PhysicsQED:

You say this because. . .?



What schools are these? Reference?

pls ask him o!

PhysicsQED:

You say this because. . .?



What schools are these? Reference?

To your first question, I say that because it is logical. We cannot have an infinite regress...at some point there must have been a first cause that could not have been created and is eternal OR that came from 'nothing'. Now that something is eternal is problematic because if it is some-thing, then it came into being, it be-came. The only thing that can be eternal is Nothing or Void. So something must have come from Nothing or the Void. This is the only option.
But (and this answers question 2) scientists have proposed that the Nothing or Void before the Big Bang was not strictly nothing. It was a vacuum state with zero point energy - the lowest possible energy of a mechanical physical system. This is pure potential for becoming under which matter is popping in and out of existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy explains more about zero point energy.
Read up on Prof Lawrence Krausse and his views on this.

comnsense:

To your first question, I say that because it is logical. We cannot have an infinite regress...at some point there must have been a first cause that could not have been created and is eternal OR that came from 'nothing'. Now that something is eternal is problematic because if it is some-thing, then it came into being, it be-came. The only thing that can be eternal is Nothing or Void. So something must have come from Nothing or the Void. This is the only option.
But (and this answers question 2) scientists have proposed that the Nothing or Void before the Big Bang was not strictly nothing. It was a vacuum state with zero point energy - the lowest possible energy of a mechanical physical system. This is pure potential for becoming under which matter is popping in and out of existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy explains more about zero point energy.
Read up on Prof Lawrence Krausse and his views on this.

o! What a relief, it is a mans view.

truthislight:

o! What a relief, it is a mans view.

Oh I mentioned Krausse simply as an example. The zero point energy theory is embedded deeply in quantum physics and Krausse is building on this. You might want to know that knowledge in scientific is never really confined to one individual. Scientists usually work and experiment in conjunction with other scientists.

comnsense:

To your first question, I say that because it is logical. We cannot have an infinite regress...at some point there must have been a first cause that could not have been created and is eternal OR that came from 'nothing'. Now that something is eternal is problematic because if it is some-thing, then it came into being, it be-came. The only thing that can be eternal is Nothing or Void. So something must have come from Nothing or the Void. This is the only option.

You said "at some point" as if there was nothing and then something sprung up at some point in time, but what I was getting at is that you're presupposing that there is some sort of absolute Newtonian timeline and that over this timeline, there is some point that comes before the big b.ang.

But (and this answers question 2) scientists have proposed that the Nothing or Void before the Big Bang was not strictly nothing. It was a vacuum state with zero point energy - the lowest possible energy of a mechanical physical system. This is pure potential for becoming under which matter is popping in and out of existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy explains more about zero point energy.
Read up on Prof Lawrence Krausse and his views on this.

The point of my comment is that there is nothing like "before the big b.ang."

comnsense:

Oh I mentioned Krausse simply as an example. The zero point energy theory is embedded deeply in quantum physics and Krausse is building on this. You might want to know that knowledge in scientific is never really confined to one individual. Scientists usually work and experiment in conjunction with other scientists.

o yes!
this now makes it to be no longer human

Why Then is it possible that scientific precept/theories can later be rejected and abandon? With the arrival of more veryfiable evidence?

PhysicsQED:
The point of my comment is that there is nothing like "before the big b.ang."

Ever since I read of black holes and how they suck up surrounding matter and crush them into "singularities", I had this idea that the big bang could be the result of the expansion of a singulariy inside a black hole. Of course it's just an idea but a couple of theoretical physicists came to the same conclusion by the way of calculations.

http://www.insidescience.org/?q=content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

Torsion therefore provides a theoretical foundation for a scenario in which the interior of every black hole becomes a new universe. It also appears as a remedy to several major problems of current theory of gravity and cosmology. Physicists still need to combine the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory fully with quantum mechanics into a quantum theory of gravity. While resolving some major questions, it raises new ones of its own. For example, what do we know about the parent universe and the black hole inside which our own universe resides? How many layers of parent universes would we have? How can we test that our universe lives in a black hole?

^^^^

Why bother to seek answers?
The uncaused cause must have caused it. Its the last cosmic bus stop.

Just ask Deepsight.

plaetton: ^^^^
Why bother to seek answers?
The uncaused cause must have caused it. Its the last cosmic bus stop.
Just ask Deepsight.

The uncaused cause, the eternal, the sempiternal, the infinite, the immaterial,the unembodied, the force of all forces, the king of all kings, the oneness of infinity....................THE GREAT MUTHAF#CKING LEPRECHAUN!!!.

Martian:

Ever since I read of black holes and how they suck up surrounding matter and crush them into a "singularities", I had this idea that the big bang could be the result of the expansion of a singulariy inside a black hole. Of course it's just an idea but a couple of theoretical physicists came to the same conclusion by the way of calculations.

http://www.insidescience.org/?q=content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

Torsion therefore provides a theoretical foundation for a scenario in which the interior of every black hole becomes a new universe. It also appears as a remedy to several major problems of current theory of gravity and cosmology. Physicists still need to combine the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory fully with quantum mechanics into a quantum theory of gravity. While resolving some major questions, it raises new ones of its own. For example, what do we know about the parent universe and the black hole inside which our own universe resides? How many layers of parent universes would we have? How can we test that our universe lives in a black hole?

Yeah, I've thought of this myself, but I also came across a description of the idea in Kip Thorne's book, Black Holes and Time Warps. In Chapter 13, "Inside Black Holes" he talks about the idea of universes within black holes a few pages into the chapter. It's interesting, but of course, apart from there being no supporting experimental evidence, the theory is also not fully worked out.

With respect to time one could argue that, going in a direction of time considered "backward" in the new universe (assuming the universe that the black hole implosion creates has a time dimension of spacetime that does not run contrary to ours - that is, objects do not run "backward" through time on the macroscopic level, but appear to run "forward" like ours) to the big b.ang of that universe and then to the big b.ang of our universe, one would still not encounter a "time before time" because there would be nothing like a time before spacetime. Even if one wanted to construct an infinite regress of big b.angs started by black holes or one could prove that the number of universes would be finite, the first big b.ang when one goes backward through all spacetimes of all universes would still be the apparent origin of spacetime. So regardless of whether universes are born from black holes or not, one runs into the same situation of there eventually being nothing like "before the (first) big b.ang."

So peeps are still creditting the id.iotic Krauss with any iota of grey matter? ? ? ?

plaetton: ^^^^

Why bother to seek answers?
The uncaused cause must have caused it. Its the last cosmic bus stop.

Just ask Deepsight.

And it supposedly makes better sense to assume that said singularities and black holes. . . "just exist"

Voodoo, abi?

Carry on.

Martian:

The uncaused cause, the eternal, the sempiternal, the infinite, the immaterial,the unembodied, the force of all forces, the king of all kings, the oneness of infinity....................THE GREAT MUTHAF#CKING LEPRECHAUN!!!.

D.aft. As usual. I am growing accustomed to expecting st.upidity whenever i see your name.

PhysicsQED:

Yeah, I've thought of this myself, but I also came across a description of the idea in Kip Thorne's book, Black Holes and Time Warps. In Chapter 13, "Inside Black Holes" he talks about the idea of universes within black holes a few pages into the chapter. It's interesting, but of course, apart from there being no supporting experimental evidence, the theory is also not fully worked out.

With respect to time one could argue that, going in a direction of time considered "backward" in the new universe (assuming the universe that the black hole implosion creates has a time dimension of spacetime that does not run contrary to ours - that is, objects do not run "backward" through time on the macroscopic level, but appear to run "forward" like ours) to the big b.ang of that universe and then to the big b.ang of our universe, one would still not encounter a "time before time" because there would be nothing like a time before spacetime. Even if one wanted to construct an infinite regress of big b.angs started by black holes or one could prove that the number of universes would be finite, the first big b.ang when one goes backward through all spacetimes of all universes would still be the apparent origin of spacetime. So regardless of whether universes are born from black holes or not, one runs into the same situation of there eventually being nothing like "before the (first) big b.ang."

Illogical because this would simply mean that there was no singularity, and as such, no expansion, and as such, no universe.

I was to address your posts to this effect in the Speed of Light thread, but i grew weary of repeating myself.

comnsense:

Well, yes nature is purposeless; we may want to attribute a purpose to it to link it with an 'intelligent' designer. Evolution is simply about 'what works, survives' full stop. So indirectly, it has a goal to increase the fitness and therefore survival of an organism. But it doesn't 'set' out with any purpose. There is no goal or direction. 99.9 percent of all the species that ever existed are now extinct so where they survived in one era, they were not well equipped in some other. That demonstrates the lack of any direct purpose or design in nature or evolution. It is simply about the survival of the fittest at each point in time.

Please don't task me to point out the baseless assumptions (arising from your obvious omniscience) contained in this post.

Deep Sight:
Illogical because this would simply mean that there was no singularity, and as such, no expansion, and as such, no universe.

I was to address your posts to this effect in the Speed of Light thread, but i grew weary of repeating myself.

What are you talking about?

What exactly would mean that there was no singularity?

PhysicsQED:

What are you talking about?

What exactly would mean that there was no singularity?

If there was no "before" the big b.ang.

Then there was nothing.

That's the irrevocable conclusion for your faulty premises.

Deep Sight:

If there was no "before" the big b.ang.

Then there was nothing.

That's the irrevocable conclusion for your faulty premises.

What do you mean by "then there was"?

The conclusion to draw from my premises is that it doesn't make sense to assume for no reason that there was existence "prior to" the start of existence.

You keep trying to separate the singularity from the big b.ang and keep trying to place the singularity "before" the big b.ang as if they were separate. When I pointed out how wrong that is, you said it was somebody else's (thehomer's) assertion (as it was), but then continued to argue along that line of thought anyway.

PhysicsQED:

What do you mean by "then there was"?

The conclusion to draw from my premises is that it doesn't make sense to assume for no reason that there was existence "prior to" the start of existence.

You keep trying to separate the singularity from the big b.ang and keep trying to place the singularity "before" the big b.ang as if they were separate. When I pointed out how wrong that is, you said it was somebody else's (thehomer's) assertion (as it was), but then continued to argue along that line of thought anyway.

You are being terribly illogical. If there existed no singularity prior to the big b.ang, then from what did the expansion occur? What expanded? Nothingness? So long as it was a somethingness that expanded, then that somethingness necessarily existed before it could be said that it expands. Any less would be pure illogic: voodoo.

And since we necessarily speak of a "before," this then logically translates to pre-existent time. Period.

I really don't have the energy to debate the obvious. That's why I ended up not responding to your very long write ups in the "Speed of Light" thread.

Deep Sight:

You are being terribly illogical. If there existed no singularity prior to the big b.ang, then from what did the expansion occur? What expanded? Nothingness? So long as it was a somethingness that expanded, then that somethingness necessarily existed before it could be said that it expands. Any less would be pure illogic: voodoo.

And since we necessarily speak of a "before," this then logically translates to pre-existent time. Period.

I really don't have the energy to debate the obvious. That's why I ended up not responding to your very long write ups in the "Speed of Light" thread.

It's getting very frustrating trying to explain this to you.

1. There is no such thing as "a singularity prior to the big b.ang." It's a nonsensical assertion and you deliberately keep trying to present this scenario that thehomer seems to have stamped permanently into your consciousness where there is some singularity just sitting there in stasis for some significant but unspecified period of time for whatever reason and then it starts expanding. Dispose of that idea at once and then maybe you can make some progress.

2. Do you even get what the singularity is? Do you understand the meaning of "infinitesimally small volume" and "infinite density"? How you could possibly ask me what expanded is astonishing.

@PhysicsQED

Check this out. I just started reading it and it's pretty good.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-World-Exist-Existential/dp/0871404095

^^

Thanks. I read the description and it looks interesting. Next time I'm at a library I'll look for it.

Deep Sight:

Please don't task me to point out the baseless assumptions (arising from your obvious omniscience) contained in this post.

Well, Deepsight, you are evidently not an educated person if you are not aware or seek to argue this basic point about evolution. Baseless Assumptions? It is evident in nature and all around you. Have you ever read the origin of species by Darwin? Or is Darwin as idiotic as Krausse and should learn from the all knowing You and your well informed theory about the First Cause, the universal mind - something that equates to a lot of hot air.

@PhysicsQED,
I don't really follow you and have not read a lot of your posts. What do you mean by 'there is nothing like "before the big b.ang"' The big b.ang happened at a point in 'Time', did it not? And however, you may define 'Time', the big bang had a 'beginning'. Saying there is nothing like "before the big bang" sounds like the big b.ang or whatever led to it always was....Am I reading you right? However, you explain this with the context of Newtonian time, the question remains about the origin of the big bang and what existed before it happened. And if nothing did, (or Nothing like I wrote earlier) then, we go back to the question, how did it come about? And back to whole zero point energy theory as a possible answer.

comnsense:

Well, Deepsight, you are evidently not an educated person if you are not aware or seek to argue this basic point about evolution. Baseless Assumptions? It is evident in nature and all around you. Have you ever read the origin of species by Darwin? Or is Darwin as idiotic as Krausse and should learn from the all knowing You and your well informed theory about the First Cause, the universal mind - something that equates to a lot of hot air.

no no no.
You are right darwin is God

comnsense:

Well, Deepsight, you are evidently not an educated person if you are not aware or seek to argue this basic point about evolution. Baseless Assumptions? It is evident in nature and all around you. Have you ever read the origin of species by Darwin? Or is Darwin as idiotic as Krausse and should learn from the all knowing You and your well informed theory about the First Cause, the universal mind - something that equates to a lot of hot air.

no no no.
You are right darwin is God

PhysicsQED:

It's getting very frustrating trying to explain this to you.

Its getting very boring reading your pseudo intellectual and perfectly nonsensical gibberish.

1. There is no such thing as "a singularity prior to the big b.ang." It's a nonsensical assertion and you deliberately keep trying to present this scenario that thehomer seems to have stamped permanently into your consciousness where there is some singularity just sitting there in stasis for some significant but unspecified period of time for whatever reason and then it starts expanding. Dispose of that idea at once and then maybe you can make some progress.

2. Do you even get what the singularity is? Do you understand the meaning of "infinitesimally small volume" and "infinite density"? How you could possibly ask me what expanded is astonishing

Staggtering gibberish. The last line in bold above particularly ranks as perhaps the most irrational, self-delusory and silly statement I have ever read on this forum. I suppose there was no expansion, or "nothingness" expanded. Your very statemenmt denies the occurence of the Big Bang. You are into voodoo Son, if you can seek to claim that the question - "WHAT EXPANDED?" - is not an apt scientific and philosophical/ logical question.

I sensed this from your very first write ups and am just glad i did not waste my energy on such nonsense.

comnsense:

Well, Deepsight, you are evidently not an educated person if you are not aware or seek to argue this basic point about evolution. Baseless Assumptions? It is evident in nature and all around you. Have you ever read the origin of species by Darwin? Or is Darwin as idiotic as Krausse and should learn from the all knowing You and your well informed theory about the First Cause, the universal mind - something that equates to a lot of hot air.

O clear off.

Your riposte to PhysicsQED above though, does strike home and I hope for once he will stop to think things through properly. I had frankly grown accustommed to reading good sense from him but the foregoing posts were frankly disgraceful in the extreme.

comnsense: @PhysicsQED,
I don't really follow you and have not read a lot of your posts. What do you mean by 'there is nothing like "before the big b.ang"' The big b.ang happened at a point in 'Time', did it not? And however, you may define 'Time', the big bang had a 'beginning'. Saying there is nothing like "before the big bang" sounds like the big b.ang or whatever led to it always was....Am I reading you right? However, you explain this with the context of Newtonian time, the question remains about the origin of the big bang and what existed before it happened. And if nothing did, (or Nothing like I wrote earlier) then, we go back to the question, how did it come about? And back to whole zero point energy theory as a possible answer.

First, I'm getting tired of repeating myself, so just read my comments on this thread from page 1 to page 2: https://www.nairaland.com/775552/speed-light-time-einstein-extra-universal/1


It would be a waste of time to retype all that I typed trying to explain what I was trying to explain to Deep Sight.


Second, I'm starting to suspect that you don't know what zero-point energy really is.

Deep Sight:

Its getting very boring reading your pseudo intellectual and perfectly nonsensical gibberish.



Staggtering gibberish. The last line in bold above particularly ranks as perhaps the most irrational, self-delusory and silly statement I have ever read on this forum. I suppose there was no expansion, or "nothingness" expanded. Your very statemenmt denies the occurence of the Big Bang. You are into voodoo Son, if you can seek to claim that the question - "WHAT EXPANDED?" - is not an apt scientific and philosophical/ logical question.

I sensed this from your very first write ups and am just glad i did not waste my energy on such nonsense.

I'm disappointed in your response.

If you ask "what" expanded, then it means you basically didn't comprehend much of what we were talking about in that speed of light thread and just seem to have, for whatever reason, some immense conceptual difficulty wrapping your mind around the idea of the big b.ang.

All the mass that currently exists in the universe - everything - was contained in one infinitesimally small point. Where you are getting this stuff about "no expansion" or "nothingness expanding" from is beyond me.

PhysicsQED:


I'm disappointed in your response.

If you ask "what" expanded, then it means you basically didn't comprehend much of what we were talking about in that speed of light thread and just seem to have, for whatever reason, some immense conceptual difficulty wrapping your mind around the idea of the big b.ang.

All the mass that currently exists in the universe - everything - was contained in one infinitesimally small point. Where you are getting this stuff about "no expansion" or "nothingness expanding" from is beyond me.

My friend, apologies for being off hand, I was quite irritable at the time and honestly these things tire me after years of long reading and writing in response: now settle down: you are being illogical:

Let's simplify.

1. The Big Ban.g refers to an expansion - no? Yes, it does.

2. Does nothingness "expand"? - No, because "nothingness" does not exist - by definition.

3. As such, referring to an expansion, necessarily indicates a reference to something that expanded. This is not obviated by referring to a "point" that contained all matter and energy - that is STILL SOMETHING - - - > Which must necessarily pre-exist, for us to be able to speak about it BEGINNING TO EXPAND.

4. It is thus apt to ask - what THAT thing was - that expanded.

5. For it to expand [whatever it was] it must have pre-existed its expansion - no? - Yes.

6. Otherwise you refer to something coming into existence out of nothing at the precise moment that the very same thing begins to expand? No? - YES.

7. As such, if something existed which expanded, then there must have existed a timeline for its existence.

8. Thus time as a whole, could not have commenced with the Big Ban.g.

Simple, sire.

The notions thus bandied about by current scientific thinking are as such WRONG - - - > and ridiculously so, such that any reasonable man of the current, and ALL men of the future - will laugh at such nonsense: in the same way as the flat earth has been laughed at. Do not be caught on the wrong side of scientific history: hang with reasonable Galileo against the illogical crowd.

Indeed, watching a documentary today on time-travel on Natgeo, I could not but marvel at how desperately lost many of these current postulations are. It only takes a little logical reasoning to see them for what they are: NONSENSE.

In fact, let me add that anybody who ever speaks of time "commencing" URGENTLY needs to return his school certificates, refund his parents the school fees, and have his brain examined as a matter of urgent national, interntional and interstellar security.

^^^^^^


During winter in the arctic areas, pilots suffer from what is called pilots vertigo. This is spacial disorientation due to snow covered or cloud covered terrain. The pilot is unable determine east or west, up or down because there are no frames of reference for his brain to work with. left on its own under such a circumstance, the brain remains in limbo and cannot discern its place in space.

Consider time.
If we assume that before the big. ba.ng there was no activity, no interactions,no planets, no stars, no gravity, no force or particle of any kind; just undifferentiated space with absolutely no frame of reference of any kind, then we can say that time, as we understand it,did not exist prior to the big bang.
Since time is defined as a duration of consciousness( our consciousness),the word duration would be not be needed since there was no activity, no reference point upon which to measure prior to the big ban.g.

Time is perception.
From the moment you close your eyes in the night to the moment you open them in the morning, where does time go?. while you are asleep, time is suspended in your consciousness, and you begin to make sense of once again when you wake up. sometimes, we can't even tell what time or what day it is when we wake up until we consult our memory or visual aids like clocks and calendars.

plaetton: ^^^^^^


During winter in the arctic areas, pilots suffer from what is called pilots vertigo. This is spacial disorientation due to snow covered or cloud covered terrain. The pilot is unable determine east or west, up or down because there are no frames of reference for his brain to work with. left on its own under such a circumstance, the brain remains in limbo and cannot discern its place in space.

Consider time.
If we assume that before the big. ba.ng there was no activity, no interactions,no planets, no stars, no gravity, no force or particle of any kind; just undifferentiated space with absolutely no frame of reference of any kind, then we can say that time, as we understand it,did not exist prior to the big bang.
Since time is defined as a duration of consciousness( our consciousness),the word duration would be not be needed since there was no activity, no reference point upon which to measure prior to the big ban.g.

Time is perception.
From the moment you close your eyes in the night to the moment you open them in the morning, where does time go?. while you are asleep, time is suspended in your consciousness, and you begin to make sense of once again when you wake up. sometimes, we can't even tell what time or what day it is when we wake up until we consult our memory or visual aids like clocks and calendars.

Well my good and gallant friend, I am quite drunk on a bottle of brandy right now, which I have used to down my earthy and timely woes: thus suffice to say in response to thine:

I I hopest that thou gettest it:

Perception is NOT reality: perception is ONLY COGNITIVE reality.

Gbam.

Hic. . . . . . where's that bottle now. . . .what a world it would be without alcohol. . . the greates investion b4 da wheel. . . .

Hic. . . . rolls over

^^
Put that bottle down and stop gbamming yourself.

He He he.