Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

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

Yes, but the topic was the CBR. You may have a reading comprehension problem. You tend to only focus on small parts of posts and small areas of concepts. No one denied that Compton scattering exists. That is your strawman. What was said all along was that it was not the source of the redshift of the Big Bang.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

And you seem to have a hard time understanding analogies. Analogies are used to help you to understand better. Just as there is no South of the South Pole that also does not appear to be a "before the Big Bang".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Hawking has changed his belief, he now believes that time existed before the BB, the link is somewhere back in the thread.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

BB spacetime beginning from no time, explain the science or be quiet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

You opinion is worth that from which the BB arose.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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



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:



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:



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.

I understand and see it as wordplay, the truth is that no time before the BB time began means there was no spacetime, and time begins with the BB. It is deceitful to say this is not true. No spacetime means no existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BB spacetime beginning from no time, explain the science or be quiet.

Oh my! Do you realize that it is extremely hypocritical to demand of others not only what you cannot do, but if someone honored your request you would not be able to understand it.

And due to behavioral issues you are on corrections only right now.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, but the topic was the CBR. You may have a reading comprehension problem. You tend to only focus on small parts of posts and small areas of concepts. No one denied that Compton scattering exists. That is your strawman. What was said all along was that it was not the source of the redshift of the Big Bang.

I will take that yes, and ignore the rest of the irrelevant nonsense.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you seem to have a hard time understanding analogies. Analogies are used to help you to understand better. Just as there is no South of the South Pole that also does not appear to be a "before the Big Bang".

Nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You opinion is worth that from which the BB arose.

Once more in English please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will take that yes, and ignore the rest of the irrelevant nonsense.

And you would be wrong to do that. Once again, you put yourself in "corrections only mode" only you can get yourself out of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense.

I am not the only one that has noticed this. Or were you referring to what you post? If that is the case for once you would be right,.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh my! Do you realize that it is extremely hypocritical to demand of others not only what you cannot do, but if someone honored your request you would not be able to understand it.

And due to behavioral issues you are on corrections only right now.

I will take that as a "I don't have a clue".

What is this about behavioral issues?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you would be wrong to do that. Once again, you put yourself in "corrections only mode" only you can get yourself out of it.

BB spacetime beginning from no time, please explain the science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Once more in English please.

Nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will take that as a "I don't have a clue".

What is this about behavioral issues?

If you act properly, which means to avoid strawman arguments, avoid false dichotomies, learn what is and what is not evidence, and most important acknowledge when you are wrong, then you can begin to demand answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BB spacetime beginning from no time, please explain the science.

You explain it or be quiet. After all I have no duty to explain anything to you.

 

[We Never Know]

BB spacetime beginning from no time, explain the science or be quiet.

From a previous post.....

"general relativity leads to the viewpoint that the universe began at the big bang."

It began at the BB. Prior there was no time, no space, no etc. In other words it wasn't and then it was... It poofed into existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From a previous post.....

"general relativity leads to the viewpoint that the universe began at the big bang."

It began at the BB. Prior there was no time, no space, no etc. In other words it wasn't and then it was... It poofed into existence.

That gets into some philosophy that I am not willing to argue either way. I can understand the analogies that Polymath has been using. They may not be right, but as of now they appear to be. But there is an interesting point on the idea that the universe "came from nothing". I would say that this is not true but there is more than one definition of "nothing". But it could have come from no energy and no mass. The total energy of the universe has been measured, by two different methodologies. And both agree that within the margin of error of the evidence that they based this on the total energy of the universe is zero.

That means that the universe coming from nothing does not violate any of the conservation of energy laws.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

OK, Polymath, that statement is a big ambiguous and I'd like to know exactlyi what you mean. Are you saying that matter and energy were always there before the universe existetd? Or are you saying matter, energy and the universe always existed? Thanks.