Science and religion

[james blunt]

Two aspects:

1. Why do you think there *was* a pre-Big-Bang?
If tie started at the BB, then there was nothing before it.

2. Ever looked at any of the proposals for quantum gravity? Plenty of math and they all deal with some aspect of a pre-Big Bang.
The problem is that we have not been able to *test* these proposals.

There was something before the big bang though , that something being space itself , an absolute nothingness .

Space is the property of a void .


You can't test a pre -big bang because the universe is created . However , we can use logic to work it out .

 

[james blunt]

Yes, math and physics are different subjects. I have a PhD in math and have passed the PhD qualifying exams in physics.

I haven't seen any real physics discussed here--only rather banal hogwash. And I've only seen very basic math discussed here (at most calculus).

Incorrect , I am discussing science without the science ''legaleaze"

There is no need to discuss science in a way that people don't understand .

 

[Polymath257]

There was something before the big bang though , that something being space itself , an absolute nothingness .

Space is the property of a void .

You can't test a pre -big bang because the universe is created . However , we can use logic to work it out .

How do you know that space didn't start along with time at the BB? That is, after all, what general relativity would claim happened.

 

[Polymath257]

Incorrect , I am discussing science without the science ''legaleaze"

There is no need to discuss science in a way that people don't understand .

Whenever you get to any depth in any subject, there will be people who do not understand.

The ideas you have presented have been, at best, trivial and at worst, nonsense.

 

[james blunt]

How do you know that space didn't start along with time at the BB? That is, after all, what general relativity would claim happened.

Basic science and basic logic !

For anything to expand it needs pre-existing space to expand into. It is quite obvious and really insane and subjective to suggest it doesn't .

 

[youknowme]

The truth about math is that none of you can do maths either , alls you do is put in values . Most of the scientists who do maths aren't doing maths at all .

I use math to make probabilistic inferences, this includes statistical modeling. I don't start out with statistical models designed by others I have to make them myself.

 

[james blunt]

Whenever you get to any depth in any subject, there will be people who do not understand.

The ideas you have presented have been, at best, trivial and at worst, nonsense.

They are not nonsense, none of you are attempting to understand because of your education you can't see the ostensible content of science .

 

[james blunt]

I use math to make probabilistic inferences, this includes statistical modeling. I don't start out with statistical models designed by others I have to make them myself.

That's good then, at least you do maths .

 

[youknowme]

That's good then, at least you do maths .

That is not how that works. I very much doubt I could do the math Polymath257 does without some of his training.

 

[Polymath257]

Basic science and basic logic !

For anything to expand it needs pre-existing space to expand into. It is quite obvious and really insane and subjective to suggest it doesn't .

This only shows you do not understand the concepts relevant for an expanding universe.

it is space itself that is expanding, not a universe expanding *into* anything. A bit of study of the math would show your error here.

 

[Polymath257]

They are not nonsense, none of you are attempting to understand because of your education you can't see the ostensible content of science .

On the contrary, because of my training, I know what happens in the real world. The ideas you have presented are not even close to what it takes to understand what happens in the real world.

 

[james blunt]

On the contrary, because of my training, I know what happens in the real world. The ideas you have presented are not even close to what it takes to understand what happens in the real world.

Your reply is from memory because of your education !

Do you know how to have an open mind ?

Forget everything you know !

Start fresh ...

Start here : In the beginning there was space .

 

[james blunt]

This only shows you do not understand the concepts relevant for an expanding universe.

it is space itself that is expanding, not a universe expanding *into* anything. A bit of study of the math would show your error here.

I'm sorry but you don't understand !

 

[james blunt]

That is not how that works. I very much doubt I could do the math Polymath257 does without some of his training.

I make my own maths , I don't need to rely on conventional ..

 

[james blunt]

It's not difficult to understand that relativistic space-time is a property of absolute space and space is the property of a void .

I think it's an American thing and they don't use good English , space is not including contents , in English .

Visual Universe is including contents

Universe is visual universe and beyond .


Understand , space-time curves relative to absolute space which is unmovable .

Demonstration : The curve of the line is relative to the absolute ''background ''. Space-time is the overlay of space , see?

 

[youknowme]

I make my own maths , I don't need to rely on conventional ..

I don't believe you.

 

[james blunt]

One more diagram .......takes me about 5 seconds knocko

I don't believe you.

I used a variant of Pi once to convert MPH to m/s , I have my own pre-big bang math . I explain the whole universe using only A and B as representation .

Not that difficult .

True model ...........

 

[youknowme]

One more diagram .......takes me about 5 seconds knocko


I used a variant of Pi once to convert MPH to m/s , I have my own pre-big bang math . I explain the whole universe using only A and B as representation .

Not that difficult .

I don't believe you.

 

[james blunt]

I don't believe you.

A / k

B / k

(A+B / t ) + A + B = constant increasing volume of A+B

I've put it that way for simplicity .

Or I can put it this way

(A+B / t ) + A + B = >4/3πr³/t

A=0.5

B=0.5

 

[youknowme]

A / k

B / k

(A+B / t ) + A + B = constant increasing volume of A+B

I've put it that way for simplicity .

Or I can put it this way

(A+B / t ) + A + B = >4/3πr³/t

A=0.5

B=0.5

I don't believe you.