Before Big Bang

[Autodidact]

Hi Amill, well thank you, does that imply that the existence of cosmic energy was preexistent to the Big Bang?

It means that we don't know.

 

[Autodidact]

She actually said "Hello, it doesn't exist!".



OK, if you claim that non-existence is possible, then it follows you are now contradicting Autodidact who concluded that it doesn't exist. And so my next question to you is, if you believe non-existence is possible, how does it..ahem..come to be?



So if existence is eternal as you believe it to be, do you not see that it logically follows that non-existence, which you believe is not an impossibillity, can not...ahem...come into being, for if it were to, then existence can't be eternal.

Personally my understanding also is that existence is eternal and hence my interest in trying to understand how Big Bang theory is framed in the context of cosmological conceptual framework of eternity and infinity. So if you would like to be constructive in this undertaking, try to factor this into your answers to my questions.

Thank you in advance for helping to clear up any confusion.

No, no, no. Not "non-existence doesn't exist," but "nothing exists." I suppose if you wanted to express it in the worst possible way, you could say that non-existence existed, but I think that just distorts the situation. Better to just say there was nothing. "Nothing" is not a substance that exists. It's a lack of anything. HTH.

 

[Magic Man]

as far as i can tell from what i have read is they truly believe it to be infinite in the sense that we understand it to be.

OK, well then, just look into it a little more. Again, check out A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. He gives some good explanations. Because they do not mean it's literally infinite.

 

[Smoke]

Thank you in advance for helping to clear up any confusion.

I'm afraid I'm not up to that task. Not at all.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, if you claim that non-existence is possible, then it follows you are now contradicting Autodidact who concluded that it doesn't exist. And so my next question to you is, if you believe non-existence is possible, how does it..ahem..come to be?

What a silly word game. Why are you wasting your time and everyone else's with this nonsense?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I didn't say that non-existence never was, I said the opposite, that there was nothing. But the Big Bang doesn't actually explain the origin of the essence of energy and matter of the universe (as I understand it) it just explains that at some point in the distant past, it was all jammed into a tiny dot that expanded suddenly and is still expanding today.

I do subscribe to the hypothesis that it's all eternal, but science has not established this.

Hi Autodidact, please explain why to your understanding the concept of non-existence is the opposite of the concept of there being nothing?

Secondly please explain how there could be nothing before the Big Bang and yet claim there was a tiny dot jammed full of all that is? In other words, was this hypothetical tiny dot in existence before the Big Bang?

Thirdly please explain how all the energy and matter that is now present in the universe was jammed into a tiny dot?

Fourthly where did all this "stuff" that was jammed into the tiny dot come from?

Fifthly, how could subscribe to the hypothesis that it's all eternal when you simultaneously subscribe to the hypothesis that there was nothing before the Big Bang?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I completely disagree with this approach. Unless I have at least a Ph.d level of knowledge about something, I don't have enough information to challenge the consensus of those who have devoted their lives to studying it. When I go to the doctor, who tells me to take penicillin, I don't have to go home and undertake a microbiology course; I just take the penicillin. When my mechanic says I need new brake shoes, I have him put them in; I don't learn how to fix the car myself. And when the overwhelming consensus of scientists in a given field accept a theory, then so do I.

Hi Autodidact, thank you for providing a description of your approach to the attainment of knowledge and understanding, that of going through an intermediator who provides the belief system for you to follow.

However many of the worlds greatest scientists have been those who have challenged the status quo of their contemporary orthodox peers, and
discovered 'new" theories that eventually become accepted by followers.

It would be unfair for a person who prefers the follower approach to be critical of the leader approach for when all said and done, all the follower knows and understands has come from someone whose approach is different.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It means that we don't know.

But you say it was all jammed into a tiny dot, which pending your response to my explicit question to you on this point in a previous post, is presently being interpreted by me to mean that the cosmic energy in the form of a tiny dot was preexistent to the Big Bang.

Awaiting your further clarification.

 

[linwood]

Point taken that God is personal.

What I'm trying to show is that while non-Christians are saying belief in God creating a man is foolishness they have done exactly the same thing only with science modeling a Big Bang theory.

There`s them generalizations again.

Some of us non-Christians( I think you mean atheists but since Christianity is really the only valid religion I get what you mean )don`t believe in the Big Bang either.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[linwood]

BINGO is right ...because it's pretty much a game at that point

Now what's the reasoning again that God didn't create the universe ?

What`s the reasoning that he did?

I hope you have more than the first two chapters of Genesis.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What a silly word game. Why are you wasting your time and everyone else's with this nonsense?

Hi mball, for your information, the topic is "Before Big Bang", and the question to you is why this egregious off topic attempt to derail the thread?

Now it seems to me that it would serve you, RF, and the member's interests better if you would be inclined to make sensible and relevant on topic posts to me in the future.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Autodidact, please explain why to your understanding the concept of non-existence is the opposite of the concept of there being nothing?

Are you hard of understanding? Non-existence is not the opposite of there being nothing; it's the same.

Secondly please explain how there could be nothing before the Big Bang and yet claim there was a tiny dot jammed full of all that is?

Because that's not before; it's during.

In other words, was this hypothetical tiny dot in existence before the Big Bang?

We don't know.

Thirdly please explain how all the energy and matter that is now present in the universe was jammed into a tiny dot?

We don't know. We only know (pretty well) that it was.

Fourthly where did all this "stuff" that was jammed into the tiny dot come from?

We don't know.

Fifthly, how could subscribe to the hypothesis that it's all eternal when you simultaneously subscribe to the hypothesis that there was nothing before the Big Bang?

If time came into existence at the big bang, then everything that exists has existed for all of time. In other words, it's eternal.

Anything beyond that is just my idle speculation. I like to think that, but as I keep saying, we don't know.

It's not that there was this stuff called nothing that existed, it's that time starts at the Big Bang. Beyond that, a black curtain. We don't know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you hard of understanding? Non-existence is not the opposite of there being nothing; it's the same.

Because that's not before; it's during. We don't know.

We don't know. We only know (pretty well) that it was.

We don't know.

If time came into existence at the big bang, then everything that exists has existed for all of time. In other words, it's eternal.

Anything beyond that is just my idle speculation. I like to think that, but as I keep saying, we don't know.

It's not that there was this stuff called nothing that existed, it's that time starts at the Big Bang. Beyond that, a black curtain. We don't know.

Hi Autodidact, OK then, it seems most of my questions can't be answered because no body knows, so it is apparent my understanding of Big Bang cosmology is going nowhere fast.

Oh and BTW, my understanding of the concept of eternal is different to yours. The concept of eternity to me is without beginning and without end, but it seems to me that your "eternity" has a beginning coincident with the Big Bang which is problematical since it seems reasonable that the unknowns that were the cause of this theoretical Big Bang may again come into play in time to bring it to an end.

 

[YmirGF]

It's not that there was this stuff called nothing that existed, it's that time starts at the Big Bang. Beyond that, a black curtain. We don't know.

Precisely so, as reality as we know it emerges from the big bang. I think part of the problem is people tend to think of time, and quite naturally so, in strictly linear terms. In our terms, what preceded the BB may well have taken an incalculable amount of "time" to come to fruition, alas none of the greatest minds have conceived of any way to discern "fact" from "fanciful speculation". Just because everything we know originated with the big bang does not actually mean that nothing existed prior to it. The point is that reality, as we know it, stands in the way of discerning what the primordial universe may have been like.

Given that time was created by the Big bang, in some ways, you can truthfully say that it has always been happening. What amuses me is that the big bang is still happening, as the universe is, by all accounts, still expanding. One explanation I have read is that the "edge" of the universe expands faster than the speed of light, outpacing time, which of course, is still being created in its wake.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball, for your information, the topic is "Before Big Bang", and the question to you is why this egregious off topic attempt to derail the thread?

Now it seems to me that it would serve you, RF, and the member's interests better if you would be inclined to make sensible and relevant on topic posts to me in the future.

Interesting. That's exactly what I was asking you. Amazing how you responded by ignoring my question but then asking me the same one.

I'll give you another shot, though. Why are you wasting your time and everyone else's with this nonsense?

 

[Magic Man]

Hi Autodidact, OK then, it seems most of my questions can't be answered because no body knows, so it is apparent my understanding of Big Bang cosmology is going nowhere fast.

Oh and BTW, my understanding of the concept of eternal is different to yours. The concept of eternity to me is without beginning and without end, but it seems to me that your "eternity" has a beginning coincident with the Big Bang which is problematical since it seems reasonable that the unknowns that were the cause of this theoretical Big Bang may again come into play in time to bring it to an end.

All right, let's put an end to this. The big bang theory only explains how our universe came to have the form it currently does. When it says it was the "beginning of the universe", what it's saying is that it's the beginning of the current state of the universe. It's also the beginning of time. Time didn't exist "before" the big bang, so the concept of eternity is somewhat meaningless in that regard.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All right, let's put an end to this. The big bang theory only explains how our universe came to have the form it currently does. When it says it was the "beginning of the universe", what it's saying is that it's the beginning of the current state of the universe. It's also the beginning of time. Time didn't exist "before" the big bang, so the concept of eternity is somewhat meaningless in that regard.

Thank you mball, now that's a more mature approach.

Now with due respect, my understanding of cosmology is not based on the Big Bang theory but a steady state infinite one in which all the cosmic forms available to present astronomical technology are finite ones, in that they have beginnings and endings. There was never a beginning to this process, nor will there ever be an ending, but everything manifested as a result of this process does have a beginning and will have an ending.

Now time itself does not exist in absolute terms but is a concept to explain the conscious awareness of the ceaseless movement and activity of manifested things in the eternal now. One could say the concept of time only arose when there was an evolved consciousness that perceived these movements and evolved a way of measuring change by using smaller (as appropriate) increments of movement as a standard, i.e. microseconds, hours, years, etc., to count them and record duration in a linear manner.

But getting back to your Big Bang theory, it is not possible for me to have any faith in it as it stands where there is no scientific knowledge that can explain how the Big Bang came to be. Now please, it is understood that one shouldn't ask that question according to the theory as it presently stands, but since my curiosity knows no bounds, and my mind allows for a concept of an eternal infinite cosmological framework within which to enquire, then it naturally occurred to me to consider "your" Big Bang Universe as merely just one "super galaxy" among an infinite number of Big Bangs distributed throughout infinite space, and all existing simultaneously in various states of involution and evolution, some being "born", some in "mid life', some "dying".

Now you would know that my concept of a "multiverse" is not original, and it is being discussed by professional scientists and perhaps even gathering converts, but generally it is nigh on impossible to find people with whom one can share this possibility and discuss it seriously because as you would appreciate, it requires going back in "time" before "this" Big Bang and this appears to be forbidden territory by orthodox Big Bang theorists.

Finally mball, if you are seriously interested in cosmology, in my opinion it is essential to be abreast of the leading edge research concerning zero point energy field theory, for it seems that vibrational frequencies in the quantum vacuum extends way beyond the Planck Length (1.6 x 10^-35 M) such that in a mere cubic centimeter of space, there could be sufficient energy to "fire" up a galaxy for centuries.

 

[Magic Man]

Thank you mball, now that's a more mature approach.

Actually, this was in reference to a completely different subject. I'm still wondering what that silly word game is all about.

Now with due respect, my understanding of cosmology is not based on the Big Bang theory but a steady state infinite one in which all the cosmic forms available to present astronomical technology are finite ones, in that they have beginnings and endings. There was never a beginning to this process, nor will there ever be an ending, but everything manifested as a result of this process does have a beginning and will have an ending.

Now time itself does not exist in absolute terms but is a concept to explain the conscious awareness of the ceaseless movement and activity of manifested things in the eternal now. One could say the concept of time only arose when there was an evolved consciousness that perceived these movements and evolved a way of measuring change by using smaller (as appropriate) increments of movement as a standard, i.e. microseconds, hours, years, etc., to count them and record duration in a linear manner.

But getting back to your Big Bang theory, it is not possible for me to have any faith in it as it stands where there is no scientific knowledge that can explain how the Big Bang came to be. Now please, it is understood that one shouldn't ask that question according to the theory as it presently stands, but since my curiosity knows no bounds, and my mind allows for a concept of an eternal infinite cosmological framework within which to enquire, then it naturally occurred to me to consider "your" Big Bang Universe as merely just one "super galaxy" among an infinite number of Big Bangs distributed throughout infinite space, and all existing simultaneously in various states of involution and evolution, some being "born", some in "mid life', some "dying".

Now you would know that my concept of a "multiverse" is not original, and it is being discussed by professional scientists and perhaps even gathering converts, but generally it is nigh on impossible to find people with whom one can share this possibility and discuss it seriously because as you would appreciate, it requires going back in "time" before "this" Big Bang and this appears to be forbidden territory by orthodox Big Bang theorists.

Finally mball, if you are seriously interested in cosmology, in my opinion it is essential to be abreast of the leading edge research concerning zero point energy field theory, for it seems that vibrational frequencies in the quantum vacuum extends way beyond the Planck Length (1.6 x 10^-35 M) such that in a mere cubic centimeter of space, there could be sufficient energy to "fire" up a galaxy for centuries.

As far as the rest of this goes, I'd suggest reading up on the big bang theory, among other things. You seem to be confused on parts of it, but I'm definitely not the one to explain the intricacies of physics.

 

[Whathell]

Are you hard of understanding? Non-existence is not the opposite of there being nothing; it's the same.
Because that's not before; it's during. We don't know.

We don't know. We only know (pretty well) that it was.

We don't know.

If time came into existence at the big bang, then everything that exists has existed for all of time. In other words, it's eternal.

Anything beyond that is just my idle speculation. I like to think that, but as I keep saying, we don't know.

It's not that there was this stuff called nothing that existed, it's that time starts at the Big Bang. Beyond that, a black curtain. We don't know.

You wrote:
[Are you hard of understanding? Non-existence is not the opposite of there being nothing; it's the same.]

0 + 0 = 0, or Nothing + Nothing leaves Nothing in the case of BB also, correct?

Or must this logic change for BB?

 

[Whathell]

Actually, this was in reference to a completely different subject. I'm still wondering what that silly word game is all about.



As far as the rest of this goes, I'd suggest reading up on the big bang theory, among other things. You seem to be confused on parts of it, but I'm definitely not the one to explain the intricacies of physics.

You wrote:
[There was never a beginning to this process, nor will there ever be an ending]

Then when a the bible states Yeshua/Jesus is Alpha and Omega it is also a valid concept to you ...even though we have never experience in nature a case of no beginning or ending, correct?