Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

There was no 'when the BB universe did not exist' in the BB model. So there was no 'was'.

This is like asking 'at a point south of the south pole, does the Earth exist or not?'.

The universe exists. That includes the time period from the BB until now as well as the time period into the future.

You ask loaded questions that make assumptions that may not be true.

Then the BB model you speak of is nonsense, not worth the paper it is written on.

You are saying that even if the BB universe had a beginning, a state no existence never was, and even if the BB universe never existed, there would be a state of no existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but you are the one that misinterpreted what I said.

Then you are mistaken, with due respect, or do you want to stoop to the depths that deserve a serious degrading of respect.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There was no 'when the BB universe did not exist' in the BB model. So there was no 'was'.

This is like asking 'at a point south of the south pole, does the Earth exist or not?'.

The universe exists. That includes the time period from the BB until now as well as the time period into the future.

You ask loaded questions that make assumptions that may not be true.

Ok, if what you say is consensus main stream science, please provide your formal evidence so it can be validated.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Now, did I say such red shifts are relevant to cosmology? No.

Are they? Only in very limited cases.

Does tired light explain what we actually see? Nowhere close.

You admitted that there was a redshift cause due to Compton scattering, it has nothing to do about an opinion wrt relevance to cosmology.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, time existed before the universe even though time is part of the universe?

Good question. I'll get back to you on that.

 

[wellwisher]

I vote for Quantum existence. Considering the present knowledge of science as long as our physical existence existed there has always been a Quantum World that our universe and all possible universes arose,. We have no evidence of an absolute beginning.

Obfuscation rules @mikk_the_dane's world.

The problem is, existing theory is not up to the task. The analogy is if we were still at the flat earth theory, we could disprove the idea of anything orbiting the earth. An obsolete dogma can lock your brain out of further and evolving insight.

My theory is we live in space-time, and what we call the beginning of the universe is when space-time first appears, and the universes expands in space and time; space-time. The logical question to ask is, what would happen if space and time were not connected as space-time, but rather space and time could act independently of each other? If I could move in space without any connection to time, I would appear omnipresent. This is a classic attribute of God. Space-time, does not allow this but rather places temporal limits of position in space and time.

If space and time were not connected, we could not have photons of light, since photons have wavelength; d, and frequency;1/t, that are bond together; connected like space-time. Instead we would have wavelength not attached to frequency and frequency not attached to wavelength. These will not be easy to see with current tools that assume connected space and time variables; photons.

If we were in a realm where space and time were not connected, since there are more options compared to the limits imyoised by space-time; omnipresent, this realm would be a state of infinite complexity. Since entropy is connected to increasing complexity, this other realm should be the source of the 2nd law. Our space-time universe is like an ice cube in a warm bath, working it way back to its source; toward infinite entropy within separated space and time.

This theory allows one to do what no other theory can do. I can start the universe before energy, using what would be measured as nothingness within space-time. I do not need to assume the universe was always here, due to weak theory. All I need to do is extrapolate connected space-time, to the original disconnected space-time; time + space.

In terms of applications, if we have a synchronized pair of quantum particles, separated in space, that move as one, independent of distance, we would have the addition of some independent time added to space-time. In their little world, they have their own little clock, that is on top of their space-time clock. Independent space and time makes it easier to address the quantum world, since the quantum world is the half way house to the other realm, where time and space are not connected. Quantum affect often shows both realms interacting.

The inflation period where the early universe appeared to expand faster than the speed of light, would simply be a variation of omnipresence; extra distance potential added to universal space-time, apart from the distance within space-time. The laws of physics being the same in all references; Einstein, is an omniscience affect, where there is extra time potential added to space-time; synchronized in time independent of frame of reference in space-time.

Proof of independent space and time can be seen via the human imagination; connected to consciousness and information. The frontal lobe can process neural data in ways where the output is outside of the laws of space-time; science fiction. For example, I can imagine a wet spaghetti bridge a mile long. This is not possible in space-time due to gravity and shear force. But, if I built this in space, independent of time; stop time, so the force of gravity can not act without time, the bridge could remain.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, time existed before the universe even though time is part of the universe?

As I said, good question. I did a little research on this and hope you can read first the following article: Philosophy of Time – Exactly What Is Time?.
I found it interesting. There's more, but perhaps this can help. Of course, it's not the complete answer but a helpful start.

 

[YoursTrue]

Read above. You are asking how to make sense of the world. That requires a human. Start there.

For humans it requires a human. I doubt that tortoises try to make sense of the world. But there are others. Like angels. I won't go into it now, but In order for ME to make sense of the world I was happy to learn about God from people I deeply respected. And still do. Just sayin', as the expression goes. (If I weren't born I wouldn't care... I hope we can agree there. Kind of. Because if I weren't born and lived some time, "I" wouldn't be me. If not, oh well right now.)

 

[Polymath257]

That time has always existed since it began is beside the point, before time existed there was no time! Please do not play with words!

It seems to me that you are the one playing with words here. There was no 'before time'. The whole concept is nonsense.

You seem to be trying to bring 'non-existence' into existence. If time had a beginning, there simply was no 'before'. So time did NOT 'come into existence'. There was no 'transition' from 'non-existence' into 'existence'. There was no 'because' since there was no 'cause'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For humans it requires a human. I doubt that tortoises try to make sense of the world. But there are others. Like angels. I won't go into it now, but In order for ME to make sense of the world I was happy to learn about God from people I deeply respected. And still do. Just sayin', as the expression goes. (If I weren't born I wouldn't care... I hope we can agree there. Kind of. Because if I weren't born and lived some time, "I" wouldn't be me. If not, oh well right now.)

Well, you use angels. Now as long as you don't claim that tells you how I ought to live with in effect the Truth, then okay.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems to me that you are the one playing with words here. There was no 'before time'. The whole concept is nonsense.

You seem to be trying to bring 'non-existence' into existence. If time had a beginning, there simply was no 'before'. So time did NOT 'come into existence'. There was no 'transition' from 'non-existence' into 'existence'. There was no 'because' since there was no 'cause'.

Yeah, if ...

 

[Polymath257]

Then the BB model you speak of is nonsense, not worth the paper it is written on.

Those who study these things strongly disagree.

You are saying that even if the BB universe had a beginning, a state no existence never was, and even if the BB universe never existed, there would be a state of no existence.

Let's be clear.

The universe *is* existence. Anything that exists exist *within* the universe.

So, if the universe (BB or not) did not exist, there would be no existence. That does NOT mean there would be a 'state of non-existence'. No such 'state' would exist. But, in fact, things do exist. So existence actually does exist.

Again, this has *nothing* to do with BB cosmology.

'Non-existence' simply does not exist. Anything that exists has existence'.

And, to clarify further, if the universe had a beginning (like it does in BB cosmology), all that exists is after that beginning. There is no 'state of non-existence' before simply because there is no 'before' at all.

You seem to be desperately trying to show that BB cosmology implies there *existed* a state of non-existence before the BB. And that is simply not the case. No such state existed because *there was no before*.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those who study these things strongly disagree.

Let's be clear.

The universe *is* existence. Anything that exists exist *within* the universe.

...

That is unknown and at best an unproven axiomatic assumption.

 

[Polymath257]

Then you are mistaken, with due respect, or do you want to stoop to the depths that deserve a serious degrading of respect.

If you misrepresent my words and keep doing so after being corrected, then who deserves the degradation of respect?

You admitted that there was a redshift cause due to Compton scattering, it has nothing to do about an opinion wrt relevance to cosmology.

Sigh. The 'red-shift' due to Compton scattering is of a very different type than the red-shift due to relative velocities, universal expansion, or gravitational influences.

Technically, it is NOT a 'red-shift', but is a reddening of the light (assuming the scattering is off a particle with less energy than the light--another aspect that can be problematic in cosmology).

In an actual red-shift, ALL wavelengths are affected by the same proportion. So, if the wavelengths are doubled, ALL wavelengths are doubled. This is easy to test since we know the wavelengths of light emitted by, say, hydrogen and helium.

As an example, a red-shift factor of 2 would make light at at the Lyman alpha line (usually at 121 nm) into light at double that (so 242 nm) and light at the first Balmer line (usually 656 nm) into double that (so, 1312 nm). ALL wavelengths get doubled.

This is NOT what happens with Compton scattering. In Compton scattering, the *difference* of the wavelengths is the same for all wavelengths (for a given scattering angle). This means that longer wavelengths are affected by a different *proportion* than smaller ones. Again, this is an easy thing to test.

So, for example, if the difference in wavelength is enough to double the Lyman alpha line (so a difference of 121nm), that would affect the first Balmer line by the same difference, making it into light at 757 nm, NOT the red-shifted value of 1312 nm.

So, to tell the difference between a red-shift that is due to expansion and that which is due to Compton scattering, just look at those two lines and see if the effect is proportional (say, double) or a constant difference (and so not proportional). This is trivial with a spectroscope.

 

[Polymath257]

That is unknown and at best an unproven axiomatic assumption.

It's more of a definition.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, if ...

Yes, and we have been discussing BB cosmology where that if is satisfied. Whether it is *correct* is another matter, but logic alone cannot say.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's more of a definition.

But that doesn't make it a fact. Unless words are magical.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, if what you say is consensus main stream science, please provide your formal evidence so it can be validated.

I am saying what the BB model says. You repeatedly mischaracterize it and I am correcting your error.

 

[Polymath257]

But that doesn't make it a fact. Unless words are magical.

it makes it a fact by definition. Whether that definition is helpful for understanding is another matter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

it makes it a fact by definition. Whether that definition is helpful for understanding is another matter.

So if I define God as the creator of the universe that is a fact by definition, but not a fact for another definition of fact. Okay.