When Saint Augustine was asked what God was doing before creation, he replied that He was creating a Hell for people who asked such questions.
Bloody marvellous.
Thank you, I could not have asked for a better answer.
I am still laughing.
When Saint Augustine was asked what God was doing before creation, he replied that He was creating a Hell for people who asked such questions.
Space is a 'something' it's not a void. Its been called aether, quantum foam, quantum fields, vacuum energy, space-time fabric, dark energy etc. I'm not sure which is correct. Gravity can distort it. It's almost substance like. Even the video called it a ball of space (and energy). So why can't the big bang bang be called an explosion of 'space'?On to particulars, that may be unknown to some: It is a misunderstanding to think of "big bang" as an explosion, it is simply the expansion in *every* volume that general relativity permit and which we see (from redshift, say). Let me repeat the observed facts: big bang is not an explosion, and the expansion is precisely as expected from a general relativistic universe
Coloquially, there is much different. I tend to of heard the expansion thing as an explanation for people who think the big bang was an explosion.Space is a 'something' it's not a void. Its been called aether, quantum foam, quantum fields, vacuum energy, space-time fabric, dark energy etc. I'm not sure which is correct. Gravity can distort it. It's almost substance like. Even the video called it a ball of space (and energy). So why can't the big bang bang be called an explosion of 'space'?
The accepted view is that galaxies are not moving through space, it's that the space between galaxies is expanding.
If I make a ball of explosive and pack it with ball bearings, and detonate it, the ball bearings can be analogous to galaxies and the hot exploding gas analogous to expanding space. I can equally say here, that the ball bearings are not moving through the hot gas, but instead, it's the hot gas between the ball bearings expanding.
Also, galaxies are not held in place by space, because some have a blue shift and are coming towards us. The same in the bomb, the ball bearings are not held in place by the hot gas.
(Just in case you missed it, I also asked your opinion about that same ball of space in the video a bit higher up in this thread)
My question to you, please, is what is the difference between an explosion and an expansion?
What created the initially "infinitely" dense spot?! I refer to this as my "garbage can" theory of introuniversal progression.Firstly, let me state unequivocally that I am an atheist, ( although to coin a new term Agthiest; I feel that it is as ludicrous to try to PROVE there isn't a god as to try to prove there is one.), however that is besides the point. The question I am always asked, as I am sure all others are, is what created the initial " infinitely dense "spot." even taking into account the bounce theory.
Until we have the physics to answer that, and I'm not sure we ever will, how can I "prove" to biblical devotees that their theories regarding that a god created the universe, are totally and completely ludicrous?
Clive V
Not "sunlight" speed, SUBLIGHT speed. I hate my phone's autocorrect facility. Not being able to edit posted content on LiveScience doesn't help much either.It occured to me as I finished my comment that the internal contraction must lead to a force reduction, allowing matter imperceptible previously owing to escape velocity considerations to come to within the speed of light envelope of the shrinking cluster of objects. This would contribute to the apparent expansion by revealing mass further away as its escape velocity relative to the receding objects within fell to below the speed of light, making a larger amount of mass relativistically available. It would then appear from within that more matter and space were being formed when in fact the area (space) of contiguous regional sunlight speed available masses increased. Masses previously hidden by superlightspeed escape velocity concealment wouldvbe increasingly revealed, "expanding" the then visible universe yet more.
I won't trust very much saint Augustine, before becoming priest, he had two lovers, I ignore about their fate after Augustine broke away from them, and at least one kid: 'Adeodato' ('Given from god')When Saint Augustine was asked what God was doing before creation, he replied that He was creating a Hell for people who asked such questions.
In the notion of an evenly contracting universe, things like the Planck limit can exist within it. Your "yardstick" shrinks along with everything else and evident internal consistency is maintained.Because there is a limit to just how small something can be there are no singularities. The smallest "piece" so to say is defined by the Planck Limit. There is a Planck Limit for the smallest unit of space and another for the smallest unit of time. Therefore, the smallest size the Universe could ever be is that Planck Limit. These limits emerge from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. For those who doubt this please recall that the Uncertainty Principle is regarded as the least uncertain thing in Physics. The Physics of the nature of space-time and time-space at the Planck Limits is a subject of great interest and among other things thought to be related to, the reason for and physics of, the nature of gravity.
So does this not still imply that are no singularities? You still have a Planck limit. Furthermore, relative to the underlying reality what would the significance be? Consider an underlying reality where our ideas of expansiveness have no or a different meaning or significance, for instance.In the notion of an evenly contracting universe, things like the Planck limit can exist within it. Your "yardstick" shrinks along with everything else and evident internal consistency is maintained.
This comment makes me feel good, I had the idea nothing can be compressed below the size of strings, but this rationale, close to calculations showing no temperatures below absolute zero (around minus 273º C) can exist, adds to the proposal that 'singularities' exist in the mathematician's minds, nowhere else.Because there is a limit to just how small something can be there are no singularities. The smallest "piece" so to say is defined by the Planck Limit. There is a Planck Limit for the smallest unit of space and another for the smallest unit of time. Therefore, the smallest size the Universe could ever be is that Planck Limit. These limits emerge from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. For those who doubt this please recall that the Uncertainty Principle is regarded as the least uncertain thing in Physics. The Physics of the nature of space-time and time-space at the Planck Limits is a subject of great interest and among other things thought to be related to, the reason for and physics of, the nature of gravity.
An interesting approach to examining reality beyond Planck limits is looking at the nature of entanglement. With entanglement we see a phenomena where something, light, of which whatever granular nature it has, has existence that spreads seemingly through out what we interpret as being essentially the whole of our Universe. Light has been shown to exhibit entanglement between our sun and the earth. And now light from billions of light years away has too. Attempts to assume some kind of velocity to the phenomena indicate a minimum velocity of 50,000 times the speed of light, a limit related to the limits of the precision of our ability to measure time. In reality, it actually is truly instantaneous. Of course, there is also a Planck time limit to that also.This comment makes me feel good, I had the idea nothing can be compressed below the size of strings, but this rationale, close to calculations showing no temperatures below absolute zero (around minus 273º C) can exist, adds to the proposal that 'singularities' exist in the mathematician's minds, nowhere else.
Also, from a 'conceptual' point of view, I dislike the term 'philosophical', as long as anyone has a mental image of 'singularity', it has a dimension, no longer exists as 'singularity', same as 'nil', 'absolute empty'; once it have a name, it have a content in someone's mind. Do they?
Blessings +