Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[alsome]

So much verbiage about what was never there to begin with !
We're talking about assumptions aren't we, if not, it's circular, and goes nowhere. Just like the "void" that never existed.

 

[shunyadragon]

So much verbiage about what was never there to begin with !
We're talking about assumptions aren't we, if not, it's circular, and goes nowhere. Just like the "void" that never existed.

Huh?!!?!?

 

[Native]

^ "What is said is that the matter early in the expansion is very hot and dense."
What I truly can't grok is how absolute nothing became very hot and dense matter? I am not referring to a vacuum though the same question would arise, but a nothing nothing.

Precisely so. The Big Bangers are discussing absolutely nothing for ever and ever.

 

[Native]

So much verbiage about what was never there to begin with.

Spot on

 

[Native]

And, again, you claim that time is merely a subjective concept. The science says different.

No, I in fact specicfially referred to "COSMOLOGICAL TIME" in connection to the idea of a BB and all of its loose assumptions.

 

[shunyadragon]

So much verbiage about what was never there to begin with

Violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I in fact specicfially referred to "COSMOLOGICAL TIME" in connection to the idea of a BB and all of its loose assumptions.

I believe @Polymath257's objections still stand, mine also, and are not answered.

Your leaning toward a vague 'arguing from ignorance' without taking into consideration contemporary science.

 

[Native]

In other words, there was always (at all times) something.

Oh, so now you all of a sudden discards the very idea of a beginning?

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, so now you all of a sudden discards the very idea of a beginning?

No. That is not what I said. I said that whenever there was time there was also matter and energy.

I did not say that time is infinite into the past. That is, as yet, unknown.

 

[Native]

Your leaning toward a vague 'arguing from ignorance' without taking into consideration contemporary science.

Yes it seems so, doesn´t it But I blame it all to "contemporary science" of which much of it is pure speculations to me and themselves too.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I in fact specicfially referred to "COSMOLOGICAL TIME" in connection to the idea of a BB and all of its loose assumptions.

Actually, you just said 'time'.

But you are claiming that there is a difference between 'cosmological time' and 'time'? And that one is a 'subjective concept' and the other is not?

And how, exactly, is cosmological time a 'subjective concept' when it is actually measured objectively?

 

[Native]

No. That is not what I said. I said that whenever there was time there was also matter and energy.

I did not say that time is infinite into the past. That is, as yet, unknown.

You´re replying to a wrong post.

Polymath257 said: ↑
In other words, there was always (at all times) something.

Logically: There was no beginning in a Big Bang. I rest my case.

 

[Polymath257]

You´re replying to a wrong post.

Polymath257 said: ↑
In other words, there was always (at all times) something.

Logically: There was no beginning in a Big Bang. I rest my case.

If time itself had a beginning, then there was a beginning.

That is one of the options and is the case in the standard model without quantum mechanics.

 

[Native]

But you are claiming that there is a difference between 'cosmological time' and 'time'? And that one is a 'subjective concept' and the other is not?
And how, exactly, is cosmological time a 'subjective concept' when it is actually measured objectively?

Because it is a human = subjective invention for motion, no matter what remedy you choose to use to measure a motion.

 

[Polymath257]

Because it is a human = subjective invention for motion, no matter what remedy you choose to use to measure a motion.

I think you need to review what the distinction between subjective and objective is.

 

[Native]

If time itself had a beginning, then there was a beginning.

Are you having troubles holding your focus and reply to the correct post or what? You said:

Polymath257 said: ↑
In other words, there was always (at all times) something.

Ok, I´ll help you with this:

"At all times" = eternally and "there was always something" = eternally too. Which both logically debunks a beginning via your Big Bang.

But of course, you´ll now continue with your "in other words" to explain away what you explained in the first hand.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you having troubles holding your focus and reply to the correct post or what? You said:

Polymath257 said: ↑
In other words, there was always (at all times) something.

Ok, I´ll help you with this:

"At all times" = eternally and "there was always something" = eternally too. Which both logically debunks a beginning via your Big Bang.

But of course, you´ll now continue with your "in other words" to explain away what you explained in the first hand.

Nope.

At all times="whenever there is time".

If time itself had a beginning, then there would have been a beginning for the universe. If time itself did not have a beginning then there would not.

if time itself had a beginning, then 'eternal' and 'had a beginning' are not contradictory.

You are making the assumption (possibly incorrect) that time had no beginning.

 

[Native]

I think you need to review what the distinction between subjective and objective is.

You can take all your "objective concepts of time" and explain what happens to all of it when it disappears in one of your black holes.

 

[Native]

At all times="whenever there is time".

??????
Take a nap I´ve spend enough time (sic!) discussing nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

You can take all your "objective concepts of time" and explain what happens to all of it when it disappears in one of your black holes.

Considering you have explained nothing at all, given no details (in spite of being asked multiple times), and clearly misunderstand basic concepts, I will do what is appropriate with your suggestion: throw it into another black hole.