reality, say, where no events occur at all and it’s in endless limbo?

I am not sure whether you’re knowledgeable about it, but at the atomic level, where the things like quarks, mesons, and gluons exist, the familiar concepts of cause and effect are completely nonexistent. Atomic chaos where nothing is predictable occurs. If unpredictability of this magnitude happens at the smaller levels, it has the potential to relate to how the Big Bang might have occurred.

Not necessarily, remember that nothing existed and suddenly there was the creation of everything, of matte, space, and time. If such things existed already, it doesn’t seem to make sense how or why the Big Bang happened. Space-time is real in the physical world, there is no denying that. The spacialization of time isn’t abrupt at all, it’s a continuous process and it suggests time can emerge out of space itself. It isn’t all one or the other.

Yes, obviously you and I have to take the word of scientists since we have no professional expertise on the subject. However, despite scientific evidence suggesting that matter was created from nothing and that Newtonian physics can be warped at times, you yet assume that something must have happened before when there is nothing to support that. How is this rational?

I can kind of see where you’re going. You believe that there always was a before, there always was a present and there always will be a future. All these things have one thing in common, they suggest that time is a linear, independent and predictable process. It isn’t, not by any means. You realize that the relative velocity of travel compared to the speed of light greatly can affect the passing of time? It is a chaotic concept.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There had to be something before, there could not have been nothing, considering the nature of infinity. It simply doesn't make sense. If infinity is forever, there is no finite amount of space to fill, it's endless. So to assume infinity just began with the big bang is, if anything, rather small minded. The difference between us is that you feel nothing existed before the big bang, I do. So therefore it's my belief that time had to pass, and couldn't "begin".

Originally posted by DarkC
Human technology is at the point where we can gather what predictably happened in Planck-seconds(a mere 10^-35 normal seconds) after the Big Bang occurred. Yet everything “before” that is a complete void. Unknown. The presence of nothing doesn’t necessarily mean that something happened before.

What happened before the first Planck´s time is not just unknown but time and space can´t be defined before it. So they didn´t existed. Since the Planck´s time give is a limit to measurement, all that happened before it is not measurable and is not empirical. All we can know about that is just theory and cannot exist as an real empirical thing. So unless we redefine the concept of reality what is real and what is not, nothing existed before the Big Bang.

Raven; The dictionary defines infinity as infinite, and infinite as "mathematically immeasureable.", and finite as having a definitive measureable point.

Not sure what planet you're on.

Originally posted by DarkC
Don’t avoid the question. It is exactly what you said, how “before” the Big Bang exists. To answer yours, however, I believe I do have justification for my argument because evidence points to events and existence occurring after the Big Bang occurred when time begins. Human technology is at the point where we can gather what predictably happened in Planck-seconds(a mere 10^-35 normal seconds) after the Big Bang occurred. Yet everything “before” that is a complete void. Unknown. The presence of nothing doesn’t necessarily mean that something happened before.

I'm not avoiding the question, but they're not possible to answer because that would means I'd adhere to what you believe. You're asking loaded questions from the stance you, not I, believe.

You seem to have it decided that there was absolutely nothing before the big bang, and therefore time could not pass and didn't exist, as a result. I disagree, because I believe there was something. Not nothing AS something, something else entirely for time to pass.

Originally posted by DarkC
I agree, according to our world of physics and the laws we have established for it, there had to be something to happen to create the Big Bang out of nothing. Remember though, something that just “happens”, especially at atomic levels, does not need to follow Newtonian laws of Physics. Everything is simply a probability of happening, and nothing is absolute certainty.

I know, and that would apply if I believe nothing existed except that which is necessary for the big bang to happen (Something at atomic level of reaction.). I do not, though.

This debate was born out of you telling me I was wrong for saying time existed pre-big bang, based on your belief that nothing existed therefore time can't pass. I believe something did, so I believe time passed and as a result, the big bang happened. Well, not as a result, but you get the idea.

Originally posted by DarkC
It might be true that time indeed might be infinite, but it is really impossible to tell even with the best of technology, is it? It isn’t absolutely necessary for everything to follow the natural laws of physics, especially if we can do and observe it right here on Earth. How could our sense of time exist in a reality, say, where no events occur at all and it’s in endless limbo?

I'm not talking about time being infinite, I'm talking about everything being infinite and time being there as a result. With there being a before in which SOMETHING was existing, at which point time would resultantly exist, time could therefore, pass.

Originally posted by DarkC
I am not sure whether you’re knowledgeable about it, but at the atomic level, where the things like quarks, mesons, and gluons exist, the familiar concepts of cause and effect are completely nonexistent. Atomic chaos where nothing is predictable occurs. If unpredictability of this magnitude happens at the smaller levels, it has the potential to relate to how the Big Bang might have occurred.

You're too hung up on how the big bang occured out of nothing to see that I don't disagree. The big bang may have happened out of nothing atomically speaking, it doesn't mean that ELSE existed, though.

You're not looking at the bigger picture.

Originally posted by DarkC
Not necessarily, remember that nothing existed and suddenly there was the creation of everything, of matte, space, and time. If such things existed already, it doesn’t seem to make sense how or why the Big Bang happened. Space-time is real in the physical world, there is no denying that. The spacialization of time isn’t abrupt at all, it’s a continuous process and it suggests time can emerge out of space itself. It isn’t all one or the other.

That's exactly what I mean. "Remember that nothing existed and suddenly there was the creation of everything.". Remember? I never believed it in the first place. I don't believe nothing existed, I believe that is one of the most flawed theories a human mind can possess in what is becoming an ironic search for knowledge.

You say "If things existed, it doesn't make sense how or why the big bang happened.". You're a 16 year old boy, you honestly believe that you will be able to make sense of such things when the greatest scientific minds in the history of Earth cannot settle on a theory enough to prove it? I don't mean that in a patronising way, in case you took offense, I'm just trying to prove a point.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, obviously you and I have to take the word of scientists since we have no professional expertise on the subject. However, despite scientific evidence suggesting that matter was created from nothing and that Newtonian physics can be warped at times, you yet assume that something must have happened before when there is nothing to support that. How is this rational?

No, I don't have to take their word for it. They cannot prove that I am wrong. They can only prove that their theory does not coincide with what I believe, as you are doing. You make the mistake of taking their theory as gospel and subsequently let it lead you to the belief that I am not rational.

Not rational is saying there was absolutely nothing before the big bang, for sure. It's more rational to say there might have been.

Originally posted by DarkC
I can kind of see where you’re going. You believe that there always was a before, there always was a present and there always will be a future. All these things have one thing in common, they suggest that time is a linear, independent and predictable process. It isn’t, not by any means. You realize that the relative velocity of travel compared to the speed of light greatly can affect the passing of time? It is a chaotic concept.

You don't see where I'm going. I'm not of the Moore-esque belief that everything is happening now, past, present and future. The future is conceptual, nothing truly exists but the present. My point was that there's always a present, there's always something, in my opinion. There is simply too much space (infinite, in my opinion), for that not to be the case.

Therefore, before the big bang, there was something that time could pass, which is what the crux of this debate is.

I said time existed before the big bang, you said it didn't. Your reason for believing so is because you believe there was nothing, and you believe the scientists because they are scientists. All you can do is say "My theory doesn't agree with your theory.". You take your theory as fact, and then say "Mine couldn't have happened like it did if you are correct.", well then deal with that. That isn't my problem.

My point is; I believe time existed before the big bang because I believe there was something for time to pass. Nobody here can prove me undeniably wrong, can they? No.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
nothing existed before the Big Bang.

Prove it to the point that I cannot sit here and say "I disagree.".

-AC

Originally posted by Ravencrest
because being in this thread and asking questions is in essence the peak of human evolution.

It's not, is it?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There couldn't be a beginning to time. Because if time had to begin and time didn't exist before it, how did the time pass in order to get to that point?

It's a flawed concept.

-AC

heheh. you're a smart guy, ac, and what's more you're arguing a point that cannot truly be refuted.

modern theory says that our universe was created by the collision of a brane in m-space. if that's the case time didn't start in our universe until the big bang, but it WOULD have existed prior to the singularity of the big bang in 'other universes'.

if no collision occurred -- ie., if nothing led to the singularity except . . . chance? divine intervention? then this becomes a linguistic paradox. we are speculating on concepts that cannot be conceptualized much less expressed in words. you're saying nothing existed, and because that nothingness "passed", there MUST have been time.

nothingness -> singularity = passage of time.

that's a common interpretation, and it's impossible to say you are wrong. it is equally impossible to say WE are wrong. after all, if no big bang had ever occurred, we would never have anything to measure against. you're measuring the passing of your nothingness against what? the eventual big bang, which coincidentally is also the start of time.

and if there was no big bang? there would be an unchanging (theoretically) . . . something/nothing, and within it there would be no way to tell one instant was ever, in anyway, different from another. if we cannot perceive any change at all, we can say no time has passed.

the concept of time is subjective, not absolute. at light speed, time ceases to exist to the entity travelling at c. if it can be non-existent within the universe, why not outside?

ultimately, to say 'nothingness' existed before the big bang is NOT accurate. we lack the linguistic ability to describe just what existed before the big bang. because of that, this debate really isn't a debate, it's . . . nothing.

Originally posted by leonidas
heheh. you're a smart guy, ac, and what's more you're arguing a point that cannot truly be refuted.

modern theory says that our universe was created by the collision of a brane in m-space. if that's the case time didn't start in our universe until the big bang, but it WOULD have existed prior to the singularity of the big bang in 'other universes'.

if no collision occurred -- ie., if nothing led to the singularity except . . . chance? divine intervention? then this becomes a linguistic paradox. we are speculating on concepts that cannot be conceptualized much less expressed in words. you're saying nothing existed, and because that nothingness "passed", there MUST have been time.

nothingness -> singularity = passage of time.

that's a common interpretation, and it's impossible to say you are wrong. it is equally impossible to say WE are wrong. after all, if no big bang had ever occurred, we would never have anything to measure against. you're measuring the passing of your nothingness against what? the eventual big bang, which coincidentally is also the start of time.

and if there was no big bang? there would be an unchanging (theoretically) . . . something/nothing, and within it there would be no way to tell one instant was ever, in anyway, different from another. if we cannot perceive any change at all, we can say no time has passed.

the concept of time is subjective, not absolute. at light speed, time ceases to exist to the entity travelling at c. if it can be non-existent within the universe, why not outside?

ultimately, to say 'nothingness' existed before the big bang is NOT accurate. we lack the linguistic ability to describe just what existed before the big bang. because of that, this debate really isn't a debate, it's . . . nothing. thumbup1

Originally posted by leonidas
ultimately, to say 'nothingness' existed before the big bang is NOT accurate. we lack the linguistic ability to describe just what existed before the big bang. because of that, this debate really isn't a debate, it's . . . nothing.

Originally posted by Robtard
We can't imagine absolute nothingness and we can't imagine something not having a beginning.

Agree; because we can't imagine nothingness...

the devil invented time....and she wears prada.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agree; because we can't imagine nothingness...

you're probably right, but that isn't what i was saying. i was saying we can't imagine what existed before the big bang. say nothingness, most people will think of a white room, or a black one -- they will compare 'emptiness' to nothingness. that is also incorrect. nothingness and emptiness only exist in relation to 'something'. there IS no 'something' before the big bang, consequently, there could be no 'nothing'.

there is just pre-big bang, and post-big bang.

That's true.

People confuse emptiness with nothingness.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's true.

People confuse emptiness with nothingness.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not avoiding the question, but they're not possible to answer because that would means I'd adhere to what you believe. You're asking loaded questions from the stance you, not I, believe.

You seem to have it decided that there was absolutely nothing before the big bang, and therefore time could not pass and didn't exist, as a result. I disagree, because I believe there was something. Not nothing AS something, something else entirely for time to pass.
Even if they’re not possible to conceptually answer, I assume you still have a reason for believing that the fact that nothing happened before the Big Bang. To you they are ‘loaded’ because they’re not what you would call a standard question. I was never asking you to prove outright that there was a ‘before’ with respect to the big bang(obviously that’s impossible). To me though, there are holes in your reasoning.

Yes, I understand the concept you are suggesting and while it does merit thought, that’s all. Just thought. But what, in your opinion, is required for time as a whole, to pass exactly? It’s been proven that it isn’t entirely independent.

Let’s for a moment assume your point of view. If there was “something” else going on (as you said) and time was already passing at that particular moment then some sort of space already existed (as time requires space to ‘pass’ as a series of sequential and individual events). That would create a similar scenario to the universe we already have right now.

Then, the Big Bang suddenly happens out of nowhere, an event completely arbitrary and random and for no reason in a single instant of time and ‘expands’ already into this ‘something’ of yours (which physically resembles our universe). Does that mean we’re a universe inside a universe?

Yes, you have explained that theory already. I understand what you’re getting at there. No need to do it further.

The suggestion that everything could be infinite is definitely lacking. If, for example, something is so big as to not be able to measure it, does it automatically count as infinite? No, it simply means that it is too big to measure. That’s the end of it. Space isn’t automatically infinite simply because we haven’t hit its boundaries. Also, how is the manner in which time passes affected by spatial size?

Beats the hell outta me why you say that now when you believe that something else did exist before the Big Bang. What, is ELSE supposed to be an acronym?




Until astronomers have proven or disproven their current hypothesis, I’m going to go ahead and believe what they currently have. Face it, we aren’t the experts here and throwing out theories with no real basis in scientific fact isn’t going to miraculously prove otherwise. I have no doubt that there are people who do believe as you do, but they don’t happen to be international-class scientists who have researched the topic.

Yes, I’m young and I’m still learning, but by no means does it stop me from looking in on the subject, learning about it and offering my two cents, which I have. Everyone has the right to. However, lecturing me about a lack of astronomical knowledge as you are now, unless you’re a astronomer with a Doctorate in astrophysics; then your opinions or theories are no more credible than mine are. Let’s not walk this road.

And I’m 17 now, thanks.

If you think you know better than the most learned scientists in the world, many of whom which have spent many years of their lives researching this topic solely, please at least justify your claims. If you want to actively disprove their hypothesizing, hey, knock yourself out. No problem with the truth coming out. Unless you support your belief with more evidence though, it’s not going to go anywhere.

I take it as ‘gospel’ because I respect their research and their expertise in the knowledge that I don’t know nearly as much as they, on the topic of astrophysics or Genesis. I don’t have to, but I still do. And no, this has very little to do with me saying your way of thinking on this subject is irrational; I said your beliefs were irrational because they aren’t based on solid fact, only speculation. How does believing there was a ‘before’ make things more rational?

Nothing truly exists currently but the present. Time’s still measured only with a frame of reference. Past has happened, but it’s real; Future is uncertain, but it exists. No matter how much space there is, there’s still limitations. As we know it, it could be larger than we could fathom, basically a speck of dust in an entire solar system, but it could still have boundaries.

You have the first part correct in summary there. But I suggest taking a look at your own words; you are in no better of a position than I am. You’re formulating your own theories, I stick with the one in Popular Science. No one knows for sure who’s really right.

I didn’t take my theory as hard fact, never did. It’s a likely possibility, yes, but seeing how it hasn’t been proven I don’t know how you can imply that I take it as fact. I applied whatever knowledge I had on the subject, thought about both theories. I think “In the case of…” applying fundamentals and trying to make sense of it. They face the same physics principles and basic concepts. Why can’t I use those concepts to analyze your theory?

You’re really just stating the obvious when you claim someone can’t prove you undeniably wrong. They neither have the resources or expertise to do so. Finding out about something like this would have been a big discovery anyways. We’re at a standstill really; you can’t prove me undeniably wrong, I can’t prove you undeniably wrong.

Originally posted by DarkC
Even if they’re not possible to conceptually answer, I assume you still have a reason for believing that the fact that nothing happened before the Big Bang. To you they are ‘loaded’ because they’re not what you would call a standard question. I was never asking you to prove outright that there was a ‘before’ with respect to the big bang(obviously that’s impossible). To me though, there are holes in your reasoning.

Because I'm not so arrogant as to make the definite decision regarding something the human race cannot comprehend. I'm not saying there definitely was anything, I'm saying I believe there was because there is so much we don't understand, and I find that it's more realistic to believe there might be something than definitely nothing.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I understand the concept you are suggesting and while it does merit thought, that’s all. Just thought. But what, in your opinion, is required for time as a whole, to pass exactly? It’s been proven that it isn’t entirely independent.

Anything. If nothing exists, time can't pass, if something does, it can. My point was to counter yours. You say time didn't exist before the big bang, I say it did, because I believe there was something.

Originally posted by DarkC
Let’s for a moment assume your point of view. If there was “something” else going on (as you said) and time was already passing at that particular moment then some sort of space already existed (as time requires space to ‘pass’ as a series of sequential and individual events). That would create a similar scenario to the universe we already have right now.

Then, the Big Bang suddenly happens out of nowhere, an event completely arbitrary and random and for no reason in a single instant of time and ‘expands’ already into this ‘something’ of yours (which physically resembles our universe). Does that mean we’re a universe inside a universe?

Possibly, who knows? Nobody. I don't spend my time trying to solve puzzles that I have no pieces to. My point of view was simply that I believe time existed before the big bang. There's no need for over-philosophising, yes, you know your stuff, congratulations. Over-application isn't necessary though. If you're asking me questions with a view to somehow believing what I do, it won't happen will it? Because you disagree with me.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, you have explained that theory already. I understand what you’re getting at there. No need to do it further.

The suggestion that everything could be infinite is definitely lacking. If, for example, something is so big as to not be able to measure it, does it automatically count as infinite? No, it simply means that it is too big to measure. That’s the end of it. Space isn’t automatically infinite simply because we haven’t hit its boundaries. Also, how is the manner in which time passes affected by spatial size?

I never said space is infinite because we've not hit boundaries, I simply said that given the nature of what space is, I don't believe there's an end to it. Time isn't affected by size, I never said it was. Presense, not size.

Originally posted by DarkC
Beats the hell outta me why you say that now when you believe that something else did exist before the Big Bang. What, is ELSE supposed to be an acronym?

Learn to live outside of textbooks, Dark. I believe there was something else, I don't know what, but I just do not have reason to believe there was nothing at all. Exercise some lateral thinking, think outside of the books and box. I don't need to know specifically what I believed existed to know that I believed there was some kind of existence.

Originally posted by DarkC
Until astronomers have proven or disproven their current hypothesis, I’m going to go ahead and believe what they currently have. Face it, we aren’t the experts here and throwing out theories with no real basis in scientific fact isn’t going to miraculously prove otherwise. I have no doubt that there are people who do believe as you do, but they don’t happen to be international-class scientists who have researched the topic.

Then you do that, it doesn't mean I have to, it doesn't mean you are any more correct than I. Does it? Getting too close to something prevents seeing a bigger picture. People can be so involved in a profession that they forget what it means. For example, I know people who play instruments to such a high degree that they cannot simply listen to music for the enjoyment of it. The enjoyment is there, but so is perpetual critique-like perception.

The same with scientists. They know a lot about things they can work with, but they are no closer to proving anybody wrong. They have their nose too far in the books to step out of it and simply say "...in spite of what we know...".

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I’m young and I’m still learning, but by no means does it stop me from looking in on the subject, learning about it and offering my two cents, which I have. Everyone has the right to. However, lecturing me about a lack of astronomical knowledge as you are now, unless you’re a astronomer with a Doctorate in astrophysics; then your opinions or theories are no more credible than mine are. Let’s not walk this road. And I’m 17 now, thanks.

Precisely. Our opinions are no more credible since neither can prove our beliefs. So why sit there saying "Remember, before the big bang there was nothing.", as if it's fact?

Originally posted by DarkC
If you think you know better than the most learned scientists in the world, many of whom which have spent many years of their lives researching this topic solely, please at least justify your claims. If you want to actively disprove their hypothesizing, hey, knock yourself out. No problem with the truth coming out. Unless you support your belief with more evidence though, it’s not going to go anywhere.

This is precisely what I meant about over-analysing, over-application.

Who said it simply has to go anywhere? I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong. You are. I'm proving that I believe what I do, not that my beliefs are correct. You, just like the scientists you revere, feel that there has to be definite endings and destinations. I don't. I believe what I believe. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, if I'm right, I'm right. In this case, I simply hold a belief on a subject. I can't prove any scientist wrong, just as they cannot prove me wrong.

Originally posted by DarkC
I take it as ‘gospel’ because I respect their research and their expertise in the knowledge that I don’t know nearly as much as they, on the topic of astrophysics or Genesis. I don’t have to, but I still do. And no, this has very little to do with me saying your way of thinking on this subject is irrational; I said your beliefs were irrational because they aren’t based on solid fact, only speculation. How does believing there was a ‘before’ make things more rational?

I respect their research too, but I also see that it does not give them the power to decide what happened before. I respect it, that doesn't mean I have to believe it. I'm not ignoring fact, I'm not adhering to an opinion that I do not favour. I simply disagree with "Nothing existed before the big bang.", and there is no conclusive evidence to prove me wrong, just enough to convince YOU that they are right. My beliefs AREN'T based on fact, they are purely speculatory. As are yours.

Originally posted by DarkC
Nothing truly exists currently but the present. Time’s still measured only with a frame of reference. Past has happened, but it’s real; Future is uncertain, but it exists. No matter how much space there is, there’s still limitations. As we know it, it could be larger than we could fathom, basically a speck of dust in an entire solar system, but it could still have boundaries.

The future doesn't technically exist, it's just considered imminent. Me typing the paragraph following this isn't out there happening, we just know it will happen because I've said so and will do so. It's still conceptual. However unlikely; I could die before I finish this post.

Originally posted by DarkC
I didn’t take my theory as hard fact, never did. It’s a likely possibility, yes, but seeing how it hasn’t been proven I don’t know how you can imply that I take it as fact. I applied whatever knowledge I had on the subject, thought about both theories. I think “In the case of…” applying fundamentals and trying to make sense of it. They face the same physics principles and basic concepts. Why can’t I use those concepts to analyze your theory?

You’re really just stating the obvious when you claim someone can’t prove you undeniably wrong. They neither have the resources or expertise to do so. Finding out about something like this would have been a big discovery anyways. We’re at a standstill really; you can’t prove me undeniably wrong, I can’t prove you undeniably wrong.

If you had stopped trying to come at this debate with nose buried in text book, showing that you know some science, as many people here do, including myself, you'd realise it's not wholly relevant.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because I'm not so arrogant as to make the definite decision regarding something the human race cannot comprehend. I'm not saying there definitely was anything, I'm saying I believe there was because there is so much we don't understand, and I find that it's more realistic to believe there might be something than definitely nothing.
Yes, I respect that; I realize that as a race humanity doesn’t know everything, but assuming or believing otherwise something that has no real scientific support is not the most logical path to take. At least in my opinion. Until then, when the theory’s been proven otherwise or evidence points toward another solution, I’ll continue to believe their version of events. Whether they’re ideally realistic or not.

That’s the point I’ve been trying to make, time cannot pass given no space in which events occur. This ‘something’ of yours, however obscure it is at the moment, still has to follow this. Considering how I analyzed, or over-analyzed it, it simply doesn’t make sense.

You’re not trying to solve them, that doesn’t seem to be the case; however, you do leave a lot of pieces lying around that I feel need to be at least addressed, which I have. You see this as over-analyzing, which is fine, really; I like details and I don’t mind delving. I know your point of view and I disagree with it, but I’m not as biased as some members here. It doesn’t stop me from at least trying to apply knowledge to your belief in an attempt to make some sense out of it. And yes, I try to know my stuff.

Even if humanity never finds an end to space, it doesn’t mean it’s infinite; it just means we can never find an end to it. That it’s still too massive to map. Put it this way, you can explore and explore and not find any boundaries, but that doesn’t prove anything significant; on the other hand, you can explore and explore until you hit a boundary and it’ll prove something. Yes, that’s repeating what I said before, space spawns the existence of time passage conceptually. The space as we know it can be infinite, but it doesn’t make time infinite.

We’re in a thread that’s in the GDF, not the Philosophy forum, so in this kind of a thread I tend to rely on what is concrete, what is fact. Which is why I have tried to maintain a scientific, analytical point of view. What we already know isn’t intellectually as important as what we don’t know, but it leads to something.

As in which is more likely? Who can say, really? It also isn’t prudent to assume simply that nearing a solution prevents completely the ability to maintain the whole purpose. Your analogy of your friend listening to music does get the point across, but actually comparing the two, music and scientific research, is an entirely different thing altogether.

Having had a teacher who was a researcher for a few decades, I can say that real research scientists have to constantly remind themselves what the hell they’re researching in the first place and why. It’s true that a rather large chunk of them lose track after a while and forget, but whatever facts, figures, or formulas they’ve discovered/proved still remain in existence and are irrefutable.

I say it because as I said before, I believe the gospel stories of something from nothing. It isn’t fact, I never implied it was. I assume so because currently facts suggest it, that’s all. Obviously it’s going to be a little opinionated. Learn to look past it.

I entered this thread and got involved because I actually find the subject interesting, and in turn try to absorb everyone else’s opinions and ideas. I do have some of my own. Your belief, to me, appears to be misguided and that’s where I start the sermonizing. I’m not forcing you to listen to it, but I do want to hear exactly why you stick to this belief or others if it disagrees with mine. Hence the constant questioning. I disagree, the end.

What, does interest in a scientific concept automatically make me revere any scientist who researches it?

Correct, it is not within their power to decide if anything happened before, nor is it up to the Church. History is written by the winner, in this case it is science. However, they are still the experts here. It doesn’t necessarily mean they can spoon feed us, but it still wouldn’t be a good idea to completely dismiss their ideas. You say “I believe something existed before the Big Bang”, I ask why, that seems to be the short of it. There isn’t likely to be real conclusive evidence in our lifetime to prove such a theory.

Yes, the theory I believe is still technically speculatory, but the speculation in question is accompanied with analysis of scientific fact. It isn’t completely out of the blue. Unlike yours, it has evidence backing it.





As I said, I do have to look at the facts first and try to digest such things as why or how and such along those lines. Sorry, but simply forming a belief out of the blue just doesn’t seem to me like logic. It’s a belief, yes, but how do you justify it? I’m not attempting to show off how much I know, if that’s what you’re suggesting, but I admit to always wanting to get down to the skinny of it if I’m interested. Fact still has tremendous influence and relevance on scientific speculation, there is no denial of that.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I respect that; I realize that as a race humanity doesn’t know everything, but assuming or believing otherwise something that has no real scientific support is not the most logical path to take. At least in my opinion. Until then, when the theory’s been proven otherwise or evidence points toward another solution, I’ll continue to believe their version of events. Whether they’re ideally realistic or not.

It's not logical to me to look at what facts SUGGEST and assume the suggestion is correct. Facts suggest what you are saying, but they do not prove it. Believe it all you want, it doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by DarkC
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make, time cannot pass given no space in which events occur. This ‘something’ of yours, however obscure it is at the moment, still has to follow this. Considering how I analyzed, or over-analyzed it, it simply doesn’t make sense.

The bottom line is; You don't understand why I hold a believe that is speculatory. That is not my problem, but you're essentially asking me to prove things and make you understand. You've spent too much time in textbooks and not enough time just generally contemplating the unknown, the infinite and the eternal.

When I think about space and time, I don't think of what they tell in text books, because what's the point? We know that, we know that scientists have proven things. I enjoy thinking about what hasn't been proven. I prefer to think about what I feel, not feel what I think. You simply don't understand this. Maybe it is because you haven't had the time to significantly establish a set of individual beliefs, maybe you've not had enough experience outside of textbooks, but either way, you don't understand what my point of view is. I can't necessarily ask you to either, as it is vague, but accept that you don't understand it. You seem to fear that which you can't read about.

Originally posted by DarkC
You’re not trying to solve them, that doesn’t seem to be the case; however, you do leave a lot of pieces lying around that I feel need to be at least addressed, which I have. You see this as over-analyzing, which is fine, really; I like details and I don’t mind delving. I know your point of view and I disagree with it, but I’m not as biased as some members here. It doesn’t stop me from at least trying to apply knowledge to your belief in an attempt to make some sense out of it. And yes, I try to know my stuff.

They don't need to be addressed, they are fine as they are. I'm fine with where they are. Your obsession with trying to make everything fit, make sense and add up is why you're not getting this. You're sitting there almost suggesting alternate things for me to believe.

Originally posted by DarkC
Even if humanity never finds an end to space, it doesn’t mean it’s infinite; it just means we can never find an end to it. That it’s still too massive to map. Put it this way, you can explore and explore and not find any boundaries, but that doesn’t prove anything significant; on the other hand, you can explore and explore until you hit a boundary and it’ll prove something. Yes, that’s repeating what I said before, space spawns the existence of time passage conceptually. The space as we know it can be infinite, but it doesn’t make time infinite.

As long as there is something existing, time will pass. It depends on whether the existence in question is infinite or not. You are essentially saying that infinity can't exist. "There not being any visible boundaries doesn't mean there aren't any somewhere.". So what's the next step? If space is infinite, nobody will ever find a boundary. Are we to just assume that we keep not-finding existing boundaries? To me, that's silly. Ockham's razor applies, in that case.

Originally posted by DarkC
We’re in a thread that’s in the GDF, not the Philosophy forum, so in this kind of a thread I tend to rely on what is concrete, what is fact. Which is why I have tried to maintain a scientific, analytical point of view. What we already know isn’t intellectually as important as what we don’t know, but it leads to something.

That's a bit of a flawed view of what the GDF is. Just because it's not a purely philosophical topic does not mean there is definite concrete conclusion to be had. You're being analytical because you love details and you love conclusive evidence, fine, but it's not achieving anything here, is it? You just don't understand why I believe what I do, and you're asking for a definitive explanation. I can't give one, it's speculatory. It makes sense to me, and I'm not acting as if I have a mass of scientific backing. You do, and how much closer to your opinions being correct are you? No closer than I am. So this debate is somewhat fruitless.

Originally posted by DarkC
As in which is more likely? Who can say, really? It also isn’t prudent to assume simply that nearing a solution prevents completely the ability to maintain the whole purpose. Your analogy of your friend listening to music does get the point across, but actually comparing the two, music and scientific research, is an entirely different thing altogether.

The principle remains the same. How can you suggest a conclusion to a theory, when the theory is based on things we simply believe to be true? All the evidence in the world hasn't proven the subject of this debate to be factual, and you only have one side of the perception glass, because you aren't feeling, you're thinking too much.

Going back to my music analogy; Paul Gilbert, one of the world's best technical guitarists, wrote a guitar lick in a song called Green Tinted 60s Mind by Mr. Big. In a video demonstration of how to play it, when he's not thinking, he plays it perfectly. When he's concentrating on it, trying to demonstrate, he says "It gets confusing when it gets slow.". If you think too hard, you're missing a lot. As Bruce Lee once said in Enter the Dragon; A finger points to the Moon, if you concentrate on the finger you miss the heavenly glory of the Moon itself.

You're too consumed with focusing on technicality, and you're not wrong to do so, you have evidence that makes you believe a suggested, but not proveable occurance. Fine. My point is, having a more balanced vision of thought and feeling would do you well in this debate.

Originally posted by DarkC
Having had a teacher who was a researcher for a few decades, I can say that real research scientists have to constantly remind themselves what the hell they’re researching in the first place and why. It’s true that a rather large chunk of them lose track after a while and forget, but whatever facts, figures, or formulas they’ve discovered/proved still remain in existence and are irrefutable.

And what's irrefutable here? "We've proven that we think this might have happened, and here's why.". Ok, great. In relation to YOUR beliefs, that means a whole lot. In relation to mine, it means nothing.

Originally posted by DarkC
I say it because as I said before, I believe the gospel stories of something from nothing. It isn’t fact, I never implied it was. I assume so because currently facts suggest it, that’s all. Obviously it’s going to be a little opinionated. Learn to look past it.

They aren't gospel though. They're not "true", they aren't proven. You believe the SUGGESTED conclusion because there are adequate suggestions. Me having less suggestions doesn't make it any less possible.

-AC

Originally posted by DarkC
I entered this thread and got involved because I actually find the subject interesting, and in turn try to absorb everyone else’s opinions and ideas. I do have some of my own. Your belief, to me, appears to be misguided and that’s where I start the sermonizing. I’m not forcing you to listen to it, but I do want to hear exactly why you stick to this belief or others if it disagrees with mine. Hence the constant questioning. I disagree, the end.

Precisely. It's ignorant and pretentious to preach to me about how my belief doesn't make sense in general, because YOU don't get it. There are other people here who may disagree, but don't say it makes no sense. It's not a nonsensical belief, you just don't grasp it.

What do you mean you want to hear why I stick to it if it disagrees with yours? As if it's mentally retarded to even have an opposing belief to yours, which is subjective anyway, by the way. I stick to it because no other belief is appealing to me, what more do you need? Put down the book, stop trying to make sense of everything, for once, and just accept that not all beliefs need factual backing. If I was trying to prove you wrong, I would. I'm not, so I don't.

Originally posted by DarkC
Correct, it is not within their power to decide if anything happened before, nor is it up to the Church. History is written by the winner, in this case it is science. However, they are still the experts here. It doesn’t necessarily mean they can spoon feed us, but it still wouldn’t be a good idea to completely dismiss their ideas. You say “I believe something existed before the Big Bang”, I ask why, that seems to be the short of it. There isn’t likely to be real conclusive evidence in our lifetime to prove such a theory.

I'm not completely dismissing them, I'm saying I disagree with them. They could very well be right, I don't think they are. I could be wrong. Stop, for the love of spirits, saying "There won't be any proof to prove your theory, conclusively.", so what? I'm not saying there will be. There certainly won't be anything to factually prove otherwise, will there? So my beliefs are quite safe. Your obsession with proveably theories is out of place in a debate of subjective belief. You don't get why I believe there was something else, fine, not asking you to.

I believe it because as I have said, I just do not see how there could be emptiness, nothing at all, everything just happened. I also fail to see how any human can know that. Answer? No human can. So I'm not going to jump on the side of the fence I don't agree with.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, the theory I believe is still technically speculatory, but the speculation in question is accompanied with analysis of scientific fact. It isn’t completely out of the blue. Unlike yours, it has evidence backing it.

The evidence amounts to nothing, though. It really doesn't.

"I believe nothing existed before the big bang because scientists say it happened like this, and have proof that says it might have.". That's all they have, proof that it's very possible. They don't have anything else. If that's good enough for you, rock and roll. For me, it isn't. If you want me to believe there was nothing, give me conclusive proof. I'm not performing a sermon, you are. You're trying to learn, I don't need to. I know your side of the debate, and why. I accept it.

Originally posted by DarkC
As I said, I do have to look at the facts first and try to digest such things as why or how and such along those lines. Sorry, but simply forming a belief out of the blue just doesn’t seem to me like logic. It’s a belief, yes, but how do you justify it? I’m not attempting to show off how much I know, if that’s what you’re suggesting, but I admit to always wanting to get down to the skinny of it if I’m interested. Fact still has tremendous influence and relevance on scientific speculation, there is no denial of that.

The skinny of it is what I've been saying above, quote after quote, and will probably have to keep repeating to you. You should know by now that if something is a fact, I think it's stupid to disagree. I'm not disagreeing that your belief has facts suggesting it's very possible, but that's all they are. If you're asking me why I believe what I do, and I explain it, you still don't get it. So you assume it's something faulty in MY debate, rather than your perception.

-AC

After reading through this thread, I've learned a lot of pretty cool information, but have a question of my own...

How can you guys actually be arguing over something that mankind can't even comprehend and has no way of really, truly finding out? Everything in this thread is theoretical; one can not sit here and say "you're wrong." This is not an argument with a definite answer, it's more a discussion regarding feasible theories associated with the beginning of our universe.

I find it remarkable that you guys actually manage to tell other people they're wrong about this stuff, as if there's a definite answer, even one that's attainable by mankind.

I'm not telling anybody they are wrong.

Someone here simply doesn't understand, or know how to understand, my subjective beliefs or why I hold them. So he keeps on and on, assuming I'm the one with the faulty beliefs simply because he has difficulty perceiving mine, other's don't.

-AC

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I respect that; I realize that as a race humanity doesn’t know everything, but assuming or believing otherwise something that has no real scientific support is not the most logical path to take. At least in my opinion. Until then, when the theory’s been proven otherwise or evidence points toward another solution, I’ll continue to believe their version of events. Whether they’re ideally realistic or not.

gotta be careful with that line of thinking . . .

galileo and st augustine may disagree with you.

BIG BANG ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not logical to me to look at what facts SUGGEST and assume the suggestion is correct. Facts suggest what you are saying, but they do not prove it. Believe it all you want, it doesn't make it true.
It neither is logical to assume something out of context when very little or obscure evidence supports it. Especially if it’s hard to disprove. If the facts add up, you simply cannot ignore that. And really, the same can be said for you.

You’re right, I don’t understand why you hold such a belief because you have not once offered an explanation that is clear to me and makes me thoughtfully go “Oh, I see.” I live in the real world here, where fact is fact and speculation is speculation. I never once asked you to prove outright, I asked you to explain. It’s hard really for me, I admit it, to contemplate those things when little, if nothing, is known about them. How does that work? I don’t get it. Imagination does not create reality, at least not here.

Yes, speculation can be enjoyable at times but it still doesn’t create reality. It creates a wide amount of possibilities, allows for thought and imagination to intermingle, but the fact remains, it cannot be so because one said it would be so. I have individual beliefs, not sure whether they’re significant enough to contribute to a sense of individuality but they are real, they’re just opposite of yours. I believe in a beginning and an end, fortunately science tends to agree with me. You believe in existence of infinity. That’s all I get.

I’ll admit I don’t like uncertainties, in the real world. It doesn’t make me comfortable to leave things unanswered. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with that.

Yes, but to an analytical mind such as mine, I like the details as I said. Your reasoning does have ambiguities in it, which I’m trying to make sense of. Almost? I’ve been suggesting things the whole time, it’s entirely up to you what to take them as.


You seem to have taken what I’ve said there out of context; I was suggesting that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to actually find out if there is infinity. I was labeling the possibilities there, they are real.

No, you’re assuming that simply because you cannot see a limit that infinity exists. That sounds a lot like when the ocean was first discovered, just because the Ancient Greeks couldn’t see the horizon doesn’t mean that it went on forever. However, much like you they assumed it, that they would fall off the edge of the Earth.

It’s true, there definitely are philosophical elements to this discussion, but only because things are unclear. However, it still does not rule out scientific fact and influence. I base my explanation on those. Definitive or not, beliefs still have an underlying explanation. Even if it is purely speculation.

I can’t really see it as a conclusion and I don’t know how you can take my words as that way. It’s a possibility, nothing more, nothing less. I simply find it more likely, based on scientific facts and evidence. This debate is about the Big Bang and if something was before or not. Yes, it’s inconclusive, but it still deals with facts, even if they are hazy. Scientists do not form a hypothesis out of the , they analyze first using known things. You cannot deny that this debate is in part factual.

Yes, AC. I see where you’re getting at, as I said previously. Congratulations, you know your examples. While the concept of immersing one’s self too deeply in their work or thought to be blind to the whole is not unheard of, as you have proven, the circumstances behind each case are different and are neither entirely irrelevant nor negligible.

I know that I’m a bit on the deep end here with the facts currently. It’s something that I can’t just ignore, though. That’s just me. In response to your suggestion, I do realize it probably would, but balancing fact and speculation isn’t just me. Still can’t see how one can trust their feelings when it comes to a scientific concept.

No, you’re missing my point; The facts that were used to explain my reasoning are irrefutable, it doesn’t make my belief so.

My choice of wording there was a slight parody of your post to me earlier, if that isn’t apparent. I don’t know why you see probability as either proven, 50/50, or none at all. How does less hard evidence on your part not make it any less possible? I can’t see how that works.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely. It's ignorant and pretentious to preach to me about how my belief doesn't make sense in general, because YOU don't get it. There are other people here who may disagree, but don't say it makes no sense. It's not a nonsensical belief, you just don't grasp it.
Yes, I said it didn’t make sense, but after I analyzed it using the facts that I have learned. It’s opinionated and you should be able to see that I wasn’t forming a sweeping generalization. It makes sense to you while it doesn’t to me, that’s it.

Where on Earth did you get that from? If I want to hear your side of the story, it implies neither insult nor ignorance on your part. I’m just inquisitive, that should be apparent by now. Last time I checked, curiosity was not a sin. You seem to see me as adamantly remaining on one side and refusing to budge. No, I absorb information and think on it. Which is why I ask you questions in the first place.

Yes, I respect that but I also assume that there must be a definite reasoning behind your belief. I’m not trying to drag you over the fence here, I’m trying to understand your point of view. I’m bringing your theory into a bit of an extreme diagnostic view (even if it’s overdoing it) here, finding things that contradict, which is why I disagree in the first place.

The evidence doesn’t amount to nothing, it amounts to educated guesses. Why is it you take that and presume different. I in fact think it leads to something, it’s just essentially a staircase leading up to a sealed door. I cannot give you conclusive proof no more than you can give me. It’s pretty much pushing on opposite sides of swivel doors. What I can do decisively here is to put your belief on the table, examine it best as I can, and give you a conclusion. I already have.

I’m not forcing you to remain if you really tire of my incessant questioning, but I feel like trying to understand it rather than being dismissed. No, I still don’t get why. You say that it is entirely my problem anyways, my obvious lack of perception on both fields. We’re not in a world of black and white here. I’ve admitted do lack open-mindedness in that regard, but it doesn’t mean I am entirely accountable for simply not understanding why.
Nothing accounts yet for your idiosyncratic comment regarding choice of beliefs. If you already accept my theory and reasoning as you say you do, then why did you say that it was ‘stupid’ and ‘dumb’ earlier on for people to believe other than your own ideas?

whats that theory where they say all of the continents used to be one?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
whats that theory where they say all of the continents used to be one?

Pangea/Pangaea

yeah. thats kinda far fetched, dont you think?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yeah. thats kinda far fetched, dont you think?

Actually the evidence is quite extensive.

Identical landforms on continents sperated by huge oceans. The continents actually do fit together rather well. There is evidence of contintental drift. Without the Pangea theory migrations of animals would have required hundreds of spontaneous landbridges between continents.

i know all the facts, the name just slipped my mind. it just seems a bit out there, you know? i guess there are stranger things out there than the idea of all continents once being one.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i know all the facts, the name just slipped my mind. it just seems a bit out there, you know? i guess there are stranger things out there than the idea of all continents once being one.

Its an odd concept yeah.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Prove it to the point that I cannot sit here and say "I disagree.".

-AC

That is not a thing to be proved, but I am not disagreeing with you. In the way it is defined in physics, a time before the Big Bang is not a empirical time. It is not a time that can be measured. Since science is empirical that time you´re talking about(if discovered) would be just something that appears in the equations, not a real time. Like virtual particles for example, they are interpreted more like being variables than like real particles.

But I agree that you can interpretate that time in another way to give it physical significance. There is nothing agaisnt it and its done many times by physicists.

Originally posted by DarkC
It neither is logical to assume something out of context when very little or obscure evidence supports it. Especially if it’s hard to disprove. If the facts add up, you simply cannot ignore that. And really, the same can be said for you.

Facts add up...to what? To saying something might have happened a certain way. Big deal, I accept that it might have happened that way, I'm simply saying I disagree, and I have given reasoning as to why. You simply do not understand that reasoning and that is why there are two posts for me to reply to.

Originally posted by DarkC
You’re right, I don’t understand why you hold such a belief because you have not once offered an explanation that is clear to me and makes me thoughtfully go “Oh, I see.” I live in the real world here, where fact is fact and speculation is speculation. I never once asked you to prove outright, I asked you to explain. It’s hard really for me, I admit it, to contemplate those things when little, if nothing, is known about them. How does that work? I don’t get it. Imagination does not create reality, at least not here.

So if you don't understand why, despite me telling you why, what's the point in asking me again and again? Do you think I have a wealth of explanations I'm hiding from you or something?

This all stems from your inability to just understand that I believe what I believe, and it is indeed a loose believe. No facts disprove it. My goal is not to offer an explanation that makes one kid with a lack of understanding believe or agree with me, or understand me for that matter. My goal was to say "You believe time didn't exist before the big bang because you believe there was nothing. I don't agree there, so we clearly don't see eye to eye.". You're still trying to tie down concepts you cannot do so.

You say it's hard to contemplate because so little is known, then DON'T. Stop thinking so hard. I don't sit here with masses of backing for what I believe here, but it's because we will always know so little, that I cannot agree there was nothing based on some things we DO know, which comparitively, isn't much.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, speculation can be enjoyable at times but it still doesn’t create reality. It creates a wide amount of possibilities, allows for thought and imagination to intermingle, but the fact remains, it cannot be so because one said it would be so. I have individual beliefs, not sure whether they’re significant enough to contribute to a sense of individuality but they are real, they’re just opposite of yours. I believe in a beginning and an end, fortunately science tends to agree with me. You believe in existence of infinity. That’s all I get.

Funny, because you are saying those scientists are correct because they say so. They are correct in saying we have reason to believe something happened a certain way, not that it DID happen. Do you not see what I'm saying?

Science agrees with you, so what? It's still science's opinion. That's all you get, precisely. That is literally all you get. You're assuming I have a flawed stance just because you have limited perception. Did you not consider that you don't get it because you don't understand, rather than, you don't get it because my stance is flawed? My stance is fine, it's perfectly fine, you just don't get it.

Originally posted by DarkC
I’ll admit I don’t like uncertainties, in the real world. It doesn’t make me comfortable to leave things unanswered. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with that.

But things WILL be unanswered, this is something you have to learn, accept, and deal with. Because it's serving no purpose here is it? Where are we going? You're the only one here who has trouble with anything I've said. Is that not ringing bells? I've actually debated with a scientist on this site who isn't as stiffly thoughtless as you are.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, but to an analytical mind such as mine, I like the details as I said. Your reasoning does have ambiguities in it, which I’m trying to make sense of. Almost? I’ve been suggesting things the whole time, it’s entirely up to you what to take them as.

Stop trying to suggest alternate beliefs for me, just because it'd be easier for you if I adopted them. This whole thing is because you lack understanding, and I respect the whole "I'm trying to learn.", that's good. That's better than most young teens, but you have to accept that everything has been said, the pieces are there, you simply don't understand my belief. Accept that and move on.

There have been people in the music forum who have said they think Scott Stapp of Creed is an amazing singer, just because they think so. Will I ever understand that? No. Scientists have a better chance of shitting a black hole, but do I press it? No, I can't. I simply do not understand why they would think that. The answer is, they just do.

Originally posted by DarkC
You seem to have taken what I’ve said there out of context; I was suggesting that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to actually find out if there is infinity. I was labeling the possibilities there, they are real.

No, you’re assuming that simply because you cannot see a limit that infinity exists. That sounds a lot like when the ocean was first discovered, just because the Ancient Greeks couldn’t see the horizon doesn’t mean that it went on forever. However, much like you they assumed it, that they would fall off the edge of the Earth.

I understand your point. Space doesn't have to be infinite just because we haven't the means to say "Here's where it ends.". Fair enough, I have understood that. My point is; if it is indeed infinite, we'll never find a boundary, so what are we to keep assuming? That there might be boundaries, no matter how obvious it seems that it's infinite?

Originally posted by DarkC
It’s true, there definitely are philosophical elements to this discussion, but only because things are unclear. However, it still does not rule out scientific fact and influence. I base my explanation on those. Definitive or not, beliefs still have an underlying explanation. Even if it is purely speculation.

Yes, and I've given you my explanation. You don't understand it, so you ask me again, I tell you again, you ask again. Drop the whole "I NEED ANSWERS!". It's not worth anything here. The first rule of science is working to find answers, not assuming there are answers.

Originally posted by DarkC
I can’t really see it as a conclusion and I don’t know how you can take my words as that way. It’s a possibility, nothing more, nothing less. I simply find it more likely, based on scientific facts and evidence. This debate is about the Big Bang and if something was before or not. Yes, it’s inconclusive, but it still deals with facts, even if they are hazy. Scientists do not form a hypothesis out of the , they analyze first using known things. You cannot deny that this debate is in part factual.

What's wrong with you? I'm not denying that part of the debate is factual, but it means nothing to me because it doesn't prove anything that brings us any closer to a conclusion. You find it more likely to believe what you do, fine, do it. I'm not seeing where you're having trouble any more.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, AC. I see where you’re getting at, as I said previously. Congratulations, you know your examples. While the concept of immersing one’s self too deeply in their work or thought to be blind to the whole is not unheard of, as you have proven, the circumstances behind each case are different and are neither entirely irrelevant nor negligible.

I know they're not irrelevant, that's why I used them as examples.

Originally posted by DarkC
I know that I’m a bit on the deep end here with the facts currently. It’s something that I can’t just ignore, though. That’s just me. In response to your suggestion, I do realize it probably would, but balancing fact and speculation isn’t just me. Still can’t see how one can trust their feelings when it comes to a scientific concept.

So just because you can't see how, that means it's not sensible? Sorry, but that's false.

I'm not sitting here disagreeing with fact. I see the facts, they are undeniable, but they do not prove ENOUGH for me to believe as you do. Essentially, you are trusting feelings too. All that evidence does is provide you with a bit more reason to make a leap of faith, it's still a leap of faith.

Originally posted by DarkC
My choice of wording there was a slight parody of your post to me earlier, if that isn’t apparent. I don’t know why you see probability as either proven, 50/50, or none at all. How does less hard evidence on your part not make it any less possible? I can’t see how that works.

Because those suggestions are "right"...NOW. Something could happen that entirely changes the way you think, the way scientists think, and one day they may look at that theory and say "Oh...hmm.".

So before I continue and reply to your next post, please, stop with the "I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR BELIEF!". I know you don't, I accept that you don't, it's time you accept it too. Others understand it, that is enough proof that you are the one not grasping it here.

-AC

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I said it didn’t make sense, but after I analyzed it using the facts that I have learned. It’s opinionated and you should be able to see that I wasn’t forming a sweeping generalization. It makes sense to you while it doesn’t to me, that’s it.

Exactly, it makes sense to me (And many others) but not to you. Now show me where you're having a dilemma with that.

Originally posted by DarkC
Where on Earth did you get that from? If I want to hear your side of the story, it implies neither insult nor ignorance on your part. I’m just inquisitive, that should be apparent by now. Last time I checked, curiosity was not a sin. You seem to see me as adamantly remaining on one side and refusing to budge. No, I absorb information and think on it. Which is why I ask you questions in the first place.

Like I said, I am glad you aren't some dullard who sits there without using your brain, but all I'm saying is that you do need to accept that science is a search for answers, not a guarantee in finding them. Be they personal or not.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, I respect that but I also assume that there must be a definite reasoning behind your belief. I’m not trying to drag you over the fence here, I’m trying to understand your point of view. I’m bringing your theory into a bit of an extreme diagnostic view (even if it’s overdoing it) here, finding things that contradict, which is why I disagree in the first place.

Why do you assume that? Definite in what sense? In your sense?

My belief does have a definite reasoning, that doesn't make it a specific one. Just accept this. You are finding things that contradict what, your theory? Well that's your problem. You simply don't accept that I have the freedom to believe what I do. As previously mentioned, we're both making leaps of faith. You're standing on a few facts and jumping toward a conclusion, I'm standing on beliefs and jumping toward one, we're both jumping, and neither of us are sure of if we're right or not.

Originally posted by DarkC
The evidence doesn’t amount to nothing, it amounts to educated guesses. Why is it you take that and presume different. I in fact think it leads to something, it’s just essentially a staircase leading up to a sealed door. I cannot give you conclusive proof no more than you can give me. It’s pretty much pushing on opposite sides of swivel doors. What I can do decisively here is to put your belief on the table, examine it best as I can, and give you a conclusion. I already have.

Educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless. That's all that need be said about that.

You're being to presumptuous. You've given me a conclusion? You don't have a right to give me a conclusion that you can't prove, or a conclusion that I don't believe. The fact of the matter is, you are trying to give me alternate choices, in hopes that I pick them over my current one. Why? Because you have such a hard time debating against someone who holds a belief your mind cannot comprehend. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but you've more or less said it.

Stop doing it. You don't get it, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, so just accept you don't get it. Other people here "get it".

Originally posted by DarkC
I’m not forcing you to remain if you really tire of my incessant questioning, but I feel like trying to understand it rather than being dismissed. No, I still don’t get why. You say that it is entirely my problem anyways, my obvious lack of perception on both fields. We’re not in a world of black and white here. I’ve admitted do lack open-mindedness in that regard, but it doesn’t mean I am entirely accountable for simply not understanding why.
Nothing accounts yet for your idiosyncratic comment regarding choice of beliefs. If you already accept my theory and reasoning as you say you do, then why did you say that it was ‘stupid’ and ‘dumb’ earlier on for people to believe other than your own ideas?

The more you try to find an answer you won't get, or get but don't understand, the closer you will get to being dismissed. Because all I'm doing is sitting here telling you why I believe what I do, so you can say "I don't understand, because what I believe doesn't coincide with what you do.". So what? It doesn't coincide. I'm not having nightmares over that, why can't you just accept it also?

It does mean you are entirely accountable for not understanding why, because people here understand why, even if they disagree.

I've accepted that you believe it, I haven't accepted it in any other way than that, as a whole. I think it's dumb to say "There was nothing, nope, not a thing." based on suggestions, however good the suggestions are. My belief is closer to "Whatever will be will be.", but in addition, I find it hard to believe there was nothing, I don't believe there was. I don't know that, but I can't be sure. I just tire of human arrogance assuming that because we get two things right, the third is definitely correct. That's not the case.

So as above, I'm more than willing to discuss the topic more with you, I enjoy talking about space, time etc, and you appear to be someone who is genuinely interested, but if it's going to be more pointless "I don't understand, I want to find out.", then stop.

-AC

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its an odd concept yeah.
it makes you wonder what the world will look like a million years from now, if it is even around.

Regarding continental drift...

It's really not that odd when you think about it. Ever eat chocolate pudding? You know the skin that forms on top? Think of that as one big continent floating on top of the warmer liquid underneath, just as Pangea used to float (and the continents still float) atop the liquid mantle underneath. The difference is that while the bottom of your dessert dish has no active, heat-generating core, the Earth does. The heat causes plumes of mantle to rise to the surface, pushing things apart, or forcing them together, wherein cooled rock then decends back down toward the Earth's core. A lava lamp would be another nice example of this action.

Everything moves, everything changes, but it's virtually impossible to see what planets and stars are doing on a human timescale.

To respect to what is being discussed about before the Big Bang. In string theory we can give a structure to the universe before Big Bang even if just a mathematical structure, that is done by Hawking too when he introduces the concept of imaginary time. But imaginary time is interpreted as a mathematical tool not as if there was really a "imaginary time". To give meaning to those structures we will have to say that these structures are more than just mathematical tools. WHat I think it makes sense since they are needed to describe reality, so they must be real in someway. Anyway what I am trying to say is that this is a philosophical question.



Originally posted by Mindship
Everything moves, everything changes, but it's virtually impossible to see what planets and stars are doing on a human timescale.

I agree but at least that is still "knowable".

Things get better when you are thinking in something before the Big Bang. I mean, before the Big Bang is not something measurable. It is like the strings in the string theory that some scientists believe to be more metaphysics than physics since those strings occur in a scale that is beyond the measurable scale, it is, the Planck´s lenght. So should we discard every thing that is not measurable even if its necessary for science to make sense, or are they can be real in some way ? I say that eventually science will have to deal directly with that question, they already have to.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
So should we discard every thing that is not measurable even if its necessary for science to make sense, or are they can be real in some way ? I vote for real in some way, as "immeasurable" does not necessarily mean "unreal." But when speculation outpaces experimentation, then we need to proceed carefully, mindful of our untested ideas, however "beautiful" they may appear.

Originally posted by Mindship
I vote for real in some way, as "immeasurable" does not necessarily mean "unreal." But when speculation outpaces experimentation, then we need to proceed carefully, mindful of our untested ideas, however "beautiful" they may appear.

I agree, immeasurable does not necessarily mean unreal, so I vote for real in some way too. A bit off-topic but that is what I think Bohm was thinking when he defined his 'implicate order' in his interpretation of quantum mechanics. He used that to say that there were hidden variables but that they were implicate instead of inexistent.

Originally posted by Mindship
I vote for real in some way, as "immeasurable" does not necessarily mean "unreal." But when speculation outpaces experimentation, then we need to proceed carefully, mindful of our untested ideas, however "beautiful" they may appear.

Originally posted by leonidas
gotta be careful with that line of thinking . . .

galileo and st augustine may disagree with you.

One of which is a TOTAL Moron !

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I always maintained the idea that space was infinite, because time is.

If the universe began at a definitive point in time, there was obviously something before.

-AC

I disagree with the notion of time being Infinite ! Time doesn't exist when there is no matter. Time is a consequence of entropy effects on light. These effects no longer occur inside a Black hole where Time is predicted to be frozen.

Originally posted by Donkey Punch
One of which is a TOTAL Moron !

and yet still a suitable example.

Originally posted by Donkey Punch
I disagree with the notion of time being Infinite ! Time doesn't exist when there is no matter. Time is a consequence of entropy effects on light. These effects no longer occur inside a Black hole where Time is predicted to be frozen.

Predicted to be frozen from an outside observer. The actual person experiencing it moves as if time was flowing naturally. If you mean the center of it, well, then it's only a prediction.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They can't prove nothing existed, and as a result, I don't believe it's true.

That sentence at a stroke totally destoryed your credibility. One of the most basic principles of science is that it is not its job to prove people's random beliefs wrong.

Not that it was necessary to destroy your credibility, though, with a clueless amateur like you dismissing the views of people eminently more qualified and competent to speak on the matter.

Frankly, your opinion there doesn't mean shit.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That sentence at a stroke totally destoryed your credibility.

To whom? You? Woe betide, mine life hath screeched to a halt, or in simple terms:

"Frankly, your opinion there doesn't mean shit.".

Originally posted by Ushgarak
One of the most basic principles of science is that it is not its job to prove people's random beliefs wrong.

The fact that it hasn't proven my random belief wrong is the point, though. It has proven, quite clearly; possibilities. Many things are possible, doesn't necessarily mean we have to believe them does it?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not that it was necessary to destroy your credibility, though, with a clueless amateur like you dismissing the views of people eminently more qualified and competent to speak on the matter.

Frankly, your opinion there doesn't mean shit.

Hold on there, R-ush (Cos you rushed into it, sounds similar and that).

I didn't dismiss anyone's views. I said I disagree. I have no problem with anybody holding an opposing view to me here, nothing DarkC has said about proven suggestions is incorrect, I said that we both hold beliefs that cannot be proven. His has suggestions, so what? As I said before, we both take leaps of faith. He has been given a few breadcrumbs and is making the leap, I'm making the leap anyway.

The fact of the matter is that I have openly admitted there are people better qualified to speak on it than I am, so you coming in here with that pretentious, old and bitter school principal attitude, trying to spank me on the wrist with a ruler for saying things in a manner you dislike, is for nothing. You wanted to come in here and blast me for not having any proof didn't you? Then you realised I never claimed to, and that it was, indeed, just a personal belief. Thus unintentionally stealing any thunder you had.

Calm down next time.

-AC

To who? To ANY reasonable scientist, who knows this basic rule- you do not prove negatives. You prove things positive. If you don't know that, you shouldn't even be taking part in any thread remotely connected with science.

Hence it not having proved you wrong is not the point. What very much IS the point that your statement that it is somehow impossible for there to be a beginning to time is utter nonsense. It is in fact entirely possible (or at least feasible), so your broad declaration of such an idea being definitely wrong is utter hogwash backed by no evidence at all. If you want to knock down the idea of time hving a beginning- and the Big ban being it- put forward some evidence to support your view, or falsify a working theory already advanced in that area. Your argument boils down to "I don't understand how it would work so it must be wrong." The kind of wisdom from the dark ages, not a scientific world.

If my attitude is bitter, it is because your approach is the same as religious fantatics who deny established scientific areas. That always makes me bitter because it is so very very stupid. And your attacks on scientists in your posts rather put the lie to your attempts to sound innocent.

Your belief is worth nothing against the work of proper science.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
To who? To ANY reasonable scientist, who knows this basic rule- you do not prove negatives. You prove things positive. If you don't know that, you shouldn't even be taking part in any thread remotely connected with science.

A) You're not any reasonable scientist, you're a literacy teacher from Chelmsford. There are people far more qualified to tell me I've lost credibility than you, so in that event; Let a scientist come and tell me I'm wrong, and I will say "Fine, I accept you believe that.". There are people massively qualified in science who probably agree with me.

B) Now what's been proven positive? That there was nothing before the big bang?

Go on. Try and finish the question and see what you find.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hence it not having proved you wrong is not the point. What very much IS the point that your statement that it is somehow impossible for there to be a beginning to time is utter nonsense. It is in fact entirely possible, so your broad declaration of such an idea being deinitely wrong is utter hogwash backed by no evidence at all.

Hmm? It's possible for there to be a beginning to time if there was nothing before, but that's only if you be