In the beginning there was no beginning !

[Spirit of Light]

Well , if people think space did not pre-exist the Big Bang where do they suppose God is before the Big Bang ?

I can rewind time to my posted picture of space , then add the physics required to form a cold high dense state .

However , the initial mono-pole micro bang energy that fused with the initial cold high dense state , I can only explain as a miracle . Then ourselves do not fit in physics , we are so different .

Big bang was the beginning of this universe, but there might be universes and none physical realms before the big bang. (In everything that exist only in a physical existence?)

 

[Polymath257]

Good day to you ! The same point does not necessarily mean there was no surrounding points . {x0,y0,z0}^n

Do you have some belief that the math there makes any sense at all?

A high dense state of matter requires an equal and proportional volume of space to occupy . Additionally a metric expansion , matter being displaced , requires free space to be displaced into .

Wrong on both counts. The first sentence actually makes no sense (you can have high density and small volume). And you seem to be stuck in Euclidean geometry, which isn't appropriate for cosmology.

Motion of displacing matter cannot occur without adjacent space .

And the universal expansion is NOT a 'displacement of matter', but is, instead, an expansion of space.

Basic physical facts that are ignored !

Space has to pre-exist .

Nope. Thank you for playing.

 

[Polymath257]

{x0,y0,z0} is a coordinate point with zero dimensions .

You are clearly assuming three dimensions and getting the notation wrong (use parentheses, not braces--braces are for set notation)

You are mistaken , a metric expansion is not an expansion of space itself .

Nope. it is actually an expansion of space itself.

ubble red-shift is based on visual matter , not of space .

Well, it is based on observations of galaxies, in part. But it is also based on observations of the cosmic background radiation.

There is no evidence and has never been any evidence of the space itself expanding as if some material .

And this is false. The evidence is the strong observational support for general relativity, where space is curved (along with time) by matter and energy. These are actual, measured effects.

The Big bang was written after Einstein ,

Using a solution of Einstein's equations.

Einstein meant space and quantum fields were indistinguishable , not interwoven as many now think .

Um, no. Einstein didn't do much with quantum fields. he was important in the early stages of quantum theory, but did not do anything with quantum field theory because he disagreed with some of the basic facts about the quantum world (including things we have actually verified since he died).

Space itself is independent of matter , there is no evidence to suggest otherwise as points of space do not move or can expand .

Wrong. Space expands, curves, and otherwise participates in dynamics.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

4 disagreements via my 1 so far and I hope to change your minds , density function m/V . You can't have a high dense state without a volume .

1.A pre existing volume of space

2.A pre-existing brick wall

Why are you ignoring the physics required for the displacement of matter ? Adjacent space a key factor .

 

[Spirit of Light]

4 disagreements via my 1 so far and I hope to change your minds , density function m/V . You can't have a high dense state without a volume .

1.A pre existing volume of space

2.A pre-existing brick wall

Why are you ignoring the physics required for the displacement of matter ? Adjacent space a key factor .

Pre-existing wall that ain't a wall that's a big fat zero wall....

 

[ChristineM]

Well it is very simple really if you know some particle physics because density is m/V , mass divided by volume .
Density requires force but also requires a cold state rather than a hot state . We know that hot states expand and are less dense when they do because of m/V . So we have to correct this and then work backwards .
So we can say that matter started from a cold high dense state before it became heated for expansion . We hadn't suppose to be contradictory in science , a cold dense state would be correct and not contradict physics .

Then we go further back and look at what is required to form a stable bond to form a cold dense state , that is simply opposite charge pairing .

I leave it there for now ,

Or
Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
Or
Birth of the Universe from the Multiverse
Or...

 

[Polymath257]

4 disagreements via my 1 so far and I hope to change your minds , density function m/V . You can't have a high dense state without a volume.

But it says nothing about that volume existing prior to the matter. Matter occupying a volume has a density.

1.A pre existing volume of space

2.A pre-existing brick wall

Why are you ignoring the physics required for the displacement of matter ? Adjacent space a key factor .

And it isn't a displacement of matter that occurs in the universal expansion. It is an expansion of space itself. if you want me to bring in some of the math, I can do so.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

And the universal expansion is NOT a 'displacement of matter', but is, instead, an expansion of space.



.

So where was God before the Big Bang if nothing existed not even space ?

Why are you ignoring motion physics ?

Do you own a car ?

Do you need free space ahead of you to drive forward in your car ?

What do you think space is made of exactly to expand ?

Do you have a rubber ball theory ?

Sorry it is ridiculous to claim space didn't exist when density requires m/V , mass and volume .

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Or
Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
Or
Birth of the Universe from the Multiverse
Or...

Spontaneous mono-poles micro bangs firstly before two opposite mono-poles simultaneously spontaneous appeared at the same point . Quite a miracle and the only way to get a high dense state that expanded by fusing the initial energy .

 

[Polymath257]

So where was God before the Big Bang if nothing existed not even space ?

Once again, you are assuming that time makes sense before the Big Bang. If time *began* at the Big Bang, it makes no sense to even talk about 'before'.

As for God, 'I do not require that assumption'.

Why are you ignoring motion physics ?

I am not (it is usually called dynamics). In the context of general relativity, space and time are also dynamical.

Do you own a car ?

Do you need free space ahead of you to drive forward in your car ?

That is an example of matter moving through space. That is not the situation for universal expansion.

What do you think space is made of exactly to expand ?

Space and time together form the geometry of the universe. Space is simply a time cross-section of the spacetime geometry. It isn't 'made from' anything. yet it expands.

Do you have a rubber ball theory ?

Sorry it is ridiculous to claim space didn't exist when density requires m/V , mass and volume .

If matter, space, and time are all co-existing, then density exists whenever there is matter and space exists whenever there is matter. There is no 'time before matter'. Neither was there 'space before matter'.

 

[Polymath257]

Spontaneous mono-poles micro bangs firstly before two opposite mono-poles simultaneously spontaneous appeared at the same point . Quite a miracle and the only way to get a high dense state that expanded by fusing the initial energy .

Do you really think any of this makes sense?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Wrong. Space expands, curves, and otherwise participates in dynamics.

You are mistaken , space expands and curves relative to what ? I think you'll find that Einstein meant space-time energy can curve relative to flat space .
Space-time energy is quantum fields like our very own magnetic field that curves relative to flat space . Einstein also meant these quantum fields are observably by sight , indistinguishable from space . They are in essence blended in perfectly . You will also discover that light passing through these fields is also indistinguishable from space and the fields . We can observe space because space , light and fields are all transparent and indistinguishable from each other in observation nature .

 

[ChristineM]

Spontaneous mono-poles micro bangs firstly before two opposite mono-poles simultaneously spontaneous appeared at the same point . Quite a miracle and the only way to get a high dense state that expanded by fusing the initial energy .

Word salad. I have provided 2 papers written by leading scientists in their field. That's as far as I am going

 

[Polymath257]

You are mistaken , space expands and curves relative to what ? I think you'll find that Einstein meant space-time energy can curve relative to flat space .

Wrong yet again. Curvature can be detected internally. There is no need of an external space to define and discuss curvature. That is how curvature is dealt with in general relativity.

Space-time energy is quantum fields like our very own magnetic field that curves relative to flat space . Einstein also meant these quantum fields are observably by sight , indistinguishable from space .

Nope. he said no such thing. In fact, he was quite clear about it being space and time that curve and that matter moves along geodesics in that curved spacetime.

General relativity is not a quantum theory. Quantum fields have nothing to do with Einstein's description of cosmology.

They are in essence blended in perfectly . You will also discover that light passing through these fields is also indistinguishable from space and the fields . We can observe space because space , light and fields are all transparent and indistinguishable from each other in observation nature .

Again, thank you for playing. I might suggest you take some time and learn the math and physics required to understand what Einstein and others have actually said. Your current understanding is very faulty.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Wrong yet again. Curvature can be detected internally. There is no need of an external space to define and discuss curvature. That is how curvature is dealt with in general relativity.


Nope. he said no such thing. In fact, he was quite clear about it being space and time that curve and that matter moves along geodesics in that curved spacetime.

General relativity is not a quantum theory. Quantum fields have nothing to do with Einstein's description of cosmology.



Again, thank you for playing. I might suggest you take some time and learn the math and physics required to understand what Einstein and others have actually said. Your current understanding is very faulty.

As far as I remember @Polymath257 you working with solving these kind of things and are a trained in maths and science?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Do you really think any of this makes sense?

Yes I do and based on real physics !

A high dense state would require a bond to maintain initial form and additionally it would need extra energy for a Big Bang expansion .
In present physics we suggest an atoms main components are protons and electrons , which both apply a force on each other , gravitational mass .
A proton is a mono-pole and an electron is also a mono-pole , in a state of unpaired without constraints either particle would annihilate .

In the beginning there was space , spontaneously appeared an electron before it annihilated m/V=0 density ''but nothing is lost'' (Antoine Lavoisier) .

I call it the electron-proton charge chain .

(0.5+0.5/V)(0.5/V+0.5/V)=1/t

 

[Polymath257]

As far as I remember @Polymath257 you working with solving these kind of things and are a trained in maths and science?

I am trained in math and physics, yes. I have a PhD in math and all but a PhD in physics. My research isn't into these specific questions, but I have studied these things quite a bit.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I am trained in math and physics, yes. I have a PhD in math and all but a PhD in physics. My research isn't into these specific questions, but I have studied these things quite a bit.

Had a feeling you knew what you were speaking about yes

 

[Polymath257]

Yes I do and based on real physics !

A high dense state would require a bond to maintain initial form and additionally it would need extra energy for a Big Bang expansion .
In present physics we suggest an atoms main components are protons and electrons , which both apply a force on each other , gravitational mass .
A proton is a mono-pole and an electron is also a mono-pole , in a state of unpaired without constraints either particle would annihilate .

In the beginning there was space , spontaneously appeared an electron before it annihilated m/V=0 density ''but nothing is lost'' (Antoine Lavoisier) .

I call it the electron-proton charge chain .

I notice you neglected neutrons. Also, a proton has a significant dipole magnetic moment. it is not a fundamental particle.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

I notice you neglected neutrons. Also, a proton has a significant dipole magnetic moment. it is not a fundamental particle.

The Neutron isn't required and besides the point the maths work

1.0.5/V= 0 density

2.0.5/V=0 density

3.0.5+0.5/V=1/t

4.(0.5+0.5/V)(0.5/V+0.5/V)=1/t

A high dense state times the pre-existing micro bang energy would physically result in expansion at near the speed of light .

1 over time E=mc^3