Before the Big Bang?

Ahmed Ouahi, Architect wrote:
Mr Manipulable!

Only and only the thing, you would never and ever, guess, is what is your
level along the fear further would be, because, already as a systematically,
your behaviors is exactly, the same as under any doctrine of a socialism,
simply as that, the absolute reason, that your kind are an infinite matter,
a definitely as a matter a fact!

However, in an either case, you are in an absolute as an urgent need of a
professional help, the way, that they -under that kind of a doctrine- are
doing to all your kind, a definitely as a matter a fact!

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Simply As That!

George,

This is a real person, not an automated AI test. You can tell, a
computer would have been smart enough to know not to top-post.

Shawn



"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Pat O'Connell" wrote in message
m...

George Dishman wrote:

...

Incidentally I suspect the later messages from
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" may be generated
programmatically, their structure is similar to
some other AI robots that have been set up to
post here recently.

You mean like Min?

Last time I saw anything from him, the grammar was
reasonable, it was the content that was crap. There
have recently been some replies to my posts (and
possibly others) which with a bit of digging were
made up from phrases snipped from other posters'
replies to me. The first "Ouahi" reply was OK but
subsequent ones seem to be constructed of random
phrases. My guess is it is another attempt at the
Turing Test. Usenet is a perfect medium for these
programs.

George

Biljo White wrote:
"Radium" wrote:

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?


There was a nice dinner, with wine and a flambe dessert.

Some Barry White on the stereo...

Shawn Curry wrote:
Biljo White wrote:
"Radium" wrote:

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?


There was a nice dinner, with wine and a flambe dessert.

Some Barry White on the stereo...

No doubt at Callahan's Crosstime Saloon.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" wrote:

What happened before the big bang?

Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet its so interesting.

Define interesting.

Something like this question may be answerable.

How similar will the question have to be? Slighly less interesting?
Even more so? Even more slightly less interesting?

Dear Mark Earnest:

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02...
Dear Mark Earnest:

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium"
wrote:

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet
its so interesting.

Something like this question may be answerable.
Time is a property of our universe,

It is not! Time marches on independently of the
universe!

Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be
a property of this Universe.

That is like saying water is a property of what we
are, when we know water acts completely
independent of us, in the way it evaporates and condenses over
our oceans.

No, that is like saying "can you prove this"? Otherwise you are
wasting effort on something that cannot ever be measured.

and it began when the universe began, so the
concept of "before" isn't easily defined.

Totally warped thinking, to think time did not
exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang,
wasn't there?

No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried
on for years.

The running thought is that some primordial
atom exploded somehow,

No. There was no explosion.

and became everything. All matter is hurtling from
one central location, proving the explosion.

There is no unique "central location" in the direction we are
moving from. There is no unique "central location anywhere we
can see.

What else could it be?

An inflation of spacetime, from nearly nothing to where we are
today.

What set off the bang!
Something in time.

Something OF time, yes.

In time, of time, both the same here.

No. One presupposes that time is distinct from this Universe.
The other assumes that time is a product of the Universe.

David A. Smith

Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang.

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Sco" wrote in message
news From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there
was energy.

In most models, the gravitational potential
energy is equal and opposite to the matter
and other forms hence the prior total was
zero.

"Uno" wrote in message
...
Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter.

Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in
magnitude to the total energy contained in both
matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic
energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the
gravitational energy is negative, the total is
zero.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Sco" wrote in message
news From the conservation of energy and matter, before the big bang there
was energy.

In most models, the gravitational potential
energy is equal and opposite to the matter
and other forms hence the prior total was
zero.

"Uno" wrote in message
...
Energy equal to the total of matter and anti-matter.

Yes, gravitational potential energy is equal in
magnitude to the total energy contained in both
matter and anti-matter and other forms (kinetic
energy, binding energy, etc.). Since the
gravitational energy is negative, the total is
zero.

"Bri" wrote in message
news
Gravitational energy can't be the only energy to iniciate the Big Bang.

Quite correct but it explains why there isn't a
need for infinite energy to create the infinite
amount of matter in the universe, the total is
zero overall. What I say above is a prediction
of many of the relevant competing models.

George

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:%GqNg.2899$nL2.1584@fed1read02...
Dear Mark Earnest:

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:Vd5Ng.2808$nL2.2441@fed1read02...
Dear Mark Earnest:

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2006 09:35:09 -0700, "Radium" wrote:

Hi:

What happened before the big bang?

Sadly, its a question that can't be answered, yet
its so interesting.

Something like this question may be answerable.
Time is a property of our universe,

It is not! Time marches on independently of the
universe!

Can you prove this? Time seems very much to be
a property of this Universe.

That is like saying water is a property of what we
are, when we know water acts completely
independent of us, in the way it evaporates and condenses over our
oceans.

No, that is like saying "can you prove this"? Otherwise you are wasting
effort on something that cannot ever be measured.

For a statement like "time is a property of the universe," to have any
meaning,
one must understand the universe is by definition all that exists.
Time certainly exists.

Further, time is linear. Examine any historical timeline.
And a line has no beginning, and no end.

So time had to continue forever before the Big Bang.


and it began when the universe began, so the
concept of "before" isn't easily defined.

Totally warped thinking, to think time did not
exist until the Big Bang. There was a bang,
wasn't there?

No. "Big Bang" is a misnomer that has carried
on for years.

The running thought is that some primordial
atom exploded somehow,

No. There was no explosion.

What other kind of force could cause all galaxies to move away from a
central point? It must have been a superpowerful force, to motivate all
matter that exists. Only some kind of spectacular detonation seems possible
to move matter in such a forceful way.


and became everything. All matter is hurtling from
one central location, proving the explosion.

There is no unique "central location" in the direction we are moving
from. There is no unique "central location anywhere we can see.

I guess I am jumping the gun, then, if the central location hasn't yet been
discovered yet.


What else could it be?

An inflation of spacetime, from nearly nothing to where we are today.

O.K., then maybe the universe was a cloud of vapor, that just sort of
moved out in all directions, becoming everything?

That just doesn't sound possible, since we are talking about a wispy
expansion as becoming all that exists.

What set off the bang!
Something in time.

Something OF time, yes.

In time, of time, both the same here.

No. One presupposes that time is distinct from this Universe. The other
assumes that time is a product of the Universe.

You are saying that the universe could somehow manufacture time?

Mark

Brian Tung wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Right
now, the best supported physical theories tell us that space and time
were both created at the BB, and that neither existed "before" (and that
indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept, as is "outside" the
universe).

No, that is not true, IMO. There is only one BBT that I know
of, and if space existed and came out of the BB, how was it
compressed? What mechanism or process could you imagine
can compress space and matter into a singularity? Matter,
yes, but just how do you compress space? And how much
space are you talking about? When will the BB run out of space
to eject? And what about the Great Void? Human brains are
not yet evolved to the point where we can imagine such a
thing, let alone visualize it (although some dolts have responded
to this same statement by saying they can imagine it!).

We probably cannot visualize it, but we can investigate the Big Bang
mathematically, which has the advantage of being both more precise and
less constrained by human imagination.

Brian, I appreciate your input, but I did not refer to the BB as that
which we cannot imagine. I referred only to the Great Void, which
is the name given to what the contents of the BB came out into.

For instance, humans generally
cannot visualize/imagine a curved 2-manifold without it being embedded
in 3-space, but it has been known at least since the time of Poincare
(maybe a bit earlier) that there exist consistent geometries in which no
embedding is necessary.

In other words, you might be able to (in principle) measure the angles
of a triangle on an apparently flat surface, and find that they don't
add up to 180 degrees, thus demonstrating that the surface is curved in
a metric sense, even though there's no third dimension for it to curve
"into."

Similarly, you can have a 4-manifold of space-time without it being
embedded in some external space. That means that one can talk about the
Big Bang without having to place it into a larger context. The Big Bang
is then essentially a boundary condition; it can be validated by seeing
if what we observe can be extrapolated back in (our thread of) time to
that boundary, without worrying about what, if anything, set up the
boundary conditions.

I do not disagree with all that.

There are, nonetheless, some theories about broader contexts in which
our universe might be embedded. These are not really all *that* recent;
I think Andrei Linde began proposing one maybe 15 years or so ago? Such
theories make predictions about the possible ranges of physical
"constants" (put in quotes because in these theories, they have a
distribution function rather than a fixed value); if our observations
showed that the constants held values outside of the ranges permitted by
these theories, they would be falsified. Thus far, they have not been,
but that should not give us that much confidence in them, because the
ranges are not small.

I understand that, but my point was not about multiverses, but about
the argument that it is more reasonable to not think about something
we can never know about for sure, as opposed to thinking that if our
exists, why not others?

The above illustrates what's wrong in physics today. None of
the above silliness was ever questioned like I have above, the
awe-struck student accepts everything as if it were gospel.

No. They are questioned, but the questions are posed mathematically,
so that they aren't hazy by virtue of the ambiguous English (or any
other human) language.

But language cannot be avoided anymore than math can be
avoided. The belief that math is more precise than prose
speaks to the limitations of those who use the two methods,
not to the limitations of the two. Both math and language have
built-in limitations of their own, and when compounded by human
failing, the results cannot be guaranteed.

If, as you say, the questions are asked mathematically, the
answers shown by current ideas like, "don't bother with what
was before the BB because we can never know", shows the
limitations of learning imposed on students. Language cannot
be faulted anymore than math, as they are the tools we use for
learning, and even if they were perfect, humans are not. Given
that they are not perfect, and neither are we, it's a wonder we
ever learn anything, but we do.

Some of your questions are, as I have noted, not
strictly required by a theory of the Big Bang proper.

I would have appreciated your pointing those out to me, because
if I am wrong about something, I need to know about it. Bear in
mind, however, that you assumed above that I was referring to
something I was not, as I pointed out, and some of those that
you refer to may not be required simply because I did not mean
them to be so.

I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed
before the BB nor exists external to our universe. If you have,
as you so claim, quote it for us.

It is not that they explicitly claim that space didn't exist before the
Big Bang, or that it doesn't exist external to our universe, or both.
More accurately, the conventional theories are silent on that matter.

Yes, I agree. I say those things in that way to try to get someone
to tell me about some that do, if they exist. In that way, I can
review
the ideas in comparison to mine and determine if I am wrong or if I
need more research on a particular subject. It is a relief to hear
they
are silent about that. I think Hawking gave me the term "Great Void"
in one of his arguments, but I may have gotten it from elsewhere.

They do not *require* space or time to exist outside our universe, but
they do not preclude it, either. It is not their primary concern; they
are concerned more with how space and time evolve, and with pushing the
boundary of our understanding back toward the Big Bang.

Yes, I agree, that is why I felt I had to argue about that with our
learned
physicist from Cloudbait who is pushing the conformist view.

My theory is the only one, AFAIK,
that contends abs. space exists outside the universe.

Properly speaking, you have an idea, not a theory.

Again, I agree. I have a number of ideas, however, which are directly
related in sequence or by consequence, all which may be grounded in
Theoretical Physics except that I have avoided use of all math. I have

an essay that started with reasonable explanations about time, which
led to more ideas about space, and then to explanations about other
phenomena including the dual nature of light. What I am discussing
here is only a small part of it.

It is not unique;
consider Linde's chaotic inflationary theory. There is also an
oscillating theory that has some problems with it. Nonetheless, the
theory exists.

I am not familiar with those, but how are they theories while my idea
is not? And Gamow's students' I.P. idea is also not a theory, but only

a concept. More importantly, why is my idea that replaces the others
not a unique one, if there is no other like it?

Note also that we can *say* the oscillating theory has some problems
with it. That means that it makes predictions that can be falsified by
observations.

No, you are extending the specific meaning of theory
falsifiability. All theories follow the scientific method to
explain phenomena. By definition, they present ideas
from which statements are deduced and tested by
observation. Their predictions can be confirmed or not
confirmed, but it is the ideas that are tested by various
methods:

"Methods of testing (falsifying) hypotheses include
Dialectic, Logic, Probability, and Statistics."
Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. ©
1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

That makes it different from nearly all ideas posed by
amateur cosmologists.

I must disagree.

Common sense is a reasonable way to arrive at
hypotheses, but it is not useful for divining what is actually so.

I agree.

If
it were, we would never have accepted quantum mechanics. Anyone who
says that QM makes intuitive sense doesn't know enough about it. But QM
tells us that observations based on a given set of initial conditions
will have a predictable probability distribution, and when we make those
observations, lo and behold, the results fit that distribution. That is
why we have confidence in QM, despite its counter-intuitiveness. That
predictive power is what is required of any scientific hypothesis, and
the various "multiversal" theories have some of that, albeit weakly thus
far.

I agree that "predictive power" is an easy to confirm or not confirm
a theory's value to science, but I have also agreed that mine is not a
theory with predictions other than that current explanations of certain

phenomena are of much less value to us than are those my ideas
provide for the particular phenomena to which they refer.

It seems to me that there needs to be a niche in physics where all
such explanations can be tested and ranked in order of the best
acceptable explanations. The Naked Emperor fairytale explans
what I mean by that: The state of affairs in the tale were such that
the fraud perpetrated onto the common folk by the emperor and
his henchmen could not be publicly decried for fear of punishment,
and it took a naive child to expose it. My essay identifies several
cases where I find the explanations from physicists distressing, in
that they show a lack of objectivity, common sense, and logic. and
for which my essay offers alternative explanations.

My explanations are incorporated in my posts here, but they seem
to be only fodder for flamers who refuse to listen to new ideas. I
can only hope they are not truly representative of the state of the
science today.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 11 Sep 2006 14:43:29 -0700, "tomgee" wrote:

I'm sorry your imagination is so limited.

Oh, and yours is not, since you seem to be claiming you
can imagine such a thing.

Yes, I can. I have a sort of visualization framework based on analogy
and some math. It's only a model, but for me an effective one.

Well, then, let's have it. Explain
what it is you can imagine, you're so intelligent and all.
Remember, it has no space in it, it is infinite in extent, and
you claim there is nothing else in it but our universe. It is
not empty space because space came out of the BB, as
you claim.

Are you talking about a hyperuniverse? I don't particularly believe in
one, although some of the theories are intriguing. But I'll hold off
until more evidence comes in. For now, I am perfectly happy with the
idea that our universe is all there is. There is no "outside", and no
"before". I don't have any real problem visualizing that.

You mean you don't even know what I'm talking about and you
stand there arguing against it?

What "these things"? I only asked about the Great Void, not
anything else. If by "human comprehension" you mean you
can comprehend it, then explain it to us.

What "Great Void"? Since I don't believe it exists, I have no need to
try and visualize it. I can easily visualize a higher dimensional
manifold that the universe exists in, but there is no evidence that it
has any physical reality.


And there are many BB theories.

Well, you doesn't has ta give us many, just name a couple.

For example, an inflationary versus non-inflationary model. There are
many variations on the BB theory.

No, sorry, the inflationary theory is not a variation on the BBT.
In fact, it's not even a theory, just a concept. And what non-
inflationary model are you talking about?

No no, we're not saying there are no other theories that "go beyond"
the BB. We are just talking about the BB now. But since you claim
those others are testable and falsifiable, tell us why you think they
are, or who told you they are.

Do your own research. If you really knew anything about this you
wouldn't have to ask the question. There are experiments currently under
way, and some planned for equipment coming online in the next few years
that are capable of either supporting or disproving several multiverse
theories.

So you don't know what you're talking, eh? All that talk is just that,
and
cheap too.