In the beginning there was no beginning !

[Polymath257]

Can you provide a link that demonstrates that GR proves there was no space before the big bang ?

I know it doesn't .

You quite clearly haven't a clue about phyiscs if you have not heard of zero point energy etc .

Zero point energy is a quantum effect. General relativity is a classical theory. In general relativity, there is no time or space before the Big Bang. If you want a reference, look at page 99 of Wald's book on General Relativity. I quote:

"Note that the nature of this singularity is that resulting from a homogeneous contraction of space down to 'zero size'. The Big Bang does not represent an explosion of matter concentrated at a point of pre-existing, non-singular spacetime, as it is sometimes depicted and as its name suggests. Since spacetime structure is itself singular at the big bang, it does not make sense, either physically or mathematically, to ask about the state of the universe 'before' the big bang: there is no natural way to extend the spacetime manifold and metric beyond the big bang singularity. Thus, general relativity leads to the viewpoint that the universe began at the big bang. "

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Zero point energy is a quantum effect. General relativity is a classical theory. In general relativity, there is no time or space before the Big Bang. If you want a reference, look at page 99 of Wald's book on General Relativity. I quote:

"Note that the nature of this singularity is that resulting from a homogeneous contraction of space down to 'zero size'. The Big Bang does not represent an explosion of matter concentrated at a point of pre-existing, non-singular spacetime, as it is sometimes depicted and as its name suggests. Since spacetime structure is itself singular at the big bang, it does not make sense, either physically or mathematically, to ask about the state of the universe 'before' the big bang: there is no natural way to extend the spacetime manifold and metric beyond the big bang singularity. Thus, general relativity leads to the viewpoint that the universe began at the big bang. "

There is no time before the big bang because space does not alter . It is not possible for there to be the absence of space before the Big Bang and this is what I am contesting and giving valid premise for argument .
All the books in the world could say that space did not exist before the big bang but that does not necasarily make it true when there is contradicting evidence to be presented .
Contracting all the matter down to 'zero size' (x0,y0,z0) , to form a high dense state does not necessarily require the removal of the space . In fact , in known physics and appliable physics , adjacent space is required for physical expansion , contradicting General Relativity and the Big Bang . Real life physical attributes should not be ignored when they present contradiction . The probabilty of inflating any material or expanding a measure without adjacent space is P=0 .
Additionally , density m/V requires a volume of space equal and proportional to the volume , another contradiction that demonstrates the truth of my premise .

 

[Polymath257]

There is no time before the big bang because space does not alter . It is not possible for there to be the absence of space before the Big Bang and this is what I am contesting and giving valid premise for argument .
All the books in the world could say that space did not exist before the big bang but that does not necasarily make it true when there is contradicting evidence to be presented .

You asked for a link. I gave a reference. Now, provide contradicting evidence.

Contracting all the matter down to 'zero size' (x0,y0,z0) , to form a high dense state does not necessarily require the removal of the space . In fact , in known physics and appliable physics , adjacent space is required for physical expansion , contradicting General Relativity and the Big Bang . Real life physical attributes should not be ignored when they present contradiction . The probabilty of inflating any material or measure without adjacent space is P=0 .

Prove it. Give actual experiments showing that the current understanding is wrong.

Also, please explain the relevance of a(t) in the metric

ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 -a^2(t)[dx^2 +dy^2 +dz^2]

and how it represents anything *other* than expansion or contraction of space over time. You claim the usual understanding of metric expansion is wrong. Please explain precisely why: the a(t) is the expansion factor in front of the usual Euclidean metric for space.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

You asked for a link. I gave a reference. Now, provide contradicting evidence.



Prove it. Give actual experiments showing that the current understanding is wrong.

Also, please explain the relevance of a(t) in the metric

ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 -a^2(t)[dx^2 +dy^2 +dz^2]

and how it represents anything *other* than expansion or contraction of space over time. You claim the usual understanding of metric expansion is wrong. Please explain precisely why: the a(t) is the expansion factor in front of the usual Euclidean metric for space.

I have no idea what the maths you have provided means . I have already provided you with basic physics that contradicts Einstein and the Big Bang .

I will also add further contradiction :

'''Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from Earth at speeds proportional to their distance. In other words, the farther they are the faster they are moving away from Earth. The velocity of the galaxies has been determined by their redshift, a shift of the light they emit toward the red end of the visible spectrum.''

Hubble's law - Wikipedia


There is no evidence of space itself expanding , as I explained prior the redshift is of matter receding away not of space receding away . A metric expansion between points is not an expansion of the space itself . Beyond these receding Galaxies is more space , x^n .

 

[ratiocinator]

That image is perfectly accurate and precise .

You didn't even define your symbols.

Proton force + Electron force = mass gravitational force

0 net charge does not mean 0 net force .

Again, this is just meaningless. There is no such thing as "proton force" or "electron force". There are four known forces: gravitation, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

You didn't even define your symbols.


Again, this is just meaningless. There is no such thing as "proton force" or "electron force". There are four known forces: gravitation, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Well ok if we want to get all specific and be precise in terminology but I feel you are just being awkward .

You know the Proton force or should know I am referring to the strong nuclear force of a proton and the electron that give the atom a bond .

When the two forces converge , they create a third weaker force , gravitational mass .

Whats symbols in my diagram ?

The circles are actually spheres and atoms .

The diagram is labelled F1+F2=F3

F=force

added : Thinking about it now it is a bit of a crappy diagram but only took seconds to do .

 

[ratiocinator]

I have no idea what the maths you have provided means .

Then you don't understand what metric expansion means. The equation you've been given defines a small space-time 'distance' according to the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric (in the case that space is flat).

Look, let's just consider the spatial part. In normal, everyday Euclidean geometry, a small distance (in spherical coordinates) is given by

In the FLRW metric (that applies to the universe as a whole), the equivalent is

Where k is 1, 0, or -1 depending on whether the curvature is positive, negative, or zero, and a(t) is the scale factor, which is getting larger with time.

Remember that this theory has been extensively tested.

 

[ecco]

I know very well that science books disagree with my claims because my claims are disagreeing with those books , that is the point .

The point seems to be your theories against the accumulated knowledge of mankind.

Guess what? You lose!

Nonsense theories are a dime a dozen. You are not the first person on RF to propose nonsense and proclaim: "I am right, everyone else is wrong".

Guess what? You are wrong!

 

[ratiocinator]

You know the Proton force or should know I am referring to the strong nuclear force of a proton and the electron that give the atom a bond .

The strong force is what holds the nucleus together, the force between the nucleus and the electrons is electromagnetic.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

The point seems to be your theories against the accumulated knowledge of mankind.

Guess what? You lose!

Nonsense theories are a dime a dozen. You are not the first person on RF to propose nonsense and proclaim: "I am right, everyone else is wrong".

Guess what? You are wrong!

I didn't lose ecco , I have just provided the contradictions and truths using present science .

I also provided an accurate gravitational mass diagram that shows the mechanics of gravity .

I have also answered what is time and demonstrated no time dilation .

You lose if you don't try to undertsand some of it .

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

The strong force is what holds the nucleus together, the force between the nucleus and the electrons is electromagnetic.

Well actually there is no reason that a negative pole and positive pole can't occupy the same point (x0,y0,z0)

I disagree with the present atomic model , m/V being equal and proportional negative and positive pole .

Please don't reply quarks etc , they are not proven in reality to exist . We can just about observe latices .

 

[ratiocinator]

I also provided an accurate gravitational mass diagram that shows the mechanics of gravity .

No.

I have also answered what is time and demonstrated no time dilation .

Of course there's time dilation (both gravitational and relative motion). It has been confirmed in multiple ways and both need to be taken into account for the GPS system to work.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

No.


Of course there's time dilation (both gravitational and relative motion). It has been confirmed in multiple ways and both need to be taken into account for the GPS system to work.

Again this is something else you don't understand . It is called a time dilation but it is actualy a timing dilation . Look at these diagrams again for a recap .

 

[ecco]

You lose if you don't try to undertsand some of it .

So, all the scientific minds of the world lose because you don't have the knowledge or the balls to submit your theories for peer review.

Why are you denying the world of science your brilliance?

 

[ratiocinator]

Well actually there is no reason that a negative pole and positive pole can't occupy the same point (x0,y0,z0)

Both irrelevant to the point and meaningless.

I disagree with the present atomic model , m/V being equal and proportional negative and positive pole .

What's the point? You really have no idea how well tested all this is, do you? Neither do you appear to have a clue what all the terms you're using actually mean. Here's some accurate equations for you: your evidence = your understanding = 0.

 

[ecco]

I also provided an accurate gravitational mass diagram that shows the mechanics of gravity .

The same diagram that you, yourself referred to as crappy.

Thinking about it now it is a bit of a crappy diagram but only took seconds to do .

It's no wonder that you are afraid to submit your "works". I guess you realize that once you submit a diagram as part of your "evidence" you cannot retract it or admit it's crappy.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

So, all the scientific minds of the world lose because you don't have the knowledge or the balls to submit your theories for peer review.

Why are you denying the world of science your brilliance?

Well actually no because all I am doing is advancing their work and clearing up some common misconceptions . I started to write a paper in this thread a few pages back but started to get a bit bored . Science wouldn't accept a paper showing how naive they have been and how bad they are undertsanding basic physics .
They haven't critical thought enough .

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

The same diagram that you, yourself referred to as crappy.



It's no wonder that you are afraid to submit your "works". I guess you realize that once you submit a diagram as part of your "evidence" you cannot retract it or admit it's crappy.

I know , I can do some technical drawing if was going to submit a paper , but for general chat it is sufficient .

 

[ecco]

Matter occupies space equal and proportional to the matter in dimensions . When you walk you don't take the space with you , space and matter occupy the same position simultaneusly but the postion of space changes relative to the velocity of the matter .

It seems you do not realize that there is a lot of space between atoms. Even the atoms within your own body.

It seems you do not realize that when you walk all the atoms in your body move.

It seems you do not realize that when you walk all the space between the atoms in your body also moves.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

It seems you do not realize that there is a lot of space between atoms. Even the atoms within your own body.

It seems you do not realize that when you walk all the atoms in your body move.

It seems you do not realize that when you walk all the space between the atoms in your body also moves.

Not true , when you walk the space that your body occupies is equal and proportional to your own volume and as you move you change position of space . The space does not move with your body mass .