Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

I don't care what you believe, there was no creation from nothing, it is just common God given sense.

Common sense is the excuse that people that are wrong an amazingly high percentage of the time give. It is not a very convincing argument at all. It is the same argument used by Flat Earthers, geocentrists, and all sorts of other science deniers.

 

[shunyadragon]

According to TechTimes, Hawking says during the show that before the Big Bang, time was bent — "It was always reaching closer to nothing but didn't become nothing," according to the article. Essentially, "there was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's point of perspective."
Stephen Hawking Says He Knows What Happened Before the Big Bang

True, but this does not change anything concerning what Hawking proposed in his theory. What Hawking described is the 'during the show' concerns the events at the beginning of formation of the universe. Before the 'beginning of the show the only time proposed by Hawking is Quantum time as described in Quantum Mechanics.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't care what you believe, there was no creation from nothing, it is just common God given sense.

True, there was not any sort of creation from 'absolute nothing' before the expansion of the universe from a singularity.

 

[shunyadragon]

There was no beginning of time, there is no something from nothing, not now, not ever. It is utterly impossible. God has given humans a mind to discern truth from untruth, it is time to use it.

If you believe this based on your faith OK. In terms of the science of physics, Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics it may be described that Quantum time and a concept of 'imaginary time. also described by Hawking, existed before the expansion of the universe, but the continuous time/space of our universe did not exist. To understand this you need to get a reasonable background in physics and Quantum Mechanics.

The following reference may help you understand Quantum time on the Quantum scale of our physical existence. Note: the bold gives some insight that explains that time on the quantum scale is not the continuous time/space of our universe.

Quantum Time – Exactly What Is Time?

www.exactlywhatistime.com

Quantum Time

Max Planck is sometimes considered the father of quantum theory In the first half of the 20th Century, a whole new theory of physics was developed, which has superseded everything we know about classical physics, and even the Theory of Relativity, which is still a classical model at heart. Quantum theory or quantum mechanicsis now recognized as the most correct and accurate model of the universe, particularly at sub-atomic scales, although for large objects classical Newtonian and relativistic physics work adequately.
If the concepts and predictions of relativity (see the section on Relativistic Time) are often considered difficult and counter-intuitive, many of the basic tenets and implications of quantum mechanics may appear absolutely bizarre and inconceivable, but they have been repeatedly proven to be true, and it is now one of the most rigorously tested physical models of all time. Time at the Quantum scale only is a way to measure the time of discrete Quantum events, and is not continuous.

Quanta​

One of the implications of quantum mechanics is that certain aspects and properties of the universe are quantized, i.e. they are composed of discrete, indivisible packets or quanta. For instance, the electrons orbiting an atom are found in specific fixed orbits and do not slide nearer or further from the nucleus as their energy levels change, but jump from one discrete quantum state to another. Even light, which we know to be a type of electromagnetic radiation which moves in waves, is also composed of quanta or particles of light called photons, so that light has aspects of both waves AND particles, and sometimes it behaves like a wave and sometimes it behaved like a particle (wave-particle duality).

An obvious question, then, would be: is time divided up into discrete quanta? According to quantum mechanics, the answer appears to be “no”, and time appears to be in fact smooth and continuous (contrary to common belief, not everything in quantum theory is quantized). Tests have been carried out using sophisticated timing equipment and pulsating laser beams to observe chemical changes taking place at very small fractions of a second (down to a femtosecond, or 10−15 seconds) and at that level time certainly appears to be smooth and continuous. However, if time actually is quantized, it is likely to be at the level of Planck time (about 10-43 seconds), the smallest possible length of time according to theoretical physics, and probably forever beyond our practical measurement abilities."


.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, I understand that you have been twisting Polymath257’s reply.

As to the Big Bang theory, there are scopes or limits that scientists set models to investigate, research & test. And through the decades, it have been verified with observations & data, more than any other theoretical models, including the popular Multiverse.

Steady-state models (the 1920s’ original (by William Duncan MacMillan) & the better known 1948 model, by Hoyle, Bondi & Gold) have been the main rival for decades until 1964’s discovery of CMBR. So the Steady-State have been debunked for around 60 years...which would be next year.

So, the only eternal for the “eternal universe”, would be the oscillating universe model (or cyclical model) and the Multiverse.

If you don’t know what the oscillating or cyclical universe model is, it is the universe has gone through series of expansion & contraction, hence a series of rebirth after total collapse...or to put it simply - Bang, Crunch, bang, Crunch, etc.

The problems with both the Oscillating Universe model & the Multiverse model are actually the same problems - there are simply no way to test either of them.

If you seriously, believe that the eternal universe is true, then by all mean, prove it. Demonstrate that there are evidence or show the data, that can verify your concept of the eternal universe.

I know you can’t, because no scientists and no technology are capable of observing the evidence for eternal universe.

The eternal universe, remained theoretical and so far, untestable and speculative.

Do you know where Multiverse is “doing well”? In the science fiction sectors, eg sci-fi novels, comics, tv series & films.

But in the real world, Multiverse only exist on papers, with some complex equations.

Until you can present any of the eternal universe cosmologies evidence, they are more in the realms of untestable theoretical models or unrealistic philosophies.

I understand what is impossible, and the BBT of existence from no-existence is impossible, there is no way to sweeten the reality gnostic, you've been sold a pup!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you believe this based on your faith OK. In terms of the science of physics, Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics it may be described that Quantum time and a concept of 'imaginary time. also described by Hawking, existed before the expansion of the universe, but the continuous time/space of our universe did not exist. To understand this you need to get a reasonable background in physics and Quantum Mechanics.

The following reference may help you understand Quantum time on the Quantum scale of our physical existence. Note: the bold gives some insight that explains that time on the quantum scale is not the continuous time/space of our universe.

Quantum Time – Exactly What Is Time?

www.exactlywhatistime.com

Quantum Time

Max Planck is sometimes considered the father of quantum theory In the first half of the 20th Century, a whole new theory of physics was developed, which has superseded everything we know about classical physics, and even the Theory of Relativity, which is still a classical model at heart. Quantum theory or quantum mechanicsis now recognized as the most correct and accurate model of the universe, particularly at sub-atomic scales, although for large objects classical Newtonian and relativistic physics work adequately.
If the concepts and predictions of relativity (see the section on Relativistic Time) are often considered difficult and counter-intuitive, many of the basic tenets and implications of quantum mechanics may appear absolutely bizarre and inconceivable, but they have been repeatedly proven to be true, and it is now one of the most rigorously tested physical models of all time. Time at the Quantum scale only is a way to measure the time of discrete Quantum events, and is not continuous.

Quanta​

One of the implications of quantum mechanics is that certain aspects and properties of the universe are quantized, i.e. they are composed of discrete, indivisible packets or quanta. For instance, the electrons orbiting an atom are found in specific fixed orbits and do not slide nearer or further from the nucleus as their energy levels change, but jump from one discrete quantum state to another. Even light, which we know to be a type of electromagnetic radiation which moves in waves, is also composed of quanta or particles of light called photons, so that light has aspects of both waves AND particles, and sometimes it behaves like a wave and sometimes it behaved like a particle (wave-particle duality).

An obvious question, then, would be: is time divided up into discrete quanta? According to quantum mechanics, the answer appears to be “no”, and time appears to be in fact smooth and continuous (contrary to common belief, not everything in quantum theory is quantized). Tests have been carried out using sophisticated timing equipment and pulsating laser beams to observe chemical changes taking place at very small fractions of a second (down to a femtosecond, or 10−15 seconds) and at that level time certainly appears to be smooth and continuous. However, if time actually is quantized, it is likely to be at the level of Planck time (about 10-43 seconds), the smallest possible length of time according to theoretical physics, and probably forever beyond our practical measurement abilities."


.

The concept of time is nothing more than existence keeping on existing, it is not an independent entity.

The concept of a finite period of time is abstracted from the eternal nature of 'time'.

Measurements of time periods like earth's rotation, etc., are periods of existence that involve regular periods, Then dividing that down into hours, minutes, and seconds, using as a proxy, pendulum swing counters, electronic cycle period counters, or some such, and bingo, humans have a standard for keeping a track of the passage of existence existing, known as time.

So time is not an independent entity, it is merely that fact that the universe continues to exist. Clocks are just instruments that act as a proxy for measuring finite standard periods such as seconds, hours, years, etc., of existence continuing to exist..

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand what is impossible, and the BBT of existence from no-existence is impossible, there is no way to sweeten the reality gnostic, you've been sold a pup!

No, you only believe. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you can't show it you don't know it. And you clearly do not know. You may have a very very strong belief, but that is not knowing. I do not know myself. I only know what the evidence that we have right now indicates. But that may change as more evidence comes in.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you only believe. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you can't show it you don't know it. And you clearly do not know. You may have a very very strong belief, but that is not knowing. I do not know myself. I only know what the evidence that we have right now indicates. But that may change as more evidence comes in.

You are projecting, it is you who believes in existence from no-existence, but it is impossible, I do not believe it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are projecting, it is you who believes in existence from no-existence, but it is impossible, I do not believe it.

No, I gave you a reasonable challenge and you utterly failed. You do not know. You only believe. If you knew you could support your calaims.

But I do like how you ape others that have refuted you in the past. You do not even seem to understand the terms that you use against others.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I gave you a reasonable challenge and you utterly failed. You do not know. You only believe. If you knew you could support your calaims.

But I do like how you ape others that have refuted you in the past. You do not even seem to understand the terms that you use against others.

There are no challenges silly, existence from no-existence is impossible, but please, you may believe anything you desire.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Common sense is the excuse that people that are wrong an amazingly high percentage of the time give. It is not a very convincing argument at all. It is the same argument used by Flat Earthers, geocentrists, and all sorts of other science deniers.

Doesn't matter what you think, it is not possible for existence to arise from no-existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no challenges silly, existence from no-existence is impossible, but please, you may believe anything you desire.

You are both using a strawman argument and making a claim that puts the burden of proof upon you. This is how everyone can tell that you only believe. And that you do not know very much. A person that Knew would realize what his limitations were. You lack that knowledge. You occupy the upper left part of the Dunning Kruger curve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn't matter what you think, it is not possible for existence to arise from no-existence.

Prove it. You do not just get to make unsupported claims. All you have is belief.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are both using a strawman argument and making a claim that puts the burden of proof upon you. This is how everyone can tell that you only believe. And that you do not know very much. A person that Knew would realize what his limitations were. You lack that knowledge. You occupy the upper left part of the Dunning Kruger curve.

You ramble on about irrelevant nonsense. please focus, existence from no-existence in impossible, ever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You ramble on about irrelevant nonsense. please focus, existence from no-existence in impossible, ever.

Now it just looks as if you are spamming the topic. Once again, you are the one making a positive assertion. It is up to you to prove it. No one else bears the burden of proof to refute your poor logic.

Are you aware of Hitchens' Razor?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Prove it. You do not just get to make unsupported claims. All you have is belief.

It is a given, existence can not come for no-existence. Do you believe it is possible?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Now it just looks as if you are spamming the topic. Once again, you are the one making a positive assertion. It is up to you to prove it. No one else bears the burden of proof to refute your poor logic.

Are you aware of Hitchens' Razor?

There is no purpose in debating whether existence can come from no-existence, it can't. If it could, you would say so and provide me proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a given, existence can not come for no-existence. Do you believe it is possible?

Define your terms.

One thing that you cannot get a handle on is the concept of time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no purpose in debating whether existence can come from no-existence, it can't. If it could, you would say so and provide me proof.

And there you go again. When you make a claim like that you are the one taking on the burden of proof. Please note that I was not that foolish. I try to avoid making claims that I cannot support.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Define your terms.

One thing that you cannot get a handle on is the concept of time.

They are self explanatory, existence and no-existence.

Ah, but time is my specialty, what don't you understand about it?