Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Polymath257]

??????
Take a nap I´ve spend enough time (sic!) discussing nothing.

I'm sorry if basic logic eludes you.

At all times=whenever there is time

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes it seems so, doesn´t it But I blame it all to "contemporary science" of which much of it is pure speculations to me and themselves too.

'Arguing from ignorance' is a fallacy, and to add you fail to consider science as it is. Blaming "contemporary science" is like hating math, it only reflects your bias and ignorance of science.

What education background do you have in Physics and Quantum Mechanic, nonetheless any advance sciences?

 

[Miken]

The issue with an origin to the universe is not the singularity problem, which is simply a situation where the math becomes unusable, such as division by zero. or locally real infinities. There are non-singularity possibilities such as the Hartle-Hawking no boundary model. The real issue is why anything should exist at all, an apparent violation of conservation laws.

One solution proposed long ago concerns the relationship between mass-energy and gravitational fields. The presence of mass-energy results in a gravitational field, which has negative energy. That is why gravity 'pulls' instead of 'pushes'. The total positive mass-energy of the universe and the total negative energy of all the gravitational fields in the universe are necessarily equal in magnitude but opposite in sign. The total net mass-energy of the universe is therefore zero. As a result, the universe could be a quantum fluctuation that violates no conservation laws.

A more recent proposal concerns the fact that while in the above scenario the total mass-energy is zero, the positive and negative sides are of substantially different forms, an apparent asymmetry. The newer proposal is that at the origin of the universe there is both positive mass-energy and negative mass-energy. The direction of the development of the ‘arrow of time’, as it is termed, is dependent on mass-energy being all positive or all negative. The negative mass-energy would ‘go the other way in time’ to use a figure of speech. In our universe, mass-energy is positive and gravitational energy is negative.

In the other universe, mass-energy would be negative and gravitational energy would be positive. If we could observe the other universe going the other way in time, to us it would look like things fall up instead of down. To inhabitants of the other universe, it would be our universe where gravity is going the wrong way. Each would see the other universe looking like a movie running backward.

In this scenario, not only does the mass-energy vs. gravitational energy equation balance on both sides of the double universe but the positive/negative distribution between mass-energy and gravity is symmetrical. No asymmetries to explain.

Consideration of apparent asymmetries and the proposal of symmetrical solutions has led to numerous real discoveries in physics, from anti-matter on. So maybe…

 

[alsome]

Explain the difference between the beginning of "time" and the the creation of the cosmos. Was the cosmos just water, as Moses thought ? If not because of the void, from where'd did the water come. So much for Moses and his imagination. Time, as @Thief said, in effect, doesn't really exist, there is no time in infinity. Real "time" as the present passing moment is gone, before it begins.
I see a lot of religious assumptions here, the influence of religion in these posts is always a problem to blame the B.B. for the true creation, that is unknown in these posts, as is everything about the concept of any "beginning". We still wait for the earnest answer to this question, I doubt that it will ever come. Maybe the answer is in evolution itself, time or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Explain the difference between the beginning of "time" and the the creation of the cosmos. Was the cosmos just water, as Moses thought ? If not because of the void, from where'd did the water come. So much for Moses and his imagination. Time, as @Thief said, in effect, doesn't really exist, there is no time in infinity. Real "time" as the present passing moment is gone, before it begins.
I see a lot of religious assumptions here, the influence of religion in these posts is always a problem to blame the B.B. for the true creation, that is unknown in these posts, as is everything about the concept of any "beginning". We still wait for the earnest answer to this question, I doubt that it will ever come. Maybe the answer is in evolution itself, time or not.

In the present view of the history of the universe time as we know it in time/space began with the expansion of the singularity.

 

[alsome]

A singularity: entities without any means of gravity ? I suppose these entities are self merging as energies of their own attraction, pure unaltered "energy". Is this the point of this single form of cause for the "creation" ? That means that some other "cause" triggered the creation of everything on Earth. What else besides "God" could instigate that occurrence ? Without any cause besides "God", what could cause this particular inertia, of course started by a Christian God. There seems to be no other answer except a god of some sort, doesn't there ? I question again, where was "God" outside of this singularity ? Asked many times on these threads, and never a true answer. I have to "assume" that
He was the void or "empty space" that contained the singularity.

I'll stick with forever into forever, unendingly with no start or end.

 

[alsome]

Another silliness post: what created the "singularity" ?

 

[gnostic]

Is this the point of this single form of cause for the "creation" ? That means that some other "cause" triggered the creation of everything on Earth.

Why would you think there needs to be “cause” in all this?

What else besides "God" could instigate that occurrence ? Without any cause besides "God", what could cause this particular inertia, of course started by a Christian God. There seems to be no other answer except a god of some sort, doesn't there ? I question again, where was "God" outside of this singularity ? Asked many times on these threads, and never a true answer. I have to "assume" that
He was the void or "empty space" that contained the singularity.

And that - all of that - that is relying on the good old ignorant maxim of “God did it” superstition...

...where one can speculate God’s hand in this handiwork - “creation” - thinking that whole all the answers, while one has buried his or her head deep in the sand - untestable speculative belief.

Why would you think there’s something - or a WHO something - outside of the universe - outside of space and time?

Your questions that you have been asking, is trying to lead everyone to answer you already have - “God did it” - which itself untestable claim.

The problem with superstition, is that always rely on ignorance - unadulterated biased ignorance.

 

[shunyadragon]

A singularity: entities without any means of gravity ?

Singularities do have infinite intense gravity.

Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia

A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a location in spacetime where the mass and gravitational field of a celestial body is predicted to become infinite by general relativity in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. The quantities used to measure gravitational field strength are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. Since such quantities become infinite at the singularity, the laws of normal spacetime break down

 

[shunyadragon]

Another silliness post: what created the "singularity" ?

gravity, an there is evidence they are black holes or result in the merging and gravitational collapse of huge black holes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What, precisely, do you mean by the word 'eternal'? It is a word that has several different interpretations.

For example:

eternal='for all time'. In this case, the universe is eternal because time is part of the universe. Whenever there has been time, the universe has existed. This is even the case if time is finite into the past, i.e, 'had a beginning'.

eternal='an infinite amount of time'. For this, we do not know. The standard BB model only has a finite amount of time into the past. But most extensions that include quantum mechanics allow for an infinite amount of time into the past. Iow, time does not exist as a real entity, only a conceptual reality.

eternal='outside of time'. Again, time is part of the universe and whenever there was time, there was matter and energy. The phrase 'outside of time' is likely meaningless (although some models have something like this).

The other issue is what you mean by 'the universe'.

universe='all that exists'. In this case, there is no 'outside of the universe'. ALL that exists is in the universe.

universe='physical reality throughout space and time'. This allows for the possibility of something before the Big Bang, either a situation having multiple 'Big Bang' pieces (usually called a multiverse, but I'm trying to be careful with terminology), or a previous stage of contraction before the 'bounce' of the Big Bang. But it also allows for a finite period of time.

universe='physical reality throughout space, but not time'. this is often how people think of the word 'universe', but it is not standard in cosmology. Both space and time are included in the cosmological concept of the universe.

The other thing to recall is that causality requires time and so is inherently within the universe. There can be no cause outside of time. And, again, time is part of the universe.

By 'eternal' I mean timeless existence without beginning or end.

By 'universe' I mean 'that' which is comprised of all conceptually differentiated aspects of 'that'.

Note that the concept of time does not enter into my definition of 'eternal', but I accept the idea of conceptualizing finite segments of the eternal persistence of existence.as time periods for measurement purposes. Iow, 'time' is not a real entity, it is a conceptual reality.

 

[Polymath257]

By 'eternal' I mean timeless existence without beginning or end.

What existence is timeless?

Is spacetime as a whole timeless?

How do the terms 'beginning and end relate in this context?

By 'universe' I mean 'that' which is comprised of all conceptually differentiated aspects of 'that'.

That made no sense at all.

Note that the concept of time does not enter into my definition of 'eternal',

That word 'timeless' suggests otherwise.

but I accept the idea of conceptualizing finite segments of the eternal persistence of existence.as time periods for measurement purposes. Iow, 'time' is not a real entity, it is a conceptual reality.

I don't see time as being any more conceptual than space, mass, charge, velocity, or any number of other scientifically measured things. In what sense is it not 'real'?

 

[shunyadragon]

By 'eternal' I mean timeless existence without beginning or end.

By 'universe' I mean 'that' which is comprised of all conceptually differentiated aspects of 'that'.

The nature of our physical existence does not conform to your expectations of physical existence.

By the evidence there is no known limit to the Quantum existence including our universe and yes it is possibly timeless and without beginning nor end.

Note that the concept of time does not enter into my definition of 'eternal', but I accept the idea of conceptualizing finite segments of the eternal persistence of existence.as time periods for measurement purposes. Iow, 'time' is not a real entity, it is a conceptual reality.

Our concept of time does not enter in the definition of the Quantum world being 'eternal' since in the quantum world time is not a real entity as we experience time.

 

[Thief]

Explain the difference between the beginning of "time" and the the creation of the cosmos. Was the cosmos just water, as Moses thought ? If not because of the void, from where'd did the water come. So much for Moses and his imagination. Time, as @Thief said, in effect, doesn't really exist, there is no time in infinity. Real "time" as the present passing moment is gone, before it begins.
I see a lot of religious assumptions here, the influence of religion in these posts is always a problem to blame the B.B. for the true creation, that is unknown in these posts, as is everything about the concept of any "beginning". We still wait for the earnest answer to this question, I doubt that it will ever come. Maybe the answer is in evolution itself, time or not.

and for clarity...time is only a quotient
one Man made number divided by another Man made number

it is not a force or a substance
it is only a means of measurement
It's all in your head

where did the water come from?....as mentioned in Genesis

see yourself as God...yes you can
and you are introducing Yourself to someone who is smart enough to ask about.....creation

you cannot tell him what he (Moses) cannot understand
you cannot not explain the void
or your existence in the dark.....before the creation of light

you cannot say .....hydrogen.....or fusion

you can say.....water

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What existence is timeless?

Universal existence.

Is spacetime as a whole timeless?

I see spacetime is a concept that applies to an measurement of an aspect of universal existence, I'm not sure a concept can be called timeless.

How do the terms 'beginning and end relate in this context?

Beginnings and endings apply to finite observed aspects of universal existence..

That made no sense at all

.
Universal existence is one, all apparent parts are observed conceptualizations.

That word 'timeless' suggests otherwise.

By timeless, I mean it is beyond measurement as a time period because there is no beginning and no ending.

I don't see time as being any more conceptual than space, mass, charge, velocity, or any number of other scientifically measured things. In what sense is it not 'real'?

Correct, terms like velocity, volume, charge, etc., are concepts that help us understand observed phenomena, but there is no real entity as such.

Now Polymath, I appreciate your gist and the workings of science to learn more about the universe, I just threw my more philosophical non-conceptual observations out there, not to try and persuade you otherwise, but to express the way I apprehend the universe in what I see as a different, but valid (to my non-conceptual state of mind) manner. Thank you for your understanding, my view is not the scientific way and I understand that.

 

[Native]

Considering you have explained nothing at all, given no details (in spite of being asked multiple times), and clearly misunderstand basic concepts, I will do what is appropriate with your suggestion: throw it into another black hole.

Regarding a BB, there is nothing to explain as it is utterly nonsense and disconnected from all natural logics. This too belongs to the squared consensus box with all its invented dark ghosts in a Dark Cosmology wich belongs to a bad Science Fiction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"At all times" = eternally

At all times = whenever there was time.
Time as we know it is an integral part of the universe. It's called the space-time continuum.
The beginning of the universe is thus the beginning of time itself.

Always = for all of time. So not when there is no time. Which ironically can only happen at no time.


While "eternal" usually means "outside" of time, with no beginning or end.
But if the universe (and thus time as we experience it) at some point began, then it thus can't be "eternal" - because the eternal doesn't begin, it just is.

So, "always" = for all of time.
The universe always existed. Perfectly valid statement.

When there was time, there was a universe. Why? Because they are essentially the same thing.
There is no point in time where the universe does not exist.

and "there was always something" = eternally too.

As I explain above, this is not correct. At least not as those words are commonly understood.

It sounds to me like the main problem here, is you having difficulty with conceptualizing this idea of a space-time bubble which has a beginning at T = 0. And how the concept of "before that point", is a nonsensical one. Like "north of the north pole".

Which both logically debunks a beginning via your Big Bang.

It absolutely doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Regarding a BB, there is nothing to explain as it is utterly nonsense and disconnected from all natural logics.

And yet it makes very precise testable predictions that check out when put to the test.
And thereby it has great explanatory power.

Regardless how counter-intuitive you find it to be - it works, it accounts for the data and it makes successful testable predictions.
You are off course free to present alternative explanations to the physics community that not only explains everything BB explains, but explains it even better.

In fact, I encourage you to do so. This is how science makes progress. By improving upon explanatory theories.
Unfortunately perhaps, you're going to be expected to be a bit more thorough then in these forum posts on religiousforums.com

This too belongs to the squared consensus box with all its invented dark ghosts in a Dark Cosmology wich belongs to a bad Science Fiction.

As it stands, I don't think anyone knows what dark matter is and that it is rather a placeholder name for something that isn't understood yet.
But the gravitational effects of it, whatever it is, can be measured. It's there. Whatever it is that causes this gravity, it must have a name to be able to talk about it. The label chosen is Dark Matter.

Feel free to include an explanation for this gravity in your work to the physics community.

 

[Native]

I'm sorry if basic logic eludes you.
At all times=whenever there is time

Apparently you take circular arguments as logics.

 

[Native]

Regardless how counter-intuitive you find it to be - it works, it accounts for the data and it makes successful testable predictions.

Well, it didn´t predict an increasing expansion velocity which caused yet another dark invention, called "dark energy".
Regarding "accounting for data" I´m afraid you´re taking factual observations and interpret these into the prime assumption of a BB. IMO this is just working with hindsight bias practise.