Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

To me you are dancing around.

You say "at no point was there no time, no space, etc"

You are saying it all started with the BB but yet if
"at no point was there no time, no space, etc" then the BB couldn't have started unless it was proofed into ignition so to speak. IMO

You are thinking of time as outside of the universe. That is a mistake. Time is part of the universe.

The south pole does not 'poof' the Earth into existence. The Earth exists and the smallest latitude is at the south pole. Similarly, the universe of spacetime exists and the earliest time was at the BB. There is no 'before' to 'poof' from. ALL existence is at or after the BB (in the BB model).

 

[We Never Know]

You are thinking of time as outside of the universe. That is a mistake. Time is part of the universe.

The south pole does not 'poof' the Earth into existence. The Earth exists and the smallest latitude is at the south pole. Similarly, the universe of spacetime exists and the earliest time was at the BB. There is no 'before' to 'poof' from. ALL existence is at or after the BB (in the BB model).

What is supposedly the cause of expansion, why things expanded?

 

[Polymath257]

What is supposedly the cause of expansion, why things expanded?

Depends on which phase of the expansion you are talking about. Right now, dark energy is the dominant energy contributor, so is what drives the expansion. At an earlier time, ordinary matter dominated and before that light energy dominated. In each case, the expansion is described nicely by general relativity applied to the way the energy density changes under expansion or contraction.

Oh, you want a 'cause' for the universe. Sorry, that makes no sense. All causality is *within* the universe. Causes only make sense when time exists and that is at or after after the BB.

 

[We Never Know]

Depends on which phase of the expansion you are talking about. Right now, dark energy is the dominant energy contributor, so is what drives the expansion. At an earlier time, ordinary matter dominated and before that light energy dominated. In each case, the expansion is described nicely by general relativity applied to the way the energy density changes under expansion or contraction.

Oh, you want a 'cause' for the universe. Sorry, that makes no sense. All causality is *within* the universe. Causes only make sense when time exists and that is at or after after the BB.

Why did things expand?
From no expansion to the very first nanosecond^1,00,000,000 first hint of expansion.

 

[Polymath257]

Why did things expand?
From no expansion to the very first nanosecond^1,00,000,000 first hint of expansion.

Why do you think there was a point where there was no expansion? As far as we know, the universe has been expanding whenever it has existed.

 

[We Never Know]

Why do you think there was a point where there was no expansion? As far as we know, the universe has been expanding whenever it has existed.

Tracing back we come up with around 13.7 billion years.
Why not 27.5 billion years? Because there wasn't, then there was.

 

[Polymath257]

Tracing back we come up with around 13.7 billion years.
Why not 27.5 billion years? Because there wasn't, then there was.

Why does latitude start at 90 degrees south and not 130 degrees south?

There was an earliest time. We are about 13.7 billion years after that point. there simply was no 27.5 billion years ago.

There was no point at which there 'wasn't'.

 

[We Never Know]

Why does latitude start at 90 degrees south and not 130 degrees south?

There was an earliest time. We are about 13.7 billion years after that point. there simply was no 27.5 billion years ago.

There was no point at which there 'wasn't'.

You keep using earth as examples. There was a time earth wasn't.

 

[Polymath257]

You keep using earth as examples. There was a time earth wasn't.

I am using an analogy to relate the geometric aspects of time as it is now understood.

In the analogy with the Earth, the latitude of a point is analogous to the time. More northerly latitudes are later times. The longitude is analogous to the position in space.

The south pole is analogous to the instant of the BB. The increasing side of latitude lines is analogous to the expansion of space. The lack of latitude south of the south pole is analogous to the lack of time before the BB.

The main differences are that the surface of the Earth is 2 dimensional and the universe of spacetime is 4 dimensional.

Any question involving time can be translated into a question about latitude and the answer for the analogy may help to inform what is going on in cosmology.

 

[We Never Know]

I am using an analogy to relate the geometric aspects of time as it is now understood.

In the analogy with the Earth, the latitude of a point is analogous to the time. More northerly latitudes are later times. The longitude is analogous to the position in space.

The south pole is analogous to the instant of the BB. The increasing side of latitude lines is analogous to the expansion of space. The lack of latitude south of the south pole is analogous to the lack of time before the BB.

The main differences are that the surface of the Earth is 2 dimensional and the universe of spacetime is 4 dimensional.

Any question involving time can be translated into a question about latitude and the answer for the analogy may help to inform what is going on in cosmology.

At one point there was no earth, no solar system, no milky way galaxy, no, etc...

 

[Polymath257]

At one point there was no earth, no solar system, no milky way galaxy, no, etc...

Not at any latitude (which is analogous to time).

 

[We Never Know]

Not at any latitude.

At one point the very first star, the first etc, wasn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am using an analogy to relate the geometric aspects of time as it is now understood.

In the analogy with the Earth, the latitude of a point is analogous to the time. More northerly latitudes are later times. The longitude is analogous to the position in space.

The south pole is analogous to the instant of the BB. The increasing side of latitude lines is analogous to the expansion of space. The lack of latitude south of the south pole is analogous to the lack of time before the BB.

The main differences are that the surface of the Earth is 2 dimensional and the universe of spacetime is 4 dimensional.

Any question involving time can be translated into a question about latitude and the answer for the analogy may help to inform what is going on in cosmology.

So if there was a Big Crunch (though that does appear to be ruled out) that would be the North Pole?

 

[Polymath257]

Another analogy that may be helpful is to imagine ordinary 3D space. Pick a point and think of it as the BB with time corresponding to the *radius* from that point.

So, the chosen point is at t=0. Space at any time after that corresponds to a sphere of some radius. Later times correspond to large radii.

So, space is expanding (later times have large spheres representing space).

There is no 'negative radius' just as there is no 'before the BB'.

 

[Polymath257]

At one point the very first star, the first etc, wasn't.

Absolutely. But there was always matter and energy when the universe existed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At one point the very first star, the first etc, wasn't.

That would be at about 89 degrees South latitude.

 

[We Never Know]

That would be at about 89 degrees South latitude.

Of?

 

[YoursTrue]

To me you are dancing around.

You say "at no point was there no time, no space, etc"

You are saying it all started with the BB but yet the BB couldn't have started unless it was proofed into ignition so to speak. IMO

We all can't have it (truthfully) our way yet have it differ with others. And have all the ways be different. Nope. Being that someone says at no point was there no time, no space, etc., and sticks to that as if it's true -- it's 'time' for me to leave the conversation and listening for the most part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of?

Time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

Please provide a copy of, or a link to the scientific consensus BB model, thanks in advance.