Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

LOL! That is what you do. I pointed out your error to you in my first response. You did not get that and so I explained in more detail. You still could not understand your error. I tried for a third time and went to bed. I am betting that you still won't own up to the errors that you made. The only one "running" is you.

You are projecting, stay tuned.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I just got up. Do you realize that you were mistaken about what Polymath claimed yet?

I know what he claimed, that does not mean I agree with it if it is flawed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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'.

So there was no before the BB, no time, and no cause. That is the definition of nothing.

So please confirm I understand you correctly, there was no time existing, hence there is no before the BB.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Those who study these things strongly disagree.

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*.

You say. "There is no 'state of non-existence' before simply because there is no 'before' at all.", so "no before" means, no state, no time. Now that is about the best way to describe absolute nothing there could be, do you agree.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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



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.

That's what I said, Compton scattering redshift is not doppler related.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

Then prove it, provide a copy of, or link to, the scientific consensus BB model so I can verify.

 

[Polymath257]

Then prove it, provide a copy of, or link to, the scientific consensus BB model so I can verify.

Here are a couple of references:

https://www.amazon.com/Cosmology-Steven-Weinberg/dp/0198526822/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2NJO14WLF0ZCY&keywords=Weinberg+Cosmology&qid=1682036397&sprefix=weinberg+cosmology%2Caps%2C378&sr=8-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc

You might consider the discussion in section 1.7 of the tired light theories and how observational evidence shows them to be wrong.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Modern-Cosmology-Andrew-Liddle/dp/1118502140/ref=sr_1_16?crid=1SZSTX9PX0TLY&keywords=Cosmology&qid=1682036433&sprefix=cosmology%2Caps%2C101&sr=8-16

Of course, you might need to know a bit of differential geometry to figure out what they say. Good luck!

 

[Polymath257]

That's what I said, Compton scattering redshift is not doppler related.

And it is NOT related to the cosmological red shift, which is frequency proportional.

 

[Polymath257]

You say. "There is no 'state of non-existence' before simply because there is no 'before' at all.", so "no before" means, no state, no time. Now that is about the best way to describe absolute nothing there could be, do you agree.

You keep trying to say that absolute nothing exists. It doesn't.

 

[Polymath257]

So there was no before the BB, no time, and no cause. That is the definition of nothing.

Just like there is no south of the south pole. There is nothing south of the south pole.

So please confirm I understand you correctly, there was no time existing, hence there is no before the BB.

In the standard BB model, yes.

Another reference, if you want:

https://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Robert-M-Wald/dp/0226870332/ref=sr_1_1?crid=38ZK51QOMPYYK&keywords=wald+general+relativity&qid=1682036696&sprefix=Wald+General%2Caps%2C124&sr=8-1

From page 99:

"
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 a preexisting, nonsingular spacetime,
as it is sometimes depicted and as its name may suggest. Since spacetime structure
itself is 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."

 

[paarsurrey]

"Let's not talk about the Big Bang"​

Is it against Science or the truthful Word of Revelation to talk about the Big Bang, please? Right?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

So there was no before the BB, no time, and no cause. That is the definition of nothing.

No, that is not the whole definition of the 'nothing; sometimes described as what the nature of our physical existence before? what is more correctly the expansion from a singularity. There was a singularity before the expansion, and a Quantum existence the singularity formed. Yes the Quantum existence does not have a time/space like our universe, but again it is not 'absolutely nothing' as described in philosophy.

Hawking is often misquoted on the use of this terminology. He says: Stephen Hawking says nothing was around before origin of universe - Xinhua | English.news.cn.

"There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective," Hawking said, hinting that a lot of what we believe is derived from a human-centric perspective, which might limit the scope of human knowledge of the world.

Yes, Hawking described a Quantum existence where continuous time space does not exist, but this Quantum existence is not 'absolute nothing.'

Quantum Mechanics describes this smallest scale at the Quantum level where time/space does not exist as in the macro scale of our universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Let's not talk about the Big Bang"​

Is it against Science or the truthful Word of Revelation to talk about the Big Bang, please? Right?

Regards

No, ancient tribal religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam lack the guidance to understand the present science of the physical nature of our physical existence. If God exists then God Created our physical existence in harmony with the scientific knowledge of the nature of our physical existence.

Let's not talk about a Big Bang and talk about science of the origins of our universe in terms of physics, cosmology and Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are projecting, stay tuned.

And that is another term that you do not seem to understand or are merely aping others that have refuted you in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what he claimed, that does not mean I agree with it if it is flawed.

I did not say or implied that you agreed with him. You were merely wrong.

 

[gnostic]

The BB is not relevant to the first part of the sentence which is referring to a hypothetical Steady State universe that had no beginning, but the second bolded part is referring to the universe, not a hypothetical one.

If this BB universe you live in were to not exist, Polymath is saying there would be no existence.

So if there was a BB beginning to the universe, it arose out of non-existence.

No, your question was simply generic "universe", you and @Polymath257 never said anything about ANY SPECIFIC COSMOLOGY, with your question and his answer.

Ok, so if the universe never began, what would have existed?

You see, your question was unspecified as to the type of cosmology - no BB, no steady-state, nothing.

So, Polymath257's reply to THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION YOU HAD ASKED, did not specified any cosmology:

If the universe exists and never began, the universe would have existed for an infinite amount of time (or, potentially, time would be circular). if the universe did not exist, then there would be no existence.

Again, no BB, no steady-state, no other cosmologies were ever specified in his answer (what I had highlighted in large letters).

You wrote that "if the universe NEVER BEGAN", his answer was "THEN THERE WOULD BE NO EXISTENCE".

What do you think "never began" mean, Ben?

If the universe "never began", then the answer would be simple, there would mean there were "no universe".

And you complained that English is my language. You don't even understand the words you used yourself.

The "never began" would be no universe - our Universe, now, would exist, because there are no eternal universe, no Steady-state cosmology, no Big Bang cosmology, no Multiverse, nothing.

It is funny (as in ironic) how you accuse anyone who disagree with you, don't understand English, when you don't even understand what you are saying.

LOL

Not only did @Subduction Zone corrected you where you misunderstood Polymath257's reply, he had to clarify what you keep misunderstanding:

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*.

I don't think you are only misunderstanding, I don't think you are being intellectually honest with us, because you had deliberately twisted Polymath257's words, repeatedly when you were replying to Subduction Zone and me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here are a couple of references:

https://www.amazon.com/Cosmology-Steven-Weinberg/dp/0198526822/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2NJO14WLF0ZCY&keywords=Weinberg+Cosmology&qid=1682036397&sprefix=weinberg+cosmology%2Caps%2C378&sr=8-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc

You might consider the discussion in section 1.7 of the tired light theories and how observational evidence shows them to be wrong.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Modern-Cosmology-Andrew-Liddle/dp/1118502140/ref=sr_1_16?crid=1SZSTX9PX0TLY&keywords=Cosmology&qid=1682036433&sprefix=cosmology%2Caps%2C101&sr=8-16

Of course, you might need to know a bit of differential geometry to figure out what they say. Good luck!

I could not find any description of how there was no time until the BB, but I will continue to look.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And it is NOT related to the cosmological red shift, which is frequency proportional.

But it is still a redshift not related to doppler, will you give me a yes on that, no further commentary required.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You keep trying to say that absolute nothing exists. It doesn't.

You said that that time began at the BB, it follows logically that no time means nothing existing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just like there is no south of the south pole. There is nothing south of the south pole.

In the standard BB model, yes.

Another reference, if you want:

https://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-Robert-M-Wald/dp/0226870332/ref=sr_1_1?crid=38ZK51QOMPYYK&keywords=wald+general+relativity&qid=1682036696&sprefix=Wald+General%2Caps%2C124&sr=8-1

From page 99:

"
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 a preexisting, nonsingular spacetime,
as it is sometimes depicted and as its name may suggest. Since spacetime structure
itself is 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."

This no south of the south pole is irrelevant to my question, I deal in reality, not imagined scenarios.

Yes, that is a better reference, I will have a read, thank you.

Is not ""zero size" the equivalent of nothing.

I am not asking about the state of the universe "before" the BB, I am saying that nothing is not a state, it is the absence of time, it is absolute nothing, and from nothing, the BB began. Or to put it another way, from no spacetime, the BB spacetime began.