Before the Big Bang, was there an unspecified volume of spatial points ?

how many full stops can you fit inside a circle ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That depends on the circumference of the circle . Maybe we should be asking if 0+0=1x how many 1x are in a .

I estimate .=10 *1x with a radius of 5*1x so if we were to attempt a circumference , that would be 31.4*1x

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More plausible than "I don't know" when we don't know?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We do know presently what physics exists and if we consider this knowledge we can conclude that a beginning of a visual universe requires a specific set of physics that is in agreement with our present physics . Therefore any described beginning that uses present physics must be credible reasoning if the physics ''works'' .

In example I stated

a+a = 0/t and (a) represented (q1) which is a positive charge .

We all know from our present knowledge and Coulombs law , that (a) and (a) would be repulsive to each other , having likewise charge . We can conclude that a+a is an anti pairing equation and (a) could not converge with (a) to form m1 without an opposite charge pairing .

From these type deductions we can compose a profile of possibility and reach conclusions that are physically possible .

 

Yes, but space as a continuous area has geometric properties and duration and that makes it spacetime. And AFAIK, spacetime in science is not empty.

Nothingness (permittive condition) is described:
noun

1. the absence or cessation of life or existence.
   "the fear of the total nothingness of death"
   
   Similar: nonexistence, nonbeing, void

An absence of existence without geometry, but with the property of being permittive of everything, i.e. expansion.

I see a non-trivial distinction in these descriptions.

 

The problem with this nothingness definition is existence because space as a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied, would exist but without having physicality .
For reasons of clarity , I prefer to define nothingness as an unspecified volume of spatial points that is absence of matter/energy . However , an unspecified volume of spatial points does have none physical properties that we can describe as real coordinate space and space-time . Of course these properties are virtual though compared to realism and real time .

 

Thats the firts part of the question : How can we go north of north in this case ?

So changing dimension ?
Yes, perhaps, nice imagination.

Perhaps.
Now let apply these possibilities to the Universe, so instead trying to find out what is north of north, lets try to find out was is before the beginning.

Perhaps it is a silly question.
Perhaps it can explain what is before BB.
The question has surely something to do with the interpretation of time (hard work here).

This was some question coming from Stephen Hawking :

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/95...hat-time-can-behave-like-another-direction-of


In my opinion, such a "begining" question cant be answered without first answering the question "what is reality".
Per example, here we should probably distinguish the local reality (what it is for a "far" person to be there) and the distant reality (what it is for a "far" person not to be there).

Here, we, Hawking etc, are discussing the distant reality.

We have the same questioning with SR (Special Relativity), when 2 peoples are moving from each other at relativistic speed (and before... but we dont care there) : The other age less (yes, it is true for both...) but the local reality is the same for both, and is the same everywhere in the Universe (time flow is universal).

 

So you are taking my North of North answer and applying said answer to a DIFFERENT situation

OK but I didn't write my answer with expectation of it being used for a different situation, soooo you own any problems associated with the new situation

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, YOU THINK it is a different situation.
But as said... hard work here, i am not Hawking, Wheeler, Susskind, Thorn, Damour, Rovelli, etc...

 

Nooooo.

I NEVER would have guessed

Where is that sarcasm font?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Precisely, but AFAIK, this condition did not exist before the BB.
Time associated with the existence of any property associated with space started after the BB.

Do you see the pre-BB singularity as existing (having duration) and expanding in your pre-universal empty spacetime, or do you see the BB singularity expanding as universal space into a permittive nothingness (without duration), creating spacetime?

 

Space-time as a coordinate system could be applied to a pre-universal empty space .

I see a ''hot dense state'' forming at any random point (x0,y0,z0) of a pre-universal empty space-time expanding into a permittive nothingness that has no permeability .

The matter of the ''hot dense state'' being real time :

t=q1+q2

delta t = delta kE

The Hafele–Keating time-dilation experiment agreeing with this !

It would be much easier if I could upload models , I could then show the speed of the light is 0 etc .

hf/F<E=c

 

You're going to have to define your terms more clearly.

 

All of that is complete bollocks.

 

All you ever post is bollox and personally I don't care what some washed out scientist . who doesn't know much about physics thinks .

 

Given your gross ignorance on the subject you're not in a position to judge how much I know about physics.
Although I will admit that I know next to nothing about what you call physics (but is, in reality, made up bullshit with no connection to actual physics).

 

I informed you I was a Professor of advanced physics so of course you know next to nothing on advanced physics because they do not teach this advanced physics yet .

I am teaching you all this freely and you dare to call something bs just because you haven't learnt it personally yet ?

I call that ignorance and arrogance !

Before the Big Bang there was an unspecified volume of spatial points that has always existed , i.e nothingness

Any given point having the potential to be occupied by matter

Any given point cannot be created or destroyed

Any given point is immovable

Any given point does not age

Any given point a geometrical point of real coordinate space

A property list to get started .

 

You did so "inform" me. But you were lying.

Mainly due to the fact that it's made up bullshit and not actual physics.

More bullshit.

 

I am a professor of advanced physics , you are not qualified in advanced physics , I am .

If you do not wish to be educated , that is your choice .

 

And yet you can't - or won't - substantiate this.
You are a clueless, lying, sockpuppet.

Wrong.