Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Ken Ewald]

Big bang is a circular process that occurs all Time.
Nothing is beyond the perception of the senses.

Then how are people lied to?

 

[ArtieE]

No..it was a literal quote...

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition.

Of course the universe hasn't existed forever. But what the universe consists of existed in the singularity it was just compressed and he says nothing about where this stuff came from or had always existed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Don't know.

Don't know or don't even know if there was a "before".

No it doesn't. For all we know our universe might be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe. Maybe there was even a Big Bang without a singularity. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419827/why-our-universe-must-have-been-born-inside-a-black-hole/

The Big Bang theory says nothing about that.

Neither does anyone else...now that should ring alarm bells concerning big bang theory..

Again...that's what theorists are saying....

Universes inside black holes inside other universes is not big bang theory....it's speculation....the Hawking lecture I linked to earlier says time began at the big bang....

Quote..."The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now."

I said implication....

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Then how are people lied to?

Elaborate

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Then how are people lied to?

Elaborate

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course the universe hasn't existed forever. But what the universe consists of existed in the singularity it was just compressed and he says nothing about where this stuff came from or had always existed.

Where did you get this from....please provide a citation to the theory that a singularity containing all the stuff of the universe existed prior to the big bang?

 

[ArtieE]

Quote..."The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now."

I said implication....

Let me put it as simply as possible for you. The Big Bang theory actually says:

"Something expanded".

You seem to be claiming the Big Bang theory says:

"Something came from nothing and then expanded."

Would that be a correct assessment?

 

[Ken Ewald]

Elaborate

You have been tricked. You can rephrase what you said if you want.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Let me put it as simply as possible for you. The Big Bang theory actually says:

"Something expanded".

You seem to be claiming the Big Bang theory says:

"Something came from nothing and then expanded."

Would that be a correct assessment?

Of course the big bang theory says the singularity expanded.....

But where did the singularity come from...from nothing or from something preexisting?

 

[ArtieE]

Where did you get this from....please provide a citation to the theory that a singularity containing all the stuff of the universe existed prior to the big bang?

Seriously?

"The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe[1] before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

 

[ArtieE]

But where did the singularity come from...from nothing or from something preexisting?

Don't know. The Big Bang theory says nothing about that and it wasn't meant to either. Lemaitre said:

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

 

[Subhankar Zac]

You have been tricked. You can rephrase what you said if you want.

My internet speed it very difficult to go back and see my replies and then comment.
I just s moderate speed back an hour ago.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Seriously?

"The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe[1] before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

Yes seriously...my question was apparently not clear...where did the singularity come from prior to the big bang expansion?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Don't know. The Big Bang theory says nothing about that and it wasn't meant to either. Lemaitre said:

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Enough for now ArtieE....we both have better things to do with out time...we both know there are more holes in big bang theory than swiss cheese....but we are not going to solve it any time soon... .

 

[Ken Ewald]

Seriously?

"The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe[1] before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

I read some stuff that said the universe is expanding in all directions and that some things at the outer edge will accelerate to/if not already past the speed of light. I like the two bible verses that say, he stretched out the heavens with his understanding and, there was light.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes seriously...my question was apparently not clear...where did the singularity come from prior to the big bang expansion?

No, your question was and I quote: "Where did you get this from....please provide a citation to the theory that a singularity containing all the stuff of the universe existed prior to the big bang?" I did provide the quotation. You are just trying to avoid looking like an idiot for asking such an elementary question.

 

[ArtieE]

Enough for now ArtieE....we both have better things to do with out time...

We both and the whole forum now knows how little you know about the subject so I suggest that you spend some time off the forum learning about it.

 

[Ken Ewald]

My internet speed it very difficult to go back and see my replies and then comment.
I just s moderate speed back an hour ago.

I guess you can relate to this http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/creating-awareness.187983/page-2#post-4776104

 

[idav]

You have been tricked. You can rephrase what you said if you want.

I think they meant to elaborate on why an oscillating universe is a lie.

 

[Sonofason]

If it makes the claim that there was a beginning to the essence of all that exists....but can not say how it began, not even why it began...then it is flawed....it can't be falsified.

It has no evidence that this universal essence can ever be created by science...nor how it could ever be uncreated. Now my point is that if the very essence of existence can not be created nor uncreated......then the universal essence of all that exists now has always existed. Which btw is consistent with pantheism....Brahman is both transcendent to and immanent in, all the exists....eternally....no beginnings or endings except for the forms of the divine manifestations......which are in constant never ending change..

Okay, thanks Ben for clearing that up for me. Can you please define "essence of existence" for me. Are we talking about the First Law of Thermodynamics?