Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?

What are the modern scientific views about the origin of the universe and what really happened before the big bang?

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans75.htm
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/origin_of_the_world.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_beliefs_of_the_origins_of_the_univers e_in_Taoism

There is a lot of speculation about what happened before the big bang and the big bang itself. Science starts after the big bang.

There's been speculation and theories about the origins of the universe and one that I remember was the multi verse theory.

M-theory

See also: Introduction to M-theory, M-theory, Brane cosmology, and String theory landscape

A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the multi-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory, also known as Membrane Theory. In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the observer); each universe takes the form of a D-brane. Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes.This is unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts can operate at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#M-theory

Emphatically – NO! Why? I have just watched, recorded, a prog by Stephen Hawkings, supreme cosmologist and physicist on the Universe and its origins, and it proves beyond any doubt that it would have been impossible for a god to have created the Universe. To sum it all up in a few sentences.

The Universe came literally from nothing. In the Universe negative matter exactly equates to positive matter eg: -10 + +10 = 0 (zero). This matter exists, fact.

Religious people argue that nothing can come from nothing – true – to a point. The analogy used was a cup of coffee; you can create a cup of coffee but only from other matter. But if you look at this other matter sub atomically, protons come into existence – from nothing – and just as easily vanish again, and this happens daily, everywhere. Something, from nothing!

Time is also a creation of the big bang – before the big bang, there was no universe, no time. A god could not have created a universe because before the Universe there really was nothing -no time, nothing.

If you throw a clock at a black hole, and assuming the clock can withstand the tremendous forces of gravity, then at a given point, the clock would stop because there is no time in a black hole.

Stephen Hawking apologised to viewers for stamping on their beliefs, and agreed that people should believe what they wanted BUT I do not agree as we should all be allowed to speak our minds freely otherwise knowledge and belief actually die.

Around 300BC Aristarchus, a Greek philosopher, was looking at the heavens and made a monumental decision – the moon was going around the Earth. From this he deduced that the lunar eclipse was the shadow of the Earth on the moon; ergo – the Earth goes around the SUN! He came then to the logical conclusion that the Earth went around the Sun. And then, to give birth to astronomy, he deduced that the stars were not pin pricks in the heavens but each one was an individual Sun but ‘a long long way away’. The man was right all along. But of course, as we all know later on in history, the Church cruelly suppressed all talk of science.

Interestingly Pope John XXI was so worried about the explanations coming out of certain quarters about the irrevocable Laws of Nature that he declared them heracy. Later that year, the laws of nature got their revenge – the ceiling of the palace fell on him!!

Interestingly Pope John XXI was so worried about the explanations coming out of certain quarters about the irrevocable Laws of Nature that he declared them heracy. Later that year, the laws of nature got their revenge – the ceiling of the palace fell on him!!
Who is the superstitious one now Red Devil?:rolleyes:

The Universe comes from nothing, but the word nothing has two meanings in English. It can mean zero, and it can mean nothing at all. Zero however can be made from something. In fact zero can be made in lots of ways, but you have to start the Universe from the simplest form of zero. The simplest form of zero that you can start the Universe from is +1 + -1.

You have to remember that zero was not considered as a credible value for hundreds of years. Most scientists would not allow zero in the past. But when you have +1 + -1 you have basically two ingredients creating zero. If two ingredients make zero then matter, and anti-matter are easy to allow. The mechanism for allowing something from nothing is actually a mechanism that explains nothing in a new light. That nothing doesn't exist, and that zero only exists from two opposing forces.

There are a few more rules to apply to this scenario, but the rest of the rules were not discussed by Stephen Hawking who's theory was actually posted by me many years ago. I probably am not allowed therefore to discuss the rules that Stephen Hawking didn't discuss.

Who is the superstitious one now Red Devil?:rolleyes:

Who? Me? No! Cross my heart! :D

Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?

What are the modern scientific views about the origin of the universe and what really happened before the big bang?


Both are correct.

The Universe comes from nothing, but the word nothing has two meanings in English. It can mean zero, and it can mean nothing at all. Zero however can be made from something. In fact zero can be made in lots of ways, but you have to start the Universe from the simplest form of zero. The simplest form of zero that you can start the Universe from is +1 + -1.

You have to remember that zero was not considered as a credible value for hundreds of years. Most scientists would not allow zero in the past. But when you have +1 + -1 you have basically two ingredients creating zero. If two ingredients make zero then matter, and anti-matter are easy to allow. The mechanism for allowing something from nothing is actually a mechanism that explains nothing in a new light. That nothing doesn't exist, and that zero only exists from two opposing forces.

There are a few more rules to apply to this scenario, but the rest of the rules were not discussed by Stephen Hawking who's theory was actually posted by me many years ago. I probably am not allowed therefore to discuss the rules that Stephen Hawking didn't discuss.
But as I said yesterday I don't believe it is just sufficient to say 1 + -1 are the two parts of the universe even if you are right. For it is a matter as I did when I typed them or what ever form you make the thing plus the anti-thing, to show their reality you have to conscientiously have to separate them.
Make an igloo, cut the ice but don't stack the blocks you have nothing.
Dig a hole but allow the stuff to fall back in you won't get far.
And if you just thought of 1 + -1 and put them together you would have nothing.
The secret is keeping them apart. The Antimatter and the matter are in the stuff we call matter (I used to call the stuff we see Splatter) but cunningly held apart. Rearrange the bits and you get so called Antimatter
but it is more like anti-splatter.
So can you do maths where 1 and -1 are never simplified.
Where does science say the Antimatter disappeared to at the beginning of the Big Bang. I don't hear much about it any more.:)

But as I said yesterday I don't believe it is just sufficient to say 1 + -1 are the two parts of the universe even if you are right. For it is a matter as I did when I typed them or what ever form you make the thing plus the anti-thing, to show their reality you have to conscientiously have to separate them.
Make an igloo, cut the ice but don't stack the blocks you have nothing.
Dig a hole but allow the stuff to fall back in you won't get far.
And if you just thought of 1 + -1 and put them together you would have nothing.
The secret is keeping them apart. The Antimatter and the matter are in the stuff we call matter (I used to call the stuff we see Splatter) but cunningly held apart. Rearrange the bits and you get so called Antimatter
but it is more like anti-splatter.
So can you do maths where 1 and -1 are never simplified.
Where does science say the Antimatter disappeared to at the beginning of the Big Bang. I don't hear much about it any more.:)

How you create +1 + -1 depends on your model. I scale them like bubbles being blown through a hole. I mean, the full theory depends on the model. I don't have a Big Bang in my model, so I don't have the anti-matter problem.

How you create +1 + -1 depends on your model. I scale them like bubbles being blown through a hole. I mean, the full theory depends on the model. I don't have a Big Bang in my model, so I don't have the anti-matter problem.Where does the whole come from? Is there a movement of stuff through the hole? How does that move, when there is nothing to move it?
I like what you say but I am looking for the answer as well.:confused:

Where does the whole come from? Is there a movement of stuff through the hole? How does that move, when there is nothing to move it?
I like what you say but I am looking for the answer as well.:confused:

It doesn't move it scales. Size is relative. A tennis ball is bigger than an egg, but you are comparing two things. If the Universe just contained a tennis ball how big would it be? The first particles can be any size, because there is nothing to compare them to. So scaling them up doesn't actually mean anything. If they add up to zero, you are scaling up zero, and that doesn't really require energy.

Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?

What are the modern scientific views about the origin of the universe and what really happened before the big bang?

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans75.htm
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/origin_of_the_world.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_beliefs_of_the_origins_of_the_univers e_in_Taoism


Always people talk about unreachable things , Why not first solve the Earth then lets understand Galaxy , in the mean time we are Bsed with dark matter and dark energy around galaxy.

Always people talk about unreachable things , Why not first solve the Earth then lets understand Galaxy , in the mean time we are Bsed with dark matter and dark energy around galaxy.

Actually, it is because science started with the Earth that we are Bsed with dark matter and dark energy around galaxy. If you start at the beginning you can figure out what dark matter and dark energy really are.

Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?


Both statements appear to me to be equivalent and true.

Assuming a Big Bang Singularity there is only a horizon at which spacetime converges, which is nothing.

To converge, whether doing so in the positive or negative sense, is to never arrive, over infinity, so this appears to mean there is neither a beginning nor an end.

Actually, it is because science started with the Earth that we are Bsed with dark matter and dark energy around galaxy. If you start at the beginning you can figure out what dark matter and dark energy really are.


Don't you think we selected the beginning and call it time zero

Both statements appear to me to be equivalent and true.

Assuming a Big Bang Singularity there is only a horizon at which spacetime converges, which is nothing.

To converge, whether doing so in the positive or negative sense, is to never arrive, over infinity, so this appears to mean there is neither a beginning nor an end.Would you really be able to say this with conviction. If the Universe started as a virtual particle of some scale it had to be a rather large scaled one compared to the virtual particle seen in the labs. Even if you say there was nothing to scale it against, well that is so, just for the minutest second, for immediately after every virtual particle was just insignificant compared to Energy level the first one.:)

Don't you think we selected the beginning and call it time zero

Well, that's what you are supposed to do.

Would you really be able to say this with conviction. If the Universe started as a virtual particle of some scale it had to be a rather large scaled one compared to the virtual particle seen in the labs. Even if you say there was nothing to scale it against, well that is so, just for the minutest second, for immediately after every virtual particle was just insignificant compared to Energy level the first one.:)

Wrong quote you used Aqueous Id's quote, but anyway...

I need to be careful not to move into my personal theory which is slightly different to the reply that I am allowed to use. I am allowed to use some of my own theory because Hawking's used some of it.

So the simple version is that..

The first particle equals zero but has no fixed relative scale.
An infinite number of zero is still zero.

Then science has the singularity, and the big bang, and my theory diverges.

Wrong quote you used Aqueous Id's quote, but anyway...

I need to be careful not to move into my personal theory which is slightly different to the reply that I am allowed to use. I am allowed to use some of my own theory because Hawking's used some of it.

So the simple version is that..

The first particle equals zero but has no fixed relative scale.
An infinite number of zero is still zero.

Then science has the singularity, and the big bang, and my theory diverges.
So have you discussed your personal theory on any thread previously? I know that the Physforum is basically unmoderated so anything can be said there. You just got to accept the abuse, but you don't get threads pulled or locked etc.
The whole topic is so theoretical I really can't see how one idea dominates.
Last week on I watch a video on Multiverse and the Stephen hawking on on the origin of the Universe. Is that two ideas? Completely at odds with each other for in the multiverse concept the start of each separate Universe was independent of others, but all popping off independently, so there didn't seem to any time you could say there was nothing before as there had been whole Universes come and go before our own.
The whole thing has left me feeling no one really knows. And then you are too afraid to offer your idea! It can't be as odd as the Multiverse Concept surely!

So have you discussed your personal theory on any thread previously? I know that the Physforum is basically unmoderated so anything can be said there. You just got to accept the abuse, but you don't get threads pulled or locked etc.
The whole topic is so theoretical I really can't see how one idea dominates.
Last week on I watch a video on Multiverse and the Stephen hawking on on the origin of the Universe. Is that two ideas? Completely at odds with each other for in the multiverse concept the start of each separate Universe was independent of others, but all popping off independently, so there didn't seem to any time you could say there was nothing before as there had been whole Universes come and go before our own.
The whole thing has left me feeling no one really knows. And then you are too afraid to offer your idea! It can't be as odd as the Multiverse Concept surely!

My theory is posted everywhere. Some of it got deleted. You might struggle with it though if only Stephen Hawking can understand it.

If a Universe adds up to zero total, then having lots of Universe still adds up to zero total. So far 4 pressure points have been located in the Cosmic Background, which could identify 4 other Universe. My theory predicts 6 next to us, or 12 if Universe line up in 3D. They should all have the same physics, but I think that science currently doesn't know.

@Pincho All I know was what was revealed in a dream. I was studying the string theory and obviously loss with all the new things to get my head around. The dream said Science can see the 11 dimensions of the universe but there are 12 dimensions. God put the Energy into the Universe and that is the twelfth dimension, the "Putting in".
Now that still doesn't help me much but I see they are still saying 11 dimensions in the string Theory. Can you use that in your theory?

@Pincho All I know was what was revealed in a dream. I was studying the string theory and obviously loss with all the new things to get my head around. The dream said Science can see the 11 dimensions of the universe but there are 12 dimensions. God put the Energy into the Universe and that is the twelfth dimension, the "Putting in".
Now that still doesn't help me much but I see they are still saying 11 dimensions in the string Theory. Can you use that in your theory?

We are in a science room. I am basing my explanation on Newton's kissing problem. I am not allowed to add more than science.

We are in a science room. I am basing my explanation on Newton's kissing problem. I am not allowed to add more than science.Well I've never heard of Newton's kissing problem.:)

Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?

You are asking a question that nobody on Earth knows the answer to; however, to date nobody has ever observed *nothing* (i.e. an absence of everything/anything) to be real.



What are the modern scientific views about the origin of the universe and what really happened before the big bang?

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans75.htm
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/origin_of_the_world.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_beliefs_of_the_origins_of_the_univers e_in_Taoism

Those are not scientific views. They theological make-believe.

You are asking a question that nobody on Earth knows the answer to; however, to date nobody has ever observed *nothing* (i.e. an absence of everything/anything) to be real.



Those are not scientific views. They theological make-believe.


I should have posted this link, go to 23 minutes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

One theory for the creation of the universe is to begin with only a speed of light or C reference. The speed of light is the same for all references. This is the one consistency in the universe that is absolute. Why not use the only consistent reference to begin the universe?

Since mass cannot travel at C, if we only had a C reference to begin, there could not yet be mass in the universe, since mass cannot go at C. This is time=0, before the primordial atom appears as mass/energy.

Say we had a rocket ship moving say 75% C. If we slowed it down to zero velocity, energy would be released, such as kinetic energy into brake heat. As such, going from the ground state C reference to less than C, so mass becomes possible, will result in the release of a lot of energy; brake heat. This brake heat is the source of energy needed to create the primordial atom. With this new reference less than C, mass is now also possible. Now we have the primordial atom from C.

Since the universe of primordial atom is finite, we did not use up all the potential energy in C. Since C was the original state or the original ground state of the universe, the finite universe that formed would create a potential with the universal C reference. The universe will need to evolve in ways that can lower this potential so it can head back to C reference.

This is movement is observed in the universe. Mass to energy conversion, such as from fusion, moves mass back to C as energy. Gravity causes space-time to contract in the direction of the reference C; peaks at the black hole. Even an expanding universe is using SR heading in the direction of C; v increases. All forces interact at the speed of light, to name few things.

That being said, the direction of the BB singularity should reflect the finite universe trying to move back to C. The BB can't go directly back to C reference, once mass appears, since mass is locked out of C. This will require infinite energy, which is not in the finite universe. Instead the finite universe needs to use a different path, via the laws of physics, so it can indirectly move back to C.

Some of the paths were described above, such as GR, SR, forces, etc. The BB event reflects the beginning of the backdoor approach, on the way back to C, due to the potential between C and finite.

Well that's totally meaningless.

I should have posted this link, go to 23 minutes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

It's irrelevant to what I stated.

It's irrelevant to what I stated.

It's very relevant, because you stated that nobody knows, however Hawking uses maths. Maths is the only way to work with zero, because you can't suck everything out of the Universe. If you don't think that maths is relevant, then you will never get any proof of how to work with zero.

It's very relevant, because you stated that nobody knows, however Hawking uses maths. Maths is the only way to work with zero, because you can't suck everything out of the Universe. If you don't think that maths is relevant, then you will never get any proof of how to work with zero.

Um... Stephen Hawking has a theory (just as there are many theories of the universe and / or reality). He does not *know*.

Um... Stephen Hawking has a theory (just as there are many theories of the universe and / or reality). He does not *know*.

It is proved in the fact that you can't start a Universe from nothing. That's the proof. You need two things to create nothing. It is a mathematical, and logical proof.

It is proved in the fact that you can't start a Universe from nothing. That's the proof. You need two things to create nothing. It is a mathematical, and logical proof.

Not even hawking posits the existence of objective *nothing* (I.e. an absence of everything and anything). He at the very least always relies on "laws of nature" to be preset. Regardless, there are no other theories of the universe or reality that posit the existence of objective *nothing* either (at least not that I am aware of). None of them are "proven"... none of them and to claim otherwise is simply a blatant lie.

It is proved in the fact that you can't start a Universe from nothing. That's the proof. You need two things to create nothing. It is a mathematical, and logical proof.
So you have no problem believing in the miracles of Jesus then, for you have no problem with creating something from nothing? I struggle with the whole concept, of the Universe from Nothing.:)

Not even hawking posits the existence of objective *nothing* (I.e. an absence of everything and anything). He at the very least always relies on "laws of nature" to be preset. Regardless, there are no other theories of the universe or reality that posit the existence of objective *nothing* either (at least not that I am aware of). None of them are "proven"... none of them and to claim otherwise is simply a blatant lie.

What you just posted is the proof. Don't you understand? Nothing is two things opposed.

(I.e. an absence of everything and anything)... doesn't exist.

So when you said... "Nobody Knows" You are now saying that you know.

You even said 'Blatant lie.' Which not only suggests that you know, but it suggests that you will get angry at anyone who doesn't say so.

So you have no problem believing in the miracles of Jesus then, for you have no problem with creating something from nothing? I struggle with the whole concept, of the Universe from Nothing.:)

I said you can't start a universe from nothing, because nothing is two things combined to create zero.

What you just posted is the proof. Don't you understand? Nothing is two things opposed.

It's not surprising that you don't understand what proof actually is. It is a demonstration that something is true and accounts for every possible variable. What I posted is not proof... it's not even really evidence of anything. *Nothing* (at least objective nothing) is an absence of everything and anything. It is a human concept but at present has no known correspondence to actual reality.



(I.e. an absence of everything and anything)... doesn't exist.

Holy cow holy cow! This may be your first correct statement... ever! Yes, *nothing* doesn't appear to be anything more than a human made concept (i.e. it is not a real entity in actual reality).



So when you said... "Nobody Knows" You are now saying that you know.

Your "logic" makes no sense of course. Stating that "nobody knows" the origin of the universe points out a very well-known limitation of modern human knowledge. That is why there are several theories and not just a single correct model.



You even said 'Blatant lie.' Which not only suggests that you know, but it suggests that you will get angry at anyone who doesn't say so.

The blatent lie is claiming a current theory of the universe / reality as being proven. You should always expect people being angry at you for lying... and you should expect an absence of trust, respect, and credibility as well.

It is proved in the fact that you can't start a Universe from nothing. That's the proof. You need two things to create nothing. It is a mathematical, and logical proof.
Sorry about that Pincho for I thought for a moment you had used "can't" when you really meant "can".

So now we have cleared that up you say you can't create the Universe from nothing.
Two opposing mathematical values will cancel each other out and you end up with zero.
But in the physical world a positron and electron annihilate each other but it does result in nothing, and I cant think of a situation where two opposites add to absolutely nothing.
So if the Universe can't be made from nothing am I right in saying it was made from something, then where do you get the "something" from.

And if you say the "something" came from nothing you are still stuck.:)

It's not surprising that you don't understand what proof actually is. It is a demonstration that something is true and accounts for every possible variable. What I posted is not proof... it's not even really evidence of anything. *Nothing* (at least objective nothing) is an absence of everything and anything. It is a human concept but at present has no known correspondence to actual reality.



Holy cow holy cow! This may be your first correct statement... ever! Yes, *nothing* doesn't appear to be anything more than a human made concept (i.e. it is not a real entity in actual reality).



Your "logic" makes no sense of course. Stating that "nobody knows" the origin of the universe points out a very well-known limitation of modern human knowledge. That is why there are several theories and not just a single correct model.



The blatent lie is claiming a current theory of the universe / reality as being proven. You should always expect people being angry at you for lying... and you should expect an absence of trust, respect, and credibility as well.

In red means that YOU KNOW. Therefore when you said NOBODY KNOWS.. you were wrong!!! You used the word 'correct'... so that means you KNOW.

I am posting about you saying that NOBODY KNOWS. Not what you are arguing about.

Let me remind you what you said....


You are asking a question that nobody on Earth knows the answer to; however, to date nobody has ever observed *nothing* (i.e. an absence of everything/anything) to be real.

Yet you are arguing about your own comment, and saying "Holy Cow CORRECT!!!"

We both say that nothing doesn't exist, yet you allowed it to exist by saying NOBODY KNOWS. Which means you think that nothing could exist.

Now do you understand?

Sorry about that Pincho for I thought for a moment you had used "can't" when you really meant "can".

So now we have cleared that up you say you can't create the Universe from nothing.
Two opposing mathematical values will cancel each other out and you end up with zero.
But in the physical world a positron and electron annihilate each other but it does result in nothing, and I cant think of a situation where two opposites add to absolutely nothing.
So if the Universe can't be made from nothing am I right in saying it was made from something, then where do you get the "something" from.

And if you say the "something" came from nothing you are still stuck.:)

Like Stephen Hawking said "It is hard to understand."

You don't need to think about it, all you have to do is read the maths..

+1 + -1 = 0

Like Stephen Hawking said "It is hard to understand."

You don't need to think about it, all you have to do is read the maths..

+1 + -1 = 0I doubt if the Universe can just be reduced to a maths equation. These unit-less numbers can't be the whole answer. :)
But carry on.:)

Why has this bullshit not been consigned to the Cesspool yet?

Why has this bullshit not been consigned to the Cesspool yet?

You would consign Stephen Hawking to the cesspool?

In red means that YOU KNOW. Therefore when you said NOBODY KNOWS.. you were wrong!!! You used the word 'correct'... so that means you KNOW.

I am posting about you saying that NOBODY KNOWS. Not what you are arguing about.

Let me remind you what you said....



Yet you are arguing about your own comment, and saying "Holy Cow CORRECT!!!"

We both say that nothing doesn't exist, yet you allowed it to exist by saying NOBODY KNOWS. Which means you think that nothing could exist.

Now do you understand?

You have completely missed the verbiage that I used. I said that *nothing* doesn't APPEAR to be anything more than a human-made concept. I did not CLAIM that *nothing* does or does not objectively exist. While I certainly don't think an absence of everything / anything could exist, I am issuing zero claim about it.

The opening poster asked this specific question: "Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?". The correct answer is in fact nobody knows (not just that, the opening poster positions the question as an -OR- question and it's by no means certain that those are the only choices). To know the answer means you have knowledge about the universe / reality that would greatly trump the sum of all scientific knowledge to date. You in particular (nor any other well established crackpot pseudoscientist) do not posess such knowledge.

You have completely missed the verbiage that I used. I said that *nothing* doesn't APPEAR to be anything more than a human-made concept. I did not CLAIM that *nothing* does or does not objectively exist. While I certainly don't think an absence of everything / anything could exist, I am issuing zero claim about it.

The opening poster asked this specific question: "Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?". The correct answer is in fact nobody knows (not just that, the opening poster positions the question as an -OR- question and it's by no means certain that those are the only choices). To know the answer means you have knowledge about the universe / reality that would greatly trump the sum of all scientific knowledge to date. You in particular (nor any other well established crackpot pseudoscientist) do not posess such knowledge.

So why did you say it was the first correct thing that I had said then? You have been arguing with yourself all night on here. So now you think that NOTHING could exist?

You would consign Stephen Hawking to the cesspool?
Hawking doesn't post bullshit the way you and Robbitybob1 do.
Specious argument.

Why has this bullshit not been consigned to the Cesspool yet?
It is a fair dinkum debate, so what is wrong with it?:)

Hawking doesn't post bullshit the way you and Robbitybob1 do.
Specious argument.

He said exactly what I posted. +1 +-1 = 0. Those exact words. He is now using some of my theory, so I can use it too.

Watch from 23 minutes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

See I told you I was a genius, and I told you that science would have to end up with my theory in the end. :D

So why did you say it was the first correct thing that I had said then? You have been arguing with yourself all night on here. So now you think that NOTHING could exist?

What I stated was "This MAY be your first correct statement... ". I personally don't think that *nothing* can exist, but that is an opinion.

Hawking doesn't post bullshit the way you and Robbitybob1 do.
Specious argument.I looked up the definition specious argument - "an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious"

Well you have the opportunity to falsify the arguments - come on instead of just complaining.:)

It is a fair dinkum debate, so what is wrong with it?:)
Fair dinkum?
Only if you're braindead (Pincho qualifies, you're getting there).



He said exactly what I posted. +1 +-1 = 0. Those exact words.
That would be a lie.

I looked up the definition specious argument - "an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious"

Well you have the opportunity to falsify the arguments - come on instead of just complaining.:)
Try reading what I wrote: Pincho's "conclusion" that I want to consign Hawking to the Cesspool is specious, since that's not what I stated. :rolleyes:

What I stated was "This MAY be your first correct statement... ". I personally don't think that *nothing* can exist, but that is an opinion.

Let me just fix that for you, you said...


Holy cow holy cow! This may be your first correct statement... ever! Yes, *nothing* doesn't appear to be anything more than a human made concept (i.e. it is not a real entity in actual reality).

Fair dinkum?
Only if you're braindead (Pincho qualifies, you're getting there).



That would be a lie.

Watch the video then. He even digs a hole the same as I build an igloo.

Watch the video then.
Watched it.
And you're twisting the statement.
But that's to be expected since you're clueless on actual science.

Let me just fix that for you, you said...

Which is completely consistent with my last few responses... I could highlight specific words to prove the point but would it really do you any good?

Which is completely consistent with my last few responses... I could highlight specific words to prove the point but would it really do you any good?

You could stop arguing with yourself?

I said you can't start a universe from nothing, because nothing is two things combined to create zero.
Zero times Zero also equals Zero. Zero is zero, Plus Zero minus zero is also zero. :)

Or you could learn to read...

Watched it.
And you're twisting the statement.
But that's to be expected since you're clueless on actual science.

yeah. The science which I posted, and now Stephen Hawking is using. The same science which last year you were posting...

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong

You could stop arguing with yourself?

Stangely, the bulk of what I am quoting in this thread are your statements. Maybe you don't quite fully comprehend what constitutes an argument... or a participant.

yeah. The science which I posted, and now Stephen Hawking is using.
You didn't post any science1, and what you posted is not what Hawking is "using".

1 You never do.

You didn't post any science1, and what you posted is not what Hawking is "using".

1 You never do.

So you don't remember me posting about how you dig a hole to build an igloo, and the hole is the opposite of the igloo, and is negative mass.

Stephen Hawking

You dig a hole to build a hill, and the hole is the negative energy of the hill.

You don't see a similarity?

you're clueless on actual science.

It is hard to introduce actual science into a discussion of the origins of the universe, apart from introducing one or more of the models for creation that are all mostly purely speculative.

I propose that this thread confine itself to any Science of relevance. I offer two: (1) Big Bang Singularity and (2) relativity. Assuming these to be "the way it was", one can hypothesize or deduce the following;

1. The BBS creates time and space.
2. The BBS therefore lies outside of time and space.
3. The BBS is therefore an eternal point.
4. This eternal point coincides with the ever-expanding envelope of the universe.
5. Without insult to Dr. Who, the universe is bigger on the inside than on the outside. Infinitely so.
6. Every other singularity can be idealized as an eternal point.
7. All such idealized singularities: black holes, galactic cores, and the quantum black holes hypothesized at the cores of strings, would necessarily lie beyond spacetime.
8. "Beyond spacetime" is equivalent to the BBS, thus all singularities are in eternal and dimensionless superposition with the BBS.

Inference:

Looking back, there is no beginning, just an asymptotic approach toward the singularity itself, which is eternal.

Conclusion:

Buddha appears to agree with this model.

So you don't remember me posting about how you dig a hole to build an igloo, and the hole is the opposite of the igloo, and is negative mass.

Stephen Hawking

You dig a hole to build a hill, and the hole is the negative energy of the hill.

You don't see a similarity?I can see the similarity, but as I said in both cases I also saw a man doing the hard work providing the energy to get the potential difference between the positive and the negative values. It never just happens on its own.
I appreciate there are virtual particles but nothing on the scale of the Universe.:)

I found one of my posts 1/3/2011 from March...

http://www.avforums.com/forums/14174435-post250.html

It is hard to introduce actual science into a discussion of the origins of the universe, apart from introducing one or more of the models for creation that are all mostly purely speculative.

I propose that this thread confine itself to any Science of relevance. I offer two: (1) Big Bang Singularity and (2) relativity. Assuming these to be "the way it was", one can hypothesize or deduce the following;

1. The BBS creates time and space.
2. The BBS therefore lies outside of time and space.
3. The BBS is therefore an eternal point.
4. This eternal point coincides with the ever-expanding envelope of the universe.
5. Without insult to Dr. Who, the universe is bigger on the inside than on the outside. Infinitely so.
6. Every other singularity can be idealized as an eternal point.
7. All such idealized singularities: black holes, galactic cores, and the quantum black holes hypothesized at the cores of strings, would necessarily lie beyond spacetime.
8. "Beyond spacetime" is equivalent to the BBS, thus all singularities are in eternal and dimensionless superposition with the BBS.

Inference:

Looking back, there is no beginning, just an asymptotic approach toward the singularity itself, which is eternal.

Conclusion:

Buddha appears to agree with this model.

Being as we are discussing something from nothing, and being as Hawking used almost an exact copy of my igloo, I can use it.

I can see the similarity, but as I said in both cases I also saw a man doing the hard work providing the energy to get the potential difference between the positive and the negative values. It never just happens on its own.
I appreciate there are virtual particles but nothing on the scale of the Universe.:)

Infinite particles of energy that equal zero still equal zero, it doesn't matter how many you have.

I found one of my posts 1/3/2011 from March...

http://www.avforums.com/forums/14174435-post250.htmlHave your views changed from when you wrote that thread?:)

Infinite particles of energy that equal zero still equal zero, it doesn't matter how many you have.There is no reason why that would happen. What is the reason that would happen if you disagree?:)

There is no reason why that would happen. What is the reason that would happen if you disagree?:)

There is no reason for anything. The Universe exists for no particular reason. The Earth can be destroyed next year it doesn't need to be around. Two opposites existed at the beginning, and it doesn't need a reason.

Being as we are discussing something from nothing, and being as Hawking used almost an exact copy of my igloo, I can use it.

What do you mean? I did not understand this.

What do you mean? I did not understand this.

Did you see my Igloo link?
Did you watch the Stephen Hawking Link from 25 minutes?

They are the same.

Being as Stephen Hawking is a scientist, and mathematician we are allowed to use his work in this thread.

Being as my theory of the igloo is the same as Stephen Hawking's idea I am also allowed to post that in this thread.

Where Hawking uses Negative Energy, I use Negative mass. Mass, and Energy are two sides of the same coin. So our theories are completely interchangeable.

What do you mean? I did not understand this.Have you watched the Video (previous linked) in it is an example of what PP is talking about?
But Hawking keeps on saying the Universe "appeared out of nothing" and "everything adds to zero" but PP said his theory the Universe didn't come from nothing. I want to know what that "something" or "Not nothing" is then.:)

Have you watched the Video (previous linked) in it is an example of what PP is talking about?
But Hawking keeps on saying the Universe "appeared out of nothing" and "everything adds to zero" but PP said his theory the Universe didn't come from nothing. I want to know what that "something" or "Not nothing" is then.:)

Nothing is just an English word. It doesn't exist. What me, and Stephen Hawking's both say is that the Universe started from two things that make each other neutral. Think of how your eyes work. They wait for a wave to hit them. If no wave hits them they don't see anything. You can neutralise a wave with a negative wave. Then your eyes would see the English word..'nothing'.

Nothing is just an English word. It doesn't exist. What me, and Stephen Hawking's both say is that the Universe started from two things that make each other neutral. Think of how your eyes work. They wait for a wave to hit them. If no wave hits them they don't see anything. You can neutralise a wave with a negative wave. Then your eyes would see the English word..'nothing'.
I took a few notes on what he did say.
He said you need 3 things to make a universe, and they are Matter, Energy and Space.
Then he said Energy and Matter were two sides to the same coin. so that leaves just 2 things Energy and Space.
He didn'r really go into the formation of space but he then said the Energy is made from equal amounts of negative and positive Energy.
Positive Energy was in the matter and negative Energy the Gravitational Potential Energy in Space of the Universe. Once again without any proof he said they were equal.

To me it seems to be just an unproven theory.:)

It is hard to introduce actual science into a discussion of the origins of the universe, apart from introducing one or more of the models for creation that are all mostly purely speculative.
Except that this happens to be a science sub-forum, not a philosophy or wild speculation one.


3. The BBS is therefore an eternal point.
Um, hardly, since it "exploded" into what we have now.


7. All such idealized singularities: black holes, galactic cores, and the quantum black holes hypothesized at the cores of strings, would necessarily lie beyond spacetime.
Er, the BBS wasn't a black hole. :rolleyes:


Buddha appears to agree with this model.
SFW?

I took a few notes on what he did say.
He said you need 3 things to make a universe, and they are Matter, Energy and Space.
Then he said Energy and Matter were two sides to the same coin. so that leaves just 2 things Energy and Space.
He didn'r really go into the formation of space but he then said the Energy is made from equal amounts of negative and positive Energy.
Positive Energy was in the matter and negative Energy the Gravitational Potential Energy in Space of the Universe. Once again without any proof he said they were equal.

To me it seems to be just an unproven theory.:)

Well, I've found a post from 2009 of mine as well, just to prove I said it first...

http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=102718&sid=49bc7efc76b2b7d82d09a61bcd986e47#p102718

I later decided to change matter into mass. I also found out that the Hexagons were created by the Kissing Problem, so I changed them into a spherical stacking system.

Hawking said that space was the negative energy. So that's two things.

Nothing is just an English word. It doesn't exist. What me, and Stephen Hawking's both say is that the Universe started from two things that make each other neutral.
Incorrect.
Hawking is saying that if you start from nothing then you can get a "+1" (to use your facile simplistic "maths") so long as you also account for it by having a "-1".
NOT (as you are doing) and claiming that the "+1" and "-1" were there in the first place.
And if you bother to check, Senger (thread has been linked to many times) also claims (and shows with maths) that something can arise from nothing.

Incorrect.
Hawking is saying that if you start from nothing then you can get a "+1" (to use your facile simplistic "maths") so long as you also account for it by having a "-1".
NOT (as you are doing) and claiming that the "+1" and "-1" were there in the first place.
And if you bother to check, Senger (thread has been linked to many times) also claims (and shows with maths) that something can arise from nothing.

Well at 18 minutes he talks about making a Universe from 3 ingredients, then he removes one. I think you have it back to front...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

When I search for senger I get no results just posts about God.

Well at 18 minutes he talks about making a Universe from 3 ingredients, then he removes one. I think you have it back to front...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWgHawking definitely struggles to explain where the space comes from. You get the feeling he still thinks the vastness of the void into which space was able to expand into was always there. His words were "Space and Energy popped spontaneously into existence at the moment of the Big Bang".

It sounds a bit magical to me. Then he said space is the store of the negative energy.
He also said there was no time before the big Bang, so really you need to make Time as well as the Space and the Energy. (In fact all 11 of the dimensions need to be made at the same time.)

I will try and take you through a proof showing that Hawking's theory is not true.:)

Hawking definitely struggles to explain where the space comes from. You get the feeling he still thinks the vastness of the void into which space was able to expand into was always there. His words were "Space and Energy popped spontaneously into existence at the moment of the Big Bang".

It sounds a bit magical to me. Then he said space is the store of the negative energy.
He also said there was no time before the big Bang, so really you need to make Time as well as the Space and the Energy. (In fact all 11 of the dimensions need to be made at the same time.)

I will try and take you through a proof showing that Hawking's theory is not true.:)

If anyone starts from nothing at all, then it's impossible. But ignore Dywyddyr he never understands a theory. You can't add maths to 0. You have to create 0 from maths.

EDIT: After your quote Hawking's goes back to before the Big Bang 24 minutes.

It is hard to introduce actual science into a discussion of the origins of the universe, apart from introducing one or more of the models for creation that are all mostly purely speculative.

Except that this happens to be a science sub-forum, not a philosophy or wild speculation one.

Exactly my point: science ends here and the speculative modeling begins. Hence “it is hard…”
So how to proceed? Propose a model, make assumptions, draw inferences…





3. The BBS is therefore an eternal point.

Um, hardly, since it "exploded" into what we have now.

Was/is the BBS betyond spacetime, if so, is it not eternal? If not, how not so?





7. All such idealized singularities: black holes, galactic cores, and the quantum black holes hypothesized at the cores of strings, would necessarily lie beyond spacetime.

Er, the BBS wasn't a black hole.

I was suggesting an idealization of all singularities, that they lie outside of spacetime, leaving them dimensionless and eternal. If so, they must be in superposition, in zero-space, forever.





Buddha appears to agree with this model.

SFW?

From the OP: Buddha opines, “the universe is infinite”.
(Noting, without meaning disrespect, that Buddha is the ultimate SFW :p )

Interestingly Pope John XXI was so worried about the explanations coming out of certain quarters about the irrevocable Laws of Nature that he declared them heracy. Later that year, the laws of nature got their revenge – the ceiling of the palace fell on him!!

My eyes played tricks on me - at first I thought you said "John XXIII" which I knew couldn't be true. Then I started wondering what you were referring to. So I did some fact checking.

It was 1277. His contemporaries included St Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon. There was a condemnation of various teachings, including some of Aristotle's, but it was the work of the Bishops of Paris (1210-1277). It is not clear if the John XXI endorsed their condemnation or not. It is known he was a scientist himself, and published--among other things--a method for birth control!

The room that collapsed was a place he had built to study science. One of the problems he may have been studying in that room was the contemporaneous theory that the planets move in ecliptics - preserving the geocentric view.

I thought this was interesting:



The University of Paris was very uneasy because of the antagonism existing between Christian dogmas and certain Peripatetic doctrines, and on several occasions it combatted Aristotelean influence. In 1277 Etienne Tempier, Bishop of Paris, acting on the advice of the theologians of the Sorbonne, condemned a great number of errors, some of which emanated from the astrology, and others from the philosophy of the Peripatetics. Among these errors considered dangerous to faith were several which might have impeded the progress of physical science, and hence it was that the theologians of Paris declared erroneous the opinion maintaining that God Himself could not give the entire universe a rectilinear motion, as the universe would then leave a vacuum behind it, and also declared false the notion that God could not create several worlds. These condemnations destroyed certain essential foundations of Peripatetic physics; because, although, in Aristotle's system, such propositions were ridiculously untenable, belief in Divine Omnipotence sanctioned them as possible, whilst waiting for science to confirm them as true. For instance, Aristotle's physics treated the existence of an empty space as a pure absurdity; in virtue of the "Articles of Paris" Richard of Middletown (about 1280) and, after him, many masters at Paris and Oxford admitted that the laws of nature are certainly opposed to the production of empty space, but that the realization of such a space is not, in itself, contrary to reason; thus, without any absurdity, one could argue on vacuum and on motion in a vacuum. Next, in order that such arguments might be legitimatized, it was necessary to create that branch of mechanical science known as dynamics.


citing http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12047a.htm

Exactly my point: science ends here and the speculative modeling begins. Hence “it is hard…”
So how to proceed? Propose a model, make assumptions, draw inferences…


Was/is the BBS betyond spacetime, if so, is it not eternal? If not, how not so?


I was suggesting an idealization of all singularities, that they lie outside of spacetime, leaving them dimensionless and eternal. If so, they must be in superposition, in zero-space, forever.


From the OP: Buddha opines, “the universe is infinite”.
(Noting, without meaning disrespect, that Buddha is the ultimate SFW :p )

The Opening Post has been answered now...
All of the scientific theories have been posted. So why continue on the Buddha route?


Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?

What are the modern scientific views about the origin of the universe and what really happened before the big bang?

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans75.htm
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/origin_of_the_world.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_beliefs_of_the_origins_of_the_univers e_in_Taoism

That was a very good discussion today. OK no one agreed with anyone but we all had our say, and there was not too much abuse.

That was a very good discussion today. OK no one agreed with anyone but we all had our say, and there was not too much abuse.

That's good! :D There are a few more details about my version here...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111423

When I search for senger I get no results just posts about God.
My apologies: I meant Stenger (it was late and I got confused with von Senger).
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92761

The Opening Post has been answered now...
All of the scientific theories have been posted. So why continue on the Buddha route?

No Buddha router here. It was a label meaning infinite universe.

I am trying to show that both statements can be equivalent and true: (1) the universe arrives ex nihilo, and (2) the universe is infinite (Buddha-speak)

I was interested in whether this thread might converge on the question of convergence itself.

I posited an idealized representation of a singularity, enclosed by an idealized event horizon. The question of convergence arises.

What does it mean to converge to the "beginning" of time? Assuming the singularity that creates spacetime lies beyond spacetime, then it also lies beyond time, which implies that the singularity is eternal.

So, if the singularity is eternal, when does it "blow up", as Dwyddyr aptly noted?

In the BBS model, something blew up. But that creates time, and diverges out of the eternal state, which is ever present. This line of reasoning would seem to require that there are two copies of the singularity - the eternal one and the BBS one which diverged into an exploding one.

Again, I ask: what does it mean to converge into timelessness, or, as the arrow of time points away from the BBS, what does it mean to diverge out of a state of timelessness?

All the while I am contemplating any mathematical function that approaches an asymptote, converging only at infinity (and/or negative infinity). And one of those mathematical representations is the Lorentz factor which I can arbitrarily describe as the convergence of 1/x as x approaches zero (as v approaches c).

In practical applications we are generally concerned with linear time, and some t-zero when the switch was thrown. In BBS model, in the nonlinear realm up close to the singularity, time is of another essence, the 1/x variety. I am merely speaking to this.

My conclusion was that, by showing that time converges (looking back) into a state of timelessness, there is no t-zero, only at infinity. So the two statements in the OP would then be equivalent and both true.

Your statement "all of the theories have been posted" seems odd. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. My inclination is to interpret this as a sort of proverb, like "nothing is new under the sun". Is that what you mean, if so, why?

No Buddha router here. It was a label meaning infinite universe.

I am trying to show that both statements can be equivalent and true: (1) the universe arrives ex nihilo, and (2) the universe is infinite (Buddha-speak)

I was interested in whether this thread might converge on the question of convergence itself.

I posited an idealized representation of a singularity, enclosed by an idealized event horizon. The question of convergence arises.

What does it mean to converge to the "beginning" of time? Assuming the singularity that creates spacetime lies beyond spacetime, then it also lies beyond time, which implies that the singularity is eternal.

So, if the singularity is eternal, when does it "blow up", as Dwyddyr aptly noted?

In the BBS model, something blew up. But that creates time, and diverges out of the eternal state, which is ever present. This line of reasoning would seem to require that there are two copies of the singularity - the eternal one and the BBS one which diverged into an exploding one.

Again, I ask: what does it mean to converge into timelessness, or, as the arrow of time points away from the BBS, what does it mean to diverge out of a state of timelessness?

All the while I am contemplating any mathematical function that approaches an asymptote, converging only at infinity (and/or negative infinity). And one of those mathematical representations is the Lorentz factor which I can arbitrarily describe as the convergence of 1/x as x approaches zero (as v approaches c).

In practical applications we are generally concerned with linear time, and some t-zero when the switch was thrown. In BBS model, in the nonlinear realm up close to the singularity, time is of another essence, the 1/x variety. I am merely speaking to this.

My conclusion was that, by showing that time converges (looking back) into a state of timelessness, there is no t-zero, only at infinity. So the two statements in the OP would then be equivalent and both true.

Your statement "all of the theories have been posted" seems odd. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. My inclination is to interpret this as a sort of proverb, like "nothing is new under the sun". Is that what you mean, if so, why?

Oh I see. Well my theory diverges from the standard model so I can't reply. You will have to click my link to see how time begins in my theory...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111423

Was/is the BBS betyond spacetime, if so, is it not eternal? If not, how not so?
One more time: it's not eternal because it's no longer there. There WAS a BBS and now it's "exploded" into what we have now.


I was suggesting an idealization of all singularities, that they lie outside of spacetime, leaving them dimensionless and eternal.
Um, how can you idealise two different things as the same thing?


If so, they must be in superposition, in zero-space, forever.
Already shown to be untrue.


From the OP: Buddha opines, “the universe is infinite”.
So what? (Again).


No Buddha router here. It was a label meaning infinite universe.

I am trying to show that both statements can be equivalent and true: (1) the universe arrives ex nihilo, and (2) the universe is infinite (Buddha-speak)
The first has some support,. The second, none.


So, if the singularity is eternal, when does it "blow up", as Dwyddyr aptly noted?
Doesn't the fact that it does (and has) blow up indicate, slightly, that it's not eternal? ;)


In the BBS model, something blew up. But that creates time, and diverges out of the eternal state, which is ever present. This line of reasoning would seem to require that there are two copies of the singularity - the eternal one and the BBS one which diverged into an exploding one.
Huh?

@ Dywyddyr:

In most creation/origin discussions, and some of the posts here, there is a tendency to refer to "before the Big Bang". But "before" implies "before time was created". But before time was created there was timelessness. Timelessness implies eternity. Therefore the BBS is eternal insofar as it exists outside of time "before" the BB.

At the earliest conceivable moment, there is an explosion underway. Time has just recently been created. Whatever this explosion consists of, we attribute all of it to the BBS. This early universe gets hinged to the arrow of time. Meanwhile, the BBS is still in a state of timelessness.

This implies that ultimate reality consists of an eternal singularity, integrated, and its twin, marching forward in time, disintegrating, with the two coexisting despite the apparent paradox.

If you see an error in this, please point it out to me.

One more time: it's not eternal because it's no longer there. There WAS a BBS and now it's "exploded" into what we have now.

Unsubstantantiated. How did the singularity become infinitly dense and full of matter?

Maybe a whole lot of nothing got pushed together first. Swirls of matter and antimatter with absolutely no mass, But when they converge I suspect You could only imagine.

@ Dywyddyr:

In most creation/origin discussions, and some of the posts here, there is a tendency to refer to "before the Big Bang". But "before" implies "before time was created". But before time was created there was timelessness. Timelessness implies eternity. Therefore the BBS is eternal insofar as it exists outside of time "before" the BB.

At the earliest conceivable moment, there is an explosion underway. Time has just recently been created. Whatever this explosion consists of, we attribute all of it to the BBS. This early universe gets hinged to the arrow of time. Meanwhile, the BBS is still in a state of timelessness.

This implies that ultimate reality consists of an eternal singularity, integrated, and its twin, marching forward in time, disintegrating, with the two coexisting despite the apparent paradox.

If you see an error in this, please point it out to me.What is the Twin? Is that the antiparticle? The Anti BBS which has not expanded?

Hawking said the BBS and time all commenced at the moment of the BBS there was nothing prior to that. Makes nonsense to me, for there would need to be the endless possibility of this happening at anytime, and at times with less than sufficient effect (smaller transient virtual particles).:)

But "before" implies "before time was created". But before time was created there was timelessness. Timelessness implies eternity.
There's your error.
It stopped being "eternal" when it exploded.


Unsubstantantiated.
Um, hardly: we're here. The Big Bang happened.


How did the singularity become infinitly dense and full of matter?
Huh?


Maybe a whole lot of nothing got pushed together first. Swirls of matter and antimatter with absolutely no mass, But when they converge I suspect You could only imagine.
Drivel.

"How did the singularity become infinitly dense and full of matter?" Huh?

This was from Hawking he said something like "the singularity was infinitly dense" I can't remember if he also said and "full of matter"? :)

What is the Twin? Is that the antiparticle? The Anti BBS which has not expanded?

Hawking said the BBS and time all commenced at the moment of the BBS there was nothing prior to that. Makes nonsense to me, for there would need to be the endless possibility of this happening at anytime, and at times with less than sufficient effect (smaller transient virtual particles).:)

I agree that there can be nothing before time. Therefore, all questions about what came "before" are absurd in light of this. What the person often is asking is what lies beyond time, or outside of time. And that would be timelessness.

I am simply stating that timelessness is equivalent to the customary idea of eternity. It has no begin or end over time, and nothing changes.

I am speaking to this by considering an idealized singularity which I define as existing outside of time. Once it is outside of time, it is forever outside of time. It always was and always will be an integrated singularity, i.e., it always was, and always will be, not-blown-up.

Dywyddyr is appropriately raising the objection that this controverts the fact that it blew up.

I am attempting to resolve this my adding to the idealized model that there must be an ultimate reality containing at least two worlds: one is the eternal BBS, integrated, and the other world is the BBS exploding as it marches forward through time.

I am saying that both realities must therefore coexist. The BBS must remain integrated forever, and, "simultaneously", it exists in a diverged reality, in which time and space are created. Once eternal, always eternal, otherwise it's not eternal.

Presumably this divergence (of time) is non-linear, and I arbitrarily chose the 1/x asymptotic behavior expected in the Lorentz factor, just as a talking point to illustrate what I meant (and to add a relativistic flavor). Such behavior (1/x) would preclude an instantaneous creation of a linear clock, set to zero, incrementing at 1 tick/sec. Instead, the clock would creep towards 1 tick/sec from a starting point (at infinity) of absolute zero, in a smooth, divergent growth, then (presumably) settling at 1 tick/s. This is not the central point, but a side remark.

Under these conditions, a rewind of reality will never produce a discontinuity that establishes a t=0.

Under such a model, I am saying, the Universe arrives ex nihilo and, at the same time, is infinite. (Infinite over time, the BBS always was and always will be.) Such a model gives a pseudo-scientific answer to the OP, since there is no scientific answer. (Is there?)

This is what I am saying.

There's your error.
It stopped being "eternal" when it exploded.


But I am using the term "eternal" to mean nothing stops or starts. This is why I added to the idealized model the condition that there are two coexisting realities, the eternal integrated BBS reality, and the one that diverges at infinity, from which the BBS disintegrates as it hinges to the arrow of time.

As you see, I am really trying to nail down the idea of timelessness. If time was truly created, then the creator of time would necessarily exist outside of time. I don't think this is a paradox I invented, which is why I am looking for something more ameliorative than the suggestion that eternity stops being eternal.

I was hoping you might expound on that.

To OP . . . after all these philosophical arguments . . . . timelessness STILL exists . . . and is continually converting to "time' . . . . and there are reasonable alternatives to the BBS model that do the accounting.

But I am using the term "eternal" to mean nothing stops or starts.
Really? Why? Since we know that the BBS singularity did stop being "eternal" when it exploded.



To OP . . . after all these philosophical arguments . . . . timelessness STILL exists
Where?


. . . and is continually converting to "time'
Where? How?

I use the speed of light or C as the reference to begin the universe. The reason I use C is because it is the only reference that is same in all references. All finite reference are relative and create the twin paradox. Only C is exempt from that subjective factor. Instead of being one of many, I chose the only one.

One question I am always asked is what does the C reference or C-space look like so it is easier to understand? If we start at finite reference and accelerate to the speed of light, the universe will contract until at C it appears as a point/instant. This is only true of the finite universe in C-space. This is not C-space. The concept of the multi universe in many dimensions would imply many such distinct points that are not the same point, but which might touch each other to allow possible movement between dimensions and universes. As such C-space is simply composed of endless points without the limits of time or space. Ant point could be a universe or one that is about to be created.

To create a new universe, all we need to do is focus on a point in C-space. This forms a connection from C-space to a finite universe. The next step is to increase entropy of that point by magnifying the point. The magnification of the point will make it appear to grow similar to the reference of C---> C-. It will also cause an increase in entropy.

One way to see how entropy will increase during the magnification is to look at a period at the end of a sentence. It looks round and black. If we magnified this period we would now look, less than perfection, due to pixelation and tonal variation. The entropy will increase relative to normal reference via the magnified reference. There are more degrees of freedom in the period when magnified. With out magnification of the point in C-space, we have entropy by no primordial atom yet. We need to convert entropy to the BB.

The way this can be done is via another analogy called supercooling. This is where we cool a material below it freezing point with the material still a liquid. For example, water will freeze at 0C but we might supercool to -10C and still have a liquid. This is very unstable because the entropy in the liquid is much to high at that temperature. It should have lower entropy as a solid not a liquid. Any slight motion and the entropy will collapse and the solid forms, quickly.

Here is the model. We are in C-space. We concentrate on a point and then magnify it to increase the entropy. We sort of over do this magnification, supercooling the finite universe until there is a collapse in the entropy potential. This is analogous to decelerating from C to less than C. The energy output from the entropy collapse gives off energy, causing the BB.

Although this still has unanswered question, it does move the bar back to before T=0, which is better than questions at T=0+, using finite references paradoxes.

As usual, meaningless word salad.

Really? Why? Since we know that the BBS singularity did stop being "eternal" when it exploded.



Where?


Where? How?

Glad YOU asked me these questions RE: my last post! . . . .now (Mr Moderator!) the best way I can answer your queries, without being accused of self-promotion or trolling by Prometheus, is to refer you to my hypothesis (Google: EEMU Hypothesis). Won't repeat ad nauseum here. You should only link/read there if you are really interested. You might also look-up some of my earlier Sciforum posts (Search: wlminex).

BTW DWDy, I think the term "word salad" was first used/reserved by AlexG . . . he should therefore be acknowledged.


Regards

As usual, meaningless word salad.So did you have an opinion or were you just into kicking? Did you watch the video with Stephen Hawking? Was that who you are aligned with?
Nothing at all before the Big Bang
All time, Space Energy and Matter has been formed after the Big Bang only.
Nothing needed to start it off, it was a purely spontaneous event.

The only reason Energy can exist is that it is balanced by an equal amount of negative energy.

Is that it?:)

@Dywyddyr (re #102 being word salad):
See, posts like #102 just encourage me to proceed full speed ahead.


Really? Why? Since we know that the BBS singularity did stop being "eternal" when it exploded.

Yes I realize that’s your position…so requiring the BBS to coexist in two states would impose a paradox. And for this reason, you say reject the idea. OK I see that. But I don’t see how the eternal ceases to be eternal, without creating the same paradox. I think that’s what you are tacitly positing (because you’re too wiley to give me a verbose answer!)

This idea is not in variance with regard to the paradox. It does obviously require that the universe be in two states at once: the eternal one, and the temporal disintegrating one.

I guess one other possibility is that there is no eternal precursor. There is just a bloom @t=0+ and, before that, at precisely t=0 there is absolutely nothing.

I am pursuing this, not to flog a dead horse, but because you seem to have another idea of eternity – perhaps a semi-eternity - or maybe I am wrong to try use the term “eternity” at all.

I enjoy reading your posts and nearly fell over laughing at your post #42. Talk about timing.



To OP . . . after all these philosophical arguments . . . . timelessness STILL exists . . . and is continually converting to "time' . . . . and there are reasonable alternatives to the BBS model that do the accounting.
I myself am trying to avoid the purely philosophical by moving to a speculative pseudoscience. I am also trying to avoid the complexities behind presuming BBS, or even BB without S. It is kind of a silly OP anyway, as cast, but the underlying meaning behind it is one of the big unsolved questions.

Say more about your statement, beginning with “timelessness”. What do you mean? (I am following you to EEMU as I post this)

is to refer you to my hypothesis
In other words: you can't show your contention.


BTW DWDy, I think the term "word salad" was first used/reserved by AlexG . . . he should therefore be acknowledged.
Yeah, right. Earliest found usage -
AlexG: 03-03-11 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2701025&postcount=3)
Me: 07-30-09 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2326417&postcount=304)


So did you have an opinion or were you just into kicking?
Wellwisher posts specious crap (without ever supporting it) and expects it to be taken as serious. It's drivel.


@Dywyddyr (re #102 being word salad):
See, posts like #102 just encourage me to proceed full speed ahead.
Full speed at what? Getting a proper education?


Yes I realize that’s your position…so requiring the BBS to coexist in two states would impose a paradox. And for this reason, you say reject the idea. OK I see that. But I don’t see how the eternal ceases to be eternal, without creating the same paradox. I think that’s what you are tacitly positing (because you’re too wiley to give me a verbose answer!)
It stops being "eternal". I've said this numerous times.


or maybe I am wrong to try use the term “eternity” at all.
Now you're getting it. It may be timeless while it's "there", but then it stops being so.

Full speed at what? Getting a proper education?

If you would properly educate me on this one factoid concerning eternity, sure, why not? I didn't think we had broached any subject yet that draws from the wells of academia. I was trying to get you to expound on how eternal becomes eternal prime.

If you would properly educate me on this one factoid concerning eternity, sure, why not? I didn't think we had broached any subject yet that draws from the wells of academia. I was trying to get you to expound on how eternal becomes eternal prime.
I still contend that you're making a mistake assuming that the BBS was "eternal".
It may have been "timeless" while it existed, but it's merely wordplay to claim that one of necessity equals the other.

Yeah, right. Earliest found usage -
AlexG: 03-03-11
Me: 07-30-09

. . . sorry to slight you Dywy . . . .I didn't join Sciforms till 2011 . . . . YOU should always be referenced by AlexG!!

I still contend that you're making a mistake assuming that the BBS was "eternal".
It may have been "timeless" while it existed, but it's merely wordplay to claim that one of necessity equals the other.

Well OK then back up just to the notion of timelessness. How is that not the same as eternal?

If you would properly educate me on this one factoid concerning eternity, sure, why not? I didn't think we had broached any subject yet that draws from the wells of academia. I was trying to get you to expound on how eternal becomes eternal prime.
@Aqueous - once again I'm amazed by the depth you are willing to take your thoughts. I sit here thinking - can't match that. But I am still wanting to follow you and now you have said "eternal prime" so what does that mean to you?
Please.:)

BTW DWDy, I think the term "word salad" was first used/reserved by AlexG . . . he should therefore be acknowledged.


Regards

No, I was just the first to use it about you.

Dywy Post #107: In other words: you can't show your contention.

I guess not . . . it upset Prometheus (3 warnings!) when I tried before! . . . you'll have to research it on your own . . . I just gave you an OOB starting point (link).

No, I was just the first to use it about you.

. . . . then to be really honest . . . you should have referenced Dywy as the originator!

(MODerator):Methinks we are getting 'off-topic' from the OP with this bickering about "word salad" . . .your action appreciated.

Dywy wasn't the originator, he just used it before me here.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophasia


In the mental health field, schizophasia, commonly referred to as word salad, is confused, and often repetitious, language that is symptomatic of various mental illnesses.[1]

It is usually associated with a manic presentation and other symptoms of serious mental illnesses, such as psychosis, including schizophrenia and often seen in internet cranks.

MODerator: refer to my previous post . . . Thanks!

@Aqueous - once again I'm amazed by the depth you are willing to take your thoughts. I sit here thinking - can't match that. But I am still wanting to follow you and now you have said "eternal prime" so what does that mean to you?
Please.:)

I should have been more clear. I meant "not eternity". If an object lies outside of spacetime, I have no choice but to consign it to eternity. It has no clock, it therefore has no beginning or end, and never changes.

This would appear to be implied by assumption that the BBS creates spacetime. Dywyddyr may be able to show me how this is fallacious reasoning, and that would settle it for me. (I think.)

He says it ceases to be eternal at the moment it explodes. OK, but all that says to me is that he and I define eternity differently, although I think it's more a matter of him feeling I am forcing the notion of eternity into the discussion. To me it is the same as timelessness, but he may have a reason for disagreeing on that.

So we have the notion of the BBS as eternal then becoming not eternal (eternity prime). I guess I could have said temporal.

I disagree that once the object is eternal, it ceases being eternal. I am forced instead to consider the scenario that it never ceases to be eternal, but it also splits off into a second reality in which it is not eternal, but an exploding equivalent of the eternal form, latched onto the arrow of time as disintegrates into the form we call the universe.

MODerator: refer to my previous post . . . Thanks!

Delusions of grandeur? You're the furthest thing from a mod.

MODerator: PLEASE . . . .!!!

Aqueous post 118: I disagree that once the object is eternal, it ceases being eternal. I am forced instead to consider the scenario that it never ceases to be eternal, but it also splits off into a second reality in which it is not eternal, but an exploding equivalent of the eternal form, latched onto the arrow of time as disintegrates into the form we call the universe.

Nice thinking . . . . . might overlap into spirituality threads?

Well OK then back up just to the notion of timelessness. How is that not the same as eternal?
It's easy: while "A" exists under certain conditions it may be timeless (i.e. time does not pass for that "object"), but something may happen to it to cause it to become time-ful? time-like? time-ish?


I disagree that once the object is eternal, it ceases being eternal. I am forced instead to consider the scenario that it never ceases to be eternal, but it also splits off into a second reality in which it is not eternal, but an exploding equivalent of the eternal form, latched onto the arrow of time as disintegrates into the form we call the universe.
But you're doing exactly the same here: claiming, on the one hand that it's "eternal and unchanging" and ALSO claiming that it stops being unchanging when it "splits into two (one remaining "eternal & unchanging and the other not)".
All you're doing is hand-waving.

Aqueous post 118: I disagree that once the object is eternal, it ceases being eternal. I am forced instead to consider the scenario that it never ceases to be eternal, but it also splits off into a second reality in which it is not eternal, but an exploding equivalent of the eternal form, latched onto the arrow of time as disintegrates into the form we call the universe.

Nice thinking . . . . . might overlap into spirituality threads?

I wasn't at all thinking spiritually, I only used "eternity" instead of "infinity" because I wanted to specifically refer to infinite time. It sounds like a word borrowed from spirituality, but I wasn't even going there.

I wasn't at all thinking spiritually, I only used "eternity" instead of "infinity" because I wanted to specifically refer to infinite time. It sounds like a word borrowed from spirituality, but I wasn't even going there.

. . . I understand . . . but still . . . implications are there, depending upon the reader's orientation . . .

Nice thinking . . . . . might overlap into spirituality threads?
That would be a surefire way of getting this thread Cesspooled.

How can something that is eternal and unchanging split? Once it splits, it's no longer unchanging, and once changed, it's not eternal. And if there is any point at which it can cease to be eternal, then it's never been eternal.

It's easy: while "A" exists under certain conditions it may be timeless (i.e. time does not pass for that "object"), but something may happen to it to cause it to become time-ful? time-like? time-ish?

OK but there is no "while" for the timeless object, since it spans all instances of time.


But you're doing exactly the same here: claiming, on the one hand that it's "eternal and unchanging" and ALSO claiming that it stops being unchanging when it "splits into two (one remaining "eternal & unchanging and the other not)".
All you're doing is hand-waving.
I am trying to apply some form of rudimentary logic to a very basic concept. I wasn't trying to be formal or precise, because the question of this thread is purely academic. It's the perennial unsolved problem: what came first?

I was trying to just scratch at the surface, nothing more. I sense that you know a lot more than you put forward, for whatever reasons, so I was pinging you on this thinking you would fall into thinking that either this logic is correct, or there is a gaping hole, which I still don't see:

(a) the object that creates time is necessarily outside of time
(b) outside of time means timeless, also meaning eternal
(c) the eternal object "sees" space as a block
(d) it never begins or ends (always was and always will be)
(e) "it" therefore does not explode
(f) but an explosion occurs, because we are assuming the BB model (highly simplified and idealized)
(g) therefore.... what? A divergent parallel reality? I don't know, who does? It's all speculation, nothing more. Except that it requires a somewhat rigid placement of the BBS in an eternal state, plus this paradoxical splitting of into the temporal state.

I guess hand waving is all there is, other than to try to dissect the state at 1 Planck time, which doesn't address the OP anyway as far as I can tell.

How can something that is eternal and unchanging split? Once it splits, it's no longer unchanging, and once changed, it's not eternal. And if there is any point at which it can cease to be eternal, then it's never been eternal.

That is the question. Does the BBS ever exist outside of time? If so, is it not entrenched in that state forever?

But, knowing (or assuming) it exploded, how do you reconcile this? I was merely offering as a scenario that you might wonder if there are two parallel realities. It is eternally integrated, because it once was (therefore still is) and yet it exploded and is disintegrating, tied to the arrow of time.

Two states? Otherwise, I can't understand t-zero.

I should have been more clear. I meant "not eternity". If an object lies outside of spacetime, I have no choice but to consign it to eternity. It has no clock, it therefore has no beginning or end, and never changes.

This would appear to be implied by assumption that the BBS creates spacetime. Dywyddyr may be able to show me how this is fallacious reasoning, and that would settle it for me. (I think.)

He says it ceases to be eternal at the moment it explodes. OK, but all that says to me is that he and I define eternity differently, although I think it's more a matter of him feeling I am forcing the notion of eternity into the discussion. To me it is the same as timelessness, but he may have a reason for disagreeing on that.

So we have the notion of the BBS as eternal then becoming not eternal (eternity prime). I guess I could have said temporal.

I disagree that once the object is eternal, it ceases being eternal. I am forced instead to consider the scenario that it never ceases to be eternal, but it also splits off into a second reality in which it is not eternal, but an exploding equivalent of the eternal form, latched onto the arrow of time as disintegrates into the form we call the universe.
These are questions that go back through history in philosophy and religion. My concept of Eternity has time involved, OK I don't know how eternal time could be sectioned or measured but I just comprehend time and eternity as being about the same thing. So what we measure as "time" against (seconds weeks years) are things which didn't exist from the beginning of the Big Bang (which is thought of as "the Universe".) But to me there is the Infinite Void into which the Space and Matter of the Universe expand into. So the boundary between the void and space seems to be fuzzy at best as individual photons extend out into it. (if they are doing work, maybe they can't go on forever, or they could for there is no limit to the void.)
So a defined amount of Energy was "Put in". So this Energy I imagine is like the strings, and they have a very high frequency. The expansion of these created the mass and the "negative energy store". The energy is stored as mass in the gravitational field. The more mass is stored the lesser is the kinetic energy, and as it cools matter forms into molecules of Hydrogen.
So unlike Hawking I think the net energy in the Universe is not Zero but a starting amount, but the energy has been converted to matter and motion heat and light etc.:)

These are questions that go back through history in philosophy and religion. My concept of Eternity has time involved, OK I don't know how eternal time could be sectioned or measured but I just comprehend time and eternity as being about the same thing. So what we measure as "time" against (seconds weeks years) are things which didn't exist from the beginning of the Big Bang (which is thought of as "the Universe".) But to me there is the Infinite Void into which the Space and Matter of the Universe expand into. So the boundary between the void and space seems to be fuzzy at best as individual photons extend out into it. (if they are doing work, maybe they can't go on forever, or they could for there is no limit to the void.)
So a defined amount of Energy was "Put in". So this Energy I imagine is like the strings, and they have a very high frequency. The expansion of these created the mass and the "negative energy store". The energy is stored as mass in the gravitational field. The more mass is stored the lesser is the kinetic energy, and as it cools matter forms into molecules of Hydrogen.
So unlike Hawking I think the net energy in the Universe is not Zero but a starting amount, but the energy has been converted to matter and motion heat and light etc.:)

I agree with your last paragraph . . . more or less, coincides with EEMU Hypothesis

I was thinking you could measure the Infinite Void in light years. So Eternal time in light years equals the time it takes for a photon to travel from the Universe to the furtherest limit of the Infinite void (times 2). On the assumption the Universe is roughly in the geometric centre of the Infinite void.

(a) the object that creates time is necessarily outside of time
Yet something happened during that "timeless state" to make a change. Therefore the timelessness came to an end.
Therefore "outside of time" is NOT eternal and unchanging.


(b) outside of time means timeless, also meaning eternal
Back to word games again.


I was thinking you could measure the Infinite Void in light years.
Er, fail. :rolleyes:

I was thinking you could measure the Infinite Void in light years. So Eternal time in light years equals the time it takes for a photon to travel from the Universe to the furtherest limit of the Infinite void (times 2). On the assumption the Universe is roughly in the geometric centre of the Infinite void.

Or: The void is the absence of spacetime, "occupied" by the singularity. It is dimensionless (zero volume) and eternal (timeless).

Your statement that eternity can be measured in light years makes me think I made a poor choice in terms. Certainly, eternity seems to have meaning to us as we are dragged though time, but what does it mean to be in a state of timelessness where there is no metric?

This was my reasoning for saying the envelope of the universe impinges on the dimensionless timeless realm which you call the void. At the each point at which space (or the asymptote at which space converges) impinges on the void, each such point must lie in superposition with every other such point. This is necessary because nothing larger than a point can exist in the dimensionless void. This is also interestingly compatible with the idea of an infintely dense singularity at the BB. I inferred from this that every other singularity (black hole, supermassive hole, quantum hole) is forced into the same superposition.

Dywyddyr and AlexG raise valid objections concerning the nature of timelessness and the necessary explosion at t-zero. I was left to offer a scenario that there are two coexistent realities - the eternal integrated singularity, and the temporally-chained disintegrating universe.

On thinking about "the void", I am inclined to think that coexistence of the two implied realities (eternal/integrated and temporal/disintegrating) can be satisfied as follows:

(1) outside the envelope ("in" the void) the universe is infinitely dense and integrated, i.e., a singularity; and
(2) inside the envelope, it is expansive, strapped to time and disintegrating.

So that would appear to return us to my original premise: that the universe is created ex nihilo, and at the same time it is infinite.

Of course this use of ex nihilo has nothing to do with creationism, because it arises by itself, without any help.

To review the hypotheses/assumptions of the model:

(1) the outer envelope of the universe impinges on the dimensionless void. No time or space exists "there". Thus, each point on the envelope converges to one single point - or, all points are in mutual superposition, since they all lie in the dimensionless void.
(2) just inside the envelope, spacetime is created, not as a discontinuity, but as the smooth divergence from an event horizon.
(3) the eternal unchanging singularity remains in stasis, stranded in the void...
(4) ...while -inside the envelope- an expanding disintegration is underway, chained to the arrow of time.
(5) the two realities coexist, despite the apparent paradox, for the same reason that it is paradoxical to fit the universe into a dimensionless void (eternal dimensionless singularity).

Corollary:
Every singularity (and event horizon), where time is stopped and space is compressed to a point, whether associated with a black hole, supermassive hole or quantum hole, necessarily coexists in the void, in mutual superposition with every other point on every other singularity or event horizon, including the envelope of the universe itself.

Corollary:
There is merely one singularity in the void, which, projected into the envelope, diverges into the largest possible number of instances of singularities, i.e., the total number of cosmic and quantum singularities that ever were and ever will be. (i.e., double summation/integration over all space and all time)

Corollary:
The paradox of mutual existence of an eternal integrated BBS, with the second state - an exploded, disintegrating BBS chained to the arrow of time, arises out of the paradoxical nature of event horizon itself, which negotiates between the two realities by gently collapsing the laws of physics upon approach, ie., forming a buffer zone of convergence wherever spacetime would otherwise impinge on the void.

Yet something happened during that "timeless state" to make a change. Therefore the timelessness came to an end.
Therefore "outside of time" is NOT eternal and unchanging.
Back to word games again.

I am saying that there is no "during" for the timeless state.
If "outside of time is NOT eternal and unchanging" then I would need to find a word within your lexicon that means eternal, which to me means outside of time and unchanging. That would be the extent of the word game from my point of view - a hunt for your definitions.

What happens at the event horizon, or when v=c, or at the envelope of the universe? What does it mean to say time stops? And how can any object that falls into the timeless state ever extricate itself? By definition, eternal means forever.

I feel like you have a lot to say but are holding back. Maybe not, maybe it's just a bogus hunch

Just realised I made an error for Light years is a measure of distance not time.
"So Eternal time in years equals the time it takes for a photon to travel from the Universe to the furtherest limit of the Infinite void (times 2)." I thought it might test your imagination, for infinity is something that is hard to fathom. And then to multiply by 2 for good measure!

Just realised I made an error for Light years is a measure of distance not time.
"So Eternal time in years equals the time it takes for a photon to travel from the Universe to the furtherest limit of the Infinite void (times 2)." I thought it might test your imagination, for infinity is something that is hard to fathom. And then to multiply by 2 for good measure!

But the eternal unchanging object stranded in the void can measure nothing - neither time nor space, because there is nothing to measure. And there is no tick or yardstick that operates "there".

But the eternal unchanging object stranded in the void can measure nothing - neither time nor space, because there is nothing to measure. And there is no tick or yardstick that operates "there".Have you ever thought of taking up economics and showing that there is no deficit at all! Just kidding, but you certainly have a way with words that just about convince me, of the opposite of what I thought was fact. :)

If "outside of time is NOT eternal and unchanging"
First there was no universe.
Then there was.
THEREFORE your "eternal and unchanging" changed.
How much simpler can I get?

@Robbitybob

I assure you my treatment of economics would be a trip to the void! (A one way trip for me, wearing concrete shoes!)

I wasn't do much trying to convince you as to analyze the idea of what it must mean to be outside of time, "in the void". It's little more than speculation, for an idealized simplified model of the BB.

First there was no universe.
Then there was.
THEREFORE your "eternal and unchanging" changed.
How much simpler can I get?

Right. I'm not disagreeing that this is the model.

I was trying to get you to speak to the other aspect:
(1) Is it necessary that the object that creates time exists in a timeless state?
(2) (I assumed it was, so I then asked) Does timelessness imply eternity?
(3) (I said yes, by definition) So does the BBS continue to exist in a timeless state?
(4) (I said, yes, it would necessarily always exist, because there is by definition no escape from timelessness) So how can the BBS explode if it is eternal?
(5) And I speculated that they could mutually exist, the pure singularity, suspended in time, and the fireball that evolves into the universe.

It's OK, I'll drop it. Good night.

Right. I'm not disagreeing that this is the model.

I was trying to get you to speak to the other aspect:
(1) Is it necessary that the object that creates time exists in a timeless state?
(2) (I assumed it was, so I then asked) Does timelessness imply eternity?
(3) (I said yes, by definition) So does the BBS continue to exist in a timeless state?
(4) (I said, yes, it would necessarily always exist, because there is by definition no escape from timelessness) So how can the BBS explode if it is eternal?
(5) And I speculated that they could mutually exist, the pure singularity, suspended in time, and the fireball that evolves into the universe.

It's OK, I'll drop it. Good night.

I suggested that you to look at time in my thread. Time doesn't have to be anything but physics. I mean in this room it is the 4th dimension, past, and future... but it doesn't have to be. When you post that time was eternal, it 'might' just mean that there was a stillness. You just have to get the stillness to move.

Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?

What are the modern scientific views about the origin of the universe and what really happened before the big bang?

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans75.htm
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/origin_of_the_world.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_beliefs_of_the_origins_of_the_univers e_in_Taoism


Do you mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)

Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of inflaton point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic 1/r^2 one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the expansion rate by such a transformation. Transition to a lower energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining potential energy is called Dark Energy.

Let us switch definitions of r. In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole).

If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate’s effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = hoe^(-rt), where ho is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.

We can get an estimate of a value for h0 from Alan Guth’s formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The present values of both the expansion rate, P1, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = Roe^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous “radius” or scale factor of the universe.

The current value of the expansion rate is Ho, the Hubble “constant”, so P1 = Ho.

Back to our original definiton of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor:

Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a “dormancy” period or final plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, r refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed the inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r. Maybe Cyrilic backward "R"? Lower case Cyrilic?

The hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galaxy, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. The current state of the universe itself may be consistent with this dormant period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while slowly decreasing nearer to zero.

Does this imply that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now? We cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell.

Yet, in other words, even with acceleration of the expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a “Big Rip” wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.

Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophy", Ph.D.

Why sciforums.com does not provide for exponents, I cannot understand.

Do we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)

Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of inflaton point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic 1/r^2 one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the expansion rate by such a transformation. Transition to a lower energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining potential energy is called Dark Energy.

Yes, I know. The universe cannot be said to have a discrete "radius". But for all intents and purposes, it does have r = a, a is the so-called "scale factor" that acts just like r.

The hyper-excited gravitational field sprang into existence simply because it could. It came to be in a tremendously excited state because very high excited states are much more probable than lower ones, because of the zero point cut-off. This is just like virtual particles come to exist and be annihilated all the time on the quantum level (this is confirmed by experiment). None of them become universes, though, because there is already one here. It’s a sort of Pauli exclusion principle.

Let us switch definitions of r. In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole).

If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate’s effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = hoe^(-rt), where ho is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.

We can get an estimate of a value for ho from Alan Guth’s formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The present values of both the expansion rate, P1, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = Roe^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous “radius” or scale factor of the universe.

The current value of the expansion rate is Ho, the Hubble “constant”, so P1 = Ho.

Back to our original definition of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor:

Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a “dormancy” period or final plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, r refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed the inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r; maybe Cyrillic backward "R" ? May be lower case Cyrillic ?

The hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galaxy, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. The current state of the universe itself may be consistent with this dormant period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while slowly decreasing nearer to zero.

Does this imply that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now? We cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell.

Yet, in other words, even with acceleration of the expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a “Big Rip” wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.

By the way, "M Theory" doesn't exist. M Theory is just an "ideal". Brane Theory is not M Theory. Neither has ever predicted anything that can be experimentally verified and neither is falsifiable. Therefore, they cannot qualify as legitimate scientific propositiions. Not one single unique result has ever come from either. Furthermore, they are both unnecessary. Shrewd development of general relativity and quantum are slowly causing them to merge. What's the hurry? Let true "M Theory" and "Brane theory" grow organically out of quantum and GR. Each step will be independently validated, then. No worry.

Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophy", Ph.D.

Why sciforums.com does not provide for exponents, I cannot understand.

Why sciforums.com does not provide for exponents, I cannot understand.
Check out:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61223



Do we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)

Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of inflaton point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic 1/r^2 one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the expansion rate by such a transformation.

I think the OP speaks to the condition r=0.



Transition to a lower energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining potential energy is called Dark Energy.

You are referring to the estimated age of the observable universe. Estimates to the Big Bang suggest 78 BY or more.



Yes, I know. The universe cannot be said to have a discrete "radius". But for all intents and purposes, it does have r = a, a is the so-called "scale factor" that acts just like r.

"Radius" requires space, we are left to contemplate the origin of space itself.



The hyper-excited gravitational field sprang into existence simply because it could.

But why not lepton based vacuum breathing armadillos? Why can't they?



It came to be in a tremendously excited state because very high excited states are much more probable than lower ones, because of the zero point cut-off.

We are seeking the source of all the excitement.



This is just like virtual particles come to exist and be annihilated all the time on the quantum level (this is confirmed by experiment). None of them become universes, though, because there is already one here. It’s a sort of Pauli exclusion principle.

Is the singularity, from whence the BB exploded, virtual?



Let us switch definitions of r. In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole).

Where does acceleration originate?



If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate’s effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = hoe^(-rt), where ho is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.

Assuming this governed. From what does e originate?



We can get an estimate of a value for ho from Alan Guth’s formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The present values of both the expansion rate, P1, and acceleration rate, r, is observable. We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = Roe^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous “radius” or scale factor of the universe.

***



The current value of the expansion rate is Ho, the Hubble “constant”, so P1 = Ho.

Back to our original definition of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor:

Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a “dormancy” period or final plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, r refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed the inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r; maybe Cyrillic backward "R" ? May be lower case Cyrillic ?

The hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galaxy, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. The current state of the universe itself may be consistent with this dormant period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while slowly decreasing nearer to zero.

But it's just a model. In other words, who knows?



Does this imply that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now? We cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell.

***



Yet, in other words, even with acceleration of the expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a “Big Rip” wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.

***



By the way, "M Theory" doesn't exist. M Theory is just an "ideal". Brane Theory is not M Theory. Neither has ever predicted anything that can be experimentally verified and neither is falsifiable.

***



Therefore, they cannot qualify as legitimate scientific propositiions. Not one single unique result has ever come from either. Furthermore, they are both unnecessary. Shrewd development of general relativity and quantum are slowly causing them to merge. What's the hurry? Let true "M Theory" and "Brane theory" grow organically out of quantum and GR. Each step will be independently validated, then. No worry.

***



Origins, emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophy", Ph.D.

Talk about collapsing a wave function.

_______________

*** in other words, who knows?

In conclusion, who knows, it's beyond science. It's the perennial unsolved problem. I feel like a I'm standing on a street corner, with a lot of other bums, and everyone's searching their pockets, scratching their heads, but no one's got a nickel for car fare. But everyone's remembering the last time they found a penny.

So the thread is asking whether the universe originates ex nihilo, or is it infinite.

The question focuses on t=0, r=0, a=0, no space, no time, no tensor or differential, no velocity or acceleration, no force, energy or action, just what? Singularity? What is that? What does it mean? :shrug:

The question focuses on t=0, r=0, a=0, no space, no time, no tensor or differential, no velocity or acceleration, no force, energy or action, just what? Singularity? What is that? What does it mean?

The answer to your question is C reference or C-space. Did someone let dimmwitter out of the pen? Just gnore him, since he lacks the brain power to contribute and has to pretend knowledge via being a nag.

Maybe he can explain why relative reference is better than an absolute reference like C, which by itself, addresses all these concerns?

Energy, although it travels at C, is not part of C-space, because it has finite components called wavelength and frequency. These finite components can not exist in C-sapce. Energy has two legs, one in finite, and the other at C, just touching C-space. C-space does not have matter, since matter can't go C. There is no time or space in C-space, since these are finite concepts. Limiting concepts like infinity and eternal will touch C-space, but can define it only if there is no energy or matter.

If you start at C-space, there is not yet any singularity, since that is a finite concept. We need to start before time or before t=0.

The answer to your question is C reference or C-space.
This, once again, is pure bullshit.


Did someone let dimmwitter out of the pen? Just gnore him, since he lacks the brain power to contribute and has to pretend knowledge via being a nag.
I see you have, as usual, resorted to personal attacks rather than substantiate your bullshit claims.


Maybe he can explain why relative reference is better than an absolute reference like C, which by itself, addresses all these concerns?
Maybe you could substantiate your specious hand-waving, rather than simply attack me.
Provide evidence? Show how it could be demonstrated?

The answer to your question is C reference or C-space. Did someone let dimmwitter out of the pen? Just gnore him, since he lacks the brain power to contribute and has to pretend knowledge via being a nag.

Maybe he can explain why relative reference is better than an absolute reference like C, which by itself, addresses all these concerns?

Energy, although it travels at C, is not part of C-space, because it has finite components called wavelength and frequency. These finite components can not exist in C-sapce. Energy has two legs, one in finite, and the other at C, just touching C-space. C-space does not have matter, since matter can't go C. There is no time or space in C-space, since these are finite concepts. Limiting concepts like infinity and eternal will touch C-space, but can define it only if there is no energy or matter.

If you start at C-space, there is not yet any singularity, since that is a finite concept. We need to start before time or before t=0.

There is no C until time and space are created to propagate anything. No one but you has any idea what C-space means.

The singularity comes first, and is associated with infinite density, despite your ideas to the contrary.

There is no C until time and space are created to propagate anything. No one but you has any idea what C-space means.

The singularity comes first, and is associated with infinite density, despite your ideas to the contrary.
There is no density in the singularity for mass has not been created yet. The Higgs Boson has not been created so no mass. What is density without mass?
It could be a density of dots sort of like intensity of colour. I used to think of it in terms of "space Points" the space points were compressed and each space point is the fine structure on which a particle will form (proton- electron combination)
I see they put a figure of 10^85 particles in the Universe, imagine if there were 10^85 points in the singularity, but no mass.

There is no density in the singularity for mass has not been created yet. The Higgs Boson has not been created so no mass. What is density without mass?
It could be a density of dots sort of like intensity of colour. I used to think of it in terms of "space Points" the space points were compressed and each space point is the fine structure on which a particle will form (proton- electron combination)
I see they put a figure of 10^85 particles in the Universe, imagine if there were 10^85 points in the singularity, but no mass.
Now we're getting somewhere. You are speaking to the nature of the singularity itself. As you note, the presumption that it is infinitely dense is subject to the definition of mass at t=0.

wellwisher was minimizing the singularity as if it plays no role in the Big Bang. I answered that it is the largest thing conceivable.

Of course, who knows what laws apply at t=0. Is really a mass at all? It doesn't seem like it can be energy, because there not yet any of the time or space that normally spans energy.

I wouldn't necessarily constrain the BBS to a particulate nature. Even particles, as you note about mass, occupy space. So what does it mean for the object that creates all subsequent particles to exist in zero space?

I suppose you could speculate similarly about a neutron star. It is assumed to have nonzero volume, but ridiculously small nonetheless. Of course space in its vicinity is essentially collapsed. So what does volume mean in collapsed space?

Now we're getting somewhere. You are speaking to the nature of the singularity itself. As you note, the presumption that it is infinitely dense is subject to the definition of mass at t=0.

wellwisher was minimizing the singularity as if it plays no role in the Big Bang. I answered that it is the largest thing conceivable.

Of course, who knows what laws apply at t=0. Is really a mass at all? It doesn't seem like it can be energy, because there not yet any of the time or space that normally spans energy.

I wouldn't necessarily constrain the BBS to a particulate nature. Even particles, as you note about mass, occupy space. So what does it mean for the object that creates all subsequent particles to exist in zero space?

I suppose you could speculate similarly about a neutron star. It is assumed to have nonzero volume, but ridiculously small nonetheless. Of course space in its vicinity is essentially collapsed. So what does volume mean in collapsed space?
So I never thought of it as a total singularity but a very small amount of space with this enormous number of "Space Points" (3-D Lattice?) then Energy is applied to that and it spins at speeds that cause the lattice to expand, but the trade off for expansion is the inclussion of energy into the space point. So each of the space points grow and the energy is drawn into the expansion causing the rotation to slow.
The Rotation is the reflection of the angular momentum still present in the Universe. :)

So I never thought of it as a total singularity but a very small amount of space with this enormous number of "Space Points" (3-D Lattice?) then Energy is applied to that and it spins at speeds that cause the lattice to expand, but the trade off for expansion is the inclussion of energy into the space point. So each of the space points grow and the energy is drawn into the expansion causing the rotation to slow.
The Rotation is the reflection of the angular momentum still present in the Universe. :)

In the Big Bang model, it's just there, then it explodes.

(Problematic in the model is that of the singularity beginning to explode at all when there is no time or space in which to begin).

I suppose you could speculate similarly about a neutron star. It is assumed to have nonzero volume
Um, no it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star


So I never thought of it as a total singularity but a very small amount of space with this enormous number of "Space Points" (3-D Lattice?) then Energy is applied to that and it spins at speeds that cause the lattice to expand, but the trade off for expansion is the inclussion of energy into the space point. So each of the space points grow and the energy is drawn into the expansion causing the rotation to slow.
The Rotation is the reflection of the angular momentum still present in the Universe. :)
Well you've obviously managed to complete your course in "Word Salad for Beginners".
Did you get a certificate for it?

Guys, I think what is being debated falls into something about the fallacy of the analogy. Every factor of his theory cannot be embodied into an analogy, hence the nature and usefulness of analogies. (Richard Dawkins has a lovely chapter in 'The Blind Watchmaker' devoted to assessing the usefulness and potential pitfalls of analogies.

Dig deeper.

...end bracket

Um, no it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star:


no it isn't nonzero, or no it isn't zero?

citing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star:



A typical neutron star has a mass between 1.35 and about 2.0 solar masses [1][2], with a corresponding radius of about 12 km if the Akmal-Pandharipande-Ravenhall equation of state (APR EOS) is used.[3][4]


which (under the cited assumption) is nonzero volume.

Um, no it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star


Well you've obviously managed to complete your course in "Word Salad for Beginners".
Did you get a certificate for it?I think you just gave it to me, with distinction.
What didn't you like about the meal?:)

Guys, I think what is being debated falls into something about the fallacy of the analogy. Every factor of his theory cannot be embodied into an analogy, hence the nature and usefulness of analogies. (Richard Dawkins has a lovely chapter in 'The Blind Watchmaker' devoted to assessing the usefulness and potential pitfalls of analogies.

Dig deeper.

What do you mean, and who is "he"? (and dig where, with what) :shrug:

oops...sorry guys. That was in response to previous 'debunking' of Hawkins' "dig a hold, make a hill" analogy.

I think you just gave it to me, with distiction.
What didn't you like about the meal?:)

Not to put the proverbial spoon in his mouth, but I think Dywyddyr is thinking "where's the beef?"

I've been standing here at McDywyddyr's for quite a while and haven't gotten hardly a crumb out of him.

Although I did get a drop of naysayer salad dressing (all vinegar).

oops...sorry guys. That was in response to previous 'debunking' of Hawkins' "dig a hold, make a hill" analogy.

OK I'm on track with you now. Yes Dawkins has tried to help creationists see the light. Hawking, too.

Welcome to SciForums. (You can click on the "quote" button on the pane containing the statement you are referencing, and it will lift their quote and name.)

But in order to see the light, they must first get the Planck out of their eye. :cool:

Not to put the proverbial spoon in his mouth, but I think Dywyddyr is thinking "where's the beef?"

I've been standing here at McDywyddyr's for quite a while and haven't gotten hardly a crumb out of him.

Although I did get a drop of naysayer salad dressing (all vinegar).
I'd demand my money back.
You don't get Beef with Word Salad.

We are trying to see how Everything came from Nothing without a chef in the kitchen. Beggars can't be choosers, especially when the plate is empty.

Start with an empty plate, put images of the meal on it, spin the plate and the things will flick off to the side, catch them and enjoy your whole-some salad.

I'd demand my money back.
You don't get Beef with Word Salad.

We are trying to see how Everything came from Nothing without a chef in the kitchen. Beggars can't be choosers, especially when the plate is empty.

Start with an empty plate, put images of the meal on it, spin the plate and the things will flick off to the side, catch them and enjoy your whole-some salad.

An the singularity is what's left in the trash compactor after pulling the crank.

no it isn't nonzero, or no it isn't zero?
which (under the cited assumption) is nonzero volume.
Oops.
:o
Sorry, I misread your comment as "zero volume".


I think you just gave it to me, with distinction.
What didn't you like about the meal?:)
It was worthless, meaningless nonsense.


We are trying to see how Everything came from Nothing without a chef in the kitchen.
So you didn't bother to read the link provided in post #89 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873261&postcount=89)?

Interesting article: Newsflash: Time May Not Exist

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

Oops.
:o
It was worthless, meaningless nonsense.

So you didn't bother to read the link provided in post #89 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873261&postcount=89)?
It was designed for weight watchers.
And no I had not read that article but will now.:)

Interesting article: Newsflash: Time May Not Exist

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
Newsflash?
Er, that dates from 2007...
And Julian Barbour also proposed a similar thing in 1999 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Next-Revolution-Understanding-Universe/dp/0297819852/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323825064&sr=1-2).
But he wasn't the first either.

Oops.
:o
Sorry, I misread your comment as "zero volume".


It was worthless, meaningless nonsense.


So you didn't bother to read the link provided in post #89 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873261&postcount=89)?

Stenger's version is a probability theory, it's not a proposal of how it happens. It's fairly useless in this thread. he also cheats quite a lot, with negative time, and such. It's a pretty bad piece of work. He also fails to realise what symmetry is although he uses symmetry, and so he is mostly working with effects, rather than causes. It's the sort of stuff that sounds clever, but only if you are yourself quite dim.

1 + -1 = 0 blows it away, because you then have to be clever enough to know why.

1 + -1 = 0 blows it away, because you then have to be clever enough to know why.

Is that like saying it's ill wind that blows nobody good?

What is density without mass?


Mass is the tendency for a particle to resist changes in motion.

Density is how many of something you can fit into a given volume.

Not the same things.

1 + -1 = 0 . . . . so does t + -t (assign any value) . . . . so does . . . etc. . . . etc

In the Big Bang model, it's just there, then it explodes.

(Problematic in the model is that of the singularity beginning to explode at all when there is no time or space in which to begin).

AI, you've said this before.

This wasn't an explosion. What there was, was not violently thrust 'outward'. There was no 'outward'. What there was expanded. There was more of what there was.

AI, you've said this before.

This wasn't an explosion. What there was, was not violently thrust 'outward'. There was no 'outward'. What there was expanded. There was more of what there was.

AlexG . . . to use your favorite term . . . ."word salad!

AI, you've said this before.

This wasn't an explosion. What there was was not violently thrust 'outward'. There was no 'outward'. What there was expanded. There was more of what there was.

I was only borrowing the term used here and elsewhere.

Yes there was an expansion. Of what, from what? And how does expansion occur without space? So expansion means the creation of spacetime, among other things.

"Before" the BBS expands - what then? I am supposing that the singularity is suspended in a timeless state, therefore eternal, and co"existing" with the temporal disintegrating products of the initial inflation/expansion.

AI, you've said this before.

This wasn't an explosion. What there was, was not violently thrust 'outward'. There was no 'outward'. What there was expanded. There was more of what there was.That's multiplied or you could say increased, whereas "expanded" means the same stuff but taking up a larger volume of space.:)

According to the laws of quantum mechanics, random virtual energy fluctuations may occur constantly. As long as the net energy is zero, there are no conservation laws violated.

Let us abandon the relativistic concept of the zero size, infinitely dense singularity. This is what we seem to get get when we apply the laws of relativity to the quantum realm, where they do not apply.

If instead we consider something the size of a proton, with the mass of a tennis ball, and apply Guth's Inflationary theory, then we have the universe we observe today.

AlexG . . . to use your favorite term . . . ."word salad!What about :word pavlova", fluffed up and delicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlova_(food)

:)

AlexG . . . to use your favorite term . . . ."word salad!

I'm sorry wl, if you couldn't understand it. I made it as simple as I could. I guess it just wasn't simple enough for you.

According to the laws of quantum mechanics, random virtual energy fluctuations may occur constantly. As long as the net energy is zero, there are no conservation laws violated.

Let us abandon the relativistic concept of the zero size, infinitely dense singularity. This is what we seem to get get when we apply the laws of relativity to the quantum realm, where they do not apply.

If instead we consider something the size of a proton, with the mass of a tennis ball, and apply Guth's Inflationary theory, then we have the universe we observe today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth#Inflationary_theory

I'm sorry wl, if you couldn't understand it. I made it as simple as I could. I guess it just wasn't simple enough for you.

. . . . Oh yes . . . I understood it . . . . still "word salad"!

. . . . Oh yes . . . I understood it . . . . still "word salad"!

Of course you did. :bugeye:

According to the laws of quantum mechanics, random virtual energy fluctuations may occur constantly. As long as the net energy is zero, there are no conservation laws violated.

Let us abandon the relativistic concept of the zero size, infinitely dense singularity. This is what we seem to get get when we apply the laws of relativity to the quantum realm, where they do not apply.

If instead we consider something the size of a proton, with the mass of a tennis ball, and apply Guth's Inflationary theory, then we have the universe we observe today.

The OP focuses on the initial conditions. What precedes the initial inflation?
What is at t=0? The standard model starts with zero space, maximum crunch. But that implies that the singularity "exists" in a timeless state. Spacetime necessarily arises contemporaneously with the expansion. But back at t-zero is the crunched singularity, stuck in timelessness, analogous to the frozen images of matter entering a black hole.

The best analogy I could get taking your proton tennis ball would be to start with a photon, stranded in time, and then start it racing around in random spherical trajectories of ever increasing radius, emitting light in the process. The light is ever changing, but the photon itself is stranded at t=0.

This would more or less illustrate my remarks about the crunched singularity co"exist"ing with the time-tagged inflating and expanding products of its "emission".

What precedes the initial inflation?


We don't know, and there really isn't any way we can know. It's all speculation at that point.

We don't know, and there really isn't any way we can know. It's all speculation at that point.

Agreed.

I would just like to know your opinion: if an object lies outside of time, is it not correct to infer that it remains there forever?

if an object lies outside of time, is it not correct to infer that it remains there forever?

No, because the concept of forever deals with time, and if an object is outside of time, it doesn't apply.

If an object is outside of time, why couldn't it intrude into time at any point along the timeline?

No, because the concept of forever deals with time, and if an object is outside of time, it doesn't apply.

If an object is outside of time, why couldn't it intrude into time at any point along the timeline?That's interesting Aqueous, Eternal and Temporal overlap?:)

"Nothing" lies outside of time. That nothing becomes a part of our universe is a matter of scale and quantum effects.

Every space holds these possibilities. The hard part is observing them.

And another crank is heard from.
Any evidence for your claims?
Any at all?

And another crank is heard from.
Any evidence for your claims?
Any at all?Anyone on this thread is liable of that label so how about specifying who you are referring to please?:)

No, because the concept of forever deals with time, and if an object is outside of time, it doesn't apply.

The eternal object sees time as an integrated continuum. The time traveler sees the eternal object persisting, but perceives time as differentiable.



If an object is outside of time, why couldn't it intrude into time at any point along the timeline?
Good question. For example, is the BBS ever present, but, never encroaching into space, does it remain the non-interactive observer over all the continuum for all eternity? (By way of illustration, I'm not remotely suggesting any power of observation!)

"Nothing" lies outside of time.

Find me a photon and tell me where it lies.

Substantial physics is rooted in the collapse of spacetime.

Assuming the standard model, the Big Bang singularity is presumed to create spacetime. The only apparent alternative to creatio ex nihilo (see the OP) is that the singularity blooms from a timeless spaceless initial state. According to this logic, the singularity lies outside of time.

We don't know, and there really isn't any way we can know. It's all speculation at that point.

Well I proposed that scale is relative, and the first particles in a total emptiness have no relative scale, nothing to be compared to. In my theory this allows them to be any scale so long as all of the constituents that they are made from obey the same scaling rules. This was my proposal some years ago, and then to confirm my thoughts space-time grain was measured, and was larger in the north than the south. I don't see a problem with my theory, and its probably confirmation.

As for the maths, well 1 + -1 = 0 is very important. Because this simple formula can be used as a self building algorithm. We know from computer binary that you do not need more than two opposites to create any computer program. So we know that my formula can build all other formulas. I have proposed how the universe uses particles with holes to produce physics. I have a method.. Newton's Kissing Problem. I have evidence leptons all obey kissing problem numbers.. 6, 12, 24. I have more evidence, nature obeys kissing problem numbers.. most creatures have 6 limbs, if body parts on insects are segmented the segments obey kissing problem numbers. Take for example a millipede, its body is sectioned to be blocked at both ends. This gives you a kissing problem in the remaining direction which is 2, and millipedes have two legs in each section. Atom orbits obey kissing problem rules, and snowflakes. feet, hands, and fish.

The Universe uses opposites to create everything which adds up to 0. It is binary code written this way +1 + -1 = 0. Using ball packing physics.

In 3D there are 12 balls around a single ball, and a space for a 13th ball. This allows the balls to move around. The space is time, and it works like a tile puzzle in which you are not allowed to move the same tile twice....

http://slide-puzzle.lastdownload.com/

I have the formula. I have many proofs. Being as the quote says "Nobody knows." Then I am allowed to suggest in this thread my proposal.

I am allowed to suggest in this thread my proposal.

I do not understand what you are talking about.

If you want others to understand you, you will need to be clear.

It's hard enough to be clear when striving to do so.

But your posts seem to strive toward murky ambiguity.

My first suggestion is to remove all analogies and drive to the facts and inferences.

Next, you will have to at least strive for accuracy. I don't know how you can do that, because you are persisting in all kinds of errors.

(by the way a system of three symbols {1,-1, 0} is tertiary, not binary).

Also you should try to bring something to the table. This thread is about as light as it gets for science. Can't you find anything to connect your ideas with actual science or math?

All of these elements combine to make it impossible to extract meaning from your posts.

Just a suggestion. These are things to consider if you wish to be understood.

That's interesting Aqueous, Eternal and Temporal overlap?:)

I think every permutation is seen. In particle/antiparticle interactions, there seems to be on overlap with forward and reverse time streams. In wave function collapse, there seems to be a springing forth of time from a timeless state. In the event horizon, time and space seem to switch coordinates as they collapse. Then there's the photon, persisting over all of time, yet revealing itself all along the timeline, as if it has solved every spatial path problem instantaneously to yield all the correct answers to every problem with observable data (e.g., slit experiments). And so on.

Herman Von Helmholtz once said that the eye integrates and the ear differentiates. This is maybe a good analogy between the timeless and the temporal states. The timeless photon, stranded in its eternity, sees all of the continuum, all that ever was and ever will be. The real word object, chained to the wheels of time, experiences the difference, moment by moment, of every interaction that attaches to it.

I do not understand what you are talking about.

If you want others to understand you, you will need to be clear.

It's hard enough to be clear when striving to do so.

But your posts seem to strive toward murky ambiguity.

My first suggestion is to remove all analogies and drive to the facts and inferences.

Next, you will have to at least strive for accuracy. I don't know how you can do that, because you are persisting in all kinds of errors.

(by the way a system of three symbols {1,-1, 0} is tertiary, not binary).

Also you should try to bring something to the table. This thread is about as light as it gets for science. Can't you find anything to connect your ideas with actual science or math?

All of these elements combine to make it impossible to extract meaning from your posts.

Just a suggestion. These are things to consider if you wish to be understood.

Then just ask 1 question at a time.

You must surely understand +1 + -1 = 0? As it is in the Hawking video.

The kissing problem is here, just change the balls for particles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_number_problem

Energy is where the balls touch.

12 balls can touch 1 ball.

There is space for a 13th ball.

Space-time grain is here...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128204.200-distant-light-hints-at-size-of-spacetime-grains.html

It is all science.

Then just ask 1 question at a time.

You must surely understand +1 + -1 = 0? As it is in the Hawking video.

The kissing problem is here, just change the balls for particles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_number_problem

Yes those two facts are evident to me. What is not evident is what these facts mean in connection with origin of the universe, whether is is ex nihilo or infinite. That was the question in the OP.

Can you state a position and your reason for that position?

Yes those two facts are evident to me. What is not evident is what these facts mean in connection with origin of the universe, whether is is ex nihilo or infinite. That was the question in the OP.

Can you state a position and your reason for that position?

Zero is obviously infinite, and obviously nothing. So why are you asking?

1 + -1 = 0
2 + -2 = 0
3 + -3 = 0

Infinite.

Zero is obviously infinite, and obviously nothing.
This statement is an example of my remark about errors. Zero is the reciprocal of infinity. So if you enter into a dialogue by asserting the opposite of a concept as it is commonly known, you will leave your reader believing that you intend to be confusing.



So why are you asking?

Why am I asking your position on the origin of the universe? Because I have not been able to detect it from what you have posted so far.



1 + -1 = 0
2 + -2 = 0
3 + -3 = 0

Infinite.
Zero is infinite, the universe is infinite, or the universe is zero (ex nihilo)?
See already I'm lost again. Why not just try to be clear?

This statement is an example of my remark about errors. Zero is the reciprocal of infinity. So if you enter into a dialogue by asserting the opposite of a concept as it is commonly known, you will leave your reader believing that you intend to be confusing.


Why am I asking your position on the origin of the universe? Because I have not been able to detect it from what you have posted so far.


Zero is infinite, the universe is infinite, or the universe is zero (ex nihilo)?
See already I'm lost again. Why not just try to be clear?

There are a lot of examples already in the thread. The Hawking video of a man digging a hole...

1 shovel full of soil - 1 shovelled out hole = 0
2 shovels full of soil - 2 shovelled out hole = 0
3 shovels full of soil - 3 shovelled out hole = 0
...but the hole is getting bigger, and bigger. Scale is not an issue.

Same with my igloo example. Same with a lot of other examples. You just sound like you are not clicking on all of the links.

The Universe is infinite, and has a total state of zero.

There are a lot of examples already in the thread. The Hawking video of a man digging a hole...

1 shovel full of soil - 1 shovelled out hole = 0
2 shovels full of soil - 2 shovelled out hole = 0
3 shovels full of soil - 3 shovelled out hole = 0
...but the hole is getting bigger, and bigger. Scale is not an issue.

Same with my igloo example. Same with a lot of other examples. You just sound like you are not clicking on all of the links.

The Universe is infinite, and has a total state of zero.

I don't know if you remember that the OP was asking about the origin of the universe - I mean, a lot of stuff has passed this window since then - feet, hand, fish, balls, shovels, igloos, piles of dirt, a lot of stuff.

So when you say the universe is infinite, do you mean that it always existed, and therefore you are against the proposition of creatio ex nihilo?

I don't know if you remember that the OP was asking about the origin of the universe - I mean, a lot of stuff has passed this window since then - feet, hand, fish, balls, shovels, igloos, piles of dirt, a lot of stuff.

So when you say the universe is infinite, do you mean that it always existed, and therefore you are against the proposition of creatio ex nihilo?

Ask yourself.. has zero always existed? It has its own answer built in the question.

Can zero expand? ... built in the question.

Can you create a Galaxy from zero? ... yes.

Can you create a Universe from zero? ... yes.

Can you create a particle from zero... The particle is zero. It even looks like a zero 'O'.. neat coincidence.

The Universe is infinite, and has a total state of zero.

Those is true for a hole and the mound once replaced, but imagine if you went to your neighbours and dug holes all over their lawn and left the soil beside the holes. When they complain, as I imagine they would, you say "I've done nothing, the net effect is zero".
There is energy expended to do this work and that is energy lost as heat. There are repeated claims that the structural energy and the negative energy in the gravitational field balance but no one mentions the endless amount of energy tied up in motion and heat. Where did that come from and what is the balance for that?
The motion and heat of the Universe are not accounted for.:)

So you don't care whether I understand you or not, even after I pointed out that your statements lack clarity.

If the universe is infinite over time, which you still haven't answered, then it was never created, so as you see the confusion builds.

You never had to write a paper on anything? You never had an instructor explain that the language should be clear if you want to be understood?

Maybe this should be a thread on language.

Those is true for a hole and the mound once replaced, but imagine if you went to your neighbours and dug holes all over their lawn and left the soil beside the holes. When they complain, as I imagine they would, you say "I've done nothing, the net effect is zero".
There is energy expended to do this work and that is energy lost as heat. There are repeated claims that the structural energy and the negative energy in the gravitational field balance but no one mentions the endless amount of energy tied up in motion and heat. Where did that come from and what is the balance for that?
The motion and heat of the Universe are not accounted for.:)

Scale is the missing ingredient. Nobody thought about scale as a relative product. You can scale zero with no net change.

1 + -1 = 0

is exactly the same as

2 + -2 = 0

And scale can create an energy that is negated as time.

scale + time = 0

Because scale will cause a bump between particles.

So you don't care whether I understand you or not, even after I pointed out that you statements lack clarity.

If the universe is infinite over time, which you still haven't answered, then it was never created, so as you see the confusion builds.

You never had to write a paper on anything? You never had an instructor explain that the language should be clear if you want to be understood?

Maybe this should be a thread on language.
When you can get a whole Universe for nothing, why do you need an instructor? Original thoughts that Pincho has comes out of his own consciousness. OK the description of the events and processes become difficult in these situations for he has not been taught the right terminology.
I agree with you Aqueous, Zero does not seem to be infinite but the opposite. For the reasons he gives there are infinite number of expressions that add or subtract yielding any number, not just for zero. So zero is not a special case.

Scale is the missing ingredient. Nobody thought about scale as a relative product. You can scale zero with no net change.

1 + -1 = 0

is exactly the same as

2 + -2 = 0

And scale can create an energy that is negated as time.

scale + time = 0

Because scale will cause a bump between particles.How do you define scale? :)

When you can get a whole Universe for nothing, why do you need an instructor? Original thoughts that Pincho has comes out of his own consciousness. OK the description of the events and processes become difficult in these situations for he has not been taught the right terminology.
I agree with you Aqueous, Zero does not seem to be infinite but the opposite. For the reasons he gives there are infinite number of expressions that add or subtract yielding any number, not just for zero. So zero is not a special case.

stream of consciousness? is that it? aha- well maybe you can translate for me after you figure out what he's saying.

How do you define scale? :)

A fundamental free ingredient. A particle must have a size. A particle in emptiness has no relative size, it can be any size. Zero can be any size. Inflation is to scale the free product. The free product can scale until it bumps into something. Then you have time. Time negates the scale, the particle has to scale down.

1 + -1 = 0
2 + -2 = 0
3 + -3 = 0
4 + -4 = 0

The particle expands until it bumps. Then time happens.

5 + - 5 = bump time
4 + - 4 = 0

A fundamental free ingredient. A particle must have a size. A particle in emptiness has no relative size, it can be any size. Zero can be any size. Inflation is to scale the free product. The free product can scale until it bumps into something. Then you have time. Time negates the scale, the particle has to scale down.

1 + -1 = 0
2 + -2 = 0
3 + -3 = 0
4 + -4 = 0

The particle expands until it bumps. Then time happens.

5 + - 5 = bump time
4 + - 4 = 0Surely time would have started from the moment the first ripple appeared in the nothing, way before 1 and -1 but the moment any displacement between the positivity and negativity occurred.

You know this discussion takes me back to my really early childhood, say more than 50 years ago I used to get this dream repeatedly and it was one I sought.
Where there was total calm (Nothing) and it travelled in a circular plane, and then a minor ripple appeared in the calm and as it circulated the ripple intensified until it became chaotic waves everywhere.
So was that how it went, the scale of the ripple intensified till it materialised?:)

The concept of negative is a mental construct of math that can be misused when applied to reality. There is no such thing as a negative apple, except in math concepts. I never saw on, did you? Such mentals math constructs, which have a limited basis within reality, can lead to confusion, even though they have practical value. You need to leave reality to explain reality?

Many things in reality are just positive. The negative and postive in the abstract universe of math, gives results based on half of its things not always existing in reality.

For example, what is negative energy in terms of tangible reality? Does it have negative wavelengh, negative frequency or does it move at -C? It is not real but exists only in the imagination. Energy is only postive in terms of a tangible thing. It is question of just how much postive.

What is negative time? Can anyone show me? I tend to be suspicious of math models that use some nonreality to model reality. This is part of the conceptual confusion when talking about the universe at t=0. We try to explain in terms of the math which invokes fantasy to explain reality, such as negative energy.

Surely time would have started from the moment the first ripple appeared in the nothing, way before 1 and -1 but the moment any displacement between the positivity and negativity occurred.

You know this discussion takes me back to my really early childhood, say more than 50 years ago I used to get this dream repeatedly and it was one I sought.
Where there was total calm (Nothing) and it travelled in a circular plane, and then a minor ripple appeared in the calm and as it circulated the ripple intensified until it became chaotic waves everywhere.
So was that how it went, the scale of the ripple intensified till it materialised?:)

Time is a word where the English language has gone completely off track. Time is a form of physics between particles. Because the particle is expanding without hitting anything there is no interaction between particles. I don't know how to fix the word 'time' in people's heads. Maybe replace it with bump? Bump works really well.

The concept of negative is a mental construct of math that can be misused when applied to reality. There is no such thing as a negative apple, except in math concepts. I never saw on, did you? Such mentals math constructs, which have a limited basis within reality, can lead to confusion, even though they have practical value. You need to leave reality to explain reality?

Many things in reality are just positive. The negative and postive in the abstract universe of math, gives results based on half of its things not always existing in reality.

For example, what is negative energy in terms of tangible reality? Does it have negative wavelengh, negative frequency or does it move at -C? It is not real but exists only in the imagination. Energy is only postive in terms of a tangible thing. It is question of just how much postive.

What is negative time? Can anyone show me? I tend to be suspicious of math models that use some nonreality to model reality. This is part of the conceptual confusion when talking about the universe at t=0. We try to explain in terms of the math which invokes fantasy to explain reality, such as negative energy.

An apple is a human construct, it is matter, and there is anti-matter. I don't use maths, I use a computer language which breaks down into logic structures. There is no negative time, it changes to scale.

Time for a little humor? . . . . Assume PP is correct and an apple is matter . . . . my mother had a sister named "Apple" . . . so if an apple is matter, then her sister would be my "Auntie (anti) -Apple? . . . . I guess it's all relative!

Time for a little humor? . . . . Assume PP is correct and an apple is matter . . . . my mother had a sister named "Apple" . . . so if an apple is matter, then her sister would be my "Auntie (anti) -Apple? . . . . I guess it's all relative!

Just thought I'd pass along: I noticed upon entering THE ZOO the sign that says "Do Not Feed the Animals". :cool:

You need to leave reality to explain reality?

Explain the wave function without leaving reality. The singularity. The timeline of the photon. Particle interaction. Special relativity. Quantum states.



Many things in reality are just positive.

Except for almost any quantity, dimension or unit, which can be signed or have a sense.



The negative and postive in the abstract universe of math, gives results based on half of its things not always existing in reality.

Like a North Pole with no South? What reality is that?



For example, what is negative energy in terms of tangible reality? Does it have negative wavelengh, negative frequency or does it move at -C? It is not real but exists only in the imagination. Energy is only postive in terms of a tangible thing. It is question of just how much postive.

What is the square root of four? Explain your answer.



What is negative time? Can anyone show me?

Fenynman diagram (below).



I tend to be suspicious of math models that use some nonreality to model reality.

Including suspicion of the imaginary number i?



This is part of the conceptual confusion when talking about the universe at t=0.

The question was whether it arrives ex nihilo, or always existed.



We try to explain in terms of the math which invokes fantasy to explain reality, such as negative energy.

If abstraction is fantasy, then mathematicians must be psychiatrists.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg/300px-Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg.png

If abstraction is fantasy, then mathematicians must be psychiatrists.

. . . .at least they THINK they are (psychiatrists!) . . . . to be more accurate, more of them should SEE psychiatrists!

What is the square root of four? Explain your answer.

OR!. . . . .define the nature of the universe and give 2 examples!

What is the square root of four? Explain your answer.

OR!. . . . .define the nature of the universe and give 2 examples!

Or how about address the OP. Even that would be an accomplishment. Everybody's jumping all over the place.

AID #207 . . . a little humor, injected now and again, seems to nullify the constant barrage of insults launched by a few 'holier-than-thou' participants who think they know-it-all! BTW . . . . If you can't laugh about it . . . it's not funny!

AID #207 . . . a little humor, injected now and again, seems to nullify the constant barrage of insults launched by a few 'holier-than-thou' participants who think they know-it-all! BTW . . . . If you can't laugh about it . . . it's not funny!

Or they're running game, maybe. Who knows. It's a cosmology thread, so it would be interesting to have some actual participation at that level. Some of the experts wandered in and left. Some remarked that the OP is beyond science, which is of course true. Some I think are finding more interesting material where there is less BS.

I had a good few days of interaction, almost getting some of the better qualified folks to comment on a question, relevant to the OP, that is interesting to me: if it is not creatio ex nihilo, then the singularity presumably exists outside of spacetime. Is so, is it eternal?

I found it interesting that some of the better informed folks had some actual rationale for arguing one way or the other on this question. But it fizzled out when harping and BS set in, and they wandered off.

MY take? . . . .I think 'spacetime' has always existed . . . our present, material (> Planck length) universe is simply evolving into a pre-existent spacetime matrix by conversion of subquantal 'stuff' into matter. I refer you to the EEMU Hypothesis for details.

I probably shouldn't have posted my version of time in here. It's too far away from science time.

I probably shouldn't have posted my version of time in here. It's too far away from science time.

Why propose anything that has no science? Are you interested in metaphysics (:m:)? Just asking.

MY take? . . . .I think 'spacetime' has always existed . . . our present, material (> Planck length) universe is simply evolving into a pre-existent spacetime matrix by conversion of subquantal 'stuff' into matter. I refer you to the EEMU Hypothesis for details.

I looked at it, but I couldn't get my teeth into it.

Why propose anything that has no science? Are you interested in metaphysics (:m:)? Just asking.

I have my own models that work fine, but shouldn't be posted in this room.

AID: . . . that's O.K. . . . thanks for looking . . . besides . . . AlexG probably couldn't either . . . he prefers 'getting his' teeth into my ass! (<-- Note: humor here!)

Or they're running game, maybe. Who knows. It's a cosmology thread, so it would be interesting to have some actual participation at that level. Some of the experts wandered in and left. Some remarked that the OP is beyond science, which is of course true. Some I think are finding more interesting material where there is less BS.

I had a good few days of interaction, almost getting some of the better qualified folks to comment on a question, relevant to the OP, that is interesting to me: if it is not creatio ex nihilo, then the singularity presumably exists outside of spacetime. Is so, is it eternal?

I found it interesting that some of the better informed folks had some actual rationale for arguing one way or the other on this question. But it fizzled out when harping and BS set in, and they wandered off.
Well I hope I haven't disappointed you Aqueous for you were asking some difficult questions and trying to elicit some difficult answers. I never shy away from the fact that I am a God believer, not that I know what God is or does or looks like, it is just that I feel connected to something more powerful and knowledgeable than myself.
So I have had my revelations given to me, OK if they do hold out, then maybe I'd have to question the concept of belief.
So when you keep asking "if it is not creatio ex nihilo, then the singularity presumably exists outside of spacetime. Is so, is it eternal?" I have let you down for I never spent time understanding what "creatio ex nihilo" really meant. OK I think it means "came from nothing" but the "creatio" might mean created which then asks if there was a creator?

Creator concepts aren't liked on this forum. Eternal and “before time” concepts are God-like attributes as well; so that would scare off most of the others.

OK on one post I made today I said the energy in the Universe is not zero, and showed why I felt it wasn't zero, and have not had any replies to that.
So if the Total Energy in the Universe is not Zero and Energy can't be created or destroyed where did it come from?
I would love to know how Hawking was able to show the positive and negative energy balanced.
I read that often and he gets quoted saying that but it never seems to have verified it.
Or is it as long as God is not part of the equation anything goes? :)

Following a report from a member suggesting I move this thread to another forum, I started looking through it to see if I could split it into a science part and a pseudoscience part. I found that after the first four or five posts the rest is basically pseudoscience. So, I've moved the entire thread. I seriously considered the Cesspool, and it may still become necessary to move it there.

Well I hope I haven't disappointed you Aqueous for you were asking some difficult questions and trying to elicit some difficult answers. I never shy away from the fact that I am a God believer, not that I know what God is or does or looks like, it is just that I feel connected to something more powerful and knowledgeable than myself.
So I have had my revelations given to me, OK if they do hold out, then maybe I'd have to question the concept of belief.
So when you keep asking "if it is not creatio ex nihilo, then the singularity presumably exists outside of spacetime. Is so, is it eternal?" I have let you down for I never spent time understanding what "creatio ex nihilo" really meant. OK I think it means "came from nothing" but the "creatio" might mean created which then asks if there was a creator?

Creator concepts aren't liked on this forum. Eternal and “before time” concepts are God-like attributes as well; so that would scare off most of the others.

OK on one post I made today I said the energy in the Universe is not zero, and showed why I felt it wasn't zero, and have not had any replies to that.
So if the Total Energy in the Universe is not Zero and Energy can't be created or destroyed where did it come from?
I would love to know how Hawking was able to show the positive and negative energy balanced.
I read that often and he gets quoted saying that but it never seems to have verified it.
Or is it as long as God is not part of the equation anything goes? :)

I think the question of negative energy is more directed to explaining inflation and expansion than it is to inquiring into the origins. It's an interpretation, but not a bald one. He has the ability to connect the dots within his own theory and knowledge, but it didn't resonate with me because I wasn't interested in expansion as a mechanism as much as I was interested in the "first cause" raised by the OP.

I think this OP sets up a way to split the cosmology away from theology. Science begins, Hawking says, right after the Big Bang. I think this is where the yawning comes in - the speculation it invites may be a turn off to people who like to work proofs and exercise their chops.

As far as connecting anything I was saying to notions of God or Creationism, the only reason any connection might be drawn, as you note, is that I was speaking to the question of what came first. From my perspective, it's just a coincidence that the God of Creation is cast in religion as what came first.

By assigning creation to God, we deprive ourselves of a degree of inquiry that we might otherwise undertake. Who knows how many great minds have been wasted because they were either reluctant or forbidden to inquire further.

It so happens that over the ages the documented attributes of God have grown by accretion, until he absorbs all the unanswered questions, by acquiring every form of power and magic necessary to staunch the bleeding, so to speak. So he is eternal yet also rides along the timestream, kicking ass and taking names. He is omnipresent. He reads minds. Whatever.

But some of those attributes are directly tied to the abstractions made in cosmology concerning dimensionality. So, for example the photon that is eternal yet interacts along the timeline in mysterious ways - but clearly visible in its effect - this is analogous to the divine power I mentioned above. Or, the concept that the photon has forever to cut through every path in space to trace every light ray conceivable, instantaneously - this could be analogous to the omnipresence of God.

Who knows, if Tycho Brahe hadn't been burned at the stake, or if Galileo hadn't been locked up, what extremely cool stuff we might be discussing today.

It just sticks in my craw, that if there ever is an object off the timeline, it must be trapped in eternity since never the twain shall meet. AlexG asked the very valid question, what's to say they never shall meet? I think he already alluded to multiverses, but from reading his posts elsewhere, I could see that he is also connecting a lot of other dots when mentioning temporal overlaps.

So where does that leave us? Back to the start. Several people suggested that the universe is both infinite and arrives ex nihilo. I prefer this idea myself. Because if we say it is infinite, we can just as easily say that infinity is the superset of all possible scenarios, one of which is arrival ex nihilo. Alternatively, I can rewind time to t-zero and say the universe exists in a crunch forever, but also blooms into the Big Bang precisely then, when time was created.

That's what I was trying to prevent, but I suppose I am also to blame.

AID: . . . I agree . . . . w/your post #229 . . . and think JamesR is over-reaching in his response to one of his "bud's reports. I am enjoying your discussions here.

I have found this one of the most interesting threads, so while it is still unlocked let's not fret about it. It was philosophical and not particularly scientific for we were discussing the moment before Science begins.
I have saved it to my subscribed threads so while I can contribute I will do my best.

I see it was tried before "Universe for Nothing" http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107760