RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
Before the big bang was there an unspecified volume of spatial points that has always existed ?
0^∞=0
Before the big bang there was nothing !
how many full stops can you fit inside a circle ?
Before the big bang was there an unspecified volume of spatial points that has always existed ?
0^∞=0
Before the big bang there was nothing !
That depends on the circumference of the circle . Maybe we should be asking if 0+0=1x how many 1x are in a .how many full stops can you fit inside a circle ?
More plausible than "I don't know" when we don't know?That wouldn't be very good physics !
We can apply physics knowledge to at least get something written that is more plausible and more understandable .
More plausible than "I don't know" when we don't know?
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.A problem I observe is that people can't or don't distinguish the difference between definitions .
Space is described :
noun
An unspecified volume of spatial points describes a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied , any given point having a 0 value .
- 1. a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
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 is described:
noun
An absence of existence without geometry, but with the property of being permittive of everything, i.e. expansion.
- the absence or cessation of life or existence.
"the fear of the total nothingness of death"
Similar: nonexistence, nonbeing, void
I see a non-trivial distinction in these descriptions.
Which direction do you wish to move from the North Pole?
ie I am standing on the North Pole.
Do you wish me to go vertical? In that case answer the Universe
Did I miss any destination North of North?
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/95...hat-time-can-behave-like-another-direction-ofGoodRead said:
“The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world.
Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time.
As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point.
To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.”
― Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design
So you are taking my North of North answer and applying said answer to a DIFFERENT situationNow let apply these possibilities to the Universe
So you are taking my North of North answer and applying said answer to a DIFFERENT situation
No, YOU THINK it is a different situation.
But as said... hard work here, i am not Hawking, Wheeler, Susskind, Thorn, Damour, Rovelli, etc...
Precisely, but AFAIK, this condition did not exist before the BB.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 .
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?
You're going to have to define your terms more clearly.Matter is formed by a+b/t and matter occupies spatial points .
(a+b)^3
a/R^n=0/t
b/R^n=0/t
a+b/R^n=1/t
a+a=0/t
b+b=0/t
a+b=1/t
Where a=q1 b=q2 t=time
All of that is complete bollocks.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
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 .All of that is complete bollocks.
Given your gross ignorance on the subject you're not in a position to judge how much I know about physics.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).
You did so "inform" me. But you were lying.I informed you I was a Professor of advanced physics
Mainly due to the fact that it's made up bullshit and not actual physics.because they do not teach this advanced physics yet .
More bullshit.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.
And yet you can't - or won't - substantiate this.I am a professor of advanced physics
Wrong.you are not qualified in advanced physics , I am