Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[McBell]

you are still (falsely) persistent that the BB models to be the universe coming from non-existence, when none of these models have made such claims about nothingness or nonexistent.

Of course.
That is the foundation for the whole argument.

Interestingly enough, the "universe can not come from non-existence" claim actually refutes god creating the universe.
I mean, if it had to exist because it could come from not existing....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

you are still (falsely) persistent that the BB models to be the universe coming from non-existence, when none of these models have made such claims about nothingness or nonexistent.

you like a broken record…repeating the same strawman, over and over and over again.

The BB models have proposed no such things as to what you are claiming, because you don’t understand them as well as you believe that you do. Your presumptions are not only wrong, they are false too…no matter how many times you have spun this strawman.

Beside, all that. You are like a yo-yo. One moment you claim that logic is the best route to find answers, then the next moment you say you trust intuition more, then it now common sense.

Which is it, Ben?

I have asked, because intuition is the opposite of logical reasoning, and is the opposite of common sense…and common sense also differs from logical reasoning.

Time is the 4th dimension of space, hence the concept of time-space, the continuation of space as time.

Thus there is no time without space and no space without time, and it follows logically that without space and time, there is nothing, ie. non-existence.

So logically, the BB theory involves the creation of 4D time-space from no time-space, aka nothing, nada, zero, non-existence!

If you disagree, please address my point, and do not claim that BB theory implies no such thing, it does, so now deal with it!

 

[Jimmy]

Time is the 4th dimension of space, hence the concept of time-space, the continuation of space as time.

Thus there is no time without space and no space without time, and it follows logically that without space and time, there is nothing, ie. non-existence.

So logically, the BB theory involves the creation of 4D time-space from no time-space, aka nothing, nada, zero, non-existence!

If you disagree, please address my point, and do not claim that BB theory does no such thing, it does, so now deal with it!

Space existed before the Big Bang if you believe that sort of stuff

 

[Subduction Zone]

Time is the 4th dimension of space, hence the concept of time-space, the continuation of space as time.

Thus there is no time without space and no space without time, and it follows logically that without space and time, there is nothing, ie. non-existence.

So logically, the BB theory involves the creation of 4D time-space from no time-space, aka nothing, nada, zero, non-existence!

If you disagree, please address my point, and do not claim that BB theory does no such thing, it does, so now deal with it!

That sort of "logic" does not apply to the universe as a whole. You are still reasoning using Newtonian physics and that does not apply to the universe under those conditions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Space existed before the Big Bang if you believe that sort of stuff

I agree that space existed before the BB, but BB theory does not as far as I understand.

 

[Jimmy]

I agree that space existed before the BB, but BB theory does not as far as I understand.

That’s why the bb theory is bunk

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s why the bb theory is bunk

Your inability to understand science does not make it "bunk". By your standard GPS must be bunk because you cannot understand the math associated with it.

 

[Jimmy]

Your inability to understand science does not make it "bunk". By your standard GPS must be bunk because you cannot understand the math associated with it.

I get the math

 

[Jimmy]

Your inability to understand science does not make it "bunk". By your standard GPS must be bunk because you cannot understand the math associated with it.

Oh, I just read an article that says the Big Bang states that space existed before the Big Bang so I guess you’re right. I still think the big bang is bunk though.

 

[Jimmy]

Your inability to understand science does not make it "bunk". By your standard GPS must be bunk because you cannot understand the math associated with it.

I kind of knew what @Ben Dhyan was saying wasn’t right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I just read an article that says the Big Bang states that space existed before the Big Bang so I guess you’re right. I still think the big bang is bunk though.

Did it say that? And there is not only one Big Bang model. That there was a "Big Bang" has been confirmed time after time, there are various different explanations for it. So you may have read on one article that makes that claim but there are other versions where there is no "before the Big Bang".

 

[Jimmy]

Did it say that? And there is not only one Big Bang model. That there was a "Big Bang" has been confirmed time after time, there are various different explanations for it. So you may have read on one article that makes that claim but there are other versions where there is no "before the Big Bang".

You’re right I remember reading those too.

 

[Jimmy]

Did it say that? And there is not only one Big Bang model. That there was a "Big Bang" has been confirmed time after time, there are various different explanations for it. So you may have read on one article that makes that claim but there are other versions where there is no "before the Big Bang".

Yes, I did read that there are different explanations or hypothesis

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That sort of "logic" does not apply to the universe as a whole. You are still reasoning using Newtonian physics and that does not apply to the universe under those conditions.

Please point out the Newtonian physics that you think I am using that does not apply, and provide your scientific reasoning as to why?

What sort of logic do you think I am using that does not apply to the universe as a whole, and why you think it does not apply.

 

[wellwisher]

Of course.
That is the foundation for the whole argument.

Interestingly enough, the "universe can not come from non-existence" claim actually refutes god creating the universe.
I mean, if it had to exist because it could come from not existing....

Our inertial material universe is based on space-time, where space and time act together, like two people in a three legged race.The concept of the light year although having a time element in the title; year, is a measure of distance based on the speed of light, with speed mathematically space-time connected as d/t. When time=0 begins in our universe, this is when space-time began. In space-time, space and time come as set, like the north and south poles of a magnet.

Theoretically, say we divided space-time into independent time and independent space, where each can act separately. This would not be the same as space-time. It would be under different restrictions; different laws of physics. If you could move in space without time, you could omnipresent. This is a classic attribute of God. This will exceed the speed of light and therefore is not a fixed part of space-time.

The question is can independent space and independent time be proven by science? The answer is yes, it was notice first in 1927 by a man named Heisenberg. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, state that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa.

This uncertainty between position and speed=position/time shows that as we enter the quantum realm space and time do not act like they are fully connected or else one would imply the other; space-time. This is not exactly random; uncertainty, but rather space and time appear to be connected but as an inverse relationship. It appear distance potential and time potential are sort of interchangeable. Like a seesaw as one goes down the other goes up and vice versa. Only space-time holds the seesaw flat.

As early as the 1826 with the invention of photography, the interchangeability of independent space and time was photographed and appears as motion blur as seen below. In motion blur, the shutter speed is slower than the action speed=d/t. The difference in speed; delta speed, with time stop by the camera, still causes a sense of motion; delta speed, but without time; yo be based on uncertainty in position; small scale omnipresent effect like quantum entanglement.

To go from independent space and time to space-time, all we need to due to tether them and the limitation of space-time appear; Boom! In the drawing below the model will consolidate to one position, at a time; as space-time appears.

The most important tool of science is the human brain and it appears that the brain to be able to process time and distance potential. The easiest to see is the imagination and fictional writing. A fictional story may not based on reality, may has parallels that seem reasonable. One may not be able to prove anything as having existed, space-time, yet the imagination can drift off in that alternate universe as though space and time are not connected and that scenarios seem just as real. But it is also the source of inspiration for innovation. The innovation may not exist in space-time when it is first conceived. You got to consolidate it, to the rules of space-time, before it is tangible; conscious creation. in the image of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please point out the Newtonian physics that you think I am using that does not apply, and provide your scientific reasoning as to why?

What sort of logic do you think I am using that does not apply to the universe as a whole, and why you think it does not apply.

You appear to base your claim that there was a "before the Big Bang". How did you come to such a conclusion?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You appear to base your claim that there was a "before the Big Bang". How did you come to such a conclusion?

Time is the 4th dimension of space, hence the concept of time-space, the continuation of space as time. Thus there is no time without space and no space without time, and it follows logically that without space and time, there is nothing, ie. non-existence. Yes?

Now you yourself have agreed that there is no nothing, so if there was no time, there was no space, if there was no space there was nothing, yes?

So the question to you to answer is, from where did the BB 4D space time come?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Time is the 4th dimension of space, hence the concept of time-space, the continuation of space as time. Thus there is no time without space and no space without time, and it follows logically that without space and time, there is nothing, ie. non-existence. Yes?

Now you yourself have agreed that there is no nothing, so if there was no time, there was no space, if there was no space there was nothing, yes?

So the question to you to answer is, from where did the BB 4D space time come?

No, that is not a conclusion. That was exactly the line that is Newtonian. And no, your inability to understand does not mean that anyone agreed with you. What you do not seem to understand is that "nothing" is impossible in our universe. In other words there cannot be nor ever was there "nothing". Could there have been no time and no space? Yes, but that is not necessarily "nothing". That is Newtonian thinking.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that is not a conclusion. That was exactly the line that is Newtonian. And no, your inability to understand does not mean that anyone agreed with you. What you do not seem to understand is that "nothing" is impossible in our universe. In other words there cannot be nor ever was there "nothing". Could there have been no time and no space? Yes, but that is not necessarily "nothing". That is Newtonian thinking.

So you think there could be no time and space, but that is not necessarily nothing. Ok, so tell me what is something, anything, that is not in space and time?

I understand that nothing is impossible in our universe, but I don't understand how the absence of space and time is not nothing?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have reread and nothing changes, I said mass cannot come from nothing.

If you can provide evidence that anything at all can come for absolutely nothing, then please do so!

And please don't waste my time in further red herrings again, you've done that before!

From my experience with certain ones you're not going to get anywhere even if you make sense and the other does not allow for elaboration of his ideas, and as usual starts calling those he may disagree with as ignorant, uneducated, etc. Providing nothing but that.