Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Jose Fly]

I said its unknown. That does address your post.
They can't answer what isn't known.

You really seem to be going out of your way to not engage here. What exactly is your point? Has anyone here claimed that the origin of the universe and time is a known?

 

[We Never Know]

You really seem to be going out of your way to not engage here. What exactly is your point? Has anyone here claimed that the origin of the universe and time is a known?

You really seem to be going out of your way to avoid saying "we don't know"

 

[Jose Fly]

You really seem to be going out of your way to avoid saying "we don't know"

Huh? You're not making sense. Let me be absolutely clear then......we do not know how the universe and time began.

Now, what exactly is your point in this thread? Has anyone here claimed that the origin of the universe and time are knowns?

 

[We Never Know]

Huh? You're not making sense. Let me be absolutely clear then......we do not know how the universe and time began.

Now, what exactly is your point in this thread? Has anyone here claimed that the origin of the universe and time are knowns?

"Has anyone here claimed that the origin of the universe and time are knowns?"

The Big Bang comes to mind.

 

[exchemist]

Because to hypothesize a BB without knowing pre-existing conditions, the BB model can not be validated.

This is not correct thinking. The Big Bang model is derived from observations that allow extrapolation back in time to a certain point. There is no need to go any further back to develop a model accounting for those observations (cosmological red shift, CMBR, observed degree of inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter etc). Extrapolation further back is ultimately limited by the inability to apply the present laws of physics, but appears consistent with starting from an initial singularity.

One aspect of this it is important to be aware of is that according the model deals with an expansion of spacetime from this hypothetical singularity. There was no "pre-existing", since both space and time itself would have started at that point.

 

[Jose Fly]

"Has anyone here claimed that the origin of the universe and time are knowns?"

The Big Bang comes to mind.

The big bang claimed that the origin of the universe and time are known? Did it talk to you or something? Heck, I didn't even know the big bang was a member at RF!

 

[exchemist]

"Has anyone here claimed that the origin of the universe and time are knowns?"

The Big Bang comes to mind.

The Big Bang model includes no such claim. The model deals with the expansion of the universe from a very early stage. Before that, the hypothesis is that it started from an initial singularity at which both space and time began. But since our laws of physics cannot be applied back beyond a certain point, it is not possible to make that extrapolation with confidence. If there was indeed an initial singularity, why that was so and why expansion occurred cannot be known. At least, that is my understanding of the theory.

Like all theories in science, it has a certain scope of application. Beyond that, while it may be easy to ask further questions, the theory cannot be expected to provide the answers to them.

 

[We Never Know]

The Big Bang model includes no such claim. The model deals with the expansion of the universe from a very early stage. Before that, the hypothesis is that it started from an initial singularity at which both space and time began. But since our laws of physics cannot be applied back beyond a certain point, it is not possible to make that extrapolation with confidence. If there was indeed an initial singularity, why that was so and why expansion occurred cannot be known. At least, that is my understanding of the theory.

Like all theories in science, it has a certain scope of application. Beyond that, while it may be easy to ask further questions, the theory cannot be expected to provide the answers to them.

Good! Now we all can agree that we don't know how the universe started and when anyone says the BB.... its the wrong answer.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No one knows. You are still running away from a claim that you made. And you are now attempting strawman arguments. Why can't you just admit that you screwed up

You can only speak for yourself, and you admit you don't know! So why are you even commenting here if you don't even know why your BB God or whatever created the BB.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am the serious one here. You keep making claims that require support and then run away from them when you are caught.

You claimed to have read and understood an article that does not even appear to have passed peer review. I am still waiting for an explanation of that too.

You see, you can't look the BB in the eye, you want to run away and make up stories not relevant to the question you've been asked.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't know. Lawrence Krauss, in A Universe from Nothing, suggested that 'nothing' is unstable, but that is only one hypothesis. Stay around for a few years, and we may have an answer.

About 13.8 billion years ago.

These questions are probably meaningless. If they have any meaning, I don't know the answers.

The point is that nothing does not exist, never has, and never will. Space otoh is eternal, so spacetime is eternal, without beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is not correct thinking. The Big Bang model is derived from observations that allow extrapolation back in time to a certain point. There is no need to go any further back to develop a model accounting for those observations (cosmological red shift, CMBR, observed degree of inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter etc). Extrapolation further back is ultimately limited by the inability to apply the present laws of physics, but appears consistent with starting from an initial singularity.

One aspect of this it is important to be aware of is that according the model deals with an expansion of spacetime from this hypothetical singularity. There was no "pre-existing", since both space and time itself would have started at that point.

The key words are "back in time to a certain point". You are telling me that I am not supposed to ask about beyond that certain point? What sort of science is that, where did you get that idea?

Does BB science believe in a miracle? Definition: an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency:
miracle definition - Bing

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can only speak for yourself, and you admit you don't know! So why are you even commenting here if you don't even know why your BB God or whatever created the BB.

Why are you commenting? You have shown that you know less than I do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see, you can't look the BB in the eye, you want to run away and make up stories not relevant to the question you've been asked.

Such projection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is that nothing does not exist, never has, and never will. Space otoh is eternal, so spacetime is eternal, without beginning.

Nothing does not exist now. And you probably cannot even define "nothing" properly. What is nothing?

 

[We Never Know]

Nothing does not exist now. And you probably cannot even define "nothing" properly. What is nothing?

if absolutely nothing ever existed, there would still be absolutely nothing. IOW something has always existed for us to exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

if absolutely nothing ever existed, there would still be absolutely nothing. IOW something has always existed for us to exist.

That sort of nothing may not be possible. And that ais the point. When a physicist says that the universe could have come from nothing you would need to ask them how they define "nothing". As far as mass and energy it appears that the universe could have come from "nothing" because the total energy of the universe when measured is as close to zero as they can measure.

 

[YoursTrue]

What you need to learn and know is that you don’t need how life first started - hence Abiogenesis - to understand Evolution.

Evolution isn’t about how life first started.

You keep confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis, refusing to learn from your errors.

I have noticed that all creationists - OEC, YEC & ID creationists - suffered from the willful ignorance when it comes to their inability to distinguishing the “mechanisms of biodiversity” (Evolution) from the (Abiogenesis) mechanisms of “origin of first life”.

Willful ignorance isn’t a virtue.

Creationism seemed to be like cesspool of ignorance, where people (creationists) are incapable of being educated in even the most basic of science.

Until you finally understand the differences between the two, you will never be able to move forward.

the Theory of Evolution is absolutely connected to the theories of abiogenesis. There can be no evolution without a beginning. It is inextricably connected. You and I have a difference of opinion about this as well as what others believe.

 

[YoursTrue]

That sort of nothing may not be possible. And that ais the point. When a physicist says that the universe could have come from nothing you would need to ask them how they define "nothing". As far as mass and energy it appears that the universe could have come from "nothing" because the total energy of the universe when measured is as close to zero as they can measure.

You're bringing me back to days gone by when I might say, yeah, sure...(and walk away).

 

[We Never Know]

the Theory of Evolution is absolutely connected to the theories of abiogenesis. There can be no evolution without a beginning. It is inextricably connected. You and I have a difference of opinion about this as well as what others believe.

Evolution is what happened after life formed no matter if it was by abiogenesis, a god, an alien, etc.. Evolution happened after.