It's Ramond's fault...

[JFL Live]

I miss arguing with him over the "Big-Bang" theory.

He believes in it and I don't. Finally Stephen Hawking agrees with me! [emoji41]

Stephen Hawking says he knows what happened before the dawn of time

He tells physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson that amid the almost infinitely small quantum foam of the singularity before the Big Bang, time existed in a ‘bent’” state.

It was distorted along another dimension — always getting fractionally closer to, but never becoming, nothing.

So there never was a Big Bang that created something from nothing.

[Designer]

Uhhh,....wasn't it,....Ra-Y-mond"?

[emoji2]

[BlacktopTravelr]

Of course, you would post about somebody that agrees with you. As for the Neil deGrasse Tyson fellow I hear he is a fraud.

If there never was a big bang then all the word CERN is doing trying to figure out what happened at the moment the big bang happened is useless. As for me, there had to be a big bang, at least a huge sonic boom from all the particles headed off in different directions. [space] [space]

[JFL Live]

Of course, you would post about somebody that agrees with you. As for the Neil deGrasse Tyson fellow I hear he is a fraud.

If there never was a big bang then all the word CERN is doing trying to figure out what happened at the moment the big bang happened is useless. As for me, there had to be a big bang, at least a huge sonic boom from all the particles headed off in different directions. [space] [space]

There may have been an explosion. What I don't believe is that there was nothing before that. Also I don't believe all matter was compressed into an infinitely small point at the moment before the big bang.

[Prodigal_Sun]

Of course, you would post about somebody that agrees with you. As for the Neil deGrasse Tyson fellow I hear he is a fraud.

If there never was a big bang then all the word CERN is doing trying to figure out what happened at the moment the big bang happened is useless. As for me, there had to be a big bang, at least a huge sonic boom from all the particles headed off in different directions. [space] [space]

There may have been an explosion. What I don't believe is that there was nothing before that. Also I don't believe all matter was compressed into an infinitely small point at the moment before the big bang.

Right? How was it compressed? What compressed it? Leaves too many questions in my mind. What was it compressed in? The failing of scientists is their tendency to ignore arguments that don't fit in with the theory they're trying to prove.

The point of time getting infinitely "smaller" but never crossing zero makes sense, if you think of it as a number of objects. Take one second (as an object), divide it in half, now you have a half a second, divide that in half, and you have a quarter second, divide that in half and so on. You can divide it an infinite number of times, and the number will get infinitely smaller but never be less than zero.

But it's a poor reference point. A million years seems like a long time to us, because we know that the universe has existed for billions, but if you follow that second back infinitely at some point in time a second was an eternity.

[BlacktopTravelr]

Here is where I stand on this big bang thing. The creator of this big bang and the universe is just a bunch of energy that took a piece of itself and made, what we call the universe, those known and unknown. So everything came from and is made out of the same thing energy. Everything has been proven to be made out of the same stuff and that stuff is energy. All atoms are made out of the same stuff which everything is made of atoms and those atoms are made out of energy. Now if we live in a computer matrix we would be made of energy. So it doesn't really matter what or where we live as we are nothing but energy to be made into whatever.

[old time rider]

Met Raymond one time in Ky..We rode some miles had a meal and talked awhile. Very smart man but this topic never came up .I did catch a bit of cagun still in his speech and it was a fun few hours......

[Tbeck]

Someone want to tell me why ANYONE listens to Steven Hawking's? He came up with a big long theory of which he wrote a book to which a bunch of people wasted money buying because his theory was wrong.
His total claim to fame is the world's smartest man that was proven wrong

[jeffcoslacker]

Of course, you would post about somebody that agrees with you. As for the Neil deGrasse Tyson fellow I hear he is a fraud.

If there never was a big bang then all the word CERN is doing trying to figure out what happened at the moment the big bang happened is useless. As for me, there had to be a big bang, at least a huge sonic boom from all the particles headed off in different directions. [space] [space]

There may have been an explosion. What I don't believe is that there was nothing before that. Also I don't believe all matter was compressed into an infinitely small point at the moment before the big bang.

Not all matter. Energy. Matter didn't (and couldn't) exist for some time after the initial expansion. Not light either. The energy wasn't coherent enough to form carriers and particles until it spread out and cooled greatly. Too much energy in a given "space" for that to happen.

[jeffcoslacker]

But it's a poor reference point. A million years seems like a long time to us, because we know that the universe has existed for billions, but if you follow that second back infinitely at some point in time a second was an eternity.

Time is meaningless and irrelevant if it doesn't describe some action of matter, which is caused by energy in some form or another. The initial form of the energy released was completely and purely incoherent, and matter did not exist in ANY form, so time within that framework is kinda moot (heh, finally got to use it), except MAYBE as a function of the rate of temperature change as expansion took place. But I would think that even if it did have any relevance, as you say it would not be on the scale we're accustomed to.

Until a certain point, no matter, no light, no force carriers (NO, not Midi-chlorians, jeez [emoji2] ), not even the actual LAWS of quantum physics or gravity or electro-magnetism or any of that would exist. The framework upon which they exist could not even exist yet.

[jeffcoslacker]

because his theory was wrong.

Which one?

[RoadKing]

because his theory was wrong.

Which one?

Theory. THEORY. THEORY WAS WRONG! How in hell can a theory be wrong? Not very scientific, guys, they are just theories and not proven by scientific method one way or the other, right or wrong, you guys disagree with one another all you want about ‘theories’.

In the beginning was The Word.

[MadCow]

He tells physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson that amid the almost infinitely small quantum foam of the singularity before the Big Bang, time existed in a ‘bent’” state.

It was distorted along another dimension — always getting fractionally closer to, but never becoming, nothing.

So there never was a Big Bang that created something from nothing.

Can someone tell me what the F he just said?

[Herb]

He tells physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson that amid the almost infinitely small quantum foam of the singularity before the Big Bang, time existed in a ‘bent’” state.

It was distorted along another dimension — always getting fractionally closer to, but never becoming, nothing.

So there never was a Big Bang that created something from nothing.

Can someone tell me what the F he just said?

No.

[Tbeck]

Jeffco his black hole theory for one. Now take that assertion and consider how he applied it within his big bang theory and that calls into question the entire theory.

[RoadKing]

He tells physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson that amid the almost infinitely small quantum foam of the singularity before the Big Bang, time existed in a ‘bent’” state.

It was distorted along another dimension — always getting fractionally closer to, but never becoming, nothing.

So there never was a Big Bang that created something from nothing.

Can someone tell me what the F he just said?

Gobbledygoop.

[old time rider]

How can a theory be anything but a guess ? With RK on this.Just the word before any thing means just that! Your guess

[Prodigal_Sun]

How can a theory be anything but a guess ? With RK on this.Just the word before any thing means just that! Your guess

Maybe in layman's terms. In the scientific community it means something else. What most people refer to as a "theory" would better be described as a hypothesis. Or 'hypothetical" it's an untested idea. Once it's gone through the Scientific Method it can become a Theory, as long as it obeys all the scientific laws ie. the law of gravity, it has been published in a scientific journal and subjected to peer review. Peer review is where all the scientists in the world try and poke holes in the hypothesis and disprove it somehow, if no one can, THEN it becomes a Theory.

[Prodigal_Sun]

But it's a poor reference point. A million years seems like a long time to us, because we know that the universe has existed for billions, but if you follow that second back infinitely at some point in time a second was an eternity.

Time is meaningless and irrelevant if it doesn't describe some action of matter, which is caused by energy in some form or another. The initial form of the energy released was completely and purely incoherent, and matter did not exist in ANY form, so time within that framework is kinda moot (heh, finally got to use it), except MAYBE as a function of the rate of temperature change as expansion took place. But I would think that even if it did have any relevance, as you say it would not be on the scale we're accustomed to.

Until a certain point, no matter, no light, no force carriers (NO, not Midi-chlorians, jeez [emoji2] ), not even the actual LAWS of quantum physics or gravity or electro-magnetism or any of that would exist. The framework upon which they exist could not even exist yet.

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, so it isn't possible for there to have been a time where there was no energy, and then suddenly there was.

Looking at it from the rate of expansion point of view, you look at time vs distance so as the seconds that have existed become fractionally smaller and smaller so too does the space the Universe occupies. It would have all been contained in fractions of millimeters, going back logically. Just like one "day" an infinite number of years in the future a century, by our measurement, will pass like a millisecond. As long as it's passing through the void of space it will theoretically never stop expanding, unless "dark matter" is found to occupy the depths of space and has a mass to act against the expansion, if so, than one day the expansion will stop. All the stars will have burnt out and the Universe will be still. And dark, but "filled" will these "massive" objects in the space that it expanded to, and beyond that would be nothing, but potential energy expanding out into the void searching for a place to happen.

So, anyway. Towards the beginning, the rate of expansion would have happened rapidly, because of all the stored up energy, but relative to the amount of time that has ever existed, it would have taken all of eternity to happen. Follow?

[Prodigal_Sun]

As planets break back down as the energy of mass fails and gravity no longer holds them together. Atoms break back down, because the electrical energy holding them together gives up, things go back into a state of nothing, probably where the idea of "dark matter" comes from, and the concept of an ever expanding and contracting universe, that forms, breaks down, coalesces and reforms, constantly Doesn't really explain a "beginning" though