Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

The stories do not work as history. They can work as morality tales.

You speak for yourself, and that's ok.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When someone appeals to "common sense" they have already lost the argument.

Try to support your scientific beliefs with science, not by making up nonsense.

Fine then, in what evolutionary sequence other than the one I gave, does your scientific belief uphold?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine then, in what evolutionary sequence other than the one I gave, does your scientific belief uphold?

What? Your question makes no sense as asked.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What? Your question makes no sense as asked.

Read the evolutionary sequence I gave in my post, what do you find wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the evolutionary sequence I gave in my post, what do you find wrong?

The order is messed up. plants and animals evolved pretty much together. Nor was man a goal. You might as well ended with Koalas or Lady Gould finches.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The order is messed up. plants and animals evolved pretty much together. Nor was man a goal. You might as well ended with Koalas or Lady Gould finches.

Yes SZ, thank you for sharing your scientific belief on evolution with RF members.

 

[Polymath257]

But the reality represented by "no before the BB", has to be timeless wrt the past direction of time.

There is no such reality in the standard BB model.

Ok, then just as the future is a direction in time, and the past is the opposite, south is a direction in space and north is the opposite direction.

Therefore, it follows that the south direction does not stop at the South Pole, it is just that wrt Earth itself, it is the furthest point south.
Likewise, it follows that the past direction does not stop at the universe's BB beginning, it is just that wrt Universe, there is nothing existing before the BB.

No, south only makes sense on a sphere. There is no general direction in space called south. Yes, south stops at the South Pole.

 

[Polymath257]

So what was the reality before the BB? You say there was no before the BB. I agree, there was nothing before the BB! But nothing does not exist, so there must have been something?

There was no before the Big Bang ( in the standard model). Even defining “before” is impossible: the time coordinate cannot be extended further back.

 

[Polymath257]

"The BB theory leave the question of pre-Planck Epoch, as an unanswered & open question."

My guess why the BB theory does not address it is because science does not know, and they admit it, and that is fine.

But that doesn't stop non-BB theory purists to speculate logically as to what was in the past time direction prior to the theoretical BB. We can rule nonexistence out based on logic, so that leaves an infinite universe most probably along the lines of a multiverse.

And, once again, people are attempting to get conclusions from quantum gravity on this issue. There is certainly no harm in speculating by extending known laws to new discussions and proposing new extensions. The problem is that none of the extensions to quantum gravity have been tested and they give different answers. So no one answer is justified.

That’s why I always note that I am working in the standard BB theory ( or otherwise, if I am).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is no such reality in the standard BB model.

No, south only makes sense on a sphere. There is no general direction in space called south. Yes, south stops at the South Pole.

Oh, and I all this time I thought the Southern Cross star constellation was called that because it is seen in the general direction of space called south.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There was no before the Big Bang ( in the standard model). Even defining “before” is impossible: the time coordinate cannot be extended further back.

If there is no before the BB, then nothing existed in time past the BB beginning,

I think at this stage, we both know each other's position, so it is probably not productive to keep it up, I thank you though Polymath.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes SZ, thank you for sharing your scientific belief on evolution with RF members.

Why the false accusation? You made a silly claim that is unrelated to reality because you abused the term "evolution".

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there is no before the BB, then nothing existed in time past the BB beginning,

I think at this stage, we both know each other's position, so it is probably not productive to keep it up, I thank you though Polymath.

And you are still trying to apply Newtonian physics to an area where it does not apply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, and I all this time I thought the Southern Cross star constellation was called that because it is seen in the general direction of space called south.

The Southern Cross is called that because it helps us find the direction called south on a sphere. It is not itself "south". Just as Polaris is not "north". The closer one gets to either pole that less useful either celestial object is. Using just one's eyes neither is much use if one is less than 10 degrees away from the poles.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If there is no before the BB, then nothing existed in time past the BB beginning,.......................................................

Since God is from everlasting..... (Psalm 90:2- No beginning) then God existed in time past the BB beginning
So, before the BB God (aka Creator) existed
God sent forth His dynamic power to create the invisible and then the visible realm of existence - Psalm 104:30

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why the false accusation? You made a silly claim that is unrelated to reality because you abused the term "evolution".

I do not lie!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you are still trying to apply Newtonian physics to an area where it does not apply.

And you do not understand what is being explained to you, but that's ok.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The Southern Cross is called that because it helps us find the direction called south on a sphere. It is not itself "south". Just as Polaris is not "north". The closer one gets to either pole that less useful either celestial object is. Using just one's eyes neither is much use if one is less than 10 degrees away from the poles.

Are you saying that the Southern Cross is not in the southern direction as seen from the southern hemisphere? Why do you think it is called the Southern Cross?

 

[Pogo]

Are you saying that the Southern Cross is not in the southern direction as seen from the southern hemisphere? Why do you think it is called the Southern Cross?

Ben please stop trying to expand on colloquial terms as if they were scientifically relevant.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben please stop trying to expand on colloquial terms as if they were scientifically relevant.

Astronomers refer to the sky seen from the southern hemisphere as the 'southern sky', it is a fact. The southern direction does not stop at the south pole, and fyi, the north direction does not end at the north pole. And east and west directions also have no end point. Do you understand?