Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Ben Dhyan]

No it doesn't, read the theory before spouting off on what it says.

As usual..you are in error.....

Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we

Big Bang Theory

What you think is beyond this time space energy matter universal inflationary bubble?.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Self-refuting nonsense. There is no prior to time as prior is a time reference. For there to be a prior time is not dependent on the singularity or space-time. You citation is from a Christian apologetic website.

All About Science About Us

As per your own source. Injecting a religious bias into a theory that does not even mention the concept, entity or word god


The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

Hence why Hawking argues time is separate as he realizes such terminology is nonsensical.

You are dishonest person Shad....I did not mention anything about religion...quoting a passage from the link that was not in context with what I was discussing is shabby stuff...you ought to be ashamed of yourself...

So what is time is separate from in that article Shad?

 

[paarsurrey]

It's possible if there is a creator he could be something and nothing at the same time.
But, if you can't get something from nothing, in the universe that leaves two possibilites:
Either there always has been something and always will, or there is still nothing even now.

The Creator has always been, is and always will be but He is a Being not a thing.
Regards

 

[Shad]

As usual..you are in error.....

Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we

Big Bang Theory

What you think is beyond this time space energy matter universal inflationary bubble?.

Nope all you have demonstrated is your own incompetence. First off I link Hawking's newer work which directly contradicts his work from 1970 thus your citation is out of date. Secondly the word before and prior are both time context terms. In the sentence is "a time before time" is an incoherent statement. Time reference before time. Maybe look up what words mean since you have issues with English.

Before | Define Before at Dictionary.com
Prior | Define Prior at Dictionary.com

 

[Shad]

You are dishonest person Shad....I did not mention anything about religion...quoting a passage from the link that was not in context with what I was discussing is shabby stuff...you ought to be ashamed of yourself...

So what is time is separate from in that article Shad?

Not dishonest I pointed out your source is bias by it's injection of God into the BB theory as if it has any consideration in physics. It does not. I provided this with the quote and citation of your own source's about page. Again merely displaying your own incompetence, nothing more. Try reading what I provided and get a grasp of basic English.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope all you have demonstrated is your own incompetence. First off I link Hawking's newer work which directly contradicts his work from 1970 thus your citation is out of date. Secondly the word before and prior are both time context terms. In the sentence is "a time before time" is an incoherent statement. Time reference before time. Maybe look up what words mean since you have issues with English.

Before | Define Before at Dictionary.com
Prior | Define Prior at Dictionary.com

No so...Hawking acknowledges there may have been something existing prior to this big bang that constituted the material...and because it no longer exists... nothing can be known about as time in a meaningful sense only begins with this one.... So there was in this sense...a time before this time.

And as for the older idea of the big bang theory.....if you don like the idea of big bang something from nothing....how about the big bang existence from non-existence... ..non-existence was prior to the big bang...

 

[Shad]

No so...Hawking acknowledges there may have been something existing prior to this big bang that constituted the material...and because it no longer exists... nothing can be known about as time in a meaningful sense only begins with this one.... So there was in this sense...a time before this time.

And as for the older idea of the big bang theory.....if you don like the idea of big bang something from nothing....how about the big bang existence from non-existence... ..non-existence was prior to the big bang...

Hawking divorces time from space-time per general relativity. Time is separate. Read his work.

I do not like your failed understanding of the BB theory and what you think Hawking's supports since you do not look at his work but quote a christian apologist website. I linked you a summery of his current ideas, read it....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not dishonest I pointed out your source is bias by it's injection of God into the BB theory as if it has any consideration in physics. It does not. I provided this with the quote and citation of your own source's about page. Again merely displaying your own incompetence, nothing more. Try reading what I provided and get a grasp of basic English.

Your denial is consistent with dishonesty... But more importantly, in that post you said in the context of the Hawking article..."Hence why Hawking argues time is separate as he realizes such terminology is nonsensical." Ny question is....what is time is separate from in that article Shad?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hawking divorces time from space-time per general relativity. Time is separate. Read his work.

I do not like your failed understanding of the BB theory and what you think Hawking's supports since you do not look at his work but quote a christian apologist website.

Do you understand that there is no big bang theory that cosmologists agree on...is you think there is...show me the link so i can point out all the holes in it...lol..

 

[Shad]

Your denial is consistent with dishonesty... But more importantly, in that post you said in the context of the Hawking article..."Hence why Hawking argues time is separate as he realizes such terminology is nonsensical." Ny question is....what is time is separate from in that article Shad?

No considering I cited his up to date work for you to read. Since you either are unwilling or incapable of reading it this is not my problem but your own. You are still arguing from an article based on his 1970 work while refusing to read his up to date work hence you are the one that is dishonest, again not my problem.

 

[Shad]

Do you understand that there is no big bang theory that cosmologists agree on...is you think there is...show me the link so i can point out all the holes in it...lol..

Hilarious coming from the person that cited an article making the same claim you just denied in your very comment above. Pot meet Kettle.... I love your double standards. Its not like you never provided a citation from two people that now do not accept the BB model in your own citation in their modern work. You just undermined the value of your own citation this your own argument.

Heck go read Penrose's new work under conformal cyclic cosmology. Its not like it is an alternative theory to the BB..... /sarcasm

‘

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No considering I cited his up to date work for you to read. Since you either are unwilling or incapable of reading it this is not my problem but your own. You are still arguing from an article based on his 1970 work while refusing to read his up to date work hence you are the one that is dishonest, again not my problem.

Does this bluster imply an attempt at obfuscation? Come on..I have the Hawking Lecture in front of me...you said..."Hence why Hawking argues time is separate as he realizes such terminology is nonsensical."

I am simply asking what exactly is Hawking saying time is separate from Shad?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hilarious coming from the person that cited an article making the same claim you just denied in your very comment above. Pot meet Kettle.... I love your double standards. Its not like you never provided a citation from two people that now do not accept the BB model in your own citation in their modern work. You just undermined the value of your own citation this your own argument.

Heck go read Penrose's new work under conformal cyclic cosmology. Its not like it is an alternative theory to the BB..... /sarcasm

‘

So let me get this straight...do you think big bang theory postulates the possibility of there being space time before this big bang space time?

 

[Shad]

Does this bluster imply an attempt at obfuscation? Come on..I have the Hawking Lecture in front of me...you said..."Hence why Hawking argues time is separate as he realizes such terminology is nonsensical."

I am simply asking what exactly is Hawking saying time is separate from Shad?

If you have it in front of your then you can see the term he calls imaginary time and read from there. So either you do not read it or do not understand it. So dishonesty or incompetence

It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four dimensional curve space. But it is not too difficult to visualise a two dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a football.

In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off.

If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

 

[Shad]

So let me get this straight...do you think big bang theory postulates the possibility of there being space time before this big bang space time?

No. I am merely point out the incoherence of a time reference, before/prior, outside of time. Hence before time is incoherent. It does not matter what I think, I am strictly showing a statement is illogical like a 4 sided triangle.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you have it in front of your then you can see the term he calls imaginary time and read from there. So either you do not read it or do not understand it. So dishonesty or incompetence

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

Yes...that is how I understand most experts understand gig bang theory....but Hawking does on to say...."The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang'

So Hawking seems to imply there was a "prior to the big bang"....haha

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hawking divorces time from space-time per general relativity. Time is separate. Read his work.

I do not like your failed understanding of the BB theory and what you think Hawking's supports since you do not look at his work but quote a christian apologist website. I linked you a summery of his current ideas, read it....

Hawking says there was a before the big bang...yes?

Hawking is a scientist who believes in big bang theory...so do many experts...but they don't all have the same understanding. But in any event....how does Hawking go about solving the problems with the theory..wrt micro-gravity and Lithium problems for example?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. I am merely point out the incoherence of a time reference, before/prior, outside of time. Hence before time is incoherent. It does not matter what I think, I am strictly showing a statement is illogical like a 4 sided triangle.

But Hawking refers to a "before the big bang" time...

 

[Shad]

But Hawking refers to a "before the big bang" time...

Yes but you are missing the key separation of terms. Imaginary time is not our time. He says it clear as day.

It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

He differentiates between real time and imaginary time thus before the BB is imaginary time not real time.

 

[Shad]

Hawking says there was a before the big bang...yes?

Hawking is a scientist who believes in big bang theory...so do many experts...but they don't all have the same understanding. But in any event....how does Hawking go about solving the problems with the theory..wrt micro-gravity and Lithium problems for example?

Read his work since you have not bothered to do so. I shouldn't have to hand feed you quotes when you have the source open in front of you. He believes in an alternative as per his own modes which happen to use parts of but not the whole of the theory. It is a modification of the BB thus he not longer accepts the BB as you have presented it.