Before the Big Bang?

tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" wrote:

No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet,
unless you know about something that has been discovered as such.

Everything we know about physics breaks down very close
to the BB, including time.

Okay, but that is after, not before.

Time is generally seen as a component of our
universe just as the spatial dimensions are.

Yes, you're right.

It really makes no sense to
consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than
it makes sense to consider space as having existed.

On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really
makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe.

It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere
and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time
would exist as well.

These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There
is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe.

I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think
it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists
here, than for another universe to exist without time.

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?

That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the
relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass &
energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and
energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of
that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and
energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime.

You are basing your convictions on math constructs, knowing full
well math can prove anything? How dumb is that, PD?

Math can't prove anything, TomGee. Prove that elephants are made of
glass, using math.

This math construct is tested by making unique predictions (made by no
other theory) that can be compared to experimental results. When that
comparison is made, it appears that nature really works the way that
math construct says, and this gives us confidence to apply it further.


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!).

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.

I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed
before the BB nor exists external to our universe.

That's because your reading is quite limited.

If you have,
as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK,
that contends abs. space exists outside the universe.

There's no reason for me to quote it to you. However, I'd be more than
happy to provide a reading reference or five that you can look up. One
of them might even be a Scientific American article from the 1950's --
your favorite.

PD

Mark Earnest wrote:
"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!



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?

Actually, no. That's the problem with taking a popular term and letting
it feed your concept of what it must mean. Better to find out what the
concept really means and then see how the popular term came about.

What set off the bang!
Something in time.

No.




However, if theory and experiment
ultimately support the existence of one or more hyperuniverses, then the
_cause_ of the Big Bang in that larger context could be understood, even
if "before" isn't exactly the right way of putting it.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

St. John Smythe wrote:
tomgee wrote to PD wrote:
My theory is the only one, AFAIK,
that contends abs. space exists outside the universe.

What is that abs. space contained in, then?

How could anyone imagine that? Wait about ten million years
and we may evolve enough to imagine something like that.

Mark Earnest wrote:
"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.

And the Earth is flat, with no boundaries. Walk in any direction. Do
you ever come to the edge?


So time had to continue forever before the Big Bang.

No. That's the whole point. Tracing back, we find that time had to have
a *start*.



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.

No. It was not a force. It was not an 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.

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

Read again. There IS NO central location. Not just one that hasn't been
found yet. There isn't one.



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?

No.


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?

Yes.

The universe is much, MUCH stranger than you ever imagined. That's what
makes it interesting.


Mark

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:24:46 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Mark
Earnest" wrote:

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

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

Er, no.


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?
What set off the bang!
Something in time.

You probably want to read up on what the big bang actually would have
been.

No, I run mostly counter to scientific views.
Scientists are what are keeping us in Earth orbit 37 years after landing
a man on the Moon. We should have long ago started traveling to the stars
and beyond.

You are certainly welcome to work toward that solution. Along the way,
you will encounter the logistical problem (which I'm sure you can
solve) of just carrying enough fuel to get to the nearest planet (Mars)
rather than the Moon. The devil is in the details, and working through
the details is where the work and the glory is.

PD

PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" wrote:

No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet,
unless you know about something that has been discovered as such.

Everything we know about physics breaks down very close
to the BB, including time.

Okay, but that is after, not before.

Time is generally seen as a component of our
universe just as the spatial dimensions are.

Yes, you're right.

It really makes no sense to
consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than
it makes sense to consider space as having existed.

On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really
makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe.

It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere
and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time
would exist as well.

These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There
is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe.

I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think
it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists
here, than for another universe to exist without time.

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?

That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the
relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass &
energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and
energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of
that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and
energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime.

You are basing your convictions on math constructs, knowing full
well math can prove anything? How dumb is that, PD?

Math can't prove anything, TomGee. Prove that elephants are made of
glass, using math.

Elephants made of glass are not anything, since there are millions
in warehouses and gift stores. Math can prove anything such as a
static universe, and that is something. You missed the whole point,
PD, on purpose, or from ignorance, or miscomprehension? Are
you therefore claiming math is not limited wrt reality? We've gone
over this before, and you had no comeback for that before, so you
lost that argument. Are you now resurrecting it in the hope that you
can be found to have been correct all along, or are you just too hard-
headed to face simple facts?

This math construct is tested by making unique predictions (made by no
other theory) that can be compared to experimental results. When that
comparison is made, it appears that nature really works the way that
math construct says, and this gives us confidence to apply it further.

If you refer to his field equations, I am not questioning their
validity
as a math construct. You seem to think that "math construct" is a
bad word, but it isn't. They are equations and calculations that are
helpful tools for us. So much so that some users come to believe
they represent reality. If that were so, we would have little need for

discourse and debate.

However, math does not offer explanations for its results, it leaves
that up to us to make. We apply them to reality, and therein is where
we often err. When put upon to better explain our conclusions, we
more often than not fall back on the ol' saying "figures don't lie".

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!).

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.

I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed
before the BB nor exists external to our universe.

That's because your reading is quite limited.

If you have,
as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK,
that contends abs. space exists outside the universe.

There's no reason for me to quote it to you. However, I'd be more than
happy to provide a reading reference or five that you can look up. One
of them might even be a Scientific American article from the 1950's --
your favorite.

Yes, there is a reason. If you don't quote it, it means you're lying,
plain
and simple. It won't be your first time, either, will it? You are
notorious
for making wild statements that you cannot support.

How do you calculate amount of exposive energy to initiate A-Bomb bang?

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"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

tomgee wrote:
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.

It doesn't need to come out into anything. That's why the fact that
Big Bang theories don't generally address anything like your Great Void
isn't a liability. The theories are still self-consistent. Still, some
of the broader theories do address it, and make some predictions about
the universe(s) that result.

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?

I don't see how you can be sure that we can never know about anything.
Auguste Comte thought we would never know anything about what the stars
were made of, and he was proved wrong two years after his death. So I
think it's worthwhile thinking about these things, and seeing if there
is in fact a way to observe some of the effects, even now, 14 billion
years after the Big Bang.

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.

Saying that both English and mathematics are limited (which I agree
with) doesn't mean that they're both *equally* limited (which I don't).
There's a reason why theories are formulated in mathematics whenever
possible. It allows us to make specific predictions, which can then be
observed to hold or to be invalidated. One can do that with English,
of course, but such formulations are much longer, and end up being
essentially translations of the mathematics into English, rather than
some new perspective. Moreover, one can assign conventional meanings
to specific mathematical symbols, which one can't do reliably with
English. The ambiguity of language makes it harder to discuss things
without concerns of unspoken subjective impressions leaking in.

That is why I don't find hardly any amateur cosmologist ideas
compelling in the least. They aren't precise enough to be convincing.
If I can't show one to be wrong--if they can't point out a plausible
observation that would compel them to give their idea up--then I'll
never be able to have confidence that it's right. It's hardly
surprising that you disagree; I find that most amateur cosmologists
don't like the role of falsifiability in scientific work. But in the
end, it really doesn't matter if they don't like it.

--
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

However, along an infinite amount of a time, certainly or a several billions
of a years ago, some thing more clear has had became already to appear,
especially, wherever the seas started to appear.

Therefore, already a kind of a visible structures began to appear, whether,
they passed through their a chemical usual routines, a cyanobacteria become
very clearely to manifest as along that manifestation which it has had makes
to appear, an extremelly micro particles of a kind of a dust and also the
sand, which they has had been made to bound together, to form a clearly a
strange but a solid structures called the stromatolites.

However, those stromatolites came along a various shapes ans sizes, whether,
sometimes, they do sarted to appear so enormous kind of a vegetation, and
sometimes, like an other kind of a mattresses, whether also, sometimes, they
came also as a miltitude of a forms like a columns, rising above the
surfaces of the water, sometimes very higher.

However, along all their manifestations, they was a definitely an extreme
kind of a living rocks, whether, this it has had represented the start of
the so called world, along all kind of a micro organisms, along which the
nature has had started to born, and this is what is all about, a definitely
as a matter a fact.

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!

tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 11 Sep 2006 05:23:51 -0700, "tomgee" wrote:

No, he's right, nothing prior to the BB has been discovered as yet,
unless you know about something that has been discovered as such.

Everything we know about physics breaks down very close
to the BB, including time.

Okay, but that is after, not before.

Time is generally seen as a component of our
universe just as the spatial dimensions are.

Yes, you're right.

It really makes no sense to
consider time as something which existed "before" the BB, anymore than
it makes sense to consider space as having existed.

On the contrary, since space exists in our universe, so it really
makes more sense to think it can exist outside of our universe.

It makes more sense to ask whether matter exists elsewhere
and if ever we can assume that it does, we can assume time
would exist as well.

These things may "make sense" to your intuition, but that is all. There
is no other reason for something to exist outside the universe.

I did not say there was a reason. I said there is no reason to think
it is more likely that time exists in another universe since it exists
here, than for another universe to exist without time.

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?

That's precisely what the Einstein field equations tell you -- what the
relationship is between the curvature of space and time and the mass &
energy in that space. The two go hand in hand. The more mass and
energy, then the more tightly curved the space is. The asymptote of
that process is a singularity, both in terms of the density of mass and
energy, and in terms of the curvature of spacetime.

You are basing your convictions on math constructs, knowing full
well math can prove anything? How dumb is that, PD?

Math can't prove anything, TomGee. Prove that elephants are made of
glass, using math.

Elephants made of glass are not anything, since there are millions
in warehouses and gift stores. Math can prove anything such as a
static universe, and that is something.

Really? Prove a static universe with math, TomGee. Do you have ANY idea
what you're talking about?

You missed the whole point,
PD, on purpose, or from ignorance, or miscomprehension? Are
you therefore claiming math is not limited wrt reality? We've gone
over this before, and you had no comeback for that before, so you
lost that argument. Are you now resurrecting it in the hope that you
can be found to have been correct all along, or are you just too hard-
headed to face simple facts?

This math construct is tested by making unique predictions (made by no
other theory) that can be compared to experimental results. When that
comparison is made, it appears that nature really works the way that
math construct says, and this gives us confidence to apply it further.

If you refer to his field equations, I am not questioning their
validity
as a math construct. You seem to think that "math construct" is a
bad word, but it isn't. They are equations and calculations that are
helpful tools for us. So much so that some users come to believe
they represent reality. If that were so, we would have little need for
discourse and debate.

Actually, discourse and debate has little role in matters like this,
TomGee. Confrontation with experiment is valuable. Debate and discourse
is remarkably cheap, which is why you like to indulge in it. If you
wanted a debate club, why do you post here?


However, math does not offer explanations for its results, it leaves
that up to us to make. We apply them to reality, and therein is where
we often err. When put upon to better explain our conclusions, we
more often than not fall back on the ol' saying "figures don't lie".

On the contrary, the math carries with it explanation. The math is
worthless without an understanding of what the math represents, and the
results of the math help make understanding concrete.

It's not uncommon for those who have never understood the language of
math to say that it is all gobbledygook and doesn't really mean
anything, and that if you really want to say something you should say
it in English.


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!).

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.

I have never read a theory that claims space neither existed
before the BB nor exists external to our universe.

That's because your reading is quite limited.

If you have,
as you so claim, quote it for us. My theory is the only one, AFAIK,
that contends abs. space exists outside the universe.

There's no reason for me to quote it to you. However, I'd be more than
happy to provide a reading reference or five that you can look up. One
of them might even be a Scientific American article from the 1950's --
your favorite.

Yes, there is a reason. If you don't quote it, it means you're lying, plain
and simple. It won't be your first time, either, will it? You are notorious
for making wild statements that you cannot support.

Don't be silly, Tom. If I don't quote it to you, it means that
a) someone else has already taken great trouble to write it down and
publish it in *copyrighted* form, and it would be improper to violate
that copyright
b) it could well take several pages of text to explain it properly,
which is not an enjoyable thing to do on Usenet
c) I'm not about to indulge your laziness for your convenience, even if
you bait, and it's in fact better if you're encouraged to get off your
fat ass and look it up.

Now, I'm happy to provide you with *detailed* instructions on exactly
where to look it up, but I simply refuse to go the extra step and type
it all out for you here. That's not unreasonable, is it? Even for
someone as profoundly lazy as you.

PD