Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, time began with the BB. There is no 'before'. There is no 'arising'. There is no 'cause'. There is no 'coming from'.

Utter nonsense, with due respect.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That wasn't why he changed his mind. He changed his mind because he became convinced of particular alternative proposals. Of course, those alternatives have no observational backing at this point, so they are just as speculative as quantum gravity.

The BB model of which you adhere to will never last, it is based on rhetoric that prevents being challenged. It's days are numbered.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. No 'from'. The word 'from' implies a previous time. And that is not the case.

If we consider distances from some center point, there is a distance of 0, but no smaller distance. That 0 doesn't 'come from' a negative radius.

Haha, a theory that is closed to any challenge. It's days are numbered.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. That is your basic mistake. To arise means a process involving time. A start simply means a time for which there is no previous existence.

There had to be a process involving time for the BB expansion, this is arising.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No 'become'. Simply 'is'.

Nuts!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, the *consensus* is that general relativity alone (so the basic BB model) will start to fail when the energy levels get to the realm of quantum gravity. There is no consensus about what happens before that point. This would be about 10^(-33) seconds into the expansion and before.

But *in the BB model*, there is a start to time at the BB. That is what the math says.

We *know* it will fail at some point. But, of the different models we have of quantum gravity, some allow for an infinite previous time (usually in the context of a multiverse) and some do not. We do not know which, if any, are correct. So the question of whether time started is not resolved in the real universe/multiverse.

Ok, at this point I will just say that the BB theory is just plain silly, the true believers are deluded fanatics with no common sense.

 

[We Never Know]

In the same way God started.
It doesn't.

For instance: it is absurd to ask when time started, since starting makes no sense without time. It is like asking where did space start?

Ciao

- viole

"In the same way God started"

Its just like the god argument, minus the god.


"For instance: it is absurd to ask when time started, since starting makes no sense without time"

So time never started?


"is like asking where did space start?"

Same place and time the BB did.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The BB model of which you adhere to will never last, it is based on rhetoric that prevents being challenged. It's days are numbered.

Yet another 'science in crisis' claim from the faithful. Usually, it's evolutionary theory that they tell us is in crisis. It's typical to frame it as a conspiracy among clannish scientists to exclude dissenting opinion, but here you are with your dissenting opinion anyway, which appears to have had no impact on anybody. And still you see yourself as possessing some kind of insight that will rewrite science. Science's "days are numbered" beginning with the day you get somebody to take your challenge seriously, right?

Its just like the god argument, minus the god.

Yes. The believer frequently doesn't recognize that his arguments for gods are also arguments for gods being unnecessary. He assumes that his god exists without a beginning, and without having been created or intelligently designed, but doesn't recognize that that is an argument against his god being needed to account for our reality. He argues that a living cell is too complicated to exist undesigned, then posits something more complicated existing undesigned to account for it. Gods explain nothing, no natural process seems to require or have required intelligent oversight, and the evidence for gods is insufficient to justify belief, so why throw them into the mix? You could throw one into every scientific theory, but your theory would explain and do no more.

 

[We Never Know]

Yet another 'science in crisis' claim from the faithful. Usually, it's evolutionary theory that they tell us is in crisis. It's typical to frame it as a conspiracy among clannish scientists to exclude dissenting opinion, but here you are with your dissenting opinion anyway, which appears to have had no impact on anybody. And still you see yourself as possessing some kind of insight that will rewrite science. Science's "days are numbered" beginning with the day you get somebody to take your challenge seriously, right?


Yes. The believer frequently doesn't recognize that his arguments for gods are also arguments for gods being unnecessary. He assumes that his god exists without a beginning, and without having been created or intelligently designed, but doesn't recognize that that is an argument against his god being needed to account for our reality. He argues that a living cell is too complicated to exist undesigned, then posits something more complicated existing undesigned to account for it. Gods explain nothing, no natural process seems to require or have required intelligent oversight, and the evidence for gods is insufficient to justify belief, so why throw them into the mix? You could throw one into every scientific theory, but your theory would explain and do no more.

I reckon the believers should just start saying a god "just is". Evidently it works for time and space.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I reckon the believers should just start saying a god "just is". Evidently it works for time and space.

I do that with faith as me. I just point out that I have faith in God. When the naturalists then point that it is wrong, I answer that wrong is then natural and that I just do it differently. Some of them then start in effect claiming they can judge my value as human. They can't, they just believe that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It didn't happen because timespace never had a beginning it always was.

Really? Prove it. Prove that there was before a big bang. Prove that time always existed. Or in your own words "shut up".

 

[Subduction Zone]

He realized the BB from nothing scenario would be impossible to defend in the long run, but he only muddied the waters further by saying the time was bent time, whatever that is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I reckon the believers should just start saying a god "just is". Evidently it works for time and space.

There is a big difference. We know that space exists. We know that matter exists. We know that time exists. All of these can be observed measured and determined. How would you do the same for god?

 

[Polymath257]

Utter nonsense, with due respect.

And why do you say that? Especially when the experts in the field say otherwise?

The BB model of which you adhere to will never last, it is based on rhetoric that prevents being challenged. It's days are numbered.

On the contrary, it has been challenged many times. It has just survived those challenges by agreeing with observations.

There had to be a process involving time for the BB expansion, this is arising.

Yes, for the expansion. No for the start.

Ok, at this point I will just say that the BB theory is just plain silly, the true believers are deluded fanatics with no common sense.

Sorry, but it is not a case of 'true believers' like in a religion. it is simply that the BB cosmology (more specifically the LCDM model) fits the actual observations better than all alternatives. And that is the whole game in science.

You have admitted to not really understanding the theory. You clearly don't understand the math that supports the theory. You have not addressed the actual observations that show your favorite alternative is wrong.

All you have is your philosophical dislike of finite time. And that means precisely nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

I reckon the believers should just start saying a god "just is". Evidently it works for time and space.

Theists have been doing *that* for ages. They claim God exists 'necessarily'. They claim God 'supports existence'. They claim that God exists because we can imagine such a thing.

The difference is that BB cosmology has the math and observations to support it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Theists have been doing *that* for ages. They claim God exists 'necessarily'. They claim God 'supports existence'. They claim that God exists because we can imagine such a thing.

The difference is that BB cosmology has the math and observations to support it.

No, there is no observation of T=0. Stop yourself and admit the limitation of your rationalism not matter how much the math makes sense, that is in you.

 

[viole]

So time never started?

Of course not. If it did, at what time did that happen?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Same place and time the BB did.

Which is nowhere, and nowhen, if we believe that is when space and time started. Don't you see? It makes no sense.
Spacetime is not embedded into an external context. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that spacetime is at a certain location, or was born there, nor that it is at a certain a time, and born then.

Spacetime is, eternal and unchanging. And there is, de facto, no flow of time. If you think differently, it is because of that stubborn illusion Einstein spoke about, when we think about time.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course not. If it did, at what time did that happen?

Ciao

- viole

So you can observe T=0. How do you do that or is it a thought in your mind?

 

[viole]

So you can observe T=0. How do you do that or is it a thought in your mind?

What is T=0? I am claiming that there is not such a thing. So, what is your point?

Ciao

- viole