Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

I do not need to. There are times when it is best to trust those that have been working on an idea for the better parts of their lives.

And why do you keep running away?

So it takes a lifetime to learn that there was no "before" the BB?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wow! You have an amazingly poor memory.

Well 15 billion years plus was long ago, and it is no longer is fresh in my mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it takes a lifetime to learn that there was no "before" the BB?

Are you trying to be wrong on purpose? You would need to spend some serious time studying to catch up. People can understand probably at the grad student level. But the people you disagree with not only understand the concept they have worked on it fro a good part of their life. You refuse to even learn the basics of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well 15 billion years plus was long ago, and it is no longer is fresh in my mind.

No, the reason you won't get an answer was at the most on the previous page. Oh my. I don't know why, but some people that are hopelessly wrong due to their attitudes often switch over to trying to be even more wrong for some odd reason. I am sure that you do not know why you do this.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You seem to be the only one claiming that.

I call a spade a spade.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you trying to be wrong on purpose? You would need to spend some serious time studying to catch up. People can understand probably at the grad student level. But the people you disagree with not only understand the concept they have worked on it fro a good part of their life. You refuse to even learn the basics of science.

I could tell you right away that if they refuse to answer the question, what was before the BB, it was because there was not a beginning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I call a spade a spade.

No, you demonstrated that the science was beyond you. And ironically you refuse to learn.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, the reason you won't get an answer was at the most on the previous page. Oh my. I don't know why, but some people that are hopelessly wrong due to their attitudes often switch over to trying to be even more wrong for some odd reason. I am sure that you do not know why you do this.

It is part of BB dogma, there is no outside the BB, there is no before the BB, it is like asking where the north pole is when you are at he north pole. BB science is deep.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you demonstrated that the science was beyond you. And ironically you refuse to learn.

No 'outside' outside the BB sized golf ball is science. No 'before' before the BB is science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could tell you right away that if they refuse to answer the question, what was before the BB, it was because there was not a beginning.

And do you to your poor math skills the refutation of your claim, that there is no South of the South Pole is beyond you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No 'outside' outside the BB sized golf ball is science. No 'before' before the BB is science.

Really? What test could possibly refute the idea?

That yod do not understand how important question is tells everyone that you do not know what is and what is not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

But if it is not continuous, what exists in the gaps of the continuity of time and space.

The above is nonsense. No such illusionary gaps exist within our continuous time/space universe on the macro scale. I agree with @Subductin Zone in post #2319. Did not answer the following . . .

There is a continuing miscommunication on your part on the insistence to an absolute definition of 'nothing' concerning Hawking's explanation of his theorem. You're falling into his description from the 'Newtonian' human perspective that Hawking referred to. I have repeated it numerous times, Hawking's use of nothing does not translate into 'absolute nothing.' First, it has been objectively determined by overwhelming evidence that at the small scale Quantum level of our physical existence there is not 'continuous time and space. The key word here is 'continuous.' We have to get past this communication problem before we get anywhere.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

But my sense of reality is not a belief, seems likely your sense of reality is a belief, and it is certainly irrational.

So here is a question for you,

When the BB had just began, and say was about the size of a golf ball, what was outside of it?

The universe began with the moment of expansion of a singularity. We are not playing golf.

 

[shunyadragon]

The conversion of matter into absolute nothing, ie, the reverse of the BB universe's beginning from nothing. Can CERN do it?

Problem with this since there is no such thing as absolute nothing in the science of physics, cosmology and Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Polymath257]

No, you have bits and pieces about the subject, but don't understand, the redshift that BBT sees is the same redshift but seen by SSU as just showing relative distance from Earth from the SSU pov.

Yes, I understand that this is your proposal. Now we go to the details. Is the type of red shift that your theory predicts consistent with the data? And the answer is no.

Does your theory explain the way angular sizes vary with distances? The answer is no.

For example, that JWST redshift data for those fully formed galaxies that show up in a time nearer the BB beginning where fully formed galaxies should not yet exist, whereas from the SSU pov, the redshift just shows these are the furthest galaxies from Earth we have seen.

And, again, that is a question concerning the details of galaxy formation. It clearly happens earlier than expected, but that isn't an issue with the overall BB picture. It is a lack of understanding of how galaxies form.

Also, 'fully formed' is rather misstating the point. They have more structure than we expected, and are larger than expected for that time, but they are not, by any means, modern galaxies in size or structure.

 

[Polymath257]

But if it is not continuous, what exists in the gaps of the continuity of time and space?

Why would you expect anything to exist there?

 

[shunyadragon]

So it takes a lifetime to learn that there was no "before" the BB?

Huh?!?!?! We do not 'learn' what was before the expansion of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

The conversion of matter into absolute nothing, ie, the reverse of the BB universe's beginning from nothing. Can CERN do it?

That si not the reverse of the BB scenario. To reverse the BB scenario would require immense densities to the place that time is distorted (bent, as Hawking would say).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The above is nonsense. No such illusionary gaps exist within our continuous time/space universe on the macro scale. I agree with @Subductin Zone in post #2319. Did not answer the following . . .

There is a continuing miscommunication on your part on the insistence to an absolute definition of 'nothing' concerning Hawking's explanation of his theorem. You're falling into his description from the 'Newtonian' human perspective that Hawking referred to. I have repeated it numerous times, Hawking's use of nothing does not translate into 'absolute nothing.' First, it has been objectively determined by overwhelming evidence that at the small scale Quantum level of our physical existence there is not 'continuous time and space. The key word here is 'continuous.' We have to get past this communication problem before we get anywhere.

Still waiting . . .

Seriously, I do not yet understand what nothing you are talking about, I presume it is an relative nothing such as an absence of something and some underlying energy is still present, is this what you mean,

If not, don't go off, try to explain further and you have my attention.

 

[Polymath257]

But my sense of reality is not a belief, seems likely your sense of reality is a belief, and it is certainly irrational.

So here is a question for you,

When the BB had just began, and say was about the size of a golf ball, what was outside of it?

Ambiguous question. When the current observable universe was the size of a golfball, the rest of the universe was outside of it, just like today.

If the universe as a whole is finite in size, then there would no no 'outside of it'.